Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If they found me in a nursery with lube a claw hammer and duct tape Id still swear blind I wasnt going to rape a baby
It's a reasonable point. The guy's going to be destroyed in jail.
Not really the kind of subject to get that graphic about though as far as I'm concerned.
It was for people like me
Cheers SaD <3
as well as the jury having to hear the evidence in that trial
cos i couldnt remember if the thing i was going to post was officially in the news or just on the internet
pretty sure if it was official, non libelous info someone would have mentioned it. though i do seem to remember it being in proper news so idk
OH NO WAIT
Don't commit contempt of court
unless his confession has lead to the charges against them being dropped.
it's too mental. like, I don't even really think I can think about this properly.
NOT guilty to rape
Appears to be a plea bargain
and it still boggles my mind
Had a cursory quick look, 10 years for both offences as a staring point I think
Too bleak to even wrap my head around.
Modern life 'turning people off sex'
Pope calls for radical Church reform
Use it to back up claims that the Internet clean up is a great idea. Of course when I say clean up I mean major censorship or stuff the gov doesn't like.
JCHQ or whatever it is were part of this, and apparently did a good job
Is Jarvis Cocker reading our email?
Could be easily deduced before but I don't recall it being made explicit.
Sounds like he's plead guilty to about 20 of the charges.
in legal terms? Or are they distinct charges?
unless someone corrects me?
Attempted could be on your own, conspiracy has to involve more than one person.
so I think it's public domain stuff now. Unless those two tabloids hjave been extremely naughty.
Either way, :(
and intended to do it, but been caught before it happened (hence conspiracy charges) but taht twitter feed from the trial is bleak as fuck even by those standards
Still not naming them. so its ok to discuss it
Was obvious the two women were related to the victims in some way when they were all arrested and not named
As long as the women aren't named, and there is no danger that the children will be identified from it, then it can be reported like this. But news outlets have to be careful of 'jigsaw' identification.
with all the legal machinery to preserve their anonymity, it won't be 100% effective what with the internet and all, still think the kids would be better off being given new names at this stage in their lives
in so many ways. I don't really think the kids should have to take new names (though presumably they will now have to live with relatives/carers and a name change will happen in course with that), they're the victims, they should be as protected as possible.
but the victim's under 2 or something? just wouldnt want to have anything to do with my mother after this at all at all
the guidelines in this is to name the person convicted and obscure the crime/relationship. Obviously too late now.
only positive is the family and jury not having to sit through the evidence. he's gunna get the vilest treatment inside
the family was apparently involved
if my brother did this to my nephew i would want him punished and wouldn't want to have to see it
and i dunno how many family members the victim has
Just the mothers
Prosecutions opening statement being reported
WARNING: it's fairly grim but not graphic
Has nothing to do with the other guys.
he's famous as the Lostprophets singer, you can't just change that out of sympathy for his former bandmates.
If a band deserves to be tarnished with this its lostprophets, but its still bullshit.
Its a mashup of death threats, fans crying and fans defending him
but there was a bit of 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff from fans earlier
Mainly teenage kids who don't really understand.
That hashtag looks like it's not really been used today, a few tweets today, most from yonks ago
and that looks like it was a 'joke'.
It's about as bad as it gets, really.
i wouldn't recommend that
Using #lostprophets is the final nail in that particular coffin too
is the prospect of committing crimes and acts like these, not remembering them and then seeing video footage of yourself? Sounds like the plot to a nightmarish Twilight Zone.
not massively sure I buy that line tbh
Not saying now that I don't. Don't know nearly enough about the case to speculate or judge.
But the prospect of it is sickening.
