Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law

It has not been possible to reach a concensus regarding Townshend's brush with the law in 2003.

  • In early January 2003, Townshend publicly acknowledged having used his credit card on a single occasion to obtain access to a commercial child pornography website. Source: BBC News, 11 Jan 2003, Source: BBC News, 12 Jan 2003
  • On 13 January 2003 the Metropolitan Police arrested him under the Protection of Children Act 1978 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, suspicion of making indecent images of children and suspicion of incitement to distribute indecent images of children Source: The Guardian, 14 January 2003
  • In May 2003 (apparently on 7 May) he was cautioned - from the BBC News report "Mr Townshend, who admitted using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse"
  • It is common ground that Townshend is subject to the notification requirements the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (or the Sexual Offences Act 2003 post April 2004) as a result of this caution.
  • This necessarily means that he has accepted a caution for an offence covered by the Sex Offenders Act 1997.

On the one hand it is claimed that Townshend must have accepted guilt in order to be cautioned, and is thus legitimately called a "sex offender"; on the other it is claimed that a caution is not an admission of guilt and Townshend was placed on the "sex offenders list" as might happen as part of something like a "scared straight" programme - thus Townshend's inclusion on the "list" is a technicality and he is not a "sex offender.

Comments.... please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Much back-and-to discussion follows.


Inspiration for "Unplugged" phenomenon and rock star support for Amnesty International

I have removed this heading again, as it only applies to one paragraph within the "Biography" section. As things were, information about Townshend's marriage and later career were falling under "Inspiration for "Unplugged" phenomenon and rock star support for Amnesty International". KGiles 20:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


GLB?

Why is he in the category of "Gay, lesbian, or bisexual people"? I don't see this mentioned in the article. If it's known, fine, but it should probably be mentioned in the text (or at least a link given), as he's not someone who is generally know to be gay or bi (unlike Elton John, for instance) Gwimpey 01:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I found a link and added it to the article. However, the category states that it is for people who have declared their sexual orientation or whose orientation is not in dispute by historian. After reading Wikipedia:Categorization of people and noting that in the RS interview, he does not accept the label, I don't know if he should be in the category or not. However, I'm not bold enough to remove him (yet). Gwimpey 01:23, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
As he does not accept the label, and neither is he generally considered lgbt, I believe we should not class him as bisexual (nor gay).
I will therefore remove him from the category 'Gay, lesbian or bisexual people' and the category 'LGBT musicians'. I will also re-add your link (which was removed on Nov 20, 2004), which I feel is valuable. --David Edgar 11:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


Bisexual Musicians

I find it irresponsible to have Pete Townshend in the bisexual musicians category; he does not identify as bisexual, and it is inappropriate to identify him other than he public identifies. I have deleted this category. Elefuntboy 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Gustav Metzger

The current version says:

Although the first incident of guitar-smashing was thought to be an accident, the onstage destruction of instruments became a regular part of The Who's performances. Townshend, always a voluble interview subject, would later relate these antics to Austrian painter Gustav Metzke's theories on auto-destruction, to which he had been exposed at art school.

Apart from the typo in Gustav Metzger's name (which I just corrected), I wonder about the always a voluble interview subject bit. The writer of this sentence obviously seems a bit skeptical about Townshend's claims - for which reasons? The fact that Metzger lectured at Townshend's art college is confirmed by others:

Metzger proved particularly influential. [Townshend's friend Richard] Barnes remembers that Metzger “…showed slides of paintings done in acid on sheets of metal showing the stages of ‘beauty’ as the acid slowly destroyed the metal and was later publicly acknowledged by Pete for his inspiration on autodestruction.” Pete recalled that Metzger “turned up at some of our shows when we were smashing stuff up. He really got into it.” “It was 1962, the time of the Cuban missile crisis,” Pete told The Guardian in 2000. “Metzger had a profound effect on me. I was doing my first gig with The Who and took it as an excuse to smash my new Rickenbacker that I had just hocked myself to the eyebrows to buy. I really believed it was my responsibility to start a rock band that would last only three months, an auto-destructive group. [1]

Of course the influence bit could have been made up by Townshend later for extra intellectual credit ([2] remarks that he told an interviewer in 1982 that “…artists like Jackson Pollock…” gave lectures while he was at Ealing Art School, although Pollock had died five years earlier). But isn't it as least as sensible to assume that art school rock musicians were afraid of admitting too much art school influence in those days, which would have lead The Who to prefer the "accident" version? regards, High on a tree 2 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)


Signature Guitars

www.gibsoncustom.com he now has 2 signature les paul deluxes, a goldtop and a red


Keith Moon

I can't find any mention in the first article of how he met Keith Moon, and how he can to join the band. Shouldn't that be in there?--Crestville 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)



I did find this on Townshend's website: "Born into a musical family in London at the end of the Second World War, Townshend quickly found himself at the forefront of the British musical boom of the 1960's, as a member of one of the most rebellious, outspoken groups ever to emerge; The Who. Formed through a school friendship with John Entwistle and Roger Daltrey, dating back to the late 1950's, the band spent its formative years covering Jazz and Skiffle standards with the young Townshend performing admirably on banjo. Those early years saw the band go through a couple of name and personnel changes, including the recruitment of one, Keith Moon. " [3]

--205.161.9.9 17:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Child Porn investigation

The "Allegation about downloading child pornography" section seems a little POV to me. The general impression of the section is that it's presenting a pro-Townshend view of the incident. — Matt Crypto 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be a valid point if the matter had not been settled unequivocally. Everything in the section is factual. The police absolutely acknowledged that there were no images on the computers. and they spent 4 months looking. Given the notoriety of the arrest and the way it was leaked to the tabloid media - it was not in the interests of the police to fail to find images if there were any. The points of law (incidentally there is no "UK law" - it is "English law" or "Scottish law") are 100% verifiable. That was what made the whole issue so confusing. There was no settled law on what Townshend had done - no judgment had ever been issued applying a 1970's law about printed pornography to internet transactions. When that happened in 2001 - it meant that any transgressions before that time were illegal - even though the person would have had no way of knowing that it was illegal! FYI in a US court of law - that fact would have caused the entire matter to be thrown out. But not in English law. Had Townshend gone to trial - he would have been found guilty of the offence of "paying to view" - irrespective of mitigating circumstances. He could have tried to appeal to the European Court and possibly had the conviction over-ruled because of the jeopardy created by the 2001 ruling. But one assumes that Townshend thought it would be easier to accept a caution than to spend 3-4 years of his life fighting it. Davidpatrick 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website" - Have server logs been recovered to support this?

yes. that was how the entire matter arose. Operation Ore was a US-based sting operation to identify and convict those who downloaded. The US authorities offered the list of transactions by foreign-based credit card owners to each country where such people resided. The Uk authorities announced that they would investigate all UK-based credit card holders on the list. The presence on the list of a major star was leaked to a tabloid. Once Townshend became aware of the news report - he volunteered that he was the rock star hinted at in the tabloid report.

At that point the police had to conduct an investigation in the public spotlight. There was suspicion (not proven) that the leak to the tabloids had come from within the police. Not proven - so not in this Wiki article. Certainly having made a very public spectacle of arresting Townshend with a large police presence (accompanied by TV cameras doing a documentary on the police handling of the issue of child porn) it was quite naturally in the police's interest to conduct a vigorous investigation of Townshend. To do otherwise would look like velvet glove treatment for a celebrity. And having made such a show arrest - obviously it would have looked better for the police if Townshend HAD committed a crime. The show of force would be deemed to have been justified. So if there was the remotest chance that there had been more than one credit card transaction - that would absolutely have been uncovered from the records and brought into the charges.

Ultimately Townshend insisted all along that he had made just a solitary visit. And the police never challenged that at any time. And he insisted - to a lot of incredulity at the time - that he had looked but definitely not downloaded. (Reaction was similar to Clinton's "I smoked but didn't inhale" comment). After 4 months of intensive forensic examination of 14 computers - the police acknowledged that there was absolutely not a solitary image on any of his computers. if there had been even one image - Townshend would have been charged, convicted and almost certainly served some jail time. The police not charging him was a vindication of Townshend's main claim. His acceptance of the caution was his acknowledgment of a technical infringement. Davidpatrick 05:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Townshend accepted a police caution; this was an admission of guilt. A caution can only be offered by the police where there is a good prospect of achieving a conviction if a prosecution is commenced. A caution is offered where it is thought not to be in the public interest to prosecute.
    • It is absolutely not an admission of guilt
      • Please stop stating opinion and refer to the proper sources. 81.178.224.140 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment regarding the child porn investigation -- the software that they used to scan all his computers verified that he never had child porn on his computer systems. This software is able to find files even after they've been deleted. Also, the organization that led this whole investigation verified that Pete Townshend contacted them through email after he saw this website to report it. Obviously, he thought he was doing a good thing to report it. This same organization later stated that Townshend should have never been placed on the sex offenders list. If this encyclopedia is going to list all the negative press, then they should list all of his charitable contributions that have benefitted children over the years:

<snipped>

Evidence for your claims relating to the child porn incident, please. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
Still awaited. Andy Mabbett 10:06, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The software failed to find any evidence of the existence of child porn on Townshend's computers, which is not the same thing as verifying that there never was any such material on his computers. Townshend himself made public the fact that "on one occasion" he had seen child porn. Why, then, did the forensic examination fail to reveal this "one" child porn image IF the "software is able to find files even after they've been deleted"? 15:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey user:pigsonthewing: The concern you raise above is largely addressed by removing the word "still" -- What's documented is that PT provided his CC info and gained access to the website, and presumably (based on his own statement)m viewed content there. That's not the same as "being in possession of" -- saying "still" implies that he once was, which is not known to be the case (as you yourself seem to be arguing above). I'm not sure why you would argue that he never had it on his PC and then re-insert the word "still", which implies he did. Jgm 22:31, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

  • It is exaclty the same as being in possession of, as many people in UK jails can tell you. What "concern" of mine do you think is answered by denying that fact? I have never argued "that he never had it on his PC". Andy Mabbett 10:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, your signature at the bottom of the unsigned block of text and list above made me assume you wrote it all. Looking more closely at the history, I see you just made a response. I won't try to argue UK law with you, but in a common language sense "viewing on a website" and "being in posession of" are two different things and given the nature of this paragraph we would do well to use language carefully. Jgm 12:05, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
      • To view an image on a website, it must be downloaded to your computer. It is then present at least in RAM, possibly on the hard disk. My impression is that this is generally regarded as possession, but I am not a lawyer. Gwimpey 01:08, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


Pure tosh (the TotallyDisputed-section)

The following was removed on the grounds of toshness:

Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography. The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research. That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases. Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.
  • No law explicity outlaws the downloading of pornographic images (downloading is considered an act of "making" an "indecent photograph of a child" (see R v Bowden (1999)).
  • Townshend admitted "one one occasion" downloading a pornographic image of a child
  • There has been no legal ruling relating to paying "money to access a website that contained child pornography" - the relevant offence appears to be "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child"
  • Arose in a case in 2001 - which case? R v Toshy Tosh Tosh (2001)????
  • There was no law passed in the 1970s relating to the purchase of printed child pornography. The actual law covering "child pornography" is the Protection of Children Act 1978, which made no mention of "child pornography", let alone "puchasing" it. It was perfectly legal to purchase "child pornography" in England until the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (well, possibly: purchasing MIGHT count as "inciting distribution" given English judges' profound respect for the meaning of English), and even then pucrhasing child pornography was legal, with the exception that it was illegal to possess it. 23 December 2005

No no no! The above is pure uninformed opinion.

1) Townshend NEVER admitted any downloading at all ever. He openly acknowledged that he had on one single occasion ACCESSED a site using his credit card. For which he might have been found guilty of a technical infringement of a law that had NOT been applied to internet purchases in 1999. The police conceded that he clearly had not downloaded. If he had downloaded even a single image and it had been found by the forensic team (which spent 4 months examining his computers) he would definitely have been charged. The case was so high-profile that to have given such a famous person a "pass" was unthinkable. The police didn't charge him because he had NOT downloaded.

2) Townshend was placed on the offenders list because of an abberation in the law that makes it mandatory to do so if a caution is accepted. EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHARGE, NO GUILT, NO CONVICTION. A caution is NOT an admission of guilt. The caution was not imposed on Townshend. It was a negotiated settlement with the police. The police needed to save some face having made such a high-profile arrest alleging downloading (that transpired NOT to have taken place.) Townshend wished to avoid the pain of enduring a trial in which he might havbe been found guilty of a technical infringement.

3) No US court would ever sustain the placing of a person on such a list who had not had a trial and conviction. Davidpatrick 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • He openly acknowledged that he had on one single occasion ACCESSED a site using his credit card: [Townshend's statement] says "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." What does it mean to "enter" a website? It means to view the homepage at the very least. Since Townshend used his credit card, he would have had unrestricted access to whatever content the website provided. How did he obtain this access? He must have seen the site's public (i.e.) free homepage, and then progress through the subscription process. If it was part of his research into paedophilic imagery on the Internet, why would he subscribe if he did not know the site contained such imagery?
  • Townshend NEVER admitted any downloading at all ever: From A different bomb - "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man." To see an image is to download it. This image was not found by the forensic examination, therefore such examination cannot find all evidence that ever existed. Conclusion: there was insufficient evidence to say that Towenshend downloaded, not that the examination provded he did not download. His own admission proved that he did download - English law considers "downloading an image to a computer screen" to be an act of making (R v Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683).
  • technical infringement of a law that had NOT been applied to internet purchases in 1999: please state which law had never been applied to internet purchases. Please state why it started to be applied to internet purchases after 1999 - what happened to make this happen? There was no significant change in the law or its interpretation in 1999, certainly with regard to "internet purchases".
  • Townshend was placed on the offenders list because of an abberation in the law: Townshend became subject to the notification requirements as a result of accepting a caution and thereby admitting guilt; this is NOT an the result aberation in the law. A caution can only be offered where the police/CPS would be able to press charges (i.e. where there is sufficient evidence or other good reason to believe that a conviction will be secured) and where the person concerned admits guilt for a specific criminal offence. Cautions are offered BY the police where (for whatever reason) it is not considered to be in the public interest to prosescute. For example, see the UK government's [TOGETHER campaign's website] on Police Cautions, which says:
A Police Caution is a formal warning given by or on the instructions of a senior Police officer.
A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.
The Police Caution is recorded on the Police National Computer and can be taken into consideration by the Court if that person is convicted and sentenced for a further offence.
  • EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CHARGE, NO GUILT, NO CONVICTION: A caution can only be offered where charges can be pressed and there is a good liklihood of achiving a conviction but, for whatever reason, it is not considered to be in the public interest to procede with a prosecution - possibly becuase the consequences flowing from a caution give the authority's sufficient justification to believe the offending behaviour can be addressed.
  • A caution is NOT an admission of guilt: a police caution IS an admission of guilt
  • The caution was not imposed on Townshend: the caution was offered to Townshend as an alternative to prosecution; had Townshend chosen to refuse the caution, the liklihood is that the police would have pressed charges and a trial would have ensued
  • It was a negotiated settlement with the police: what terms did Townshend negotiate? What bargaining position did he occupy?
  • Townshend wished to avoid the pain of enduring a trial in which he might havbe been found guilty of a technical infringement: Townshend admittmed guilt by accepting the caution.
  • No US court would ever sustain the placing of a person on such a list who had not had a trial and conviction: Townshend is NOT an American citizen. However, he did accept a police caution when it was offerered. Such acceptance IS an admission of guilt. Please inform yourself of what a police caution is, and what the consequences of accepting one are.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

The sole reason that Townshend appears on the list is because of an aberration in English law. He was not charged or convicted of ANY CRIME yet the law mandated that (if he accepted a police caution) he HAD to be placed on a list of convicted offenders even though he was not even suspected of having been an offender (as defined by the law.) Only suspected of downloading images - an act that the police eventually conceded he had NOT done. His sole action - that he openly acknowledged - was ACCESSING a site on one occasion with a credit card - and that does not make him a Sex Offender as that is defined legally, morally or logically.

