egafd.com

I am always amazed at how Pete Townsend seems to have been "let off" even though he admitted he paid to download child porn.

Gary Glitter has been in prison and his music airbrushed from history.

Pete Townsend was let off with a caution and is still playing Who concerts to much acclaim.

I realise that Glitter is a more loathsome individual, but hey, Townsend addmitted downloading child porn.

So why the double standards ?

Setting aside the surprisingly robust mass appeal Jackson still seems to have, and the fact that Jackson is not so much a celebrity in the modern sense, but a genuine old school star (a dying breed), there's something fairly depressing about all this.

With nothing new to push, he'll be just playing the hits for his doting fans. Coming from an act who once generated such media interest in what he was up to next, a pure nostalgia show feels like another stamp on his creative bankruptcy. This happens to many acts, of course, but he always gave the impression he was capable of more than just taking this easy route.

Then again, with CD sales in freefall and free downloading way beyond control, it must be easier to generate cash by adding a few quid to the ticket price these days I suppose. The sad state of the industry.

And Glitter? A bacofoiled buffoon from the fag-end of tacky seventies culture. His grubby demise perfectly reflects his true worth.

"Pete Townshend is a very nasty individual even without the child porn. "

Simply not true. Only in your opinion.

The way I see it, if MJ was actually guilty and the famillies compromised their principles by accepting his bribe then more fool them. They are just as guilty as the person who interfered with their kid and I would deem them to be very shit people if they did.

I personally believe MJ has some kind of regressed childhood thing going on...and yeah I saw him on the Dangerous tour and I'll go see him again...

In fact I suspect those parents may have exploited their own childrens association with him by using it to extract money out of him...But I dont know the guy so dont know for sure.

One thing I do say is that hanging out with kids the way he does is not normal but does that make him guilty of inappropriate behaviour?

We should be careful not to accuse a man we do not know because of our own biased opinions.

Well, Glitter has been convicted, Jackson has not.
That's one big difference.

And as far as playing concerts go, I don't Glitter is banned from doing them, though he might find it diffcult to establish such an event.

MJ fans are blinded by his talent. Those who dont like him or pop music will be quick to believe he is guilty?

So who is right and who is wrong? Sounds like subjective opinion to me as Beutelwolf and others have said he hasnt been proven guilty.