Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Tell Me, Who Are You?

WHO's Townshend may have to register as a sex offender in Florida

Since the story of Townshend sex offender past broke nationally a week ago, which has been a subject of debate and argument, only one question matters.

Was Pete Townshend a registered sex offender in the UK from 2003 to 2008? Answer: Yes.

Well that’s that then. Sorry Pete. This precludes you from not only playing at the Super Bowl, it also stops you from entering the United States to begin with.

Since the NFL decided to hire Pete Townshend for the upcoming Super Bowl event all hell has broken loose. Child AbuseWatch, the international child prevention group, have been trying for some time to bring attention to Townshend’s sex offender status. Most notably was the Kennedy Center Awards event last year when they wrote to the organizers protesting the honoring of someone with sex offender history.

Most recently they have asked the NFL to drop Townshend from the Super Bowl. In a way they are doing the NFL a favor. How? When the family values groups get hold of this they’re going to rip the NFL and their sponsors apart. It could indeed prove to be an incredibly expensive mistake on the NFL’s part to not read more than Townshend publicists take on Pete’s past when they were planning the half time show.

Another national advocacy group, Protect Our Children, headed by Kevin Gillick has taken the NFL protest a step further; two steps actually. They have made a lot of noise with the Immigration and Naturalization Department and ICE begging to ask how a registered sex offender, with criminal record, has been given free reign to enter the US.

U.S. immigration law says authorities will deny entrance to “Aliens convicted of, and those who admit having committed a crime involving moral turpitude (or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime).” Townshend admitted to having broken the law in his search for child pornography. ‘How he has been given access to the U.S. remains a mystery or perhaps it’s another demonstration of celebrity privilege,’ Mr. Gillick said.

The second aspect of Protect Our Children’s campaign has a definitely more local sting in its tail. A letter has been sent to Florida Attorney General McCullom, demanding that Townshend comply with Florida law, specifically Florida Statute 775.21, which applies to anyone with a sex offender background.

They have asked that Townshend be taken into custody upon his reentry into Florida so that the provisions of FS775.21 may be applied – Sexual Offenders and Predators (see link below). This would include the requirement to register with local police and provide fingerprint, mug-shot and D.N.A. samples as required by law.


For my part, I say good for these people. We have enough sex offenders here already without importing them.

In my mind this is nothing more than just another celebrity getting away with whatever they want because of who they are. (Pun intended).

We have Roman Polanski thinking that since he hasn't been caught raping a thirteen year old girl in over 30 years he should be absolved.

Leave Pete Townshend where he is, Florida's children have been preyed on enough recently.


DaBlade said...

We won't get fooled again! I didn't know this about PT and it saddens me.

elaine said...

This whole thing is stupid. Pete Townshend is not a threat to children. He was cautioned for accessing one site back in 1999. Do some research yourself ,people, before making idiotic statements.

AirmanMom said...

Our laws are our laws.

cube said...

Townsend claimed to have been doing research for a book. I wonder if he ever get around to writing that book?

Miss T.C. Shore said...

The left complains that there is a different set of rules for the wealthy. "Two Americas" they scream. This shows the hypocrisy. There IS, in fact, a different set of rules for the Hollywood Left and the Entertainment Industry insiders. This is a perfect example.

Gramma 2 Many said...

Guess I have been out of the loop, or it may be because I do not follow the NFL, but this is insane. But as Miss T.C. says, there are definitely two sets of rules.

shoprat said...

Being a liberal Democrat covers all other sins so he will probably get away with it.

LASunsett said...

1. This offense was thoroughly investigated by Scotland Yard several years ago. Police seized a bunch of computers from his home, none were found to have any images of child porn on them. None.

2. Townshend has never been implicated or accused in harming a child in any way. If this were the case, you could have expected kids to have come out of the woodwork at the time of this investigation to tell their stories.

3. The only evidence they could find of any impropriety was him accessing a site that advertised child porn.

4. As part of him accepting a caution from legal authorities, he had to agree to have his name put on a sex offender list for 5 years. If that time period hasn't expired, it will soon.

