Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 1

message: I have removed this heading again, as it only applies to one paragraph within the "Biography" section.  As things were, information about Townshend's marriage and later career were falling under "Inspiration for "Unplugged" phenomenon and rock star support for Amnesty International".  KGiles 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inspiration for "Unplugged" phenomenon and rock star support for Amnesty International

message: Why is he in the category of "Gay, lesbian, or bisexual people"?  I don't see this mentioned in the article.  If it's known, fine, but it should probably be mentioned in the text (or at least a link given), as he's not someone who is generally know to be gay or bi (unlike Elton John, for instance) Gwimpey 01:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
:OK, I found a link and added it to the article.  However, the category states that it is for people who have declared their sexual orientation or whose orientation is not in dispute by historian.  After reading Wikipedia:Categorization of people and noting that in the RS interview, he does not accept the label, I don't know if he should be in the category or not.  However, I'm not bold enough to remove him (yet). Gwimpey 01:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
::As he does not accept the label, and neither is he generally considered lgbt, I believe we should not class him as bisexual (nor gay).
::I will therefore remove him from the category 'Gay, lesbian or bisexual people' and the category 'LGBT musicians'. I will also re-add your link (which was removed on Nov 20, 2004), which I feel is valuable. --David Edgar 11:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: GLB?

message: I find it irresponsible to have Pete Townshend in the bisexual musicians category; he does not identify as bisexual, and it is inappropriate to identify him other than he public identifies.  I have deleted this category. Elefuntboy 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bisexual Musicians 

message: I can't find any mention in the first article of how he met Keith Moon, and how he can to join the band. Shouldn't that be in there?--Crestville 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keith Moon 

message: Thank you for a thorough presentation of your perspective.  I accept that you are sincere in presenting your beliefs. These are indeed weighty matters.  BTW - some of them (but not all) have been argued extensively on this and other pages before - but you undoubtedly raise some interesting points.
Without turning this into a knock-down fight - this is ultimately about ensuring that the wiki article is fair and factual.  Some might argue that the amount of text is already wildly disproportionate to the amount of relevance this incident has to Townshend's 60-year life/41-year career.  And how detailed the text should be on the topic.
The sole reason that this matters is because the topic of sex affecting children is rightly an important one.  It is also an incendiary topic - and therefore it is important to take especial care to be fair and not falsely (or unintentionally) impugn people.
The average wiki reader is unlikely to understand the minutiae of English law.  (Many English lawyers have that problem!) Those based in countries other than England may be especially baffled.  To give a simple example - to be "arrested" means one thing in the UK - and has an entirely different connotation in the USA.
Some key points.
To quote from the above note about Police Cautions
''
The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.''
And again with added emphasis:
The Police Caution is administered where that person COULD have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS offences.
There is undoubtedly a legal difference between downloading and viewing.  We disagree about your statement that viewing is identical to downloading.  Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages.  (And he really did write about these differences in his well-chronicled campaigning about the issue.)
THAT was the sole thing that he would have pleaded (technical) guilt to.  And that met the definition of it being a MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS OFFENCE.
If it had been a major or more serious offence - he would have been prosecuted.  And rightly so.
When there is a high-profile arrest and public and media scrutiny involving a celebrity it is in the interest of the police to be seen to be fair and forthright.  To be neither over-zealous in making a prosecution - nor to be inordinately forgiving of a minor offence.
After confiscating 14 computers and making the search and arrest with multiple police officers - accompanied by a TV crew making a documentary showing how the police are cracking down on paedophiles - it was not in the interest of the police to back-pedal and treat Townshend with kid gloves.  If there was any way that they could have had a MAJOR offence with which to charge Townshend - they certainly would have.  The decision to only give a caution confirms beyond reasonable doubt that there was no MAJOR offence with which he could be charged. 
This is such a sensitive issue - and deeply complex - especially to the layperson - more so given that laws are different in each country.  The wiki article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues.  I submit that the current edit (before your deletions) is a basis for this.  Perhaps tweaked to take account of your perspective. To do less would be profoundly unfair to Townshend.  Thank you.  Davidpatrick 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MORE DISCUSSION

message: Admittedly, the article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues; but more importantly, it must be factually accurate.  The content that Davidpatrick keeps reinstating is NOT a sound basis for an accurate and fair article. It is skewed heavily in Townshend's favour. 81.178.223.226 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: YET MORE DISCUSSION