Accepting a police caution in England is NOT in any way an acceptance of guilt. Not so. Not in any official document. That notion is merely an erroneous, uninformed POV. Cite official document if you disagree.

In the US Townshend could never be placed on such a list based on those circumstances. Lack of due process apart from anything else. It is probable that The European Court would also rule Townshend's inclusion on the list to be unlawful if he ever challenged it. Townshend made clear in interviews that he considered it more prudent to accept the unfair inclusion than to undergo the pain and public/media hoopla of a prolonged legal battle to clear his name.

Remember - Townshend wasn't even charged with any such act or crime - let alone convicted. He found himself on an English list (not a US list) by "virtue" of an aberration in the law that meant that he HAD to be placed on a list with convicted sex offenders even though he wasn't one and hadn't been charged or convicted.

That is why the wiki article must reflect these incontovertible facts otherwise it is being grossly unfair. Davidpatrick 14:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Question: What is a police caution and how long does it last?
Answer
A caution is a formal warning that is given to an adult who has admitted the offence (which must be a minor offence). If the person refuses the caution then they will be prosecuted through the normal channels for the offence.
Although it is not technically classed as a conviction it can be taken into consideration by the Courts if the person is convicted of a further offence. A caution will be included on a police check until it becomes spent, a police caution will become spent after five years.
Even after five years the caution can still be disclosed if you apply for certain types of jobs, i.e. police, teacher, or jobs working with children and vulnerable adults. It will be disclosed if it is relevant to the job you are applying for.

MORE DISCUSSION

Thank you for a thorough presentation of your perspective. I accept that you are sincere in presenting your beliefs. These are indeed weighty matters. BTW - some of them (but not all) have been argued extensively on this and other pages before - but you undoubtedly raise some interesting points.

Without turning this into a knock-down fight - this is ultimately about ensuring that the wiki article is fair and factual. Some might argue that the amount of text is already wildly disproportionate to the amount of relevance this incident has to Townshend's 60-year life/41-year career. And how detailed the text should be on the topic.

The sole reason that this matters is because the topic of sex affecting children is rightly an important one. It is also an incendiary topic - and therefore it is important to take especial care to be fair and not falsely (or unintentionally) impugn people.

The average wiki reader is unlikely to understand the minutiae of English law. (Many English lawyers have that problem!) Those based in countries other than England may be especially baffled. To give a simple example - to be "arrested" means one thing in the UK - and has an entirely different connotation in the USA.

Some key points.

To quote from the above note about Police Cautions The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences.

And again with added emphasis:

The Police Caution is administered where that person COULD have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS offences.

There is undoubtedly a legal difference between downloading and viewing. We disagree about your statement that viewing is identical to downloading. Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages. (And he really did write about these differences in his well-chronicled campaigning about the issue.)

THAT was the sole thing that he would have pleaded (technical) guilt to. And that met the definition of it being a MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS OFFENCE.

If it had been a major or more serious offence - he would have been prosecuted. And rightly so.

When there is a high-profile arrest and public and media scrutiny involving a celebrity it is in the interest of the police to be seen to be fair and forthright. To be neither over-zealous in making a prosecution - nor to be inordinately forgiving of a minor offence.

After confiscating 14 computers and making the search and arrest with multiple police officers - accompanied by a TV crew making a documentary showing how the police are cracking down on paedophiles - it was not in the interest of the police to back-pedal and treat Townshend with kid gloves. If there was any way that they could have had a MAJOR offence with which to charge Townshend - they certainly would have. The decision to only give a caution confirms beyond reasonable doubt that there was no MAJOR offence with which he could be charged.

This is such a sensitive issue - and deeply complex - especially to the layperson - more so given that laws are different in each country. The wiki article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues. I submit that the current edit (before your deletions) is a basis for this. Perhaps tweaked to take account of your perspective. To do less would be profoundly unfair to Townshend. Thank you. Davidpatrick 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Police Caution is administered where that person COULD have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for MINOR OR LESS SERIOUS offences: In the same note about Police Cautions: A Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. 81.178.223.226 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You continually state your opinion that there is a difference between downloading and viewing. No such distinction is made in English law - "both" are covered by the same offence, namely "making indecent photographs of children". 81.178.223.226 20:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If it had been a major or more serious offence - he would have been prosecuted:This is a good point - None of the offences Townshend was suspected of is a minor offence. The Home Office says that a police caution is "a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences, such as vandalism or petty theft". A caution should not have been offered and he should have been prosecuted. 81.178.223.226 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing, making and inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children. It does not appear to be public information which offence Townshend accepted a caution for. However, Townshend appears to have a technically deficient understanding (shared with User:Davidpatrick) of the operational details of web browsers, which would preclude his guilt to a charge of possession, so for him to admit guilt when offered a caution (and he did accept a caution, thereby admitting guilt) would be irrelevant to the proper issuing of a caution (he did not understand the caching mechanism at the time of the offence, therefore he was not guilty of possession; to issue a caution would be unjustifiable). But this lack of guilt to a charge of possession simply means that the caution can only have been for an offence of "making an indecent photograph of a child", or "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child". Both of which Townshend admits having done. Both Making and Distributing indecent photographs of children were at the relevant time defined as serious arrestable offences - they therefore were not "minor offences" - in fact they were "major offences".81.178.223.226 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

YET MORE DISCUSSION

Admittedly, the article on Townshend must be fair and deal fairly with these complex issues; but more importantly, it must be factually accurate. The content that Davidpatrick keeps reinstating is NOT a sound basis for an accurate and fair article. It is skewed heavily in Townshend's favour. 81.178.223.226 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is PLAIN WRONG. It is totally inaccurate concerning police cautions, and thereby implies that Townshend is innocent of any wrongdoing and what he did amounted merely to a technical infringement of a law (BTW, ALL crimes are technical infringements of some law or other).

There are literally thousands of people in England who have criminal convictions for doing exactly the same thing that Townshend did.

There is still a major difference in law between accepting a caution and being convicted of a crime. And that is not just a difference on the end of the person accepting the caution but on the end of the police. The police's job is not to give cautions where a prosecution can take place. A caution is given at the discretion of the police where they feel that a prosecution may not be clear-cut or that it might be disproportionate to the alleged infringement or even where there is a possibility that a conviction might be overturned because of mitigating circumstances by a higher court (such as the House of Lords) or the European Court. No police authority PREFERS to give a caution over pressing criminal charges. And it is not right legally or ethically to confer guilt on someone because he accepted a caution. Especially when that guilt lumps a person in with people who HAVE committed heinous crimes the likes of which are rightly abhorrent to society - and of which the person was never ever even suspected (ie interacting sexually with children.) That is why there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of Townshend having been placed on that list. In the USA for example there is no way that Townshend could have been placed on such a list without there having been a criminal conviction. Different legal system granted - but many would say a fairer one on that specific point. It has been argued elsewhere and with more eloquence and authority than I can muster that the mandatory consequence of accepting the caution - in such circumstances - is inappropriate - and would probably not survive a chellenge at the European Court. In any event - there is no way that accepting a caution could or should be portrayed to wiki readers as the equivalent of a criminal conviction - when it most patently isn't. Davidpatrick 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The police's job is not to give cautions where a prosecution can take place: the police MUST NOT offer a caution unless a prosecution could take place with a fair expectation of securing a conviction. 81.178.223.226 18:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • And it is not right legally or ethically to confer guilt on someone because he accepted a caution: for the police to be able to offer a caution, the suspect must have ACCEPTED guilt for a specific, identifiable criminal offence. Thus a caution is an admission of guilt. 81.178.223.226 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Especially when that guilt lumps a person in with people who HAVE committed heinous crimes the likes of which are rightly abhorrent to society: there are many people who have criminal convictions for doing exactly the same things (and in some cases, for doing less than) Townshend did; such people are said to be guilty of crimes "which are rightly abhorrent to society". Wikipedia should not be about protecting one person's reputation at the expense of truth. 81.178.223.226 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That is why there is an ongoing debate about the appropriateness of Townshend having been placed on that list: there is no such debate; Towsnhend admitted guilt for a criminal offence where such admission made him subject to the notification requirements. Such an admission would be exactly equivalent to him entering a guilty plea at the beginning of a trial. Why should he NOT be placed on such a 'register'? 81.178.223.226 18:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • In the USA for example there is no way that Townshend could have been placed on such a list without there having been a criminal conviction: in the UK, such a list is a proecdural matter only. It is NOT made public and nor is any information released to the public. It is only used within the police service, probabtion service, social services, etc. It is not a punishment in any sense. 81.178.223.226 19:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet more pure tosh (TotallyDisputed-section)

The following is pure tosh and does not deserve to be in the article in any form:

Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images, something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing. But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography. The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website. At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet. Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research. That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases. Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.

According to a statement made by the metropolitan police, Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, making indecent images of children and incitement to distribute indecent images of children. Making and distributing are what the Police and Criminal Evidence Act defines as "Serious Arrestable Offences". Nowhere was any mention made of "paying money".

  • Incidentally, the law in England at the time of Townshend's transaction in 1999 explicitly outlawed the downloading of pornographic images,
  • Which Act explicitly criminalises downloading pornographi images?
  • something that the police found no evidence of Townsend ever doing.
  • But Townshend himself admitted to doing this when he said that he had accessed the website. Townshend's deficient understanding of the technicalities involved in displaying an image on a computer screen do not exonerate him from the consequences of so doing. An image on a webpage is contained in a file, which the viewing computer downloads to local storage (which might be RAM or disc). IF the person operating the computer knows of this mechanism (the "cache"), he is guilty of possession, since the file is stored ( Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions [2000] EWHC Admin 302).Furthermore, in "downloading the image to the computer's screen", the computer operator is causing a "copy of an indecent photograph of a child" to exist, and is thus guilty of "making an indecent photograph of a child" (R v Jayson [2002] EWCA Crim 683)
  • But there had been no legal ruling in 1999 on the topic of what Townshend did do - which was to pay money to access a website that contained child pornography.
  • The first legal ruling in England on this specific issue occurred in a case in 2001 - nearly two years after the solitary occasion on which Townshend had accessed the website.
  • What is the reference to this "legal ruling"? Who made it? What authority is it based on?
  • At that time - a judge ruled that a law passed in the 1970's in respect of the purchase of printed child pornography should be applied to purchases made on the internet.
  • Which law is that? No law deals with the purchase of printed child pornography...
  • Irrespective of whether it was for prurient purposes or legitimate research.
  • You seem to be confused here. At the relevant time, the only criminal offences involving "child pornography" to which there was no defence are creation of it (i.e. taking or making indecent photographs and indecent pseudo-photographs) and advertising that such material will be distributed or shown. Distribution, showing and possession are all possible with the existence of a "legitimate reason" (e.g. showing images to a jury)
  • That ruling meant that anyone who had made any transaction at any time since the 1970's would have infringed the law - even though the person would have been unaware (till the 2001 ruling ) that the old law applied to internet purchases.
  • Which ruling? And, quite critically, which offence are you talking about?
  • Townshend might thus have been found guilty in 2003 of a technical infringement that occurred in 1999 of a law that neither he (nor anyone else in England) could have been aware was relevant to his activity prior to 2001.
  • There has been no major change in the interpretation of the law regarding indecent photographs of children since the laws were passed, the Protection of Children Act in 1978 and section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act in 1988.
81.178.223.226 19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous

Your note is extremely misleading

1) in turned out that Townshend didn't possess and had never "possessed" He didn't download. And he would have had to download to "possess"

2) "making indecent images" and incitement to distribute" are the terms used - and they are frighteningly misleading to laypeople who would be justified in misconstruing that Townshend was suspected of "making" images - ie actually setting up and photographing images. But this term actually refers to to the making of images as in making a copy on his computer by downloading. (Which of course he didn't do - or the police would have rightly charged him accordingly)

"inciting to distribute" SOUNDS LIKE actually encouraging the distribution of such images - but again is simply ambiguous wording. The very act of downloading images (which of course Townshend didn't do) is held to be an incitement (presumably to the sellers of the indecent material) to have them distribute more.

So the terminology in the act lead people to erroneously assume that Townshend was under suspicion of taking photos of little kids and of encouraging others to see them

See the danger of poor language right there....

As it turned out - the police suspicions were 100% wrong. If they were correct - they would havs (and should have) charged Townshend.

They were wrong. So the ONLY thing they had - was the one thing that Townshend had openly and publicly VOLUNTEERED - namely that he had paid to access a website with indecent material. A technical but minor infringement. Which was why Townshend elected to accept the police caution.

End of story

Any other interpretation is grossly unfair to Townshend - and infringes the Wiki tradition of decency and fairness. Davidpatrick 19:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • In A Different Bomb, Townshend said "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man." He viewed the image. For the image to be displayed on his screen, it must have been downloaded to his computer's local storage. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the term "making indecent photographs of children" gives an erroneous picture of the offence, and so did the Metropolitan police when they arrested Townshend - they released a statement warning that the word 'making' should not be taken too literally. They fail to do this in other cases involving people who are not famous.
  • Townshend DID make; he admitted as much when he said he had viewed the material - please see R v Jayson [2002] The Times 23 April 2002
  • The charge of "inciting distribution" would actually apply to Townshend's payment to the website using his credit card. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • However, the use of this language is factually accurate. If you feel this is unjust, please take this matter up with the House of Lords and then the European Court of Human Rights. Do not mount a campaign using Wikipedia (...Wikipedia is not a soapbox...). 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • police suspicions were 100% wrong: why, then, did Townshend accept a caution, thereby admitting guilt?
  • PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE inform yourself as to what a Police Caution is and when one can be administered. A police caution can ONLY be offered to a person who has admitted guilt. Furthermore, a caution can only be issed where there exists a good expectation of securing a conviction should charges be made. 81.178.223.226 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It is common ground that Townshend admitted to paying for access a website containing indecent photographs of children. In Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court [2004] EWHC 905 (Admin), the Divisional Court held that such an act (and therefore Townshend's admission) would establish a prima facie case that the defendant had incited someone, namely those lying behind the onus of the company, to commit the offence of distributing.
  • Distribution of indecent photographs of children was at the time defined as a Serious Arrestable Offence and a sexual offence against children. IF paying someone to distribute such images is indeed enough to amount to incitement, then it is hardly a minor infringement. English courts currently consider that it does amount to incitement. Please take up your campaign to have Townshend considered totall innocent elsewhere. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Which was why Townshend elected to accept the police caution: if he had not accepted the caution, he would have been charged with whichever offence for which the police thought they had enough evidence to prove Townshend's guilt... 81.178.223.226 21:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • End of story: So I see... 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There can be no decency or fairness without factual accuracy. 81.178.223.226 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The legal situation

Bare facts

  • On 13 January 2003 the Metropolitan Police arrested him under the Protection of Children Act 1978 on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, suspicion of making indecent images of children and suspicion of incitement to distribute indecent images of children Source: The Guardian, 14 January 2003
  • In May 2003 (apparently on 7 May) he was cautioned - from the BBC News report "Mr Townshend, who admitted using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse but denied being a paedophile, appeared at Kingston police station in London on Wednesday."
The following conditions must be met before a police caution can be administered:
  • there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction;
  • the offender must admit the offence;
  • the offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being :cautioned.
The function of cautions is that they should speed up the administration of justice in cases where it is not actually in the public interest to press charges but where guilt has been admitted.
Townshend became subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 not because of some technical anomaly or aberration, but rather as the result of a considered, deliberate policy decision. Section 1(1)(c) of the 1997 Act provides that where a person is cautioned for a relevant offence, he becomes subject to the requirement.
The purpose of the laws prohibiting indecent images of children is child protection and, while punishment for such offences acts as a deterrent, protection from acts by known offenders in the future is best achieved by rehabilitating the offender; hence some form of Sex Offender Treatment Programme and offender monitoring.
Justice is not served simply by speeding the process - the purpose of the law concerned must not be side-stepped. From this perspective it is, therefore, entirely justifiable to subject Townshend to the same requirement to register as if he had been convicted. Inclusion on the "list" is not made public. The registration serves only to assist the police in monitoring the activities of people who pose a "known" "risk" to children. It is, of course, arguable what level of risk Townshend poses to children.