That defence is pretty piss poor TBH
And I'm not sure it even is a defence
to that incredibly dark black mirror episode.
along those lines anyway
Knew I'd seen something like it before but couldn't place it.
leave the rest of em out of it
And playing on the roof of television centre
The next you're a target in prison
you were famous so everybody now knows you're a mega pedo. you'll spend a good chunk of the rest of your life in prison, as a mega pedo. i literally don't understand who chooses to stay alive for that.
like also when people get the kind of prison sentence that means they'll basically never be free again, how do you not find a way to end it? life is already pretty shit, getting thrown in a cell and buttfucked on the regular is pretty much a dealbreaker as far as i'm concerned.
i'm sure he's going to have a lovely time there then
my overwhelming apologies xx
just this once
Many do you know
About how many online papers are covering this story with sensationalist pictures of the disturbingly pre-pubescent looking Miley Cyrus in their sidebars/top stories. It's quite grim. Different thread possibly.
Is that perving over miley cyrus is no different from plotting to rape a baby. And for what its worth, I agree
And pretty butch
surely it's only a (very depraved) fantasy, right? he can't possibly have actually wanted to get a baby high on crack, right?
not the other stuff that he fucking videod himself doing and fucking stored in a cloud account
I don't think there's much of an element of fantasy to any of this, from the looks of things. I think we all assumed that was the subtext of all the reports, but no - looks like he is a lot worse than any of us imagined.
just every aspect of this is pretty much 100% incomprehensible, as well as being totally appalling.
"sample of child victim's hair found they had been exposed to Meth Amphetymne"
There it is.
was he trying to use the kid as a bong as well?
this whole fucking is so extreme i can't even understand
but fucking hell, cat-race. What is wrong with you?
i just mean, how much can a person want to completely use up another person? it's totally mental.
According to the latest court tweets.
i needed some tired humour to distract myself after reading those tweets.
genuinely sickening stuff.
And what a despicable cunt he is along with the women involved, how you can do this to any kid let alone your own.......can't even begin to get my head round it.
This happened when the story broke.
I actually hope the kid that posted faces legal action. If you're going to be posting shit like that with such bombastic authority, at least do a quick check.
Some belm just posted it.
what're the odds?
He knows he made a mistake, but fails to realise that he has probably committed a crime. Feel I should tweet him to advise him, but he's ignoring Steve Brooksteins advice, so why would he listen to me
I can't imagine H from Steps is really going to take action though, stupid as this prick is being.
and that he's committing libel.
Let the racist fuck burn, for all I care.
Someone with Twitter please, please, please link him to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24654289 just to shit him up a bit.
I await his response
Back in 09?
but for all the unfathomable things he did the mother is even worse, if that's possible. She did everything he did, but as the child's mother.
There's a lot of this I find difficult to get my head around, but that is top of the list. It's subhuman. How do you transgress one of the most innate human instincts that badly?
Going to watch it on a loop tonight
but my highly-informed and not-at-all-speculative guess is that he's an awful, controlling mega-git who used his fame as a means to manipulate and control a vulnerable person.
JUST A GUESS GUYS, NO-ONE SUE ME
Fuck this though, I'm going to the kite-festival thread for light relief.
but these people can't be what medicine, science, psychology etc would term healthy.
Apparently Watkins was completely teetotal until about 7 years ago- had never touched anything, even anything mild, in any capacity. When he broke his edge, he broke it pretty bad, to the point that his band mates were concerned for his mental and physical well-being.
@rupertevelyn Police believe that Watkins may have abused others and therefore this investigation is not over.
Been reading about all this on twitter. It's dark as fuck.
Feel sorry for the band too. People are saying "they must have known". Shit for them to be labelled.
but they've all immediately lost their livelihoods, no more lostprophets merch or albums going to be sold anytime soon
They're seeing a lifetime of work go down the drain because of one man's sick actions. Have to feel sorry for them really.
Don't think anyone will ever play Lost Prophets again.
That sounds flippant, but I'm saying they've lost profits because of this.
But my actual point wasn't the money, it's the fact that they're gonna be labelled as paedos by *some* people by association.
but they've all just immediately lost their livelihoods and had their names tarnished somewhat
Where he was going on about a conscious decision to live his life entirely without rules
Obviously everything is going to now but it reads very tellingly in retrospect.
was drowned in sound talks to Ian Watkins.