message: The following is pure tosh and does not deserve to be in the article in any form:
::Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography.  The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research.  That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases.  Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.
According to a statement made by the metropolitan police, Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, making indecent images of children and incitement to distribute indecent images of children. Making and distributing are what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines as "Serious Arrestable Offences". Nowhere was any mention made of  "paying money".
* Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images,
::*Which Act explicitly criminalises downloading pornographi images?
* something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing.
::*But Townshend himself admitted to doing this when he said that he had accessed the website. Townshend's deficient understanding of the technicalities involved in displaying an image on a computer screen do not exonerate him from the consequences of so doing. An image on a webpage is contained in a file, which the viewing computer downloads to local storage (which might be RAM or disc). IF the person operating the computer knows of this mechanism (the "cache"), he is guilty of possession, since the file is stored ( Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] EWHC Admin 302).Furthermore, in "downloading the image to the computer's screen", the computer operator is causing a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child" to exist, and is thus guilty of "making an indecent photograph of a child" (R v Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683)
* But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography.
* The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website.
::*What is the reference to this "legal ruling"? Who made it? What authority is it based on? 
* At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. 
::*Which law is that? No law deals with the purchase of printed child pornography...
* Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research.
::*You seem to be confused here. At the relevant time, the only criminal offences involving "child pornography" to which there was no defence are creation of it (i.e. taking or making indecent photographs and indecent pseudo-photographs) and advertising that such material will be distributed or shown. Distribution, showing and possession are all possible with the existence of a "legitimate reason" (e.g. showing images to a jury)
* That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases.
::*Which ruling? And, quite critically, which offence are you talking about? 
* Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.
::*There has been no major change in the interpretation of the law regarding indecent photographs of children since the laws were passed, the Protection of Children Act in 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act in 1988. 
:::::81.178.223.226 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more pure tosh (TotallyDisputed-section)