Interpretation of the facts

Which offence?

Townshend openly acknowledged that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages - what offence does this admission reveal?

Townshend was arrested on suspicion of possession of indecent photographs of children, suspicion of making indecent photographs of children and suspicion of inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children:

Possession of indecent photographs of children Contrary to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

In Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions ([2000] EWHC Admin 302) it was held that knowledge was an essential element in the offence of possession under s.160(1) of the 1988 Act, so that a defendant could not be convicted where he was unaware of the existence of a cache of photographs.
In A different bomb, Townshend described how he found a child porn image: "Within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a 'free' image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man."
He went on to say "I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'."
Townshend obviously did not (at that time and presumably at the time he made the subscription to the website that led to his arrest) understand the operation of a web broswer (and any other conceivable application).
Images are stored on the server and have to be transferred to the "viewer's" computer in order to be displayed. This procedure is known as "downloading".
In R v City of London Magistrates' Court and Another, Ex parte Green (1997) The Times, 13 March, The Queen's Bench Divisional Court held that to "download" a computer meant to "transfer (data) from one storage device or system to another" in accordance with the definition contained in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Ninth edition 1995).
The principal matter to come out of the judgment is that 'downloading', like much of computer terminology, is not consistent in its use and the High Court was prepared to accept that different technical specialists could reasonably take different views as to the definition of what is really a very commonplace computer operation.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary Tenth Edition (1999) and Eleventh Edition (2004) define the term differently:
Download Computing – v. copy (data) from one computer system to another or to a disk – n. the act or process of downloading
A web browser "downloads" an image from the webserver and (probably) stores this copy of the the image in its cache. If the "viewer" understands the operation of this caching system, he is guilty of possession (Atkins v DPP). But even if the image is not stored in the cache, it is stored in the computer's RAM - while there, it is "possessed".
Townshend did not understand this caching system; furthermore, it seems to be the case that he thought he was only "viewing" the image, which means he did not understand that the image had to be stored on the computer he was using; therefore he was not guilty of possession.

Making indecent photographs of children Contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978

In R v Bowden (1999), the Court of Appeal held that downloading data representing an indecent photograph of a child from the Internet was sufficient to amount to an offence of "making an indecent photograph of a child" - see R v Bowden (1999) for further details.
In R v Jayson ([2002] EWCA Crim 683), the Court of Appeal held that "the act of voluntarily downloading an indecent image from a web page onto a computer screen is an act of making a photograph or pseudo-photograph".
Townshend admitted "using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse" - that he had looked once to see what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases" offered on homepages.
It can be inferred from this that he had-
  1. selected the site as one that was worth studying as part of his research (i.e. he had probably seen the "Preview" images - the so-called "teases" - and these had been sufficient to convince him that "researching" the website was worthwhile);
  2. gone through the subscription process;
  3. viewed some of the material available on the website (i.e. what was being offered to those who paid to access a site as opposed to the free "teases")
1) and 3) involve displaying the website's material on his screen; such would be the result of deliberate action by Townshend; since his interest was in researching "child porn on the Internet" he has admitted enough to reveal an offence of "making".

Inciting another to distribute indecent photographs of children Contrary to the common law (via section 1(1)(b) of the Protection of Children Act 1978)

Townshend admitted to paying for access a website containing indecent photographs of children. In Regina (O) v Coventry Magistrates Court ([2004] EWHC 905 (Admin)), the Divisional Court held that such an act (and therefore Townshend's admission) would establish a prima facie case that the defendant had incited someone, namely those lying behind the onus of the company, to commit the offence of distributing.

Defences

Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph or pseudo-photograph in his possession

Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(b) or (c) of the Protection of Children Act 1978, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs or pseudo-photographs or [...] having them in his possession

Admission of guilt

Before a caution can be offered, the National Standards for Cautioning require that:

  • there is a realistic prospect of conviction;
  • the offender admits the offence.

The police offered Townshend a caution; they would only be entitled to do so if they believed there was a realistic possibility of securing a conviction if they charged him. There can be no conviction if a defence can be made out. The question of a defence must not have arisen.

Townshend accepted the caution, possibly (incorrectly) for possession, but presumably for either making an indecent photograph of a child or inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child.

The offender must understand the significance of a caution and give informed consent to being cautioned. A suspect is entitled to disclosure of material necessary to enable his legal advisers to assess the prosecution case. Townshend's solicitors should have known of the case against him. They should have considered the applicability of any defence. This means Townshend's solicitor would have explained the situation to him, including the strength of the case against him and the likelihood of the applicability of any defence.

Townshend must have considered that he was unable to avail himself of any of the available defences - i.e. legitimate reason. Townshend must not have considered his "research" to be sufficiently legitimate as to provide him with legitimate reason to do whatever he did do.

Townshend MUST have admitted one of the above offences OUTSIDE the adminstration of the police caution: If the offender has not made a clear and reliable admission during the course of the police investigation, a caution cannot be administered (R v The Metropolitan Police, ex parte Andre Anthony Thompson (1996 TLR 18 December). An admission obtained only during the administration of the cautioning procedure will not, in itself, be sufficient.

So, at some point in the police investigation, Townshend willingly admitted a criminal offence. In so doing he admitted that he did not consider his "research" was sufficient to provide "legimate reason". He may subsequently publicly deny guilt, but this is entirely without legal consenquence - the fact that it might be convenient, possibly for reasons of salvaging a reputation, to say that the caution was accpeted solely to bring the procedings to a quick conclusion has no bearing on the lawfully defensible conclusion that he admitted guilt. If Townshend is implicated in any future child porn operation, the caution administered in May 2003 will preclude administration of a caution at that future time, and it can be mentioned in evidence in court, thereby establishing "form".

Summary of the legal position

  • Townshend accepted a police caution thus accepted and admitted guilt for an offence that made him subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (and subsequently the Sexual Offences Act 2003).
  • Townshend is a "registered sex offender" who has "committed a sexual offence against a child". This is his status under English law. 81.178.224.140 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The Initial Response

While I disagree with the conclusions drawn and what I believe to be the selective presentation of facts - I have no hesitation in conceding that the presentation makes a case. And it should be treated with respect. Such a presentation warrants a detailed rebuttal and an explanation of precisely why the conclusions drawn are not correct in this case. I personally am not qualified to quote chapter and verse that proves the point. I am seeking the assistance of a solicitor I know with knowledge of these matters and the specifics of the law to respond. Until then I think there should be no further changes made to the Townshend page as it has been the case for several months. After that we can calmly work together to resolve how to move forward with text that is factual and fair - and also comprehensible to lay people all over the world. To do less is not worthy of wikipedia. This is a holiday weekend so the response will have to come next week. That should not be an issue. Where someone's reputation and integrity is being discussed - there should be no rush to judgement... Davidpatrick 06:59, 31 December 2005

I have a great deal of sympathy for Townshend; I am certainly not making a "case" in an attempt to do damage to his reputation. But I do not believe that I have made a selective presentation of the facts. Rather, I think I have made a fair representation of the legal situation - in which Townshend's charity work etc plays no part and is simply a distraction. The law in this area is very subtle (some would say obscure) but this should not allow Townshend's reputation to be rehabilitated where so many other people have done no more (and sometimes a lot less) but suffered far worse consequences - if Townshend had not been so well-known, hardly anyone would have learned of his caution and the "sexual offenders registration" would have been a nuisance to him rather than a hardship.

Operation Ore is a troubled operation - people have been caught up in it who had no involvement with child porn (Sunday Times, 29 May 2005, "‘Child’ porn star backs Army major", which reports that a man was being prosecuted for possession of an image of an adult woman who had starred in films such as "Extreme Schoolgirls" - if his defence team hadn't been so assiduous, the identity of the porn star might not have been discovered and he might have been convicted; it is thus conceivable that a man who had subscribed to a site named "Extreme Schoolgirls" might be prosecuted for inciting distribution AND convicted). People have, indeed, been prosecuted for inciting distribution where the only evidence is a subscription via Landslide to a site identified only by name (of which "Extreme Schoolgirls" could be good example!) who claim to have subscribed only to adult sites; as the example just given illustrates, they MIGHT have been telling the truth. Why should Townshend (who admitted subscribing to and accessing a child porn site, thereby (as English courts have it at the moment) "inciting the distribution of" and "making" indecent photographs of children) be offered a caution where other people have been charged (and some convicted) on less evidence that might well have revealed no such offence anyway? Does the fact that Townshend was performing "research" rather than looking out of "prurient interest" make his actions any less "damaging" to the "child victims of sexual abuse" shown in the images? None of this, of course, has anything to do with Townshend and, yes, the issues are complex and important and the legal points subtle (or possibly obscure/confused, depending on perspective). I do not see how a bare presentation of the facts can be seen as an attack on the man. But making such a presentation "comprehensible to lay people all over the world" might well be impossible without a great deal of material concerning the issues and the law that has no place in an article on Townshend. This might well then make the article seem to say that Townshend is a "child sex offender" (which technically he is) and hence reprehensible, but this is the same position that many "ordinary" people find themselves in, and they do NOT have Wikipedia articles attempting to minimise the effect on their reputations. I do not wish to attack Townshend, but nor do I wish to see his "offending behaviour" "minimised" where this is done as a special case. But similarly Wikipedia is not a soap box and I would not want to see it used to try to reveal what some would see as injustices in the application of the "child porn" laws, such as they currently are in England. 81.178.223.226 04:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

FURTHER RESPONSE

Thanks for laying out your thoughts clearly. I agree that Townshend's charity work is neither here nor there in this matter in regards to the LEGAL matters. That would be like people excusing Michael Milken's crimes in the junk bond world merely because he gave money to charity. I personally have never raised the point. Why I think that mention of it (in a NON-legal context) is appropriate is that his 30 year history of activism (not just making donations) in children's charities tends to reinforce the claims of those who know him best - that his activism fighting child porn was not just some hastily conjured-up excuse (like a Winona Ryder defense to shoplifting "I was researching for a film role") - but rather consistent action for a person who cares about the issue and who has a track record of care for children. Was it naive to do it that way? undoubtedly. But motive is important.

You raise important issues about the law and the fact that others may have paid a heavier price than Townshend for identical comparatively innocent infringements. the difference is this. It's not about over-rehabilitating Townshend - but being fair to a person who has a public reputation. In contrast to those whose alleged mis-deeds make no impact outside their own community,

We both agree that the law is - at best - confusing to lay-people. Some of the terminology and legal vocabulary is extremely confusing. Here in America where I live - the notion of "making indecent photographs" and "inciting distribution" do not have the narrow legal meanings of English law. They mean that Townshend was taking photos of underage kids (which no one has ever accused him of) and of being involved in distribution of such pictures. (Ditto)

Wiki has to be easily comprehensible to people worldwide. If those nuances are not fully explained - (and how can we do that in a concise article?) then there is a very genuine danger that mis-perceptions are fostered.

You write that:

>>this is the same position that many "ordinary" people find themselves in, and they do NOT have Wikipedia articles attempting to minimise the effect on their reputations>>

but that is because those "ordinary" people don't have public reputations that warrant them being written about on Wikipedia

Without in any way minimizing this matter - it is a small but significant occurrence in the 60-year life and 42-year career of a very prominent man of the arts. The complexity (and some might say unfairness) of English law has given him a small scarlet mark. A mark that because of society's rightful wrath about molestation of children seems far worse than any activity that the police eventually thought he had undertaken. At WORST he paid one time to view material that he should not have done. he himself was mindful that it was illegal to download - so he made the effort not to. Whether his computer is deemed to have dowloaded merely in the act of viewing is a technicality. But in any event - he (and probably others) was placed on a list of people who are PRIMARILY active sex offenders - people who have physically abused children. Wiki is not a soapbox wherein we protest that he should clearly not be on such a list. But equally we have to be very careful that in simply relating the FACT of his being on the list - that we do not unwittingly reinforce the entirely erroneous notion that he committed offences that he was not even accused of.

It is a very tough one. Fairness means that we must strive hard to present this information fairly. Simply stating bald facts (given the differences in legal language and in laws in different countries) is patently not fair. So let's think further. I appreciate the respectful and fair way you are dealing with this. Davidpatrick 15:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories:"Sex offender" and "Child sex offender"

There seems to be some discussion of whether this article should be in this category. I would suggest that as defined, the article matches the category as the category explicitly states that it applies to anyone placed on a have been "placed on a Sex Offenders Register" and as far as I understand from article PT was. I don't believe he deserves to be put in a list with the others on that list, but as the list is defined, he does belong on it. Perhaps someone should take the discussion to the talk page for the category to get the definition adjusted to have it not apply to PT. John 05:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The Category of "Child sex offenders" is defined as a list of people who have been 1) convicted of being child sex offenders, 2) have publically admitted offenses, or 3) have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register. Since both 2) and 3) apply to Townshend, inclusion in the category should stand. 81.178.223.226 21:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm no longer sure of the fairness of the Category:Child sex offenders at all since since "inclusion" in a "sex offenders register" makes one a "sex offender" rather than a "child sex offender" - inclusion in the category makes a distinction about Townshend's (legal) status that the law itself does not support. He is subject to the requirement to register but this same requirement is made of people who are guilty of offences against adults. There is the concept of "sexual offence against a child", but I that requires a lot more consideration. 81.178.224.140 18:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is utterly inappapropriate to include this as a category. George W. Bush had two convictions for drunken driving. Dick Cheney has FIVE convictions for speeding. Are they llisted as categories relating to either of these two people? Of course not. Cheney has approx. 21 categories under which he's listed. But the quite undisputed fact that he has been conviced five time of violations of the law does not warrant him being linked to that category. It is absolutely appropriate that the incident in Townshend's life should be mentioned. But to include that as one of the defining categories under which he should be listed - when at the very least his inclusion is controversial - and when he almost certainly could NOT have been included on such lists in many other countries owing to the absence of due process under the law - is just plain wrong. Especially because of the misperceptions that can arise without the context. So in summation. The fact of being on the list (with appropriate contextual notes) absolutely belongs in the article. The designation as a category clearly does not. Davidpatrick 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As far as Townshend's status is concerned, he is a "registered sex offender". If the category exists, and it is considered a useful category for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the conditions for inclusion in the category are met, then Townshend should be included in it. The discussion about the relevance of the category should be undertaken on its talkpages.... Since there are 3 people in the category (including Townshend) and the inclusion criteria are not specified, I would suggest the category is useless and should be deleted. I would agree with sentiment expressed above about Townshend's inclusion in a category that does not give any context, if it were not for the fact that Townshend accepting a caution was bound to be the subject of a lot of media attention. Everyone already knows. Do we wish the BBC to remove archived news stories about Townshend's arrest? Normally, a caution is not reported - I do not understand why Townshend accepted one as opposed to a trial, except for the fact that he faced the risk of doing serious time. And there was indeed "due process" - his solicitor would have explained to him that accepting a caution would mean he had to register as a sex offender; Townshend accepted the caution regardless. He could have refused to accept the caution and gone to trial. It was HIS choice to be categorised as a sex offender and presumably he accepts the justice of the situation. 81.178.224.140 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have proposed the Category:Sex offenders for deletion (I think :S) 81.178.224.140 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia policy on category deletion: "Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision." 81.178.224.140 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no view on whether the category per se should be renamed or deleted. There probably IS merit to having a page on that topic. But the page as defined lists only three people. Townshend's situation does not merit a link to that page. Townshend along with numerous others is listed on the list of drug-addicted celebrities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heroin_addicts#Musicians_.2F_Singers_.2F_Songwriters_.2F_Composers

