Off Topic Messages

Pete Townshend Letter In Mojo

Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:53 pm

After all the kerfuffle Townshend's interview in the Feb edition of Mojo caused with a lot of you, I thought I'd post an excerpt from his letter in the latest issue:

"I was trying to show how over here in the UK in the early '60s we looked at the old guard of "white" rock 'n' roll (even Elvis) as being almost "washed up". I know it sounds crazy now. We still worshipped the old guard: Eddie Cochran, Elvis, Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, Ricky Nelson, all of them. But people like me believed R&B artists (and only the black ones like Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, Bo Diddley and Jimmy Reed) were the ones we needed to emulate."

He then goes on to heap praise upon Ronnie Hawkins and other things.

Just thought you might be interested.

Btw, the Kinks are one on the cover, excellent feature inside. Look out for a new Ray Davies interview: I'm looking forward to reading that one!

Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:32 pm

Yes the latest issue is a good one. I never get tired of hearing The Kinks stories.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:15 am

I wonder how his child porn research is going..........no word as yet on the promised book all this research was going into either???

Sick SOB :evil:

I recall all the outrage over Gary Glitter some time ago on this MB, yet this dreg gets lauded and quoted as someone whose opinions we should care about.........have I missed something??

Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:30 pm

Scatter wrote:I wonder how his child porn research is going..........no word as yet on the promised book all this research was going into either???

Sick SOB :evil:

I recall all the outrage over Gary Glitter some time ago on this MB, yet this dreg gets lauded and quoted as someone whose opinions we should care about.........have I missed something??


Well...... Glitter really is a child-molesting pervert.

Townsend was investigated over a the 'technicality' that he had [once] paid to visit a child porn website.

I think we're just giving him the benefit of the doubt [for now].

Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:51 pm

Scatter wrote:...have I missed something??

Well, you won't get fooled agiin!!

Actually, you might find this pre-arrest, Jan '02 piece thoughtful:

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/media/02 ... ntbomb.pdf

DJC

Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:11 pm

My thanks to the good Doctor for the interesting link.

Unfortunately.........I don't buy it. If the images he describes are as blatant and disgusting as he describes without paying for access to such filth, there was no need to put down his credit card number to see more.

What he describes (and I shall spare the readers any description) is horrendous. And it was free(even more horrendous).

I can appreciate a lapse in judgement.........but I just don't buy the explanation here. By his own admission he had found what he was looking for........yet he plunked down the card anyway.

It is untrue to say decisively that this was a one-time jaunt. All we can say for certain is that this is the one time he was caught. I hope for his sake that his story is true. I have my doubts, but I certainly don't know.

Time will tell, I guess........

Sat Feb 18, 2006 2:37 pm

Scatter wrote:My thanks to the good Doctor for the interesting link.

Thanks for checking it out!

DJC

Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:17 pm

I appreciate your posting it. And I hope that Pete's explanation is true......

Re: Pete Townshend Letter In Mojo

Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:50 pm

londonflash wrote:After all the kerfuffle Townshend's interview in the Feb edition of Mojo caused with a lot of you, I thought I'd post an excerpt from his letter in the latest issue:

"I was trying to show how over here in the UK in the early '60s we looked at the old guard of "white" rock 'n' roll (even Elvis) as being almost "washed up". I know it sounds crazy now. We still worshipped the old guard: Eddie Cochran, Elvis, Buddy Holly, The Everly Brothers, Ricky Nelson, all of them. But people like me believed R&B artists (and only the black ones like Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, Bo Diddley and Jimmy Reed) were the ones we needed to emulate."

He then goes on to heap praise upon Ronnie Hawkins and other things.

Just thought you might be interested.

Btw, the Kinks are one on the cover, excellent feature inside. Look out for a new Ray Davies interview: I'm looking forward to reading that one!



Thanks, I haven’t got the new issue yet, but I had a feeling that was were it he was coming from when I read the article.

It’s like The Clash singing “No Elvis, Beatles, or The Rolling Stones in 1977”. They didn’t dislike those artists, but they were looking to the future, not the past.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:01 pm

Scatter wrote:My thanks to the good Doctor for the interesting link.

Unfortunately.........I don't buy it. If the images he describes are as blatant and disgusting as he describes without paying for access to such filth, there was no need to put down his credit card number to see more.

What he describes (and I shall spare the readers any description) is horrendous. And it was free(even more horrendous).