It's either on his feed or the band's feed. Can't remember.
(or was that debunked? i remember seeing the profile on that escort site...)
“Contradictory. Proud. Unabashed. Driven. And… determined. Very fucking determined”
Anyone want to attempt 5 words to describe him in 2013?
A "determined and committed paedophile".
"Police believe that Watkins may have abused others and therefore this investigation is not over"
The guys that run this blog are both sentencing experts and criminal barristers. They seem to suggest that a life sentence may be on the cards
Only a few people are on whole life tariffs, and they are all murderers
Plus whole life tariffs have been found to be potentially in breach of the European Court Of Human Rights
but Jeremy Bamber's an odd one. He was/is either a very, very calculating murderer or one of the unluckiest men alive.
Weird how some of those individuals are so notorious compared to others on the list who have committed equally heinous acts
the man really is a menace and deeply unsettling that he managed to get away with what he did for so long,
and i imagine they'll post more about it as the facts are digested in the coming days. i can't imagine anything less than a multi-decade sentence tho
it may seem naive but its unfathomable that people like this can exist
Thick as shit, desperate fan with nothing a to live for, miserable existence, gets attention from pop star, he is a manipulative shithouse with no value for life and an out of control ego, and boom, he has control of everything for his own horrible means. Given some of the other stories in recent years, with nursery workers and stuff, it just seemed so utterly plausible, you just want it to not be.
Seems much more rife than expected.
I don't think that was just a 70s thing either. Apparently the rate of child abuse has remained similar for decades. Just our awareness has gone up. Although the recent Savile cases might have changed that.
and properly try to understand how big of an issue it is for us to tackle. Both in terms of actual abuse and people repressing their feelings. Sadly it's impossible to have an adult public discussion as it immediately reverts to talk of hangings and angry mobs, which doesn't actually get us anywhere. I think there is a very real chance that this is a much bigger problem in our society than we're willing to confront, and we're doing a disservice to both victims and potential victims by being so hysterical about it all. It needs a measured and mature psychological debate so we can try to address it.
but it is scary
I mean, they're massively different.
I might feel like I want to punch someone but I don't do it.
I remember a Sun article where they found some paedo and was like "you're a convicted paedo living in a neighbourhood!" and he was like "yeah, I can't help it".
Harsh times. But I think some of the yewtree stuff wasn't about just sex, it was power and opportunity and being the "big man" as a lot of them seemed to be arrogant celebrities.
Fuck knows - It's a definite issue though but yeah, there's an pressure cooker of anger and violence circling around the topic. It's understandable.
this in a non-judgmental way is the 'self -control' thing. Same here. But that doesn't seem to go far enough and the only peopl who are going to go further are people getting paid , liike doctors. No one wana to imagine that it could've been any of us cursed with that mindset to hav to control.
especially compared to the tedious macho moralising filling up my facebook feed at the moment.
I haven't even been on facebook yet
... turns out child abuse is a bad thing
there's going to be a lot of CDs burned tonight.
THAT'LL SHOW THEM!
And not in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, Saville way but in a open accusations being made repeatedly on the internet kind of way.
Also, I've done quite a lot of drugs in the past, I have never felt the urge to abuse a child. I think the implicit connection is needless and will be jumped on by the usual "prohibition" types seeking to make cheap points. The man is just a scumbag, drugs or no drugs.
I always assumed the rumours people referred to would be about dubiously aged fans etc?
Stuff pertaining specifically to babies/ young kids around 2/2.5 years ago, all subsequently deleted (his who's dating who page was scandalous for a long time before it was taken down.)
Watkins managed to write it off as a deranged fan. An ex (not that one!) eventually took her concerns to the police.
It's fair to say that one of the mildest condemnations one can make about child abuse is that it's something of a buzzkill.
Like he may have always found younger girls attractive and the large doses of drugs may have convinced himself to act upon it. I'm not saying drugs make people pedophiles but it probably helped alter his perspective over it all.
It's that this person was completely removed from the norm- he is/was completely detached from society's consensus. That drugs were a seemingly systematic part of his behaviour and abuse are entirely relevant.