message: ===Bare facts===
*In early January 2003, Townshend publicly acknowledged having used his credit card on a single occasion to obtain access to a commercial child pornography website. Source: BBC News, 11 Jan 2003, Source: BBC News, 12 Jan 2003
*On 13 January 2003 the Metropolitan Police arrested him under the Protection of Children Act 1978 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, suspicion of making indecent images of children and suspicion of incitement to distribute indecent images of children Source: The Guardian, 14 January 2003
*In May 2003 (apparently on 7 May) he was cautioned - from the BBC News report "Mr Townshend, who admitted using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse but denied being a paedophile, appeared at Kingston police station in London on Wednesday."
:The following conditions must be met before a police caution can be administered:
:* there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
:* the offender must admit the offence;
:* the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being :cautioned.
:The function of cautions is that they should speed up the administration of justice in cases where it is not actually in the public interest to press charges but where guilt has been admitted. 
:Townshend became subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 not because of some technical anomaly or aberration, but rather as the result of a considered, deliberate policy decision. Section 1(1)(c) of the 1997 Act provides that where a person is cautioned for a relevant offence, he becomes subject to the requirement. 
:The purpose of the laws prohibiting indecent images of children is child protection and, while punishment for such offences acts as a deterrent, protection from acts by known offenders in the future is best achieved by rehabilitating the offender; hence some form of Sex Offender Treatment Programme and offender monitoring. 
:Justice is not served simply by speeding the process - the purpose of the law concerned must not be side-stepped. From this perspective it is, therefore, entirely justifiable to subject Townshend to the same requirement to register as if he had been convicted. Inclusion on the "list" is not made public. The registration  serves only to assist the police in monitoring the activities of people who pose a "known" "risk" to children. It is, of course, arguable what level of risk Townshend poses to children.
===Interpretation of the facts===
====Which offence?====
Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages - what offence does this admission reveal? 
Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possession of indecent photographs of children, suspicion of making indecent photographs of children and suspicion of inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children:
Possession of indecent photographs of children
Contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
:In  Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions ([2000] EWHC Admin 302) it was held that knowledge was an essential element in the offence of possession under s.160(1) of the 1988 Act, so that a defendant could not be convicted where he was unaware of the existence of a cache of photographs.
:In A different bomb, Townshend described how he found a child porn image: "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man."
:He went on to say "I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'."
:Townshend obviously did not (at that time and presumably at the time he made the subscription to the website that led to his arrest) understand the operation of a web broswer (and any other conceivable application). 
:Images are stored on the server and have to be transferred to the "viewer's" computer in order to be displayed. This procedure is known as "downloading". 
:In R v City of London Magistrates' Court and Another, Ex parte Green (1997) The Times, 13 March, The Queen's Bench Divisional Court held that to "download" a computer meant to "transfer (data) from one storage device or system to another" in accordance with the definition contained in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ninth edition 1995).
:The principal matter to come out of the judgment is that 'downloading', like much of computer terminology, is not consistent in its use and the High Court was prepared to accept that different technical specialists could reasonably take different views as to the definition of what is really a very commonplace computer operation.
:The Concise Oxford Dictionary Tenth Edition (1999) and Eleventh Edition (2004) define the term differently:
::Download Computing – v. copy (data) from one computer system to another or to a disk – n. the act or process of downloading
:A web browser "downloads" an image from the webserver and (probably) stores this copy of the the image in its cache. If the "viewer" understands the operation of this caching system, he is guilty of possession (Atkins v DPP). But even if the image is not stored in the cache, it is stored in the computer's RAM - while there, it is "possessed".
:Townshend did not understand this caching system; furthermore, it seems to be the case that he thought he was only "viewing" the image, which means he did not understand that the image had to be stored on the computer he was using; therefore he was not guilty of possession.
Making indecent photographs of children
Contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978
:In R v Bowden (1999), the Court of Appeal held that downloading data representing an indecent photograph of a child from the Internet was sufficient to amount to an offence of "making an indecent photograph of a child" - see R v Bowden (1999) for further details.
:In R v Jayson ([2002] EWCA Crim 683), the Court of Appeal held that "the act of voluntarily downloading an indecent image from a web page onto a computer screen is an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph".
:Townshend admitted "using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse" - that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages. 
:It can be inferred from this that he had-
:# selected the site as one that was worth studying as part of his research (i.e. he had probably seen the "Preview" images - the so-called "teases" - and these had been sufficient to convince him that "researching" the website was worthwhile);   
:# gone through the subscription process;  
:# viewed some of the material available on the website (i.e. what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases")
:1) and 3) involve displaying the website's material on his screen; such would be the result of deliberate action by Townshend; since his interest was in researching "child porn on the Internet" he has admitted enough to reveal an offence of "making".
Inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children
Contrary to the common law (via section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978)
:Townshend admitted to paying for access a website containing indecent photographs of children. In Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court ([2004] EWHC 905 (Admin)), the Divisional Court held that such an act (and therefore Townshend's admission) would establish a prima facie case that the defendant had incited someone, namely those lying behind the onus of the company, to commit the offence of distributing.
====Defences====
Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession
Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs or pseudo-photographs or [...] having them in his possession
====Admission of guilt====
Before a caution can be offered, the National Standards for Cautioning require that:
* there is a realistic prospect of conviction;
* the offender admits the offence.
The police offered Townshend a caution; they would only be entitled to do so if they believed there was a realistic possibility of securing a conviction if they charged him. There can be no conviction if a defence can be made out. The question of a defence must not have arisen.
Townshend accepted the caution, possibly (incorrectly) for possession, but presumably for either making an indecent photograph of a child or inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child. 
The offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being cautioned. 
A suspect is entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal advisers to assess the prosecution case. Townshend's solicitors should have known of the case against him. They should have considered the applicability of any defence.
This means Townshend's solicitor would have explained the situation to him, including the strength of the case against him and the likelihood of the applicability of any defence.
Townshend must have considered that he was unable to avail himself of any of the available defences - i.e. legitimate reason. Townshend must not have considered his "research" to be sufficiently legitimate as to provide him with legitimate reason to do whatever he did do.
Townshend MUST have admitted one of the above offences OUTSIDE the adminstration of the police caution: If the offender has not made a clear and reliable admission during the course of the police investigation, a caution cannot be administered (R v The Metropolitan Police, ex parte Andre Anthony Thompson (1996 TLR 18 December). An admission obtained only during the administration of the cautioning procedure will not, in itself, be sufficient.
So, at some point in the police investigation, Townshend willingly admitted a criminal offence. In so doing he admitted that he did not consider his "research" was sufficient to provide "legimate reason". He may subsequently publicly deny guilt, but this is entirely without legal consenquence - the fact that it might be convenient, possibly for reasons of salvaging a reputation, to say that the caution was accpeted solely to bring the procedings to a quick conclusion has no bearing on the lawfully defensible conclusion that he admitted guilt. If Townshend is implicated in any future child porn operation, the caution administered in May 2003 will preclude administration of a caution at that future time, and it can be mentioned in evidence in court, thereby establishing "form".
=== Summary of the legal position ===
*Townshend accepted a police caution thus accepted and admitted guilt for an offence that made him subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (and subsequently the Sexual Offences Act 2003). 
*Townshend is a "registered sex offender" who has "committed a sexual offence against a child". This is his status under English law. 81.178.224.140 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The legal situation