I can appreciate a lapse in judgement.........but I just don't buy the explanation here. By his own admission he had found what he was looking for........yet he plunked down the card anyway.

It is untrue to say decisively that this was a one-time jaunt. All we can say for certain is that this is the one time he was caught. I hope for his sake that his story is true. I have my doubts, but I certainly don't know.

Time will tell, I guess........


Not sure I'm buying his explanation either. He mentions (rightly) how horrible these people are who make a profit from this sort of filth, then later sends these very same idiots money by using his credit card?

I'm wondering if this was some sort of pre emptive move on his part to write this, knowing he had viewed this stuff and maybe he was going to get popped soon. Pete's no fool and it wouldn't surprise me if he sort of covered his butt in advance.

As Scatter mentioned, time will tell. Maybe I/We don't know enough of the details yet to make a judgement. Also like Scatter, I hope Pete's explanation is true.

Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:23 pm

John B wrote:Pete's no fool and it wouldn't surprise me if he sort of covered his butt in advance.


Good point. His actions were foolhardy at best- and I say that as an admirer of Townsend's talent and a fan of The Who.

Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:36 am

I recall reading that when caught, a pedophile's most common excuse is that they were preparing research via the internet to assist the authorities.

Interesting article, 'hope that Townsend isn't a pedophile, but his reasoning seems to be a very elaborate version of the typical response to this heinous crime.

Sun Feb 19, 2006 7:36 am

John B wrote:Maybe I/We don't know enough of the details yet to make a judgement.

My take is he's an arrogant fool at times -- as in the MOJO article -- and it led to his thoughtless act.

Of course, the British authorities had all the information and the final word, which is why Pete was not charged with any crime. That should be good enough for any fan of the man and his music.

DJC

Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:49 pm

That is an important fact. It's one thing to be acquitted of a charge, it's another to not even be charged.

He has always been an interesting commentator on pop music even if his views are inconsistent and off the wall.

Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:39 pm

Well i think old Pete will sleep well tonight, knowing that we guys think he is probably, kind of innocent......kind of.

Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:24 am

That's the trouble with being accused of a heinous crime is that you can never be innocent in the public's eye again even if you are completely without guilt. The accusation sticks no matter what. That's why authorities should be extremely careful with releasing that type of information. Once accused you're a child molester, rapist, murderer etc. for life.

It's very important in this case to remember he was never charged. You have to meet a certain standard of evidence to make an accusation that is far smaller than the standard of evidence used to determine guilt and here that smaller standard wasn't even met.

Mon Feb 20, 2006 4:04 am

I agree Bike........the mere accusation is enough to brand you eternally with a scarlet "P". And that is simply unfair.

But this is more than mere accusation.

Personally, I have never allowed myself to be alone with a child that was not my own. Even my beloved nieces were not allowed to sleep over my house when I was single.......though they begged to, and I would have loved it.

I was aware of the risks even the accusation would bring........and I imagine Townsend was as well. Nevertheless........something compelled him to ignore reason and cast his fate to the wind. He earned the suspicion that now dogs him.

Therefore, to exonerate someone because the accusation never met the legal threshold for charges is a little naive.

The fact is, he admittedly plunked down his credit card to view child porn. That is not in dispute. And that, while it may not merit legal prosecution or the scarlet "P", certainly marks him as someone to be watched and from whom children should be shielded.

Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:18 pm

Scatter wrote:I was aware of the risks even the accusation would bring........and I imagine Townsend was as well.

I don't seem to recall Pete's problem involving nieces wanting to stay overnight at his house.

DJC

Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:50 am

But with such a smoking gun why would authorities not go through with at least a charge? There must have been something to his story or they would not have let it pass.

Tue Feb 21, 2006 3:02 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
Scatter wrote:I was aware of the risks even the accusation would bring........and I imagine Townsend was as well.

I don't seem to recall Pete's problem involving nieces wanting to stay overnight at his house.

DJC


You missed my point Doc.........which was that in the cultural atmosphere in which we ALL live (Townsend included) one must be overly careful. That was an example of the lengths I have gone to.

And I am NOT a public figure........Pete is. He should have been AT LEAST as cautious as I (and anyone else with a modicum of common sense) have been considering his profile.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:46 am

Scatter wrote:You missed my point Doc...

Nah, I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

Scatter wrote:And I am NOT a public figure........Pete is. He should have been AT LEAST as cautious as I ...

But Pete is also a man with an enormous ego to go along with his enormous talents and accomplishments. Our egos are less, we hope!

DJC