|
would not be what, norma j?
i might be being a total hyprocrite here, but pete townsend had joined a child porn website. proving he was writing a book on it doesnt really make alot of sense to me. it seems like a crazy excuse born out of despair of being caught. like when i was a schoolkid and my mom would find fagends in my drawer cuz id been smoking out my window, id tell her i was looking after them for someone. that kind of crazy unbelievable excuse.
if youre writing a book on child porn, you must obviously feel very strongly against it. its child abuse, and if you feel strongly against it, a normal person would probably not find and join a site on it, giving money to evil people who make sure there are kids being raped everyday.
my point is more that people never look for any evidence. they dont wanna hear it. everybody in this thread is willing to believe CHOUT, no questions asked. it seems like CHOUT doesnt know much about this than that half arsed newspaper article that seems to contradict itself. nobody cares or even notices. someone could be guilty of doing that and thats all that seems to matter.
it ruins peoples lives.
pete townsend s a good example as he wont ever live it down. especialy in england. my mate is called pete and he was going out with a girl of 16 (10 years younger than him) he earned the kickname pete townsend.
pete townsend and child porn are forever linked. whether hes guilty or not.
i find that situation far too fishy though. if he had proved that he didnt join that site then fair enough, but he admitted it, and i dont buy his excuse.
|