Re: strategies, aka what now?

["william sturm" <hapijac@xxxxxxx>]

I saw something on fox tonite..at least it was something anyway!
                                Bill Sturm


----- Original Message -----
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
To: <thewho@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:29 PM
Subject: strategies, aka what now?


> It sounds like you guys have done a great job of analysis today.  And
thank
> you, Jon, for your confidence that I can suggest something to do.  I
dunno,
> of course, but in the long run I think Pete needs to become a world-famous
> advocate against child porn (like Bono's and his causes).
>
> I agree with most of what you've come up with today.  Yes, yesterday's
news
> was VERY weak as far a proof goes, but I think Pete knows the UK papers,
and
> this press release was picked up and made a statement (and some points)
for
> him.  It appears that only the entertainment news picked it up in the US,
as
> the US press is presently absorbed with The Bush War, and not given to
that
> kind of tit for tat melodrama anyhow.  (Has anybody seen mention on CNN?)
> However, the entertainment news probably reached the music industry, which
> is good.
>
> The reactions on the various lists to the news last night was interesting.
> I gather that those who can read between the lines of the UK papers took
the
> round-about statement on the police investigation as admission of Pete's
> innocence.  Here's a translation of it from alt.music.who, courtesy of
> Devin:
>
> >>But it is believed officers have found no evidence he looked at child
> filth - other than on the occasions he admitted viewing sites to research
a
> book and campaign against porn.
>
> >This is journalist code, it translates to, "Our sources down at the cop
> >shop tell us...."  If you spend enough time around newspaper folks, you
> >learn to recognize when they're writing something between the lines.
> >Remember how you knew that Robert Blake was a suspect in his wife's
murder
> >even though no reporter actually said so in those words, but somehow you
> >just knew from the way they phrased it?  This is one of those, this
> >reporter has been told by somebody in a position to presumably know that
> >they took Pete's computer(s) apart track by track, cylinder by cylinder,
> >cluster by cluster, and didn't find the evidence they were looking for.
> >Let's hope it actually turns out that way.
>
>
> The announcement that Pete's questioning had been postponed dampened the
> celebrations a little, but it may turn out that this (presumable) leak is
> all we will hear from the police.  They may just keep postponing Pete's
> questioning to keep their investigation open until the issue fades from
the
> papers and is forgotten (they hope).
>
> Pete can keep the issue alive for a little while with press releases from
> his website on clearing his name, but evenually this will grow stale, too,
> and the tabloids will be off baying after the next scandal.  I'm not sure
> what kind of position Pete is in to talk about things right now, but when
> he's free to talk, I think he should start off with a major campaign
against
> child porn.  He should get interviews where ever possible to talk about
the
> whole thing and give his side of the story just casually as he talks about
> the changes needed in the policy on child porn.  Now that the admission is
> out in the open and duly investigated, he should be free to lobby for the
> cause, and to add this to The Who's list of charities.
>
> Comments?
>
>
> keets
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus