Re: Fury at Townshend Let-Off

[Alan McKendree <amck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, oops.  OK.  I don't think even The Sun would misstate something 
like this: "Townshend was offered yesterday's caution in return for 
admitting the offence of inciting the distribution of the paedophile 
images by payment."

So the additional things I have to say are:

There's a question of proportionality.  Pete paid a minimal amount of 
money to access a site once.  That should qualify for a minimal 
punishment.  Saying his money paid for the next child rape is about 
as stupid as the Who fan (and I've heard them) who say they paid for 
Pete's house, so he owes them an autograph.

I can imagine paying for access, myself, out of curiosity, but for two things:

1) thanks to the reports from others, I really am not sure I want 
those images in my memory.  But then again, I'm not sure why those 
images should be considered any differently from other uncommon 
images or things that I *have* seen.

2) I would be afraid of the legal consequences -- but those are in 
turn due to the social attitude approaching hysteria which surrounds 
the subject.

I also think it's very easy for parents to tap into their love for 
their children to create an instant and deep emotional reaction to 
the subject, which clouds an objective analysis.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
   --Howard Stern, 5/25/00