Jacko OK - Glitter banned?

[dynatech]

Townshend was always a prickly character, and spent much of the late 70's/early 80's in a drug-induced state on self-destruct. He was on his way at the time of The Who By Numbers, but Keith Moon's death pushed him over the edge and towards heroin as well as booze. I wouldn't say it made him a bad person (though not knowing someone personally it would be hard to say that anyway) but he was always bluntly honest.
As for the downloading, he admitted accessing the site but no evidence was of any downloading of images. That doesn't make him a paedophile

[Lizard]

If he was as you say a peadophile, I doubt if any of these people would want his support. You should always be a tad careful on a public forum what you say about a person, you never know who your talking to do you Reg.

[one eyed jack]

I think the quickest way to get suspicions cast on any individual these days is to label them a peadophile...

Reggie do you know for a fact that MJ is a kiddy fiddler? What did these pics contain that you say were found in his possession? Just finding pics of semi clothed kids or kids in underwear you could see in the Littlewoods catalogue.

I say this because years ago a newscaster was arrested for this same knee jerk reaction to peadophilia with her partner for taking naked pics of their child in the bath covered in soap suds....Fer chrissakes that was going waaaay to far.

I just hope you are not judging on the basis of what you think yo uknow versus what is actual fact.

If peadophiles were that easy to spot we shouldnt have any problem in the world rounding them up for imprisoning them by your rationale.

People ar ejust not that easy to figure out.

[dynatech]

I think the point is he admitted accessing the site but once he'd done that he did actually check out any images. I'm quite sure the police will have done all they could to find proof of such on his computers, as they love a celibrity scalp and made sure the press were present at the time he was arrested.
What would make a good debate in a reasonable society would be to ask whether looking at an image on a screen by clicking a button really constitutes 'making an image' and whether it also automatically makes the person a paedophile. I'd say that someone found with hundred, thousands of such images would find the charge hard to escape, but in relation to cases where the accused has a few images stored somewhere in the realms of their harddrive perhaps not so.
But then again, reasoned debate on this topic will not happen in such an idiotic society as ours and those who have been caught with images on their computer may as well just hang themselves and get it over with.

Another point: has anyone else noticed that when (and this is happening worldwide) some sort of high profile arrest is made, there is often an incidental charge of being in possession of that shit - it's as if the police plant that stuff (or at least trump up the charge) in order to get the drones well & truly onside and make sure that individual will never be accepted within society again whether or not the 'main charge' is proven in court.