It's unwise I know, but I can't help creating and filling out a narrative- what I see is a cocktail of ego, numbness and ennui ... Someone who was had the draw to experience whatever pleasures he wanted and spiraled, needing to go further and further to get a hit.
Not that I'm sympathetic in the slightest. I hope he never leaves his prison cell.
felt really drained for the rest of the day
I can't think of anything else to say. I'm so shocked people like this exist.
"our son found fame then tried to abuse a baby sexually". Wow.
I was just condemning them.
she had a LostProphets song as their first dance and now wedding memories tarnished.
Why would anyone choose a LostProphets song for a wedding dance?
the real victim here. Our thoughts go out to them at this difficult time.
Says his laptop password , cracked by gchq, was "If**ckkids"....unbelievable
I feel bad as this made me laugh on a packed tube
he shouldn't be using the same character twice in a row, does he know nothing about password security
Pages 11 and 15 of today's Sun and Mirror, and more column inches dedicated to Jermaine Defoe. This story is a small feature on some front pages and completely absent on most, with the focus being entirely on Nigella Lawson having a coke habit.
I am surprised that this crime, which seems to dwarf other celebrity sex scandals, has such coverage when yesterday afternoon I expected to see this on front pages everywhere. This seems strange considering the coverage both papers gave to Michael LeVell when he was on trial and later acquitted. One can only suppose that the offences are too grim to acknowledge or that there are no targets to be ‘got at’; like the BBC or ITV.
I presume it's because he's less well known
The bigger story lines and seasonal episodes pull in about 12 million people. There's a huge demographic crossover between those viewers and regular tabloid readers.
Lostprophets have sold 3.5 million records, and mostly to young people who are less interested in the printed press.
I doubt there's much more to it than that.
the case is SO disturbing, and the content is probably too graphic for the established norms of media consumption and representation they've decided to keep it low key.
I've deliberately tried to not read the details of the case. The ones I've read are just too stomach-churning.
"I got my shit locked down like a master".
"Image has been removed"
It's still there and because of you I had to click it again and look at that foul image.
that link isn't safe for anywhere
"Many of you will doubtless have seen or at least heard the photo that has been circulating of Ian apparently giving someone a blowjob. The day the photo leaked onto infamous celebrity news and gossip site www.unratedPerez.com Ian posted a cryptic Twitter saying ‘I love it when a plan comes together…’."
Fawkin heck, I remember thinking at the time that poor guys gonna get slaughtered for this
To one more befitting of a nonce, anyway...
I think there's probably still space for you in the daily mail comments section if you took a wrong turn buddy
Well done to the police, well done to (alledgedly) the ex- who reported suspicions. Major efforts are being made to make sexual abuse of children punished, and that's progress. One needs to remember that this is a crime that was barely acknowledged in society in past generations.
It also needs to be remembered that the horrific details of this are part of what is a freak case. Yes, abuse of children happens, but abuse or attempted abuse of a baby is a very rare thing.
What depresses me is that as a species, we are unable to evolve beyond a simplistic direct cause and effect culture. We are so in thrall to scientific evidence directly linking A and B, when indirect causes may be just as devastatingly pernicious. Our culture is generally over-sexualised, children/young people are over-sexualised, and just because we can't directly tie that down to the increased reports of paedophilia, shouldn't it be obvious to us that we need to take efforts to push the pendulum back in the other direction?
Though I agree that this a freak case, and one that is just as much torture as it is sexual abuse.
But really, I don't think that paedophillia has any relation to the perceived 'sexualisation of children'. However, it is a problem that we refuse to discuss sex in a balanced and distanced manner. Children and young people are given such bizarre mixed messages about sex from a very young age. We need to acknowledge the fact that human beings are inherently sexual, and that it's not just something which suddenly happens when we turn 16. I'm obviously not saying that pre-pubescent children want to have sex, I'm saying that sexuality is a natural part of everyone, and therefore it shouldn't be viewed as something 'adult' and taboo that can't be discussed.
