[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Pete In Denial



Pete's got some serious denial anger going on.  Let's look at some examples
from his recent statement.

> How ironic it is that I should find myself on a
> 'local' list of sex offenders when for the last 30
> years I have worked tirelessly to help hundreds of
> people afflicted directly or indirectly by childhood
> sexual trauma and all the subsequent human
> psychodramas it leads to. 

Ironic?  Maybe.  But who's actions led to the irony?

> I think the decision to caution me was right and just. 

This is an admirable statement.

> That has left many free to comment at will about my
> culpability or my poor judgement. 

So is this.  But I fear these statements are only mentioned to buffer the 
upcoming denial.

> But surely it must be seen that I have always been an 
> ardent messenger warning of the potential proliferation 
> of dangerous pornographic materials on the internet, 

Er....you've "always" been an "ardent messenger?"  I'm not so sure about
that.  And why must it "be seen" by the public?  Why must the public em-
brace your beneficial actions & allow them to cancel out your indiscretion
& lapse of judgement?  Do 400 rights erase 1 wrong?   

> What could also be described as 'soul-trauma' is
> putting a well-known celebrity on a 'local' sex
> offenders list 

Uh oh.  Here it comes.  *I'm* the one being persecuted.  *I'm* the one
being "abused."

> after police spent three and a half
> months trawling forensically through eleven computers
> and other media and found not a single instance of
> child pornography. 

Why, you ask?  Er....because you paid to enter an illegal child porn site,
that's why.

> Neither have they received a single
> complaint about my personal sexual conduct.

All well & true, but does that erase what you did?  Does that warrant you
to be excluded from the sex offenders list?  Does it?

> I understand now that research of any kind is now not
> permitted in the particularly sensitive arena of child
> porn. 

I love this line.  "I understand *now*...."  In other words, when I gave
my money to the child porn site, I didn't *know* it was a crime!  No matter
that I of course knew my money was going to the people who ran the site;
I just didn't know it was a crime & I could be punished!  Where's the con-
cern about the children in *that* statement?  

> Therefore I admitted to what I regard as a
> technical offence - the use of a credit card on one
> occasion, and for research.

Woooo!  How about this one?  "...what I regard as a *technical offence*..."
Notice how, in Pete's mind, he's already downgraded the crime.  Almost
justifying it.  

Pete's got some problems, I'm afraid.  Counseling may be the right thing
for him.  He's angry.  Even though his punishment is seen by some as being
lenient, Pete doesn't like for one second the fact that he's been put on
a sex offenders list.  

Now, I don't like it either, but that's not the point.  The point is whether
or not Pete's actions warrant him being put on that list.

> I have no argument with the police or the press. But I
> think the rules here with respect to the sex offenders
> register might be a bit askew. But then I suppose I
> would wouldn't I?

This is really bizarre.  OK, he's not mad at the cops or the press; it's
the *laws* that are "a bit askew."  Funny he's never mentioned this until
he got arrested.  Where was this opinion when he was doing all the char-
itable work for children?

And that last line - "But I suppose I would wouldn't I?" (Incidentally,
I think Mr. Editor needs a comma after the word "would.")  What does this
mean?  I can't figure out his intent in making this statement.

There's a creepiness in it.  Almost like, "Hey, I don't like the rules con-
cerning sex offenders, but then again I wouldn't because I *am* one!"

I'm not making a joke here.  What the fuck's he talking about?  Why say
that?

> In your mind, put me on the list of wonky but
> well-intentioned liberal do-gooders if you like. But
> please do not think of me as a 'sex offender'.

More denial.  Think of me as "goofy, mistake-making Pete Townshend," don't
think of me as "entering his credit card number to access a child porn
site Pete Townshend!"  How can we not?!  You're on the sex offender list, 
pal.  Like it or not.  We're supposed to conveniently forget that?

> That, quite simply, as I and most other right-minded people
> in the UK understand it, is neither true nor just. 

Ugh.  I was wronged!  It's not my fault!  I'm being treated unfairly!

Where's Daltrey to give this guy a good ass-whippin'?

Wake up, Mr. Townshend.  Wake up.  You fucked up.  Big time.  Take your
fucking medicine & shut the fuck up.


- SCHRADE in Akron