message: *Townshend accepted a police caution thus accepted and admitted guilt for an offence that made him subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (and subsequently the Sexual Offences Act 2003). 
*Townshend is a "registered sex offender" who has "committed a sexual offence against a child". This is his status under English law. 81.178.224.140 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the legal position 

message: While I disagree with the conclusions drawn and what I believe to be the selective presentation of facts - I have no hesitation in conceding that the presentation makes a case. And it should be treated with respect.  Such a presentation warrants a detailed rebuttal and an explanation of precisely why  the conclusions drawn are not correct in this case.  I personally am not qualified to quote chapter and verse that proves the point.  I am seeking the assistance of a solicitor I know with knowledge of these matters and the specifics of the law to respond.  Until then I think there should be no further changes made to the Townshend page as it has been the case for several months.  After that we can calmly work together to resolve how to move forward with text that is factual and fair - and also comprehensible to lay people all over the world.  To do less is not worthy of wikipedia.  This is a holiday weekend so the response will have to come next week.  That should not be an issue.  Where someone's reputation and integrity is being discussed - there should be no rush to judgement... Davidpatrick 06:59, 31 December 2005
-----
I have a great deal of sympathy for Townshend; I am certainly not making a "case" in an attempt to do damage to his reputation. But I do not believe that I have made a selective presentation of the facts. Rather, I think I have made a fair representation of the legal situation - in which Townshend's charity work etc plays no part and is simply a distraction. The law in this area is very subtle (some would say obscure) but this should not allow Townshend's reputation to be rehabilitated where so many other people have done no more (and sometimes a lot less) but suffered far worse consequences - if Townshend had not been so well-known, hardly anyone would have learned of his caution and the "sexual offenders registration" would have been a nuisance to him rather than a hardship. 
Operation Ore is a troubled operation - people have been caught up in it who had no involvement with child porn (Sunday Times, 29  May 2005, "‘Child’ porn star backs Army major", which reports that a man was being prosecuted for possession of an image of an adult woman who had starred in films such as "Extreme Schoolgirls" - if his defence team hadn't been so assiduous, the identity of the porn star might not have been discovered and he might have been convicted; it is thus conceivable that a man who had subscribed to a site named "Extreme Schoolgirls" might be prosecuted for inciting distribution AND convicted). People have, indeed, been prosecuted for inciting distribution where the only evidence is a subscription via Landslide to a site identified only by name (of which "Extreme Schoolgirls" could be good example!) who claim to have subscribed only to adult sites; as the example just given illustrates, they MIGHT have been telling the truth. Why should Townshend (who admitted subscribing to and accessing a child porn site, thereby (as English courts have it at the moment) "inciting the distribution of" and "making" indecent photographs of children) be offered a caution where other people have been charged (and some convicted) on less evidence that might well have revealed no such offence anyway? Does the fact that Townshend was performing "research" rather than looking out of "prurient interest" make his actions any less "damaging" to the "child victims of sexual abuse" shown in the images? None of this, of course, has anything to do with Townshend and, yes, the issues are complex and important and the legal points subtle (or possibly obscure/confused, depending on perspective). I do not see how a bare presentation of the facts can be seen as an attack on the man. But making such a presentation "comprehensible to lay people all over the world" might well be impossible without a great deal of material concerning the issues and the law that has no place in an article on Townshend. This might well then make the article seem to say that Townshend is a "child sex offender" (which technically he is) and hence reprehensible, but this is the same position that many "ordinary" people find themselves in, and they do NOT have Wikipedia articles attempting to minimise the effect on their reputations. I do not wish to attack Townshend, but nor do I wish to see his "offending behaviour" "minimised" where this is done as a special case. But similarly Wikipedia is not a soap box and I would not want to see it used to try to reveal what some would see as injustices in the application of the "child porn" laws, such as they currently are in England. 81.178.223.226 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Initial Response 