Girls especially are given conflicting messages, and are denied sexual agency from a young age. With young teens, there is so much emphasis (for both genders, but it's mainly aimed at girls) on virginity, on being 'emotionally ready' (whatever that means), on 'waiting' etc.. Sex education is stuck in 1950s moralism. Boys are immediately placed as the instigators, and girls as passive with the power only to accept or deny male advances, with no sexual agency of their own. By implication, teenage girls who actually want to have sex are presented as some sort of deviants, simply for displaying natural teenage/human behaviour. At the same time, all the displays of sexuality they see in the media etc are male, for men, by men, which reinforce the active/passive thing. (There's been so much talk of porn, but in my opinion it's the casual, sanitised depiction of sex that we find in mainstream film, tv and magazines that is actually harmful to children and young people).
This is the reason that there have historically been such rabid female fandom for boybands (you can draw a line from The Beatles to the Bay City Rollers, Wet Wet Wet, Bros, One Direction etc)- it's one of the only ways that young women can express their sexuality. There is a really great academic article about this (specifically about Bay City Rollers fans) but I can't remember who wrote it. I'll find out if anyone is interested.
What we need to worry about are the patriarchal myths informing sex education and mainstream deceptions of sex, not that children/our culture is somehow over sexualised.
With regards to paedophillia though, we need a total rethink as to how we discuss it. Our inability to distance ourselves from it is dangerous. In my opinion, the world 'peadophile' is pretty unhelpful and useless. As far as I'm concerned, there are people who have abused children, and people who haven't abused children. People have the right to be attracted to whoever and whatever they like as long as they're not hurting anyone, and if you look into any part of fetish culture (not just BDSM), you'll see the whole range of bizarre and disturbing attractions that people have. Looking at 'paedophillia' is this context makes it seem slightly more comprehendible. I'm not really sure there is any moral difference (though obviously there is a HUGE cultural difference) in fantasising about having sex with children, and having rape fantasies, the latter of which is accepted, up to a point, in our sexual culture.
The fact that we think of people who are sexually attracted to children and people who have actually abused children as one and the same is terrifying. People who are attracted to children shouldn't have to live their lives in fear of being 'outed' and losing their families and jobs. Similarly, although obviously child pornography is horrific, handing out custodial sentences to the often vulnerable people who possess it is about as much use as putting drug addicts in prison.
In my opinion (although I realise that this isn't one currently shared by the majority of people), we need to tackle child abuse through looking at rape culture and the issues surrounding it, NOT by attempting to stamp out all sexual attraction towards children, which has always existed and always will exist. The importing thing to look at is male sexual entitlement, which is relevant in all discussion of rape culture, but especially sexual abuse against children, particularly in relation to the whole Man/Boy Love movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA).
But anyway. This post is far too long, but it's a very important subject, that too many people refuse to talk about. Just a (hopefully unnecessary) disclaimer- I obviously think that anything relating to sexual abuse is horrific, I'm not somehow sympathising with abusers, I think that it's just as significant a crime as most other people do, I just think we need to look at the wider issue in a different way; one which doesn't constantly condemn.
Makes some interesting points
Not sure i agree with all of it but it was an excellent read.
there was a good thread a while ago discussing an article about people who were attracted to children but worked hard not to act on it
I was being very unexact and generalised when talking about sexualisation of children.
It is just one facet of what is a bigger picture of the depiction of sex and sexual relations in mainstream culture.
and for taking time to read the post, especially as it wasn't completely on topic. This whole thread/discussion is really interesting and very different to how I thought it would be. I should come to the social board more often.
'What we need to worry about are the patriarchal myths informing sex education and mainstream deceptions of sex, not that children/our culture is somehow over sexualised.'
I don't see that they're two distinct phenomena- we very much need to worry about the 'sexualisation' of culture and young people. Not necessarily to protect them from paedophiles, mind.
only couldn't be sure I'd set it out nearly as eloquently as this, and that I wouldn't look like a troll.
