[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Legality of Pete's research
Lela wrote about comments Kevin and I made, and since she has apparently
left I'm not sure if it's worth continuing this, but;
> > You and John may be right that he's just in denial,
> > but logically people have some basis for what they continue to insist
Since when did Pete Townshend and logic become bedfellows?
> > If we are to believe that Pete is truthful and innocent and is trying to
> > follow the 12-step program, then he must have some reason for saying
> > about the law.
The law which Pete was charged under is the Child Protection Act of 1978.
This was amended in 1994 by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,
which tightened the definitions of an indecent photo (or "pseudo photograph)
There is also, under Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, an
offence for a person to have any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph
of a child in his possession.
So far, Pete's actions are being dealt with under law passed way, way before
he accessed the Landslide site in 1999. There was, in 2000, an amendment to
the PCA 1978 by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 which
increased the sentences for offences under the act. This amendment however
did not affect Pete's case because he was cautioned, and sentenced, under
Pete was also placed on the sex offenders register as he must have
committed an offence making him subject to the notification requirements
found in Schedule 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997.
Once again, law placed on the statute books way before he accessed the
Landslide site in 1999.
It is my opinion that Pete has decided in his world that he was
investigated/cautioned/placed on the sex offenders' register under
I cannot find any evidence of such, unless he mistakenly assumed the
amendment in 2000 to the PCA 1978 by the CJACS 2000 (which had no effect on
the offence as such) was retrospection.
As I have said, this is a desperately unpleasant episode. Pete believes he
was done under a retrospective law; there's simply no justification IMO for
his belief. If by believing it it helps him then fine. In itself, it only
serves to demonstrate just how out of touch Pete is with reality.