message: Thanks for laying out your thoughts clearly.  I agree that Townshend's charity work is neither here nor there in this matter in regards to the LEGAL matters.  That would be like people excusing Michael Milken's crimes in the junk bond world merely because he gave money to charity.  I personally have never raised the point.  Why I think that mention of it (in a NON-legal context) is appropriate is that his 30 year history of activism (not just making donations) in children's charities tends to reinforce the claims of those who know him best - that his activism fighting child porn was not just some hastily conjured-up excuse (like a Winona Ryder defense to shoplifting "I was researching for a film role") - but rather consistent action for a person who cares about the issue and who has a track record of care for children.  Was it naive to do it that way? undoubtedly.  But motive is important.
You raise important issues about the law and the fact that others may have paid a heavier price than Townshend for identical comparatively innocent infringements.  the difference is this.  It's not about over-rehabilitating Townshend - but being fair to a person who has a public reputation.  In contrast to those whose alleged mis-deeds make no impact outside their own community,
We both agree that the law is - at best - confusing to lay-people.  Some of the terminology and legal vocabulary is extremely confusing.  Here in America where I live - the notion of "making indecent photographs" and "inciting distribution" do not have the narrow legal meanings of English law.  They mean that Townshend was taking photos of underage kids (which no one has ever accused him of) and of being involved in distribution of such pictures.  (Ditto)
Wiki has to be easily comprehensible to people worldwide.  If those nuances are not fully explained - (and how can we do that in a concise article?) then there is a very genuine danger that mis-perceptions are fostered.
You write that:
>>this is the same position that many "ordinary" people find themselves in, and they do NOT have Wikipedia articles attempting to minimise the effect on their reputations>>
but that is because those "ordinary" people don't have public reputations that warrant them being written about on Wikipedia
Without in any way minimizing this matter - it is a small but significant occurrence in the 60-year life and 42-year career of a very prominent man of the arts.  The complexity (and some might say unfairness) of English law has given him a small scarlet mark.  A mark that because of society's rightful wrath about molestation of children seems far worse than any activity that the police eventually thought he had undertaken.  At WORST he paid one time to view material that he should not have done.  he himself was mindful that it was illegal to download - so he made the effort not to.  Whether his computer is deemed to have dowloaded merely in the act of viewing is a technicality.  But in any event - he (and probably others) was placed on a list of people who are PRIMARILY active sex offenders - people who have physically abused children.  Wiki is not a soapbox wherein we protest that he should clearly not be on such a list.  But equally we have to be very careful that in simply relating the FACT of his being on the list - that we do not unwittingly reinforce the entirely erroneous notion that he committed offences that he was not even accused of.
It is a very tough one.  Fairness means that we must strive hard to present this information fairly.  Simply stating bald facts (given the differences in legal language and in laws in different countries) is patently not fair.   So let's think further.  I appreciate the respectful and fair way you are dealing with this.  Davidpatrick 15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FURTHER RESPONSE

message: * Please provide a source for "and a TV crew from the BBC making a documentary about the police investigations into child pornography".... 
**The BBC admit to filming Townshend "being quizzed at Twickenham police station." 
**BBC special shows Townsend's stress says: The “Police Protecting Children” documentary series by the British Broadcasting Corp. showed an exhausted and deeply worried Townshend being questioned by police after scores of journalists gathered to watch his house being searched, and computer equipment removed for the investigation.
The media knew Townshend was going to be arrested; they were bound to be outside his house. Were they allowed in? 81.178.224.140 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search & Arrest 

message: *Kelly leaves 'unanswered questions' over sex offenders, The Guardian, 12 January 12, 2006:
::With the embattled education secretary facing attacks on both sides - from the opposition in the case of cautioned PE teacher Paul Reeve, and from Labour backbenchers over her controversial education bill - Downing Street was again today forced to defend her. 81.178.224.140 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Reeve was arrested in 2003 by Norfolk Police as part of Operation Ore, the largest inquiry into child pornography undertaken in the UK. He received a police caution for accessing banned images of children on the internet. 81.178.224.140 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution giving rise to sex offender status 

