Re: Pete Townshend Act........part two

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Lela posted some admirable ideas and 
concepts about what we as Who fans, 
dammit no, as people, can demonstrate 
our belief in Pete and our belief in in his 
innocence.

These have been followed up by many 
others whose efforts I salute, 
acknowledge and join in with where I can.

Firstly, as I said earlier it's no good 
ranting and raving about how ludicrous it 
is to be criminalised for clicking on a web 
site.

Given the current laws in this country, the 
overall public opinion relating to this 
crime, the law will almost certainly never 
change.

It's a fact of life, that in order to crack the 
bigger nut, some smaller ones get 
crushed too. And so it is with the law 
covering the actions Pete is alleged to 
have carried out.

What we can do relates to where you live.

I may be wrong (to quote Alvin Lee, but I 
won't be wrong always - I hope!) but 
reaction in America is considerably 
different to the UK.

My apologies to those who live in 
Canada, and other parts of the world, but 
we simply have not had as much 
comment from you aswe have the US 
and UK.

Though Bjorn and the other Dutch listers, 
perhaps you could tell us what's going on 
on this issue over there?

In the UK we have a lot fewer 
opportunities to make change.

Our MP's and senior Police officers may  
privately agree that a law which effectively 
criminalises even an innocent or 
accidental viewing of a child porn web site 
is draconian but they will not dare risk the 
wrath of the public if they are seen to be 
"soft" on peadophiles.

We can however ask our senior police 
officers to try and bring in some sanity to 
the reporting of such matters.

It is clear that Pete's haunted image is 
now in the minds of many associated with 
this terrible crime.  

If you consider that a protest to the 
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police 
about the way in which Pete has been 
treated by the media is appropriate, you 
can email him, 
Commissioner Sir John Stevens
at
commissioner@met.police.uk.

and suggest that certain newspapers may 
have committed a breach of the 
Contempt of Court Act 1981 in the way 
they have reported matters after he was 
arrested.

If you want a user friendly guide to that 
law and how it affects media, go to this 
link

http://www.radiouniversity.co.uk/law.htm 

I suggest a calm, polite note on the lines 
of

I wish to bring to your attention a possible 
breach of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 
by the (insert name of media organisation 
e g Sun Newspaper) in their reporting of 
events after the arrest of Mr Peter 
Townshend on Monday 13th January 
2003.

I consider Mr Townshend is entitled to 
due process of law and I am sure he is 
innocent of the crimes for which he has 
been arrested.

I believe his right to a fair trial may have 
been hindered by the comments of 
(media organisation).

I would be grateful if you would institute 
an investigation into these alleged 
breaches of the law .

You may wish also to email UK members 
of parliament.

This link will take you to an alphabetical 
list of MP's.

http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm

If you wished, you can find a link on this 
page to email Tony Blair, the UK Prime 
Minister.

More importantly, this link 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

will take you the home page for the Home 
Office, the Department responsible for the 
police and the enforcement of law and 
porder in the UK.

Please note there is a contact us link on 
the home page where you could send 
your thoughts.

But please be careful what you email. 

There's no point saying  "Pete is innocent, 
okay?" if you want to achieve something, 
make a simple point that these people 
can grasp.

I would recommend you do NOT send 
Pete's articles as attachments to any of 
these people, especially the 
Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

He will ignore it and probably ignore your 
message.

Better to say that these articles exist, and 
give a clear link to them.

Well, that's a start anyway.

Cheers,

John