But I agree 100% with the notion of human sexuality & desire as being infinitely varied, and from this perspective there's nothing "unnatural" about being sexually attracted to children. Which is an important point, as much of the hysteria around paedophiles (whether active or otherwise) has at its root the idea that they're monsters. They're not. They just happen to be cursed with a form of desire that makes them pariahs. Sure some of them are weak, and some are disgusting, and some are criminal, and some are predators. But then you could say the same thing about hedge fund managers or car salesmen.
There are some really interesting things hiding behind the paedo = monster equation, and few of them have to do with paedophilia itself. I always think that every vigilante outside the courtroom, every outraged Daily Mail letter writer, everyone on talkback radio calling for the death penalty, is really saying the same thing: "It's not me".
It's like with Savile - All these rumours and nowt was done.
They brought Jimmy Savile in for questioning and they had nothing on him. What would you prefer? People being detained with no evidence, because of online rumours? It would be chaos.
I'm not being some HANG THEM UP idiot (unlike my Facebook timeline) I'm just saying it's mental there were so many rumours. you'd have thought it led somewhere.
You're right though, what can you do with rumours? idk.
that his defense that it was an ex out for revenged seemed pretty fair enough. plus there was all that stuff about him trying to spread aids which was presumably a total fabrication.
ie hanging around Newport way, it really is a fucking shock. My heart goes out to the victims but also his family, and friends/band mates who seem to be bearing a fair whack from people because of his disgusting actions.
the main story has been taken down but he's still on the homepage.
'H' from Steps died years ago: http://goo.gl/RHi2J3
(old but still funny)
google url shortener leading to a bing search result?
With allegations of child abuse: were not fully investigated
Also, was thinkig earlier about the fans who have LP tattoos....
And even more stupid now.
really wonder how they treat the victims of things like this, they obviously could need a lot of counselling as they grow up but how do they offer it without telling them things they may not even be aware of and traumatising them more
Like, the police said that they were too young to understand what had happened... does that make their future easier or more difficult?
And taped their first three CDs and although they were a slight guilty pleasure, it was only because they seemed like our generation's Bon Jovi.
And thought he could never do more wrong to the world than a slightly nasal singing voice.
And thought that video of theirs which riffed on children's TV and had Ian saying "sharing, caring, oral hygiene" was nothing more harmful than a modern day Carry On film.
The Betrayed, released in January 2010, is priced at £6.99 while Start Something and Liberation Transmission are £5.99.
The band's latest album, called Weapons, was released on March 30 2012 and can be purchased from iTunes for £3.99.
as if Apple (an American company) go trawling around for crimes committed by the thousands of bands' music they sell and remove them from their shops. This probably didn't make the news in America, not in any way close to how big it was here (even then, it wasn't exactly headline news).
The article even shows how Amazon are selling second hand copies for a pound and reprinting reviews from 2004. And how a Facebook group in support had amassed less than ten likes. FFS.
so yeah........... stupid unhelpful article
By News agencies
1:11PM GMT 27 Nov 2013
that just shows ads for things you've been searching for?
which they obviously haven't made a conscious decision to include on that page, much as itunes haven't made a conscious decision to keep selling lost prophets music in spite of the case
Whilst at the same time having one SMALLER on their own front page
are credited to DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Hopefully get arrested, charged and convicted of contempt of court
who originally posted the tweet with the names of the co-defendants, simply because I can't see how she could have received that information ahead of anyone else. I think it's far more likely she retweeted the original tweet, which is still not a particularly smart thing to do.
they know all kinds of things we dont
then she tweeted the names to her followers, then subsequently deleted the tweet
I have reported the link to South Wales Police, together with another idiot who tweets the names of every defendant going into Cardiff Crown Court on a daily basis. He named the two co-defendants as well
that said it does seem to be a case of ignorance rather than malice.
how does the defence work in cases like this?
is the defence team
They probably advised him to plead guilty given the weight of evidence against him and they will have said if he tries to fight it there is a high chance he'll be convicted. Then it is mainly about coming to an agreement about a plea that is acceptable to the prosecution that they can accept, in the public interest.
