Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Going to see The Who Tonight


MikeRom

Recommended Posts

Charges against him were dismissed outright, a "state" apology issued and investigation as to how charges came about was ordered. Never met the guy, so who the hell knows for sure, but that is the official line anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at pictures on the internet of naked children and saying hes doing it for research on his book?

Wheres the book Pete?

 

Michael Jackson & Pete Townshend proved that money and fame can get them off...as well as young children.

 

I would have no trouble castrating either of them.

 

Theres an old saying "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.....its a duck"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a problem with bias that is as big as your own imagination. Before you start spouting off, get off you behind and get the facts instead of gossiping like some old lady. There is always some self-righteous individual who will open his mouth before using his mind! And, you have done exactly so. By the way, the story of 'loooking at pictures of naked children on the internet' was declared false and the primary reason the government there issued an apology to him. Do some factual reading instead of languishing in the rumour mill. Geesh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a problem with bias that is as big as your own imagination. Before you start spouting off, get off you behind and get the facts instead of gossiping like some old lady. There is always some self-righteous individual who will open his mouth before using his mind! And, you have done exactly so. By the way, the story of 'loooking at pictures of naked children on the internet' was declared false and the primary reason the government there issued an apology to him. Do some factual reading instead of languishing in the rumour mill. Geesh!

 

hg...

He admitted it genius. I did read the story. What he did was against the law, and if it had been a private citizen theyd be on the sex offenders list.

I guess you dont have kids do you?....or do approve of what he did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, people, let's calm down here. Fact is we probably will never know for sure, but let's get back on topic. We were talking about seeing the Who and commenting on that. Seeing the who. I wasn't talking about having my son sleep over at Pete's house. . . I was talking about seeing him in concert and the experience. That's it. If you refuse to take your son to see the Who because you believe the man is a pedofile, that's cool. It's a free country. . . but I did not support pedofiles by taking my son to see the Who, I supported local charities who desparately need the money and had a great time doing it.

 

Feel free to open another thread on the topic of "would you go see or take your child to see a concert where the performer is accused of being a pedofile?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, Felder. But I need to make a point to Deep Blue. I'll do it politely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Deep Blue:

 

I worked 33 years in law enforcement. Investigations of this sort were not only a daily duty of myself and fellow officers, but a constant subject of training missions. Protecting children, be they my own or those of the families in my area of jurisdiction, was a primary responsibility of my job description. The allegations pertaining to P.T. became a matter of county case study here in regard to the evidence for arrest and indictment criteria under existing applicable Childrens Protective Services statutes. In short, what does an officer need as evidence to approach a county attorney for the purpose of indictment. That, is precisely why I do have access to the facts and the legal implications from the inside out on this matter. Please get that point. The man was not adjudicated a perpetrator, or found as worthy of pursuit in any aspect of this matter by the court system. He was not brought to trial and the charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence. It was and still is my duty to both respect & recognize the fact, when there does not exist sufficient evidence to bring criminal child abuse charges to bear and to a resultant trial. One, is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty. That fact protects us all as individuals against malicious allegations of any sort. Such is my only point.

 

We do not agree. But, I will wager, I do have access to more of the specific information in this matter for reasons designated above. I became concerned with your allegations as I am a professional with knowledge based on my job duties, training and my respect for law. Felder, is correct. We will not know for certain. This is all the more reason to restrain from judging one another in such a matter and at such a distance. I hope you can appreciate what prompted my feeling the responsibility to even become involved to the point of a statement regarding this matter. I also hope, you can agree to disagree and we can return to guitars as the subject at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said hg, and thanks for being one of the good guys looking out for the kids and reminding us all of the foundation of our judicial system... innocent until PROVED, beyond a shadow of a doubt, guilty.

 

Back onto the Who concert. . . I was surprised Pete never played any of his famed numbered Les Pauls. . . some of the best footage I've seen of the who he has a numbered Gibson in his hands. He seems to be into a Fender phase now. Interesting.

 

FYI - The Who's opening-night set list included:

 

"I Can't Explain"

"The Seeker"

"Getting in Tune"

"Fragments"

"Who Are You"

"Behind Blue Eyes"

"Tattoo"

"Baba O'Riley"

"Relay"

"Sister Disco"

"Mike Post Theme"

"Eminence Front"

"5:15"

"Love, Reign O'er Me"

"My Generation"

"Won't Get Fooled Again

 

Encore:

"Magic Bus"

"Pinball Wizard"

"Amazing Journey"

"Sparks"

"See Me, Feel Me"

"Listening to You"

"Tea and Theater"

 

Read this music editors review at: http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/reviews/live_review_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003876845

 

And an even better write up: http://elpasotimes.typepad.com/pullen/2008/10/concert-review.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charges against him were dismissed outright' date=' a "state" apology issued and investigation as to how charges came about was ordered. Never met the guy, so who the hell knows for sure, but that is the official line anyway.[/quote']

 

Police and the CPS (Crown Prosocution Service)in the UK have three options when a person is arrested.

 

1, NFA.. No further action (Not evidence to proceed)

2, Charge.. Charge the person with the offence and send them to court

3, Caution. For the police to caution a person THEY have to ADMIT the offence!

 

Pete Townsend was not charged and taken to court he was "Cautioned" for downloading pictures after his credit card details were found on a website which was part of a joint international operation....Called operation ORE

 

How the hell you get arrested for a SERIOUS ARRESTABLE OFFENCE and get a Caution only go's to show what state the UK justice system is in.

 

I work in UK law enforcement in London and have done so for the past 14yrs.

 

I have never been into the WHO..and like many old bands are coming out of the woodwork to cash in on the money that's to be made..

 

Flight959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting thread. People get very caught up in the personal lives of celebrities. Hell, Pete may be a pedophile or a pervert or a child abuse victim or a (insert word here) -- and I don't care. I don't know him personally, so his personal life is no concern of mine. Everything I need to know about him happens on Live at Leeds, and it rocks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...