But where is the link in the category box to THAT page. It doesn't exist. Any more than the Keith Richards or James Taylor or Robert Mitchum pages link to that page in the category area. Not because they are not on that list. They and scores more celebrities are. But because it has been held to be not appropriate in the context of their overall lives. The facts are referred to in their articles. They are on the list on the above page. But the category section of their individual articles does not have it as a link for very good reason. Otherwise to be fair you would have to go through every single celebrity name on the above page and place that as a link at the foot of every single person's wiki article. Come on.... this is turning into a pedantic witch-hunt of Townshend. There are numerous aspects of celebrities' lives - reported in the media - about every person who has an article in wiki. We do not link each and every person to each and every category that relates in any way. There is a sense of proportion and appropriateness to the process. Time to apply this... Davidpatrick 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Well then, Townshend has admitted guilt for a sexual offence against a child, thus the man is a sex offender, and that offence is a so-called schedule 1 offence which will preclude him working in education for the rest of his life. The category should stand. 81.178.224.140 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sexual offences against children are considered to be very serious. Townshend has committed one AND accepted guilt for it. If the category exists in Wikipedia, he should be on it. 81.178.224.140 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Townshend has made NO such admission. This is twisting facts to suit an egregious POV. As has been made abundantly clear - the police declined to charge him. They certainly would have - if they could have. Giving a caution when you can secure a conviction (especially of a celebrity whose name was leaked to the tabloid press - allegedly by police sources) was a far less satisfactory resolution of the matter for the police than a prosecution. Since at best there MIGHT have been a conviction of a LESSER matter - that would have been perceived by all reasonable people as a technical infringement rather than a major crime - the police elected to NOT prosecute and go for the far less incriminating resolution of a Formal Caution which does NOT mean that Townshend conceded guilt of a major crime. Inclusion on the sex offenders list was mandatory with acceptance of the caution. Such a mandatory inclusion on a list or legitimate sex offenders by someone not charged nor convicted could never occur in countries like the USA. There is no fairness to the inclusion of this category on Townshend's article. Without all the context it is crassly unfair. This is not about forgiving indiscretions of a celebrity. This is about according fairness to a human being. This unfairness - being meted out with a ferocity and vigor that raises suspicions as to its motivation - will not be allowed to stand. Davidpatrick 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • For Townshend to have been cautioned a) there must have been sufficient evidence for the police to charge him with an offence, b) he must have accepted guilt, and c) he musy understand the consequences of accepting a caution. 81.178.224.140
  • Before the police can legitimately administer a caution, they must be as sure that they might achieve a guilty verdict as they must be in a case where they decide rather to press charges. 81.178.224.140
  • The caution must be for the correct offence. 81.178.224.140
  • Townshend was cleared of possession; also knoweldge is an essential element of possession; he appears not to have understood the operation of the cache so his viewing did not amount to possession. 81.178.224.140
  • The alternative charges that could get him on the sex offenders register are making indecent photographs of children and inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children. It is unclear which of these he was cautioned for but it must have been for one of them. 81.178.224.140
  • Such offences are serious arrestable offences. 81.178.224.140
  • Child abuse is a serious matter.81.178.224.140
  • Townshend has performed actions that lead to it being considered that he has committed a sexual offence against a child. 81.178.224.140
  • Townshend has admitted guilt for this. 81.178.224.140 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The category exists; Townshend meets the criteria for inclusion; he should be in it. If it is valid for other people to be included in the category, Townshend should be in it: there should be no special tratment for a celebrity. 81.178.224.140 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I see a grand total of two other people listed in this category. Are those the only two people among everyone who has an article on wikipedia who are on such lists? of course not. Townshend is not to be singled out unfairly like this. It is mentioned in the article - as it should be. It is NOT on the category list for him because it is not sufficiently relevant to the overall article to be listed as a category. And certainly not because of a bizarre motivation of one person to have it included. Davidpatrick 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Townshend has performed acts that make him guilty of a sexual offence against a child. This is a serious matter. You insist that it is actually a technicality. My bizarre motivation is to have the article reflect the reality of Townshend's situation in English law. My description of this situation mirrors the reality promulgated by UK Parliament when it drafted the laws in question. 81.178.224.140 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

He was not charged. He was not convicted. (Except apparently in your mind.) He has performed no acts that "make him guilty of a sexual offence against a child" Not in the eyes of the police - who WOULD have charged him if he had. The police do not let people off with a caution when they can charge them. Not because they are celebrities, not because they are intimidated, not for any reason other than because they elect to not charge them. You do not have the right to pursue your PERSECUTION when the police refused to make a PROSECUTION. You will not succeed in this attempt to unfairly brand Townshend under the ostensible veneer of being fair. It is misguided (at best) pernicious (at worst) and in any event - totally unfair and it will not succeed. Davidpatrick 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • He was not charged: True but....
    • Had he refused to accept the caution he would have been charged
    • The police had sufficient evidence to charge him with an offence and had they done so they expected that they would have had a fair chance of achieving a conviction
      • Therefore, had he been charged, he would likely have been convicted
  • He was not convicted: True but...
    • Before the police would be in a position to offer a caution, Townshend must have admitted and accepted guilt for the offence. User:81.178.224.140
    • In discussing the offer of a caution, his solicitor would have explained the situation to Townshend; Townshend would have told his solicitor that he considered himself guilty; the solicitor would then be professionally bound to explore only those paths leading to an acquital that did not involve attempting to show that Townshend was innocent (i.e. teh case would have had to explore the legitimate reason defence). User:81.178.224.140
    • Whatever Townshend said to make the police believe he had admitted guilt would have been presented in evidence in a trial. User:81.178.224.140
    • Given the existence of an unforced confession, Townshend would probably have been convicted. User:81.178.224.140
  • He has performed no acts that "make him guilty of a sexual offence against a child"': False... he accepted and admitted guilt for such an offence. User:81.178.224.140
  • The police do not let people off with a caution when they can charge them: False... the police MUST be able to charge them or they cannot administer a caution. Why they chose to administer a caution rather than charge is in this case extremely mysterious. User:81.178.224.140
  • You do not have the right to pursue your PERSECUTION when the police refused to make a PROSECUTION: I am not persecuting Townshend, I am removing a bias in the article that serves to minimise the severity his criminal offending. Furthermore, the police declined to charge Townshend; they did not refuse to charge him. User:81.178.224.140
  • Townshend admitted guilt for a serious arrestable offence which was a sexual offence against a child. This is generally considered to be a serious matter. The glossary published by the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales defines a caution as " A formal recording of guilt, given by a Police Officer, instead of a charge". 81.178.224.140 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

thank your for finally conceding that something is a mystery to you. It obviously wasn't a mystery to the police - who would have charged them if they could. But they didn't. You do not have the right to reinstate this case and besmirch Townshend's good name - when the police certainly decided not to. His inclusion on the list (as unfair as I - and most others - believe it to be - IS rightly mentioned in the article. For all the many reasons articulated - including the "mysterious" decision of the police not to charge him - the reference to the list is not sufficiently material to the Townshend article to warrnat inclusion in the categories list. And I and others will not let such an injustice prevail on wikipedia Davidpatrick 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The reasons why the police DID not charge are mysterious; this is because they are unexplained. This does not detract from the fact that Townshend accepted a police caution and thereby accepted and admitted guilt for an offence that made him subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (and subsequently the Sexual Offences Act 2003). Townshend has admitted committing a "sexual offence against a child", he therefore does not have a 'good name'. His inclusion on the "list" is NOT unfair per se; many other people are on the "list" who have done less than Townshend AND at all stages professed their innocence; Townshend admitted guilt. If they belong on the list, so does Townshend; please take up your campaign with an MP. There is no injustice in calling Townshend a "registered sex offender" who has "committed a sexual offence against a child". This is his status under English law. If that is unjust, persuade the man to apply to have his caution retracted.81.178.224.140 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a complex matter - no question at all. I don't dispute that he has been placed on the list OF sex offenders. But even the police acknowledge that he isn't a sex offender PER SE (as defined on wikipedia) - because they didn't charge him and he wasn't convicted. The police elected not to charge him (and they certainly would have if they felt they could get a conviction.) The British police are not in the habit of letting anti-establishment rock stars "get away" with something as pernicious as child sex offences - in the full glare of public and media scrutiny. The agreement with Townshend was to give him an official caution - in which the person ackowledges that he/she has engaged in unwise activities (but NOT major criminal activity - or else he/she would have been charged) and the person undertakes to use better judgement in the future. A mandatory requirement of accepting the caution is placement on a list of those who HAVE committed serious offences - even though that person hasn't. It's like someone being given a mild punishment for having been close to doing something wrong by being made to stand in the corner with those who actually HAVE done something wrong - and been committed of such an act.

  • But even the police acknowledge that he isn't a sex offender PER SE (as defined on wikipedia) - because they didn't charge him and he wasn't convicted: for some mysterious reason, the police considered it not to be in the public interest to charge Townshend; instead, they offered a caution, which he accepted, thereby admitting guilt. User:85.210.4.176
  • The agreement with Townshend was to give him an official caution: it was not an agreement with Townshend; for some reason the police considered it not to be in the public interest to charge Townshend; instead, they offered a caution; had he refused, they would have charged him in the normal way. User:85.210.4.176
  • an official caution - in which the person ackowledges that he/she has engaged in unwise activities (but NOT major criminal activity - or else he/she would have been charged): the fact that Townshend accepted the caution made him subject to the notification requirements; this means that the offence for which he was cautioned is included as a relevant offence in the Sex Offenders Act 1997; that means it can only be "making" or "inciting"; both of which are serious arrestable offences. User:85.210.4.176
  • A mandatory requirement of accepting the caution is placement on a list of those who HAVE committed serious offences - even though that person hasn't: Townshend admitted and accepted guilt for a relevant offence. User:85.210.4.176
  • It's like someone being given a mild punishment for having been close to doing something wrong by being made to stand in the corner with those who actually HAVE done something wrong - and been committed of such an act: Townshend DID commit such an act; that is why the police cautioned him. 85.210.4.176 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is an extremely controversial practise and could not survive in American law (absence of due process) That is an aside - but it is an important aside.

The peculiarities of English law are not easily comprehensible - even to the English! And certainly not to people outside the UK. Wikipedia is read worldwide - and not just by those in the UK who happen to grasp the minutiae of English law.

If the wiki category was "People who are ON a Sex Offenders list" (and it was a listing of all those who are ON such a list - IRRESPECTIVE of how or why they arrived on such list) - then while I might argue whether it was material enough to Townshend's life to warrant inclusion in the category section of his wiki article - there might be some merit for it. But if the category is just Category:Child sex offenders: - Townshend most assuredly is NOT one. He is ON a list (as explained above) but his place on the list is a mandatory by-product of his NOT being charged or convicted as a sex offender.

In other words - after 4 months of investigation the police finally acknowledged he was not a sex offender. And took the very serious, irrevocable decision (on this specific incident) to NOT charge him. They decided to CAUTION him. And (by what many regard as an aberration in the law) in being cautioned to be careful in future he would nonetheless have to go on a list with people who ARE sex offenders. That was part of the warning. A sort of equivalent to the American "scared straight" program. We won't convict you - but we will make you visit a prison to scare you into making better choices so that you don't SUBSEQUENTLY break the law.

If Townshend WAS a Category:Child sex offenders then he would have had to be charged and convicted and he would have been sentenced to serve time in prison. None of those things happened.

It may seem a small point - but I believe that a person's reputation should not be needlessly besmirched. 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There is nothing peculiar or obscure about Townshend's position: he performed acts amounting to a sexual offence against a child; he was arrested; he accepted guilt and admitted guilt to the police; the police cautioned him rather than charge him - their reasons for choosing this path are unknown; the result of Townshend accepting the caution was that he became subject to the requirement to register as a sex offender - the reason for this is becuase he admitted guilt for a sexual offence against a child! That is a very serious admission to make. That he performed acts amounting to a sexual offence against a child is a very serious matter. You continually describe it as a technicality. 85.210.4.176 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC
  • Townshend's inclusion on the "list" is a result of his admission of guilt for a sexual offence against a child. 85.210.4.176 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The actual situation is that, after 4 months of investigation, the police has enough evidence to charge him with an offence of either making or inciting distribution of child porn. For some reason they decided that it was most appropriate to caution him. A caution is a formal recording of guilt. It is therefore appropriate that the person admitting guilt be treated, procedurally, in a way that allows the police to control the risk to children that the offender poses. This is absolutely nothing like a 'scared straight' programme. To describe it as if it were is to misrepresent the real position and thereby minimise the severity of Townshend's actions.85.210.4.176 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Townshend DOES belong in Category:Child sex offenders as a direct consequence of his acceptance of a caution. 85.210.4.176 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Townshend has admitted guilt for a sexual offence against a child; he does not have a 'good name' (reputation). IF his reputation is being needlessly besmirched, it is by Enlish law. This article must serve only to describe the realities of Townshend's position; to use the article to describe a fantasy version of his position is to misuse Wikipedia. 85.210.4.176 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not proclaim Townshend's innocence. Rather I point out that he is NOT GUILTY of the offence. If the police thought he was - he would have been charged. The police do not have the discretion to not charge people for no reason. There was a reason he was not charged. It may be a mystery to some people. But not apparently to the police. If there is a wiki category of people who are ON a sex offenders list (regardless of WHY they are on such a list) - then Townshend could certainly be included on that. Because (unfair as it may be) he is ON such a list. (Most people would argue that it still doesn't belong as one of his categories - but leave that aside.) But the wiki category isn't of people ON a list. The category is of people who ARE actually sex offenders - and to actually BE a sex offender (as opposed to having been placed on a list as a consequence of being warned to be careful about future behavior) requires having been charged and convicted. Acceptance of a caution is NOT admission of guilt of this particular offence - no matter how hard you try to claim that. So create a new wiki page about people ON a sex offenders list - if you insist. But Townshend is not a child sex offender as that wiki page is defined. Davidpatrick 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I point out that he is NOT GUILTY of the offence: Townshend admist guilt for an offence - which one is not quite clear, but by implication it is making or inciting distribution of indecent photographs of children. 85.210.4.176
    • Furthermore, you are being extremely disingenuous when you say that Townshend "is NOT GUILTY of the offence"; you do not say he is innocent but that he is not guilty; what you mean, but do not state clearly, is that he has not been convicted. This is true. However, he has accepted guilt for a sexual offence against a child. Why, then, should the authorities not be able to deal with this situation in an appropriate manner? Inclusion on the sex offenders register is a procedural matter only; the sole purpose is to help the police and other appropriate agencies to manage the risk to chidlren that Townshend poses.85.210.4.176 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The police do not have the discretion to not charge people for no reason: yes they do; this is the whole point of a police caution. For whatever reasons, they considered it not to be in the public interest to press charges. 85.210.4.176
  • There was a reason he was not charged. It may be a mystery to some people. But not apparently to the police. 85.210.4.176
    • There was a reason he was not charged: One would hope so. 85.210.4.176
    • It may be a mystery to some people. But not apparently to the police: I should hope not - someone should know what is going on. 85.210.4.176
  • If there is a wiki category of people who are ON a sex offenders list: there is - it is Category:Child sex offenders. 85.210.4.176
    • Townshend could certainly be included on that: He was included on it; you removed him. 85.210.4.176
    • Because (unfair as it may be) he is ON such a list: why should it be unfair? He has admitted guilt for a serious, arrestable offence which is classed as a sexual offence against a child. Serious matter. 85.210.4.176
  • But the wiki category isn't of people ON a list: yes it is. 85.210.4.176
  • Acceptance of a caution is NOT admission of guilt of this particular offence - no matter how hard you try to claim that: I cite official sources that state that, for it to be possible to administer a caution, the offender must have accepted guilt while you cite your own opinion; which has the greater weight?. 85.210.4.176
    • For example, the glossary published by the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales defines a caution as " A formal recording of guilt, given by a Police Officer, instead of a charge"; this is an official government website that explains the operation of the criminal justice system; they ought to know.. 85.210.4.176
  • But Townshend is not a child sex offender as that wiki page is defined: yes he is; the inclusion criteria are: a) convicted of a sexual offence against a child, b) have publically admitted offenses, or c) have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor, as defined by their local law.. 85.210.4.176
    • Offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978 are officially classed as 'sexual offences against a child'. 85.210.4.176
    • Townshend belongs in the category. 85.210.4.176 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

He has not admitted guilt for the "crime" of that category. Solely a technical infringement. If it had been otherwise and there had been any evidence - he WOULD have been charged. And rightly so. But the police concluded that he should not be charged. And the police should not be second-guessed in their informed decision.

