Re: Can we see the innocence of Jimi Hendrix? (no Jimi)

["Citizen Kane" <rosebud905@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Forgive me if I'm starting to realize a feeling of deja vu..but hasn't all 
this been discussed on this list before? There should already be posts in 
the archives describing the basis of ex post facto laws in the UK, the 
two-tier listing structure of the site Townshend paid to access, and also 
the amount that he likely paid. I believe the amount mentioned here was 
actually $4.95, rather than $5.

Perhaps there is some persistence of vision here that erases the memory of 
these posts?

Kane


> Had Pete's initial statement been that he researched only a list
of  sites to heighten awareness of all these sites, would anyone
here  still have wanted Pete to apologize?
> I can say I wouldn't have.
>
> So, then, the remaining question is why it's all so different
now?

> My remaining question is, why didn't Pete make this statement in
January 2003 instead of October, as it seems to clear up the whole
thing and exonerate him completely?  At least, a lot of commentators
have said as much.


> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:22:35 -0500
> From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> I would have still wanted an apology.  As I've stated, no kind
of research is an excuse to give $5.00 to people who arrange for babies to
get fucked.

> According to his "Detail" diary entry he gave $5 to people
who maintained listings of sites where such images could be found.  Not
necessarily the same as giving $5 to those who directly produce the
images.  Again, how could this "detail" be missed for 9
months??

> Also, Pete claims that what he did was not illegal at the time.  Ex
post facto laws are unconstitutional in the U.S....are they allowed
in the U.K.?

_________________________________________________________________
Is your computer infected with a virus?  Find out with a FREE computer virus 
scan from McAfee.  Take the FreeScan now! 
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963