message: === From one point of view - Technical infringement of a law===
*Townshend used his credit card to access one site on one single occasion in the course of his well-documented research aimed at getting such material banned from the internet. 
*He viewed one single image, did not download it (as that word is commonly understood) (i.e. he did NOT save it to his computer). 
*However, just by viewing the picture, he did commit a technical offence. Townshend had no notion that this was an offence. (*written by User:Davidpatrick*)
===From another point of view - Serious offences===
*Townshend used his credit card to access one child porn website on one single occasion 
**Thereby paying child pornographers for access to their wares, i.e. providing a market or inciting distribution as English courts have it
*He viewed one single image
**Thereby making an indecent photograph of a child
***Townshend had no notion that this was an offence - ignorance is no defence
**A single image... does not make it a minor or technical offence and is sufficient to secure a conviction. In R v Graham Westgarth-Smith (2001), Smith was convicted of one count of making an indecent pseudo-photograph.
*He (thought he) did not download the single viewed image 
**Thereby demonstrating insufficent knowledge for possession
85.210.4.176 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem;  On the contrary, it appears that that's exactly what it is - a technical violation, one that is clearly spelled out in the article. It is left to the reader to interpret the severity of the action. Wikipedia is here to present facts, but you are insisting in your torrent of edits that it must include your interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem can be stated quite simply: the article is quite wrong. The facts that need to be presented are those that describe English law. I attempt to present these facts but find that my additions, while fully referenced, are simply denied rather than refuted. Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal. Townshend's actions can only be classified as a 'technical violation' because what is presented of the English legal situation is, in fact, opinion. 85.210.4.176 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal.  That sort of silly hyperbole does nothing to support your arguments. Back to the main question here, calling Townshend a "child sex offender" would be misleading. The facts of the offense and the legal system's handling of it are listed in the article. That's more than sufficient for any Wikipedia reader to come up with his own interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The "facts" are wrong and completely unreferenced and therefore are unverifiable. It's not as if you have to go and look in a book - you have to do all of your own work. If you do this work, you will find that "Making an indecent photograph" is NOT considered to be a minor technical infringement. Townshend admitted guilt for making and/or inciting distribution. If he incited distribution, then he encouraged produiction of child porn. Do you understand the issues? It is not misleading to call Townshend a "Child sex offender" - unless you propose that anyone guilty of "only" a child porn offence be excluded from such a categorisation. 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Townshend did 

message: *Townshend used his credit card to access one child porn website on one single occasion 
**Thereby paying child pornographers for access to their wares, i.e. providing a market or inciting distribution as English courts have it
*He viewed one single image
**Thereby making an indecent photograph of a child
***Townshend had no notion that this was an offence - ignorance is no defence
**A single image... does not make it a minor or technical offence and is sufficient to secure a conviction. In R v Graham Westgarth-Smith (2001), Smith was convicted of one count of making an indecent pseudo-photograph.
*He (thought he) did not download the single viewed image 
**Thereby demonstrating insufficent knowledge for possession
85.210.4.176 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem;  On the contrary, it appears that that's exactly what it is - a technical violation, one that is clearly spelled out in the article. It is left to the reader to interpret the severity of the action. Wikipedia is here to present facts, but you are insisting in your torrent of edits that it must include your interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem can be stated quite simply: the article is quite wrong. The facts that need to be presented are those that describe English law. I attempt to present these facts but find that my additions, while fully referenced, are simply denied rather than refuted. Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal. Townshend's actions can only be classified as a 'technical violation' because what is presented of the English legal situation is, in fact, opinion. 85.210.4.176 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal.  That sort of silly hyperbole does nothing to support your arguments. Back to the main question here, calling Townshend a "child sex offender" would be misleading. The facts of the offense and the legal system's handling of it are listed in the article. That's more than sufficient for any Wikipedia reader to come up with his own interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The "facts" are wrong and completely unreferenced and therefore are unverifiable. It's not as if you have to go and look in a book - you have to do all of your own work. If you do this work, you will find that "Making an indecent photograph" is NOT considered to be a minor technical infringement. Townshend admitted guilt for making and/or inciting distribution. If he incited distribution, then he encouraged produiction of child porn. Do you understand the issues? It is not misleading to call Townshend a "Child sex offender" - unless you propose that anyone guilty of "only" a child porn offence be excluded from such a categorisation. 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From another point of view - Serious offences