You wrote:

"the sole purpose is to help the police and other appropriate agencies to manage the risk to chidlren that Townshend poses."

Not so. If Townshend represented a true risk - he would have (and should have) been prosecuted. He represents no risk at all. He was placed on the list as a mandatory procedural punishment for his ill-advised (but not criminal) actions. A warning shot across the bows to ensure that he does not (however inadvertently) cross the line in future. That is why - if there should be a wiki category called "Persons on Sex Offender Lists" - you could argue that he belongs on that. (You would face challenges as to your overall fairness iif you didn't make a diligent attempt to ensure that every single person who is the subject of Wiki article who is also on a sex offender list was also listed on that page - but that's a separate matter.)

But Townshend does not belong on a list of sex offenders any more than he belongs on a list of murderers or arsonists. He has been warned (quite rightly) that some of his actions were troubling and has been cautioned to take care in the future. He has been placed on a list with others who HAVE been convicted of being sex offenders - as part of the warning and as a rap across the knuckles for his unwise (but NOT criminal) actions. So he has no place being linked to that wiki page. If you are on a crusade to besmirch Townshend's name - and are disappointed that the police (who had the knowledge in this case) decided not to prosecute - then take a private legal action against him. Or create a wiki page to embarrass him. But you cannot abuse wikipedia to pursue your agenda. Davidpatrick 17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Davidpatrick wrote: "He has not admitted guilt for the "crime" of that category. Solely a technical infringement. If it had been otherwise and there had been any evidence - he WOULD have been charged. And rightly so. But the police concluded that he should not be charged. And the police should not be second-guessed in their informed decision."

It is common ground that Townshend is subject to the notification requirements the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (or the Sexual Offences Act 2003 post April 2004). I will here be quoting from the 1997 Act, since that is the one that was in effect at the relevant time.

Since we know that he was cautioned, this necessarily means that he has accepted a caution for an offence covered by the Sex Offenders Act 1997.

What is the "crime of the category"? Well, to be subject to the notifcation requirement, you must have committed a relevant offence. There is not just one offence that will rsult in such requirement.

Sex Offenders Act 1997

Part I
Sex offenders subject to notification requirements

1.-(1) A person becomes subject to the notification requirements of this Part if, after the commencement of this Part-

(a) he is convicted of a sexual offence to which this Part applies;
(b) he is found not guilty of such an offence by reason of insanity, or to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of such an offence; or
(c) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, he is cautioned by a constable in respect of such an offence which, at the time when the caution is given, he has admitted.

SCHEDULES:
 Schedule 1 - Sexual offences to which Part I applies

1.-(1) This Part of this Act applies to the following sexual offences under the law of England and Wales, namely-

(a) offences under the ... Sexual Offences Act 1956
(rape; intercourse with a girl under 13; intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16; incest by a man; buggery; indecency between men; indecent assault on a woman; indecent assault on a man; assault with intent to commit buggery; causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under 16);
(b) an offence under section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child);
(c) an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse);
(d) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);
(e) an offence under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc) in relation to goods prohibited to be imported under section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 (prohibitions and restrictions); and
(f) an offence under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent photographs of children).

And, restated for clarity:

A person becomes subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 if he is cautioned by a constable in respect of a relevant sexual offence which, at the time the caution was given, he had admitted.

To become subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act, one must have been convicted, acquitted on grounds of insanity or cautioned for one of the offences listed above. The Act makes no provision for a "warning". Either you are subject to the notification requirement or you are not; if you are, you have (in this case) been cautioned for one of the above offences.

Now, which of those offences do you think Townshend was cautioned for?

I am certain that you will agree that, in Townshend's case, the only possibilities are the Protection of Children Act 1978 and/or the Criminal Justice Act 1988. For example, no one is claiming Townshend incited a girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse... the offences involved images on the web.

Now, please read the article on police cautions becuase it explains what a police caution is, and that it is, actually, "A formal recording of guilt, given by a Police Officer, instead of a charge" and that, before the police can lawfully administer a caution, there must be evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction.

Townshend WAS MADE subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act, therefore it can only be assumed that he accepted a caution for an offence involving indecent photographs of children under either:

  1. the Protection of Children Act 1978; or
  2. section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

Townshend was cleared of possession. Therefore he must have been cautioned for an offence under the Protection of Children Act 1978: this would be either making indecent photographs of children or inciting the distribution of indecent photographs of children.

Davidpatrick wrote: "Solely a technical infringement. If it had been otherwise and there had been any evidence - he WOULD have been charged. And rightly so. But the police concluded that he should not be charged. And the police should not be second-guessed in their informed decision."

I hav explained for which offence Townshend must have accepted a caution. You refuse to accept this and continue to insist that Townshend made only a technical infringement. Please explain what this infringement was. Why did this technical infringement make him subject to the notification requirements when the Sex Offenders Act can only possibly apply to sexual offences (see section 1(1)(a))?

Furthermore, please read and understand the article on police cautions. This adequately explains that the police can only lawfully administer a caution where there is sufficient evidence to charge. If you somehow happen to know that the police investigation did not reveal such level of evidence, please let Townshend know that his caution was administered unlawfully and he should apply to have it revoked.

The police did not conclude that Townshend "should not be charged". For some reason they concluded that it was not in the public interest to charge him, considering rather that the requirements of justice were best served by a caution. For the reasons you list (i.e. his fame and notoriety), Townshend would have made an ideal candidate for an exemplary prosecution and sentence - it would have been reported very widely and, insofar as such things have an effect on discouraging crime, would have had the greatest possible deterant effect.

But they cautioned him.

Davidpatrick wrote: "If Townshend represented a true risk - he would have (and should have) been prosecuted. He represents no risk at all. He was placed on the list as a mandatory procedural punishment for his ill-advised (but not criminal) actions."

Townshend was cautioned for a specific, identifiable offence which, moreover, was one found in Schedule 1 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The only defensible possibility is an offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978. But whichever offence Townshend accepted guilt for, it was the real thing. Townshend accepted guilt for criminal actions.

Please read and understand the article on police cautions. The police can only lawfully administer a caution where the offender accepted guilt for the offence. If you somehow know that Townshend did not accept guilt, please inform the Metropolitan Police who will a) be surprised and b) procede to charge Townshend.

Davidpatrick wrote: "But Townshend does not belong on a list of sex offenders any more than he belongs on a list of murderers or arsonists."

Townshend is neither a murderer nor an arsonist; he is, however, a sex offender. Please read and understand the article on police cautions. If you think that article is factually wrong, please check the material to which it refers and then inform the responsible organisations (e.g. the Home Office) that they do not understand police cautions and must update their explanatory materials.

Davidpatrick wrote: "He has been warned (quite rightly) that some of his actions were troubling and has been cautioned to take care in the future. He has been placed on a list with others who HAVE been convicted of being sex offenders - as part of the warning and as a rap across the knuckles for his unwise (but NOT criminal) actions."

He has NOT been warned; he has been cautioned. A caution is a formal recording of accepted guilt for a criminal offence. A caution must be administered and recorded for the correct offence, that is, for the offence revealed by the evidence. As a result of accepting the caution, Townshend became subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act. Therefore it was a sexual offence. The only possible offence that his admission supports is one under the Protection of Children Act 1978. I.e. a sexual offence against a child.

Why, then, is it wrong to consider Townshend a sex offender? Please, in answering, do not repeat your opinions, but instead support your argument with verifiable claims that are properly referenced!

81.178.224.140 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are making suppositions about the terms of the caution that have not been made public. You do not know unequivocally the terms and conditions of the agreement by which the caution was offered and accepted. You do not know which (if any) supposed crimes Townshend acknowledged culpability for or not. All that is known publicly is that the police - having made a huge public spectacle of arresting a famous person who had voluntarily identified himself as someone who may have unwittingly made a technical infringement of the law - arrived with a large number of arresting officers and a TV crew (!) - spent FOUR MONTHS - examining his multiple computers with the most high-powered forensic scrutiny and then concluded that there was NOT ONE SINGLE ILLEGAL IMAGE on any of his computers - exactly as he had stated publicly from Day One of the matter. And despite the considerable public expectation that they would press charges on any of the three matters that had initially excited their interest - elected to NOT press ANY charges. Neither you nor I nor anyone else know exactly what was agreed with the police. What we do know is this. He has accepted being placed on a list of sex offenders - though he did not admit any such crime, was not charged, nor convicted. You may correctly identify him as BEING ON a list of sex offenders. But neither you nor I nor anyone else can categorically say that he IS a sex offender - as that term is defined by the wikipedia page to which you wish to link him. If you wish to pursue your rather peculiar vendetta (under the guise of upholding the truth) - for whatever purpose - you can certainly create a new wiki page of people who are ON sex offender lists. But you cannot definitively claim that he IS a sex offender as that wiki page is currently worded for the simple reason that he isn't. Wiki is a world community not one based on your personal, unsubstantiated view of English law without direct, specific knowledge of what was agreed between Townshend and the police. End of unpleasant story. And (I hope) of this unpleasant witch-hunt being conducted on wikipedia. Davidpatrick 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Townshend CAN legitimately be described a sex offender simply by virtue of being subject to the notification requirement of the Sex Offenders Act 1997/Sexual Offences Act 2003. There is no other relevant definition according to English law.
  • The whole thing really is quite simple: if, as reported, he was cleared of possession, there are only two offences for which Townshend could have accepted a caution - making or inciting distribution - that would have made him subject to the notification requirements. But we do not need to know which offence it was for, since a caution can only be offered to an offender who accepts guilt for the specific offence and there must be sufficient evidence to allow the police to say that a prosecution would stand a fair chance of achieving a conviction. 81.178.224.140 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Davidpatrick said: Wiki is a world community not one based on your personal, unsubstantiated view of English law without direct, specific knowledge of what was agreed between Townshend and the police.
  • The description I present of English law depends on sources coming from the Home Office and other criminal justice systm players. Yours comes merely from your head. If you are right, you will be able to produce quotations from and/or links to official documents that explain your spin on English law. 81.178.224.140 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If Davidpatrick's completely obvious lack of knowledge about and comprehension of the legal situation involved here is going to be allowed to make this article completely POV, presenting Townshend's "offending behaviour" in a light that is entirely inaccurate, then Wikipedia allows a form of censorship that amounts to domination by ignorance; that is, falsehoods repeated often and enthusiastically enough that they drive out fact. 81.178.224.140

Search & Arrest

The media knew Townshend was going to be arrested; they were bound to be outside his house. Were they allowed in? 81.178.224.140 01:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Caution giving rise to sex offender status

With the embattled education secretary facing attacks on both sides - from the opposition in the case of cautioned PE teacher Paul Reeve, and from Labour backbenchers over her controversial education bill - Downing Street was again today forced to defend her. 81.178.224.140 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Mr Reeve was arrested in 2003 by Norfolk Police as part of Operation Ore, the largest inquiry into child pornography undertaken in the UK. He received a police caution for accessing banned images of children on the internet. 81.178.224.140 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Here's my suggestion for a compromise:

  1. Category:Child sex offenders stays off the page.
  2. Category:Crime suspects is added in its place.

Elegantly simple, no? I won't say it's perfect, but I'd like to see what some of the regular editors think. Deltabeignet 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well ... I've never edited this page, but I've been keeping an eye on the edit war over the categorization, and this strikes me as a fair compromise. It's not like you'd be striking the details of his alleged offense, which remain, quite legible, in the text of the article.
I'd also like to note that I've edited the Category:Child sex offenders definition, per my explanation on the talk page of aforestated category. I didn't really do this with an eye towards the Townshend article, so the clarification may not do anyone here any good, but it bears mentioning just the same.
Adrian Lamo 23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Deltabeiget for becoming involved and trying to bring a compromise. Herewith my response:

I'm not a wiki expert but it looks to be a promising compromise. Townshend certainly was a crime suspect. (Of course many people who have articles about them on wiki - have been crime suspects and such a page may be deluged with links.) I think if it is a page about people who HAVE BEEN crime suspects - then that it absolutely fair. He is not currently a suspect. But he WAS. A legitimate category as it is a distinction that can be made between people who were at one time suspects - but who were not ultimately charged, prosecuted or convicted. I don't know how to express that succinctly as a wiki title. The SENTIMENT of the category title should be: "People who at one time were crime suspects but who ultimately were neither prosecuted nor convicted." (but in 4-5 words!) eg Category: Crime suspects ultimately not prosecuted

That would certainly be fair. We also need to ensure that the body of the article reflects this fair compromise.