Everyone is entitled to be represented. The lawyer who represented Breivik said something really good on this topic - can't find it now though, obviously.
re: Everyone is entitled to be represented.
i can't imagine *personally* assisting someone like that. must be a hard job. Not the same as doctors treating people without discriminating for example
to ensure the proceedings are fair and that the accused can't complain of mistreatment (in most cases).
congratulating Peaches for 'bringing the mothers to justice' etc.
One woman in particular didn't seem to get the problem with identifying the victims. When it was made clear to her, she revealed that she was also a victim of child abuse and knew the law better than everyone else.
Regardless of what she may or may not have been through, her attitude to identifying these women is 100% incorrect
His team were clearly holding out for a plea bargain, as the evidence seems to have been damning
and claimed she thought the names were made publicly available
hope she gets done for it.
it's frankly ridiculous he's even been mentioned, hence the ':D'
but seeing Alexa Chung and Fearne Cotton mentioned in every other online article is discomforting, too
At least the H from Steps thing is a genuine (if lazy and braindead) mistake
The references to these two are outrageous, what has it got to do with them? Alex Turner went out with Chung didn't he? Why not chuck his name in there.
But this, by a friend of his, is really worth a read http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2013/11/_this_is_ian_watkins.php
p.s he gets sentenced tomorrow...
as if you can stop someone for getting royalties just for being a criminal. Just think of it as more cash that can be given to his victims if they make a claim for compensation. Then question why anyone would buy anything by Lost Prophets anyway, if he is a pedo or not.
but the irony that he's made money from being a soon-to-be convicted criminal is both ironic and ridiculous.
he'd have made it anyway (he'd have made more anyway)
to not play his music any more given the situation?
So many fucking horrible artists who've done some awful things make money every day. It's just how it is.
And he did write / perform one of the best Christmas tunes so whatcha gonna do?
this reminds me of the outrage that a rapist won the lottery and everyone got angry. I mean, yeah, it's not particularly fair, but it's a fucking LOTTERY. that's the point.
I think the real issue here isn't that Watkins is earning cash (he's not gonna even be able to use it in prison, but his family might which is fair enough).
The real issue here is that people are listening to the music. Not because of Watkins, but because it's emo metal shit.
If you read the article properly - it says since he was arrested.
And given lostprophets worldwide sales and the fact the royalty trail probably has about a year's timelag on it then, yes, that remuneration sounds entirely sensible.
That article's laughable though - pure speculation about how much money he 'might' have made.
Given his circumstances before the arrest (wasn't he still living in Ponty?), the fact his money is split with bandmates/managers etc, and that I can't forsee that big a spike in sales (maybe I'm wrong...) and the drop off in radio/TV play etc... seems unlikely.
Really doubt Lostprophets have sold 100,000 records during a time that they've had no singles, no marketing and no touring.
think I may have
truth be told
Check out a quotes from two phonecalls he made after pleading guilty
Apparently he was considering releasing statement saying ‘Mega Lolz. I don’t know what everyone’s getting so freaked out about'
Woman on the phone call said she wasn’t sure ‘mega lolz’ was the right statement. Watkins agreed. “It’s just lolz now,” he said.
Watkins insisted in phone call he wasn’t a paedophile. Said he pleaded guilty to avoid trial not realising that made him look “a bit guilty"
In 2nd jail call Watkins said "not a paedophile", had done things to shock while "off my head" & would "never harm anybody"
that clears that up
Says he's not a paedo and it was megalolz
What a mental.
where there are literally no words.
When asked if he would still issue a statement saying his conduct was "megalolz" he replied: "No, it's just lols now."
Despite everything else that's come before it in this case, this "megalolz" comment is almost the thing that's shocked me the most. It's genuinely unbelievable that in spite of everything, he appears to have so little remorse.
If you're going to do something like this, it's unlikely you'll be the sort to be remorseful. The guy's seriously ill.