message: What Townshend means when he says "I used a credit card to enter a site" is that he paid child pornographers for access to their wares. He did not do this by accident, he did it deliberately and knowingly. What happens when people buy things? Other people start businesses to supply those things.... so what happens when people buy child porn? Other people start to take photographs of children being sexually abused and then they sell access to them. When someone pays for this access, they reward the producers/distributors, who therefore continue their operation. This is what Townshend has admitted; this is how English law views his actions. English law punishes these actions with the offence of inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child". 
Both these offences are viewed as a very serious matter and, whichever offence it was, English law therefore considers Townshend to be indirectly responsible for the production of child porn. To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem; allowing such a presentation to stand would be a perfect example of why Wikipedia is useless as a reference tool. In any even-mildly controversial area, Wikipedia is in no way able to guarantee that its content is even remotely accurate or reliable since those with an extreme bias are able to ensure that their ill-informed and inaccurate views overwhelm and push out more accurate presentations and there is no system of review to ensure that the content they insert is even remotely reliable. Right beneath the exiting area is the phrase "Content must... be verifiable." How is any of the content in this article relating to the legal situation to be verified? Who knows, since the "editors" who created that section made no effort whatsoever to even identify their sources, let alone make those sources easy to refer to. 85.210.4.176 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem;  On the contrary, it appears that that's exactly what it is - a technical violation, one that is clearly spelled out in the article. It is left to the reader to interpret the severity of the action. Wikipedia is here to present facts, but you are insisting in your torrent of edits that it must include your interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem can be stated quite simply: the article is quite wrong. The facts that need to be presented are those that describe English law. I attempt to present these facts but find that my additions, while fully referenced, are simply denied rather than refuted. Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal. Townshend's actions can only be classified as a 'technical violation' because what is presented of the English legal situation is, in fact, opinion. 85.210.4.176 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal.  That sort of silly hyperbole does nothing to support your arguments. Back to the main question here, calling Townshend a "child sex offender" would be misleading. The facts of the offense and the legal system's handling of it are listed in the article. That's more than sufficient for any Wikipedia reader to come up with his own interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *The "facts" are wrong and completely unreferenced and therefore are unverifiable. It's not as if you have to go and look in a book - you have to do all of your own work. If you do this work, you will find that "Making an indecent photograph" is NOT considered to be a minor technical infringement. Townshend admitted guilt for making and/or inciting distribution. If he incited distribution, then he encouraged produiction of child porn. Do you understand the issues? It is not misleading to call Townshend a "Child sex offender" - unless you propose that anyone guilty of "only" a child porn offence be excluded from such a categorisation. 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child

message: Hello,
I've submitted :Category:Child sex offenders for cfd, as it appears to be significantly broken, and mirrors another ongoing cfd. Some of you have strong feelings on this matter, and may wish to vote in the cfd. 
Hope this helps.
Adrian Lamo 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categoric! 

message: I also find the article grossly NPOV, but in the other direction, namely, against Townshend. If a person is prosecuted by the police, but doesn't get before a court and is not sentenced, it certainly is a minor incident in his life. In this article, it get's to be a main part, taking up maybe one third of the main body of the text (without lists etc.)!
Regarding NPOV: Even more important than how we write about people is what we write about in the first time. No one seems to notice that Townshend is subjected to a gross defamation here simply by the fact that this incident takes up more space than much of his achievements do.
Think for a moment about the reason for a person having an article in Wikipedia, which is, after all, an encyclopedia: The only legitimate reason is that s/he did things which are of public interest. Townshend made important contributions to pop music, influenced the lives of millions of people and, via later artists inspired by him, the course of musical history till today. The incident with the child porn web site, however, is of minor importance simply because it doesn't make much of a difference to anyone. It's only an issue of moral convictions: many people are interested in everything a public figure does, especially if it's thought to be wrong. In Wikipedia, however, we should be objective and realize that it is of no historic importance what exactly Townshend did or didn't do on that site.
You all play the game of self-declared upholders of moral standards, without even realizing it. Think about people in 50 years, when the witch-hunt against 'paedophiles' (and many innocent people) will have abated. They will ask: How did Wikipedia become an instrument of moral righteousness?
Have you ever read in detail about colonial 'justice'? Then you know how perversely wrong laws can be, how people can become guilty when they simply play along by discussing minor technical points.
When I read this article and the talk page, I had the feeling that we are falling back to very dark times indeed: times when the law seemed to be more true than other judgments; times where somebody is a "sex offender" just because some law defines him as one!
--Fountaindyke 10:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the law the sole criterium for NPOV? 

