[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Pete Townshend Act........part two
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