In fairness to the person who is opposing me on this - the issue is extraordinarily complex. English law uses terminology that is confusing to English people (let alone those in other countries.) eg Townshend was suspected of "making indecent photographs of children." Any reasonable person would be entitled to think that that meant that Townshend had been posing kids with a Nikon. But it turns out that "making" was in fact English legal terminology referring to Townshend TRANSFERRING an image on a website on to his computer - thus MAKING a photograph. (As it happens the police eventually decided that he had NOT done that.) But the point is that the legal terminology - without careful explanations - could easily and understandably cause mis-perceptions. My understanding is that wikipedia always strives to clarify matters - for a worldwide readership. Davidpatrick 00:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

This will strike everyone else as a hardcore position, but I would not support the replacement of the Category:Child sex offenders with Category:Crime suspects. If Category:Child sex offenders is worthwhile and its existence justified, then Townshend should be in it - he has admitted guilt for a sexual offence against a child. Given that the notification requirements nowadays extend to more people than those who have committed offences against children, it would be more accurate to include him in Category:Sex offenders, but his inclusion on either list is correct and therefore fair.
In other words, there can be no compromise position on this issue of Townshend's guilt. One position is correct; one is wrong. One position is documented and referenced; one is reiterated opinion. 81.178.224.140 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise as suggested. —James S. 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Why do you agree? This really should not be decided on the accumulation of prejudices (i.e. a vote) - it would be much more useful if you could make an assessment of the positions presented and indicate which one you think is correct and why. I agree that Category:Child sex offenders serves no reputable purpose but it is in fact an accurate depiction of Towhnshend's status under English law. If the category is deleted, the problem will go away; but the problem is not whether Townshend meets the inclusion criteria (he does - under Enlish law he is a registered sex offender who has committed a sexual offence against a child; this might sound harsh, but if you don't like it, change the law!), it is that some people do not understand that Townshend is guilty. If the category is to be replaced with Category:Crime suspects, I will thereafter change it to Category:Criminals or some such. lmno 11:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the compromise, because "child sex offenders" reads pretty plainly as "someone who engaged in unlawful sexual contact with a minor." If the category was more specific - limited to folks nailed in kiddie-porn stings, like Gary Glitter was prior to 2005 - that would work as well. The problem with relying on the English legal definition is that it's geo-limited and will mislead users from other nations where legal terms are different. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Gary Glitter was not nailed in a sting; he came to the attention of the police "after child pornography images were discovered on the hard drive of a personal computer he had taken to PCWorld for repair". He was then charged and was taken to court. He proclaimed his innocence on the basis that he had not "made" the images in question. The Court of Appeal made its Bowden decision and Glitter was convicted. Townshend made himself known to the police by admitting that he had subscribed to a child porn website and viewed its content. Glitter proclaimed innocence (albeit on a technicality); Townshend publicly admitted guilt. In fact, Townshend publicly admitted doing exactly what Glitter was convicted of doing - making indecent photographs of children. I simply cannot understand it is continually being stated here that Townshend is an innocent man with a good character! So.... basically, Townshend a) publicly confessed to a sexual offence against a child (in his statement); b) he accepted a caution (and thereby made formal admission of guilt). The man IS on the "Sex Offenders Register" and he is, therefore, a Sex Offender. A perfectly good case could be made on human rights grounds that this label tarnishes him unjustifiably (as you say, it suggests contact); but this would apply also to Glitter. Wikipedia should not apply double standards. 81.178.224.140 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The parallel with Gary Glitter is utterly inappropriate. The cases and circumstances could not be more different. And it of course underscores why Wikipedia should deploy the utmost caution in order to not unfairly besmirch someone by lumping together people whose circumstances are vastly different. Townshend used his credit card to access one site on one single occasion in the course of his well-documented and totally-substantiated (by an independent anti-child-porn campaign group) research aimed at getting such material banned from the internet. (A claim that was eventually fully accepted by the police.) He viewed one single image, did not download it (as that word is commonly understood) (i.e. he did NOT save it to his computer). However, just by viewing the picture, he did commit a technical offence. (Townshend had no notion that this was an offence. As a longtime campaigner against child-porn on the internet - he was well aware that "downloading" was an offence - and of course he was extremely careful to not "download.") Following his openly volunteered public acknowledgement of the incident - the police took away his many computers and after 4 months of intensive forensic search found not one single image. NOT ONE.

The police of course did have the option of prosecuting him - which would certainly have happened if they had regarded the matter as serious, if they regarded Townshend as remotely dangerous to the community and/or especially to children, if they disbelieved his well-substantiated claim to have been conducting research, if they thought that he was a paedophile, if they thought he had made any such images himself, if they thought he had even the slightest intention of distributing or inciting distribution of such images. The police carefully assessed all the facts and then exercised the prosecutorial discretion they have when they are sure that the matter is not unduly serious and that a prosecution would not be in the public interest. (Including perhaps the notion that some people might erroneously categorize him as a "Child Sex Offender" as that term is generally perceived.)

Since Townshend had never denied that he had made that one technical infringement - he accepted an official police caution. At no time did the Police ever express the notion that Townshend was a paedophile or had behaved consistent with a Child Sex Offender as that term is commonly understood by the public. It was a mandatory consequence of accepting the Caution that Townshend be placed on the Register - where - though he had not been charged, prosecuted or convicted - such receivers of cautions are all placed. He was placed on the list for the bare minimum period allowed under law. Part of the process is to deter people who have behaved unwisely and who have made a TECHNICAL infrigement of a law (as distinct from those who have egregiously broken the law - who quite naturally and quite rightly do NOT receive a caution - but are prosecuted to the full extent of the law.) The police have this discretion where the offence is clearly minor and where the public interest is not served by a prosecution and the seeking of a criminal conviction. The English police are NOT noted for "being soft" on criminals - and especially not "soft" on those who commit sex offences against children. When the police elect to NOT prosecute someone that they had initially suspected - then there is a good reason for that. However "mysterious" it may be to those who (for whatever reason) would have liked to seen a conviction. Davidpatrick 22:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The parallel with Gary Glitter is utterly inappropriate: why? To deny is not to refute. Glitter downloaded images because he wanted to see them. Townshend downloaded images because he wanted to see them. We assume Glitter downloaded them to get his jollies, but you tell us that Townshend downloaded them to do some research... but maybe he got his jollies at the same time? In order to be able to avail himself of the "legitimate reason" defence, Townshend must have been performing legitimate research. It was held in R v Atkins (2000) that what constitutes a legitimate reason is a question of fact in each case. Categories of legitimate reason have to be considered on their own facts. Courts are entitled to bring a measure of scepticism to bear upon such an inquiry and should not too readily conclude that the defence had been made out. Townshend would have had to work damned hard to get that defence to work! 81.178.224.140 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • research aimed at getting such material banned from the internet: how laughable! Why was Townshend arrested? Because even accessing such material on the Internet is "banned". I think I might start a campaign to get murder banned.... who should I kill first? 81.178.224.140 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He viewed one single image, did not download it (as that word is commonly understood):
    • He viewed one single image: how do you know this? Why did Townshend subscribe to the site? Are you saying he had to pay in order to get access to this "one" image? How did he know that the site would contain it?
    • did not download it (as that word is commonly understood): it doesn't matter who the word is commonly understood, what matters is how the law understands it. Ignorance is no defence. 81.178.224.140 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • NOT ONE? Where was the image he viewed then? Obviously, the forensic examination CANNOT retrieve any image that ever existed. Why could other images not go where that one went? 81.178.224.140 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The police of course did have the option of prosecuting him - which would certainly have happened if... they thought that he was a paedophile: we do not prosecute people for bein paedophiles; we prosecute them for their criminal actions. Glitter downloaded images; it was illegal for him to do so, end of story. It was not illegal because that is how he got his jollies. Townshend downloaded images; it was illegal for him to do so. What is the difference that makes you say the Glitter and Townshend cases are not equivalent? 81.178.224.140 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The police might have believed Townshend's well-substantiated claim to have been conducting research but they certainly did not consider his research to be legitimate. If they had done they would not have been able to caution him. However, since we don't understand what a caution is...81.178.224.140 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • inciting distribution of such images: Townshend publicly admitted inciting distribution (as it is understood by English courts; as it is understood by you is irrelevant).81.178.224.140 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Townshend had never denied that he had made that one technical infringement: what was this infringement? I'll tell you... again! Voluntarily downloading an image to computer screen is sufficient to be caught by section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 since it is "making an indecent photograph of a child" (please see R v Jayson (2002)). Viewing a single image is sufficient to receive a 10-year sentence. In what way is the fully-formed offence Townshend committed a technicality? 81.178.224.140 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • At no time did the Police ever express the notion that Townshend was a paedophile or had behaved consistent with a Child Sex Offender: yet they cautioned him for an offence that made him subject to the notification requirements and thus classified him as a sex offender. 81.178.224.140 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He was placed on the list for the bare minimum period allowed under law: he was placed on the "list" for 5 years. This is indeed the bare minimum, but this tells us precisely nothing. A person convicted of downloading 7,000 child porn images can be placed on the list for the same amount of time if he does not receive a custodial sentence.81.178.224.140 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Part of the process is to deter people who have behaved unwisely and who have made a TECHNICAL infrigement of a law: which process? The cautioning process? or the registration process? If we are back to cautions, a caution is a formal recording of guilt...... If we are on the registration process, that process serves to allow the police to monitor the actions of people who pose a known risk. 81.178.224.140 23:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I would not have liked to see a caution. In fact, I do not think Townshend should even have been arrested. However, this article is not about what *I* think. It is about Townshend and his relationship with the law. Given that Townshend was arrested, investigated and then cautioned, which means there was sufficient evidence to charge him, I would have preferred the police to charge him. The police say that child porn offences are serious. Cautions are meant to be for minor offences (by the way, a minor offence is one which can only be trie summarily, not one amounting only to a "technical infringement"). Making is an indictable offence. Only in rare circumstances will a caution be a suitable disposition for an indictable offence. That is what I do not understand about the police actions - Townshend committed a serious arrestable offence of a variety that gets the police very excited; why did they only caution him? Are charges only preferred where a suspect cannot afford good legal representation? 81.178.224.140 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

AHHH....

"Only in rare circumstances will a caution be a suitable disposition for an indictable offence. That is what I do not understand about the police actions - Townshend committed a serious arrestable offence of a variety that gets the police very excited; why did they only caution him?"

Why indeed...? Perhaps because as the officials who had been investigating the matter for four months they knew more about the case than those on the outside? Perhaps because they knew what they were doing? Perhaps because these were indeed "rare circumstances"? We don't know for sure. But we do know that it would be presumptuous to second-guess the police's decision. We also know that when there are material matters that we don't know the answers to - it would be unfair to draw conclusions and condemn a man based on assumptions drawn from generic rulings on websites rather than specific knowledge of the specific case. Davidpatrick 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This is generally known as "clutching at straws". It is not necessary to know what reasons the police had for administering a caution. I would argue that it was inappropriate for them to do so; however, the police will not be reading this so will not explain.
  1. We would have to guess at the police's reasons for administering a caution - Townshend had admitted guilt for a serious criminal offence; regardless of which offence it was, judges have been known to wax wrathful about the evils of any of the possible offences - even where only one image is involved.
  2. It is, however, possible as a matter of logic to work out which offence(s) Townshend admitted.
  3. The only pertinent facts are these: Townshend was arrested; he was investigated; he was offered a police caution
    1. for the police to be able to offer a caution, Townshend must have admitted guilt for a specific criminal offence;
    2. a caution can only offered where a specific criminal offence has been revealed and a charge would be fully supported by the evidence uncovered by the police investigation.
  4. Townshend accepted the caution; doing so made him subject to the notification requirement of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; whichever offence Townshend admitted, it was a relevant offence insofar as the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was concerned.
  5. A news item reporting Townshend's caution said that he been "cleared of being in possession of indecent pictures downloaded from the internet" but had "admitted using his credit card to look at the site for research into child abuse". This admission is sufficient to justify ascribing guilt for any of the offences for which he was arrested: 1) possession, 2) making, 3) inciting distribution. Any one of these offences would be a relevant offence where the Sex Offenders Act is concerned; all are classified as a sexual offence against a child.
  6. However, Townshend exhibited such a deficient understanding of the technical details of a web-browser and its caching system that it would appear that he would have been able to avail himself of the implied knowledge-requirement defence (Atkins v DPP). While it was also pointed out in Atkins that a defendant would have "no defence to charges of possession had the prosecution case been put simply on the basis of the transient downloading of the image onto the screen", the same requirement for knowledge would apply equally to an onscreen image or one stored in the cache. Townshend believed he was only viewing; he did not know that the image was held in his computer's internal memeory; he did not possess.
  7. The offence for which Townshend was cautioned must have been one or both of making an indecent photograph of a child or inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child.
  8. English law considers anyone guilty of either of those offences to have been stimulating a market for child porn. As the Sentencing Advisory Panel put it: "Even an offender who has simply downloaded images from the Internet for his own use, without showing or distributing them to others, must bear some responsibility for the child abuse involved in making the images." Imagine what they say about someone who has paid to download the material! Either is thus viewed as a very serious matter and, whichever offence it was, English law therefore considers Townshend to be indirectly responsible for the production of child porn. 81.178.224.140 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I simply cannot understand it is continually being stated here that Townshend is an innocent man with a good character! No one has stated that here; that's just your straw man argument.
As for Glitter, the parallel is that (prior to the events of the last few months) he was only accused of possession of child pornography. That's illegal in a lot of nations, but it's not as serious a crime as having sexual contact with a child. Townsend hasn't been accused of sexual contact with a child either, so calling him a "child sex offender" is misleading, and in the way that term is used in the United States (for one), totally inaccurate. This geo-limited vernacular argument is, I think, the major one against the categorization. To most readers, the CSO category tag means "this guy had sex with a child."
At this point, it seems to me like you're POV-pushing. I suggest that you register for an account, stop using strange formatting (it's making the page much harder to read), and stop manipulating other users' comments. If you need to quote someone, reproduce the text using italics. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No-one? How about User:Davidpatrick? Please read this page and understand the points raised.81.178.224.140 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You state that those with child porn convictions are not subject to offender notification in the US? 81.178.224.140 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I am pushing a POV - its called generally called "truth". I don't care to have an account. I find the strange formatting makes everything clearer. At least it looks fine on my screen. Where a reply extends to multiple paragraphs, not delimiting the posting is confusing. 81.178.224.140 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Formatting using excessive HTML markup and breaking up other users' comments are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. That page also offers some guidelines on behavior towards other users on talk pages.
Regarding your comment: You state that those with child porn convictions are not subject to offender notification in the US? Again, I never said any such thing. You continue to use straw man arguments, raised by no one, to try to support your own arguments. I stated that in the common vernacular in the United States, the phrase "child sex offender" will be interpreted as "someone who had sexual contact with a child."
Finally, you accuse Davidpatrick of proclaiming Townshend's innocence, but I find no such thing on the page. He's making a legal distinction between a caution and a conviction, and he's arguing against applying a term to Townshend that is highly misleading. Every use of the word "innocent" on this page seems to have come from you. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That is because I am using the word innocent with its commonly and legally understood meaning (i.e. "innocent" (adjective): 1 not guilty of a crime or offence (source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11 ed); "Not guilty of a crime" (Source: Wiktionary)). In many places on this talk page I make the claim that a caution is a formal recording of guilt. Townshend was cautioned therefore Townshend is guilty. Innocent means not guilty, not not-convicted. 81.178.224.140 23:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You state that those with child porn convictions are not subject to offender notification in the US? That is a question, not a comment. 81.178.224.140 00:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's a comment, with a misplaced question mark at the end. A question would be phrased as, "Are you stating that..." or "Do you mean to state that..." Regardless, I stated no such thing. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This talk page is not a suitable location for a discussion about how English is flexible enough to construct questions in multiple ways. I leave that to your grammar books. Nor is this talk page a suitable location for a discussion about the interpretation problems of a category where those same problems exactly mirror problems with the legal situation the category represents. Take that to the category's talk page. This is not a question??? Ha! 81.178.224.140 00:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that you have made the point about how Wikipedia has to be clear to people worldwide. And unusual application of language in the legal vocabulary of one nation can be confusing to laypersons in other countries. It is one thing to have such official terminology in the BODY of an article - where the misleading usage can contextualized. Quite another to have the misleading wording being deployed in a category heading - where it can mislead without explanation.