message: Erm, I'm not fully following the debate here, but this edit looks entirely unacceptable: . We should be encouraging references, not deleting them wholesale! Matt Crypto 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unusual, but references do not make an article POV, even when the references are all about a particularl interlude in a subject's life. Indeed, something this controversial would be the obvious place to add references liberally. Still, ideally, most/all of the facts in an article should be referenced. The obvious thing to do is add references to the rest of the article. — Matt Crypto 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add to that the thought that you should be very cautious when deleting verification for content that you're clearly on record as opposing. The anonymous user did the right thing by sourcing his content and attempting to provide verification for the controversial parts (such as the "child sex offender" category tag). With that controversy still going, deleting references for the opposing POV is definitely not appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't delete citations!

message: === BBC TV crew ===
User:Davidpatrick continually adds content stating that a BBC TV crew was present at Townshend's house:
::On 13 January 2003, Metropolitan Police Service officers, including officers from the paedophile unit, the major investigation team, child protection units, along with computer forensics officers, and a TV crew from the BBC making a documentary about the police investigations into child pornography, all visited Townshend's home by "prior arrangement."
He claims a BBC Documentary supports this claim. Since he doesn't list his sources, I pressume he means the documentary described in BBC film to show Townshend arrest. But that story states that "The film, to be broadcast on Tuesday, shows an emotional Townshend being quizzed at Twickenham police station." Townshend did not live at Tiwckenham police station!
Indeed, IF the police were invited into Townshend's house (despite the fact that they had a search warrant!) then Townshend could have refused access to the BBC. Whether they could enter under a warrant is a different question, but nowhere is it mentioned that the police executed the warrant. Townshend's side of the story, to some extent verified by the police, is that the police were invited. 
This statement about the BBC TV crew is thus unverifiable and should be removed. 81.178.224.140 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He stated that he was researching the subject of child abuse for his autobiography
On his own webpage, Townshend says that he was researching child porn for a little book to be called "A Different Bomb". I did provide a source for this, but Dp has deleted it.  The innformation can be found here:  I need to clarify a few things I think, Pete's Diaries,  10 November 2004. 81.178.224.140 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiability / Factual accuracy 

message: User:Davidpatrick continually adds content stating that a BBC TV crew was present at Townshend's house:
::On 13 January 2003, Metropolitan Police Service officers, including officers from the paedophile unit, the major investigation team, child protection units, along with computer forensics officers, and a TV crew from the BBC making a documentary about the police investigations into child pornography, all visited Townshend's home by "prior arrangement."
He claims a BBC Documentary supports this claim. Since he doesn't list his sources, I pressume he means the documentary described in BBC film to show Townshend arrest. But that story states that "The film, to be broadcast on Tuesday, shows an emotional Townshend being quizzed at Twickenham police station." Townshend did not live at Tiwckenham police station!
Indeed, IF the police were invited into Townshend's house (despite the fact that they had a search warrant!) then Townshend could have refused access to the BBC. Whether they could enter under a warrant is a different question, but nowhere is it mentioned that the police executed the warrant. Townshend's side of the story, to some extent verified by the police, is that the police were invited. 
This statement about the BBC TV crew is thus unverifiable and should be removed. 81.178.224.140 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC TV crew 

message: User:Davidpatrick continually adds content saying:
::He stated that he was researching the subject of child abuse for his autobiography
On his own webpage, Townshend says that he was researching child porn for a little book to be called "A Different Bomb". I did provide a source for this, but Dp has deleted it.  The innformation can be found here:  I need to clarify a few things I think, Pete's Diaries,  10 November 2004. 81.178.224.140 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Townshend's autobiography