5. The Who w/PT have toured the entire nation since this incident more than once and have covered almost every major market and no one has complained. Until now.

Folks, I agree most of you most of the time. But on this one, I think we need to not allow ourselves to get overly concerned when there is no need to, especially when we have bigger fish to fry.

Comparing Pete Townshend to Polanski is not warranted in this case, seeing how Polanski raped a kid and PT raped no one.

Chuck said...

DaBlade, happened a few years ago, at the time he claqimed he was "doing research"

Elaine, he was put on the sex offenders list for accessing one site? I'm skeptical. It is more likely he pled guilty to accessing one site.

AM, agreed

Cube, right - and he visited only one site, not much research

TC, it happens every day

Gramma, I must admit I didn't hear about him appearing until yesterday but then I for the most part could care less who does the half time show for the Super Bowl, more interested in the game

Shoprat, actually I am unsure of his politics although most entertainers are libs

LA, I remember this story and I have considerable trust in you but I still have to be skeptical that with all of his access to legal help he would plead to this and serve 5 years on a sex offenders list for only going to a site that advertises child porn.

LASunsett said...

//....but I still have to be skeptical that with all of his access to legal help he would plead to this and serve 5 years on a sex offenders list for only going to a site that advertises child porn.//

The old saying is "sleep with one eye open". That means it's okay to be skeptical.

As a longtime Who fan, I followed this case. I just don't sense that there's much there or we would have heard more about it, certainly not after all this time.

People do weird stuff, sometimes with a sinister purpose, other times they are just being stupid. None of us really know what this case was, only what we feel that it appears to be.

I just think that after all these years and no one has complained about them making massive amounts of money in this country, it's a stretch to get upset about it now.

Even if he is a creep in some measure, creeps are nothing new to today's culture. Michael Jackson just got treated like royalty on all major networks, and I am sure his crimes were far worse.

LASunsett said...

I might add something here, lest you think I am defending too vigorously:

I would no more trust my grandson in Pete Townshend's care than I would Michael Jackson. Or any one else I didn't know very well.

Chuck said...

LA, I do agree that we cannot know. I could be wrong. My gut tells me wrong but then I'm a cynical person by nature.

As far MJ, you are dead on. I found the coverage of his death disgusting.

Z said...

Lis Wiel on FOX, the lawyer, says that there's no way he can be kept out legally because he wasn't convicted in the UK of anything.

DaBlade.."We won't get fooled again". brilliant. as usual

I'm with Cube...did the documentary he was supposedly researching ever get made?

Chuck said...

Z, I'm not sold on this story one way or the other. I do believe that if he has been on the sex offenders registry (for a legitimate reason) he should not be allowed to perform at the Super Bowl.

I do find it interesting that what he was working on has not surfaced. Even part of it to clear his name.

LASunsett said...

My point is:

Accessing a site that advertises child porn is not the same as molesting a child. Somehow, I do not think the children of Florida will be in any particular danger like they would if it were MJ. We have to assign some level of severity to crimes. Theft is wrong, but it is not murder.

(But then again, he will not be babysitting anyone I know. And if anyone were to let that happen with their children, they are idiots.)

Chuck said...

LA, he's not even close to MJ. Does this make it okay though? Not argumentive, just wondering where the line is.

I will concede that the reality is that if we hold all celebrities to the standards they are wanting to hold Towhshend to we would have very few people who could do the Super Bowl (maybe the Chipmunks?). Point is if he did do this, does he get a pass because he is not as bad as others?

Child AbuseWatch said...

Get all the FACTS at Child AbuseWatch -


Anonymous said...

To Childabusewatch, ok in exactly what way is Pete Townshend a danger to children? Tell us what he may try to do. During that 12 minutes he's in front of millions of people.

Chuck said...

Anon, again, none of us have the proof on what exactly he did. The point is though, if he did do soemthing, why should we tolerate him coming here? Should we just let child molesters run free instead of going to prison if we can keep them away from children?

Anonymous said...

Nice brief and this mail helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you as your information.