To underscore quite how confusing the language can be in English law - note that the charge of "making an indecent photograph" does NOT mean that Townshend made (or took or duplicated) any photographs! It is a most peculiar way of referring to what is claimed happens when a someone just VIEWS an image on his/her computer without even downloading it (!) By simply having your computer linked to the internet you are (apparently in English law) "making a photograph"! Such is the confusion that can arise from quoting terms used in an archaic legal context that have quite different connotations to ordinary people.

Please also note that there have been several unsubstantiated assertions made on this page that have the APPEARANCE of some authority as they quote legal text selectively, inappropriately and out-of-context. These assertions unfairly and erroneously besmirch a man of good reputation who was not charged, not prosecuted, not convicted and who the police decide to issue just an official caution in respect of a minor technical infringement of a law. I intend to post some specific refutations of these erroneous assertions. Davidpatrick 18:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


User:Davidpatrick wrote: "Please also note that there have been several unsubstantiated assertions made on this page that have the APPEARANCE of some authority as they quote legal text selectively, inappropriately and out-of-context."

If this is true, then you will be able to quote the legal text unselectively, appropriately and in context. Until you can do so, please stop repeating your (rather strange) opinions.

User:Davidpatrick wrote: "These assertions unfairly and erroneously besmirch a man of good reputation who was not charged, not prosecuted, not convicted and who the police decide to issue just an official caution in respect of a minor technical infringement of a law."

You accuse me of making unsubstantiated assertions that quote legal text selectively, inappropriately and out-of-context. But at least I quote legal text! Your postings are totally unsupported by any references and do not even identify the relevant legal provisions so that other people can at least look into whether what you say is correct or not. I admit, for example, that I did quote a selected part of the sexual offenders act 1997, but I also linked to the full document; I could have quoted the full Act, but decided that would waste a) space and b) time, since you would neither read it nor understand it. I consider a link to be sufficient. If anyone questions what I say, they can look up the Act and read the full provisions and decide for themselves whether I am right or wrong. For your part, for example, you talk of an Act that covers printed child porn, but you don't even quote it, nevermind identify or link it!

Let me give you some pointers for when you start posting your refutation -

  • Understand the punishment: Townshend was cautioned; learn what this means. Find out what the legal basis for cautions are and what documents control the use of police cautions. From these:
    • Identify the conditions under which a caution can be administered.
    • Identify the consequences of having a police caution.
    • Can a caution be administered to an innocent person?
    • Can one be administered to a person only suspected of an offence?
    • When administered, can it be for an offence that the evidence uncovered by the police investigation does not identify?
  • Identify the offence: for which offence was Townshend cautioned?
  • Explain the Sex Offender Registration: only a relevant offence can make one subject to the notification requirement. Which offence was Townshend cautioned for? Rape? Incest? Indecent Assault?

User:Davidpatrick wrote: "...the police decide to issue just an official caution in respect of a minor technical infringement of a law."

It would be useful if you could identify which law Townshend infringed. Your use of words here is interesting:

  • just: this suggests that the whole cautioning thing is trivial. Despite the fact that I have repeatedly explained that a caution is a formal recording of guilt (as described by the Criminal Justice System), you ignore this (perhaps its too inappropriate) and continue to insist (with no reference to any document properly defining the meaning of a caution) that a caution is only a warning about worrying behaviour!
  • official caution: the correct term is formal caution, or police caution
  • a minor technical infringement of a law:
    • Which' law? This is pretty crucial; for example, what would a minor technical infringement of the prohibition on "Conspiring or soliciting to commit murder" in the Offences Against the Person Act be?
    • technical infringement: again, this wording is chosen to suggest that what Townshend did was so trivial that it only just managed to scrape within the definitions of the offence! By the way, every criminal offence is a technical infringement of some law or other.
    • minor: and though it was just a technical infringement, it was minor even on that scale! What did Townshend do? Think about accessing a child porn website???? IS that all???? My god, and they did this to him??? The Bastards!

Even though I have already done this once(?), lets take a quick look at what Townshend admitted in his statement: "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there." (Oh, did you see what I did there? I provided a reference so that anyone curious to know what I am leaving out of my selections can find out!)

Now, being marginally silly, you do not use a credit card to enter a website - you use a computer and a web-browser. What Townshend means when he says "I used a credit card to enter a site" is that he paid child pornographers for access to their wares. He did not do this by accident, he did it deliberately and knowingly. What happens when people buy things? Other people start businesses to supply those things.... so what happens when people buy child porn? Other people start to take photographs of children being sexually abused and then they sell access to them. When someone pays for this access, they reward the producers/distributors, who therefore continue their operation. This is what Townshend has admitted; this is how English law views Davidpatrick's minor technical infringement of a law. If the production of child pornography is a serious matter, then since Townshend has encouraged it, his actions have serious consequences. Society considers such consequences (i.e. the production of child porn) to be undesirable and hence the punishment of those provide a market for child porn... which Townshend publicly admitted doing, after which he formally admitted it to the police. I find the police's decision NOT to charge him totally incomprehensible since one of the justifications for punishing people under the criminal law is that such punishment deters others from doing the prohibited acts in future. To deter, such punishment must be publicised. "Getting" Townshend would have made the news everywhere, and hence would have had a very large deterrent effect. THIS is why I consider police reasoning mysterious. Given this, please explain why what Townshend did is just a technical infringement.

Or we may look at a slightly different aspect of this admission: "I did this purely to see what was there".

What did he do? He looked at the images on the website. This is what Gary Glitter did. Why, then, is it OK to call Gary Glitter a sex offender and not Townshend? Are we trying to say that it is the intention of the offender that is important, rather than what they did?

  • Actually, you will object that Glitter 'made indecent photographs of children' by saving them on his PC. English law would not recognise this distinction, since saving or viewing both amount to making.

So, by looking, Townshend has admitted carrying out acts that English law considers "making indecent photographs of children". Now, this description of the offence might be troublesome; but consider what the situation would be had that formulation not come about... Townshend would be admitting possession. Now, we can if we wish say that "viewing" does not equal "possession", but people have tried that in English courts... and since they were not successful there, why should you be successful here? See Atkins v Director of Public Prosecutions (2000) EWHC Admin 302 if you think I am making a selective, inappropriate or out-of-context presentation of the law here...

While, in Atkins, it was held that images stored in a cache were not possessed if the defendant did not know of the existence of the cache, it was mentioned that "Dr Atkins would have had no defence to charges of possession had the prosecution case been put simply on the basis of the transient downloading of the image onto the screen rather than on the basis of its subsequent inadvertent storage in the cache". While an image is being displayed on the screen, it is being possessed. Townshend admitted viewing child porn images therefore Townshend admitted possession. 81.178.224.140 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, this is wrong: Townshend has not admitted possession; in order to possess, one must know of the existence of the thing one is said to possess; Townshend thought he was merely viewing an image; he did not have the necessary knowledge for possession (of the onscreen image). However, this does not exonerate the man; it merely highlights an incongruity in the law: viewing=making - to the extent that the image was displayed deliberately, one is guilty of making when one views it. R v Jayson. 85.210.4.176 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What Townshend did

From one point of view - Technical infringement of a law

  • Townshend used his credit card to access one site on one single occasion in the course of his well-documented research aimed at getting such material banned from the internet.
  • He viewed one single image, did not download it (as that word is commonly understood) (i.e. he did NOT save it to his computer).
  • However, just by viewing the picture, he did commit a technical offence. Townshend had no notion that this was an offence. (*written by User:Davidpatrick*)

From another point of view - Serious offences

  • Townshend used his credit card to access one child porn website on one single occasion
    • Thereby paying child pornographers for access to their wares, i.e. providing a market or inciting distribution as English courts have it
  • He viewed one single image
    • Thereby making an indecent photograph of a child
      • Townshend had no notion that this was an offence - ignorance is no defence
    • A single image... does not make it a minor or technical offence and is sufficient to secure a conviction. In R v Graham Westgarth-Smith (2001), Smith was convicted of one count of making an indecent pseudo-photograph.
  • He (thought he) did not download the single viewed image
    • Thereby demonstrating insufficent knowledge for possession

85.210.4.176 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Guilt

Townshend must have admitted and accepted guilt in whichever criminal offence for he was cautioned. Please see police caution.

Making an indecent photograph of a child

English law considers anyone guilty of this offence to have been stimulating a market for child porn. As the Sentencing Advisory Panel put it: "Even an offender who has simply downloaded images from the Internet for his own use, without showing or distributing them to others, must bear some responsibility for the child abuse involved in making the images."

Inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child

What Townshend means when he says "I used a credit card to enter a site" is that he paid child pornographers for access to their wares. He did not do this by accident, he did it deliberately and knowingly. What happens when people buy things? Other people start businesses to supply those things.... so what happens when people buy child porn? Other people start to take photographs of children being sexually abused and then they sell access to them. When someone pays for this access, they reward the producers/distributors, who therefore continue their operation. This is what Townshend has admitted; this is how English law views his actions. English law punishes these actions with the offence of inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph of a child".

Both these offences are viewed as a very serious matter and, whichever offence it was, English law therefore considers Townshend to be indirectly responsible for the production of child porn. To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem; allowing such a presentation to stand would be a perfect example of why Wikipedia is useless as a reference tool. In any even-mildly controversial area, Wikipedia is in no way able to guarantee that its content is even remotely accurate or reliable since those with an extreme bias are able to ensure that their ill-informed and inaccurate views overwhelm and push out more accurate presentations and there is no system of review to ensure that the content they insert is even remotely reliable. Right beneath the exiting area is the phrase "Content must... be verifiable." How is any of the content in this article relating to the legal situation to be verified? Who knows, since the "editors" who created that section made no effort whatsoever to even identify their sources, let alone make those sources easy to refer to. 85.210.4.176 16:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

To minimise the severity of Townshend's actions by allowing them to be classified as a minor technical infringement is a massive POV problem; On the contrary, it appears that that's exactly what it is - a technical violation, one that is clearly spelled out in the article. It is left to the reader to interpret the severity of the action. Wikipedia is here to present facts, but you are insisting in your torrent of edits that it must include your interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The problem can be stated quite simply: the article is quite wrong. The facts that need to be presented are those that describe English law. I attempt to present these facts but find that my additions, while fully referenced, are simply denied rather than refuted. Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal. Townshend's actions can only be classified as a 'technical violation' because what is presented of the English legal situation is, in fact, opinion. 85.210.4.176 16:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedians obviously find unreferenced material preferable to referenced materal. That sort of silly hyperbole does nothing to support your arguments. Back to the main question here, calling Townshend a "child sex offender" would be misleading. The facts of the offense and the legal system's handling of it are listed in the article. That's more than sufficient for any Wikipedia reader to come up with his own interpretation. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The "facts" are wrong and completely unreferenced and therefore are unverifiable. It's not as if you have to go and look in a book - you have to do all of your own work. If you do this work, you will find that "Making an indecent photograph" is NOT considered to be a minor technical infringement. Townshend admitted guilt for making and/or inciting distribution. If he incited distribution, then he encouraged produiction of child porn. Do you understand the issues? It is not misleading to call Townshend a "Child sex offender" - unless you propose that anyone guilty of "only" a child porn offence be excluded from such a categorisation. 19:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

categoric!

Hello,

I've submitted Category:Child sex offenders for cfd, as it appears to be significantly broken, and mirrors another ongoing cfd. Some of you have strong feelings on this matter, and may wish to vote in the cfd.

Hope this helps.

Adrian Lamo 09:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is the law the sole criterium for NPOV?

I also find the article grossly NPOV, but in the other direction, namely, against Townshend. If a person is prosecuted by the police, but doesn't get before a court and is not sentenced, it certainly is a minor incident in his life. In this article, it get's to be a main part, taking up maybe one third of the main body of the text (without lists etc.)!

Regarding NPOV: Even more important than how we write about people is what we write about in the first time. No one seems to notice that Townshend is subjected to a gross defamation here simply by the fact that this incident takes up more space than much of his achievements do.

Think for a moment about the reason for a person having an article in Wikipedia, which is, after all, an encyclopedia: The only legitimate reason is that s/he did things which are of public interest. Townshend made important contributions to pop music, influenced the lives of millions of people and, via later artists inspired by him, the course of musical history till today. The incident with the child porn web site, however, is of minor importance simply because it doesn't make much of a difference to anyone. It's only an issue of moral convictions: many people are interested in everything a public figure does, especially if it's thought to be wrong. In Wikipedia, however, we should be objective and realize that it is of no historic importance what exactly Townshend did or didn't do on that site.

You all play the game of self-declared upholders of moral standards, without even realizing it. Think about people in 50 years, when the witch-hunt against 'paedophiles' (and many innocent people) will have abated. They will ask: How did Wikipedia become an instrument of moral righteousness?

Have you ever read in detail about colonial 'justice'? Then you know how perversely wrong laws can be, how people can become guilty when they simply play along by discussing minor technical points.

When I read this article and the talk page, I had the feeling that we are falling back to very dark times indeed: times when the law seemed to be more true than other judgments; times where somebody is a "sex offender" just because some law defines him as one! --Fountaindyke 10:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • If a person is prosecuted by the police, but doesn't get before a court and is not sentenced, it certainly is a minor incident in his life: but the implication of this formulation is that Townshend was investigated (much as Del Naja was) and then no major action was deemed necessary. The reality is that the police found sufficient evidence to prosecute for crimes under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and Townshend admitted and accepted guilt for these crimes. For some reason, the police decided to offer Townshend an alternative to being charged. The fact that the method of disposal chosen avoided court should in no way allow one to think that it was a minor (legal) incident. As an event in Townshend's life, it is indeed minor. 85.210.4.176 11:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • In Wikipedia, however, we should be objective and realize that it is of no historic importance what exactly Townshend did or didn't do on that site: what you are promoting here is the adoption now of the POV you speculate will apply in 50 years time - i.e. when people are asking "How did Wikipedia become an instrument of moral righteousness?" There is no guaranteeing that this "witchhunt" will abate, and no guarantee that the viewpoint you ascribe to future generations will come to pass. Whether or not this "moral righteousness" is held by the majority of people nowadays, this is a POV description of the approach taken by just about every developed country in the world - child porn is a "bad thing!" Thus we may assume that this "righteousness" is the majority view; your proposed future POV is currently a respectable minority viewpoint. It is not the place of an Article on Townshend to discuss these matters, however. See the child porn article? 85.210.4.176 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No one seems to notice that Townshend is subjected to a gross defamation here simply by the fact that this incident takes up more space than much of his achievements do: well, write more about his achievements then... or maybe I should shorten the section to "In 2003 Townshend obtained a criminal record for buying child porn on the internet". It would then be a very minor section.... 81.178.224.140 22:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't delete citations!

