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

Re: Know your enemy & Nuff said on Pete: who was harmed? & Pissed at Pete Too !!!! & Woke up Free but Branded by his Fans Too?

Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 13:26:20 -0400
From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@gmavt.net>

I'm also concerned about this "no downloaded material was
found"....*found*...yet the actual computer was destroyed????
Source? The only place I've seen reference to this was one mention in The Sun: ""But by the time Townshend was arrested he had got rid of the computer he used when he paid to access the depraved images in 1999. " Destroying" isn't the same as "Getting rid of" at all, and sounds a lot more guilty, IMO. For example, he could simply have sold it. We don't know, at least from this mention.


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 19:59:16 -0400
From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@gmavt.net>

This reminds me of a debate I once had with some friends who felt strongly
that all drugs should be legalized, including heroin and crack and you name
it...They insisted that heroin wasn't that bad for you, yet they stumbled all
around when I asked if they had tried it, and if not, why?
FWIW, I would never say that heroin is not all that bad for you, and I still want it, along with crack and you name it, legalized.


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 22:00:29 -0300
From: "Rod & Stephanie Porter" <broncos@nbnet.nb.ca>

If the man was a Gary Glitter and had logged countless hours
on these sites different story.Those saying he got rid
of those computers from 1999, that is English tabloid fodder,
Again, this thing seems to be taking on a life of its own. What's your source? The Sun said "he had got rid of the computer". That's "computer". One computer. Isn't this bad enough without embellishing the facts, inadvertently or otherwise?

I don't think so..and the fact that the UK charged him with nothing
but to register him as a sex offender is ludicrous and makes UK look
obsolete.

Perhaps, but placement on the list is mandatory under these circumstances.



Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 06:25:19 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>

I would like to mention that drug laws are considerably
more reasonable than they were at one time, and that drug enforcement used
to rely on heavy penalties for users.  There was also strong moral
condemnation for drug users, and some folks still hold on to these attitudes
even when they have proved unreasonable.
I'm somewhat gap-jawed at this. Can you explain in a couple lines what you're referring to? Last I heard, draconian mandatory penalties were still in effect for everything from possessing tiny amounts of pot on up, and it's a great majority of people who morally condemn drug users, at least judging by the lack of sympathy I get when I advocate legalizing drugs.


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 06:35:26 +0000
From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>

In his statement about this,
Pete was careful to say that he used his credit card to enter the site, but
that he didn't specifically pay for any child porn.  That may be a ray of
light into his thinking at the time.  Having seen the site, he felt there
was an important distinction between the two actions.
Pete's 1/11/03 statement says, "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child-porn. " Where did he say he didn't specifically pay for any child porn? This seems an important point since as a condition of his caution he admitted to paying (at least, according to The Sun).

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