Erm, I'm not fully following the debate here, but this edit looks entirely unacceptable: [4]. We should be encouraging references, not deleting them wholesale! Matt Crypto 10:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Those references should stay in the article in some form as long as the section on Townshend's infraction remains in the article (that is, indefinitely). Deleting those references to undermine an opposing viewpoint violates WP:NPOV. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Please can you assist in indicating what the wikipedia policy is on the inclusion of references in the Reference section of an article. Can there theoretically be an unlimited number of references? What is the factor that determines that a reference is essential to an article as distinct from inclusion to create a large set of references to compound or reinforce a POV? What is the guideline for proportionality? May all the references be solely about one small aspect of the article? eg in this instance - Townshend has had a 40 year plus career as a musician. There are currently 10 references on the article page - and all 10 are about an incident that was in the public eye for 5 months. Not one about the primary topic. Is that totally fine? What is the policy for deleting individual references when the purpose is not to "undermine an opposing viewpoint" but to restore a NPOV that is being overwhelmed by repetitive references? Balancing the references section by adding an equal number of references conveying a different view would seem to be counter-productive and would lead to an unwieldy number of references. Guidance much appreciated. Thanks. Davidpatrick 15:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's unusual, but references do not make an article POV, even when the references are all about a particularl interlude in a subject's life. Indeed, something this controversial would be the obvious place to add references liberally. Still, ideally, most/all of the facts in an article should be referenced. The obvious thing to do is add references to the rest of the article. — Matt Crypto 15:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I would add to that the thought that you should be very cautious when deleting verification for content that you're clearly on record as opposing. The anonymous user did the right thing by sourcing his content and attempting to provide verification for the controversial parts (such as the "child sex offender" category tag). With that controversy still going, deleting references for the opposing POV is definitely not appropriate. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Valid point. Noted and understood. Thanks. Davidpatrick 18:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

POV editing

Deleting large chunks of well-sourced content solely because one doesn't agree with its viewpoint is absolutely a violation of WP:NPOV. I rewrote one paragraph to try to bridge the gap, but by and large I think User:Davidpatrick's last edits swung too far in the pro-Townshend direction. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point - and your endeavor to address the situation. But your well-intentioned edit enters into a legal minefield - not least because the law is not that simple. And English law differs from US law. For example:

"Townshend admitted his actions and was given a police caution, a step that avoids a jury trial (and thus a conviction),"

Avoidance connotes that this is a step that can be elected by the accused - like an American "plea bargain" (ie - "I'll concede to a lesser charge in order to avoid a trial on a higher charge")

But that is NOT how it works. The police have absolute prosecutorial discretion. And have the absolute right to prosecute or not as they see fit. And as they feel is appropriate. the anon person who has been offering a "he's a child sex offender" perspective has on two occasions on this talk page expressed mystification and great surprise at the decision of the police.

"but that is tantamount to an admission of guilt."

With all due respect - that is still a controversial point. There was acknowledgement of a technical infringement - but that is not the same (in legal terms - nor in colloquial terms understood by the general public) as "admission of guilt."

"Townshend was also required to register under the Sex Offender Act of 1997."

This is accurate - as long as it states that this was NOT a requirement specifically handed down on Townshend - but simply a mandatory consequence (for anyone) accepting a caution. And it should note that though the police have the ability to place someone on the register for any length of time - the police elected to place Townshend on for the minimum period. That is not POV. That is fact.

So - I do appreciate the effort to mediate. This is tricky stuff. I do not regard myself as promoting a pro-Townshend POV. I do note that this incident has balloned up in size and in the intensity of the expressions in recent weeks. This is still an article about an eminent musician with a 40 years plus career. The look of the article - and the amount of detail and notation about minutiae of English law seems a little disproportionate to the topic of Pete Townshend. Davidpatrick 21:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This really is becoming tedious.
This is accurate - as long as it states that this was NOT a requirement specifically handed down on Townshend - but simply a mandatory consequence (for anyone) accepting a caution. And it should note that though the police have the ability to place someone on the register for any length of time - the police elected to place Townshend on for the minimum period. That is not POV. That is fact.
This is NOT fact. The Sex Offdenders Act/Sexual Offences Act imposes a requirement to notify the police of particular personal details. It makes this requirement of all people convicted (i.e. rapists, child-porn downloaders), acquited becuase of insanity, or cautioned (i.e. rapists, child-porn downloaders).
But police absolutely fundamentally 'do NOT have the ability to place someone on the register for any length of time!!! I really wish someone would refer to the actual sources! The Act imposes the notification requirement in accordance with a table in the Act. For non-custodial sentences (i.e. a caution), the offender CAN ONLY HAVE A 5-YEAR REGISTRATION PERIOD IMPOSED. No more, no less. Davidpatrick's "exposition" is not only thoroughly incorrect, it is utterly POV. 81.178.224.140 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "but that is tantamount to an admission of guilt.": When you know that a person has accepted a caution, it is a validly inference that they have accepted guilt. This is a requirement that the Home Office cautioning guidelines "imposes" on the police - If Townshend did NOT accept guilt, then the caution was administered unlawfully and he can apply to have it withdrawn. If you wish to verify my claim that an admission of guilt is require, the cautioning guidelines can be referred to via the article on police cautions. 81.178.224.140 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The look of the article - and the amount of detail and notation about minutiae of English law seems a little disproportionate to the topic of Pete Townshend
Yes! Replace the whole section with "In 2003 Townshend obtained a criminal record after he paid for access to child pornography on the Internet".81.178.224.140 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's try replacing the whole overblown section with a single agreed sentence that is inserted into the biography.

"In 2003 Townshend received a police caution - giving him a criminal record - after acknowledging a solitary paid access of a child pornography website in 1999."

Davidpatrick 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I could go with that. Well, almost... (Don't groan!).. Jus wikify anything that can be wikified:
"In 2003 Townshend received a police caution - giving him a criminal record - after acknowledging a solitary paid access of a child pornography website in 1999."

I also think there should be some mention of the sex offenders act. 81.178.224.140 22:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Looking at these comments (and you need a bit of a roadmap to follow the threads! ;-) ), I could see this as being a good compromise between the two diverting point of views. It appears this has been going on for quite awhile, but the two parties seem to have agreed that the coverage of the matter was getting out of hand and that the entire topic could be dealt with in a single sentence, if I understand things correctly. And they have even managed to agree on the text of the sentence. I agree with what they've come up with and think it could work. We would reduce this entire section and place the agreed sentence into the biography section. Seems the only outstanding issue is 81.178.224.140 says: "I also think there should be some mention of the sex offenders act." I see where "81" is coming from. My thought is that it is not essential to list the specific law broken. The article will clearly identify Townshend as having a criminal record and as having paid for access to a child pornography website. I suggest we go with the compromise for now. 23skidoo 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Well it's probably not perfect - but I will agree to it as a compromise solution. I appreciate that 81.178.224.140 has made a genuine effort to find common ground and we have together arrived at a resolution that we agree on (much to our surprise I think!) Thanks to Keithlaw, deltabeignet and Skidoo23 for helping us calm the waters and finding a way to make this work. Davidpatrick 20:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. I am also quite comfortable with this compromise, including 81-dot's suggestion of a mention of the specific statute that Townshend is accused of violating. I also think that at least some of the sources 81-dot dug up during the debate should stay in the external links section, even if they're not directly referenced. It makes the article more useful for anyone who might be writing a paper or article on Townshend's legal troubles. | Klaw ¡digame! 00:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've no objection to the links (though maybe the most important/key ones should take precedence over others to keep the list from getting too long). I'm not sure that it's necessary to quote chapter and verse of the law (ie a specific statute) in the article. Similar articles on legal troubles faced by public figures don't tend to go into this level of detail, except maybe financial-related incidents. 23skidoo 17:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change as per the consensus here, which was to replace the section with a simple sentence agreed upon by the two diverging parties. Let's give this a try for a bit and see how this goes. 23skidoo 23:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My own "point of view" is that Townshend downloaded images from a computer and, by his own actions, caused no measurable harm to any identifiable person; he shouldn't even have been arrested. However, he also paid for access, which is slightly more problematic, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. In this article on Townshend, I have attempted to present a purely factual description of what the English legal system did to Townshend. Every stage of the presentation is supported by material which verifies it - Wikipedia policy: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable or credible sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false." I do not believe all of the sources: for example, the NCIS description of Operation Ore is contentious to say the least; but it was published by Parliament. Townshend's situation is very simple: he was arrested, he was interviewed, he was cautioned; for the police to be able to offer a caution, he MUST have accepted guilt for a specified offence. Townshend was cautioned, therefore he admitted guilt. Why can I say this? Because the administration of cautions is govered by Home Office guidelines, and in the article police cautions quotes the conditions that document imposes on the process. That document is also cited as a source and can be read by following the link in the notes area. Indeed, a caution is not a conviction but this does not mean that it is merely a warning: the cautioning process is intended to speed up the administration of justice, so lengthy court processes can be avoided. That is why a caution is "offered" - if the suspect believes he is innocent, he can refuse and be tried in the normal way. A caution gives rise a criminal record.
User:Davidpatrick wrote:
Townshend confirmed to the police his earlier, open acknowledgement that he had made a single technical infringement of the law. In May 2003, the police took the unusual decision to not prosecute Townshend for any of the three matters for which he had been under suspicion. Instead he was formally cautioned.
As a consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was placed on a list with convicted sex offenders. He was placed on the list for the minimum period allowed - five years. (This is standard and mandatory under English law for all individuals who accept a police caution - irrespective of the fact that they have been neither prosecuted nor convicted.)'
  • How can Davidpatrick know what Townshend told the police? It was done in a police interview room. Is it mentioned in some news story somewhere? I have looked but I cannot find it.
  • A single infringement of the law? Townshend's own comments disprove this! But the material that disproves it was removed by Davidpatrick! Was my statement made up by me? No, it was a quote from a verifiable newspaper interview.
  • It is not an unusual decision to caution people. See the current controversy concerning Paul Reeve. In terms of the legal process he went through, this man's story is pretty much equivalent with Townshends: currently newspapers are slinging all kinds of mud in his direction; the least of which is calling him a sex offender. Some newspapers are calling him a paedophile or paedo - on their front pages!
  • Instead he was formally cautioned.... but for what?
  • Placed on a list with convicted sex offenders? But one can only be placed on the list for having commited a designated "sexual offence"! Which sexual offence did Townshend commit? Placement on the list is NOT dones as some kind of scared-straight thing!
  • Mandatory minimum period of 5 years: POV, since it makes it sound as though less time would have been imposed if possible.
  • irrespective of the fact that they have been neither prosecuted nor convicted: but Townshend admitted guilt. It might be that you don't like the system of cautions, but the consequences of accepting one MUST have been explained to him (this too is a criterion for the administration of the caution).
Even though I do not agree with it (it is a witchhunt etc etc), I describe the existing situation. I back this up with sources. In doing this I am describing the situation as it is presented by the authories and the media. This view may or may not be the majority view, but it is difficult to come across an opposing widespread view. Certainly there is a minority view that what Townshend did should not be criminal offences, but I do not believe an article on Townshend is the place to make that argument - it belongs, and indeed IS, in the child pornography article. One might not like the existing situation, but that is what one must describe. If you are one of the people who believe that society is currently engaged in a witch hunt, then you cannot do anything about it by being inaccurate/unrealistic in your descriptions of what happens to people caught up in that witch hunt. 81.178.224.140 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Certainly there is a minority view that what Townshend did should not be criminal offences, Is anyone really arguing this point? I'm not. Paying for child porn clearly should be a criminal offense, and so should possession.
but I do not believe an article on Townshend is the place to make that argument I agree with this. I think the section on the child-porn incident can be a lot smaller if we stick to the facts and get rid of sections defending him or vilifying him. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

A compromise to reduce the entire section to a simple sentence was proposed by the other party. Who offered a suggested sentence. I have agreed in broad principle - and offered amendments to his suggested sentence. It includes a reference to the fact that Townshend has a "criminal record" (which I have not struck out) and I submit that this would be NPOV. It offers a pragmatic solution. Not just to the disagreement on content - but also addresses the issue of the vast disproportionality of the section to the overall article - which no one seems to disagree with. Davidpatrick 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability / Factual accuracy

BBC TV crew

User:Davidpatrick continually adds content stating that a BBC TV crew was present at Townshend's house:

On 13 January 2003, Metropolitan Police Service officers, including officers from the paedophile unit, the major investigation team, child protection units, along with computer forensics officers, and a TV crew from the BBC making a documentary about the police investigations into child pornography, all visited Townshend's home by "prior arrangement."

He claims a BBC Documentary supports this claim. Since he doesn't list his sources, I pressume he means the documentary described in BBC film to show Townshend arrest. But that story states that "The film, to be broadcast on Tuesday, shows an emotional Townshend being quizzed at Twickenham police station." Townshend did not live at Tiwckenham police station! Indeed, IF the police were invited into Townshend's house (despite the fact that they had a search warrant!) then Townshend could have refused access to the BBC. Whether they could enter under a warrant is a different question, but nowhere is it mentioned that the police executed the warrant. Townshend's side of the story, to some extent verified by the police, is that the police were invited.

This statement about the BBC TV crew is thus unverifiable and should be removed. 81.178.224.140 21:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Footage of the raid showed on BBC TV that evening, if that's what you mean, so certainly there were news reporters along. It was archived at the BBC website for a while. Pkeets 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Townshend's autobiography

User:Davidpatrick continually adds content saying:

He stated that he was researching the subject of child abuse for his autobiography

On his own webpage, Townshend says that he was researching child porn for a little book to be called "A Different Bomb". I did provide a source for this, but Dp has deleted it. The innformation can be found here: I need to clarify a few things I think, Pete's Diaries, 10 November 2004. 81.178.224.140 21:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just took a stab at rewriting the controversial section. In general, I think what was there was very POV towards Townshend, almost apologetic for his actions. Now I think it's more neutral. It's much better to state the facts, providing the minimum of legal context necessary, and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. I added no new material. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on the section as it now stands. | Klaw ¡digame! 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have viewed the edit of 23:03, 13 January 2006 by Keithlaw and I feel it works a bit better now that a third party has looked at it. I would like to request as an administrator that the anonymous editor (who I think might have set a record for most edits of a single article in a 24-hour period) hold off on any further edits to this section of the article until others have taken a look at it. I would also like to suggest that if the current controversy over content continues, that this article be referred to ROC. I think it can be trimmed further, however at the moment it seems to cover the basis in a matter-of-fact way without too much POV on either side of the issue. I think the references list can also be trimmed a little bit, but I'd need to go through it more thoroughly. Can anyone provide a source for the "prior arrangement" comment? 23skidoo 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
'The spokeswoman said the officers, including experts in computer forensics, were there by prior arrangement, although they did have a search warrant. 81.178.224.140 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmmmmm..... and since the source material was already referenced, I must say I admire your tenacity in seeking out the verifiable facts of the matter. 81.178.224.140


Folks, I'm not sure where to add this into the discussion, but you might want to know that a group in the UK has challenged the police characterization of the Landslide site as a child porn operation and have brought charges against some in the police force for manufacturing evidence and coercing confessions during the Operation Ore investigations. You might also want to review the difference in the US and UK approach to the investigations and the resulting number of successful prosecutions. For more info check at http://obu.2truth.com/ Pkeets 04:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The police did not spend FOUR MONTHS looking at Townshends computers. There was a large backlog due to the large number of arrests being carried out. They probably spent no more than 1 or 2 weeks on it. Also he used Apple Mac computers which do not store information in the same way PC's do and the police do not have expertise in forensically examining them. Also, it is likely that Townshend was not using the same computers he had used in 1999 so for the user DavidPatrick to keep saying he did not DOWNLOAD any images is false. If he viewed the site HE DID download (and thus MAKE) images. It was just that there was no stored evidence years later for them to find. The facts are he admitted paying to view an illegal site. He accepted a caution and SOR placement for doing so. If he had elected for a trial he would have been found guilty and received a conviction.

Anonymous: The question is whether Townshend actually did view a child pornography site. He said in public statements that he only paid to enter and read the index at Landslide, which (according to the latest reconstruction of the site) did not have illegal images posted. His own admission of guilt is insufficient as sole evidence, as he would not be considered reliable to describe in detail what he did and saw at the site several years before. Townshend also said that he encountered obscene images online by accident (and reported these to authorities), but this was common in 1999. Since then it's a bit more unlikely, as child pornography has moved to file sharing technology for distribution.Pkeets 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)