He knows his life is over and he's most probably shit scared.
Apart from being deranged he seems to be pretty powerfully thick as well.
+ drugs withdrawal?
He's obviously a full-on psychopath
and now he's gone and tarnished Anchorman with the 'I'm kind of a big deal' comment.
He's taken some of this 'being horrible' shit to the next level. I expect there are hardened paedophiles thinking he's giving them a bad name over some of this.
And yes he does appear to be a psychopath.
But given judge has said he poses a risk, looks like it might be the case (option 2)
Life: minimum of 10 years is my guess
He wont be detained indefinitely
Would like to see sentencing remarks. Judges comments suggested irsk of re-offending was a distinct possibility which suggested life with minimum term.
Though this sentence seems to suggest no risk, although the term of 29 years plus 6 on licence is huge.
It's not indefinite though
Thank fuck he was caught
"The judge is currently reading a report which says the child involved - who the court previously heard would not remember what happened - will eventually grow up to learn about the ordeal. There is no telling the psychological effect of that discovery, he says."
Why on earth would they do that? If something like that happened to me as a baby I'd much rather not know
My guess is that there's a wide group of family/friends who know this baby and exactly what happened. Which is probably why the names of the 2 women have been regularly tweeted etc.
kids gonna ask why he is adopted.. not sure theyd reveal all the details..? just say his mum abused him... he searches back 18 years and finds out this is a big news story from where he was born... pretty easy to connect the dots
I assume these are both determinate sentences?
But yes, massive
Thought the judge would go for a life sentence with a minimum term, but obviously thought a huge determinate sentence was a better option
His life in prison is going to be astonishingly bad.
just for his own protection
...but solitary just sounds AWFUL.
23 hours in your cell, 1 hour of association.
rupert lad's corrected it on his twitter
he wouldnt know what lengths he wouldve gone to
so he could be out at 58/59, but yeah
Did anyone read that stuff about the statement he was going to put out saying it was all "mega lolz"? Mental.
more on the basis he's (apparently) on suicide watch and the length of that sentence. Here's what i am referring to, towards the bottom of the article. http://www.factmag.com/2013/12/18/ian-watkins-jailed-for-29-years/
Just find a matter-of-fact prediction that someone we have very little insight into the mind of will kill themselves, and in a set time period, a bit bizarre
which is a bizarre thing to do anyway, but i don't think i could go on if I was him and i guess the suicide watch statement supports it somewhat. As ever with predictions, be they football or otherwise i'm normally wrong so i should just keep quiet, especially about something so morbid.
and will be on extremely high supervision, so how can you really speculate it?
not totally convinced by the women's sentences though, seems kinda gendered- "of COURSE a young woman in her twenties can be easily manipulated by a man in his thirties". hmm.
so you know, they've taken that into account.
this isn't the only thing Watkins is being charged for is it?
i believe they're opening a case to see what else he's done, but as said i don't know too much.
he's involved in both these women's cases but they are separate, which also would double his charge
really? Seems like a deservedly large sentence to me. How much higher should it be? Whole life tariffs contravene human rights and aren't handed out anymore, and he would never have received a whole life tariff anyway because he didn't murder anyone. And seeing as his sentence is considerably higher than the sentences given in the majority of murder cases, I'd say it was "enough".
35 years is a certainly a long sentence, but he could have still have received a life sentence if the judge considered it appropriate; murder is not the only crime where life sentences are. Being as dispassionate as possible I still think there is quite a bit of weight to the argument that given the nature of the crimes and the ages of the children involved, he should have received a life sentence, guilty plea nonwithstanding.
As it stands, Watkins will be eligible for parole after he has served 2/3 of the 29 years. Whether he is released at this point is of course another question and it would seem very unlikely that he will be.
Murder carries a mandatory life sentence in the UK, so the sentences in murder cases will all be 'higher' than the one received by Watkins
murder is not the only crime where life sentences are handed down.
a whole life tariff being a sentence where the prisoner had no chance of ever being granted parole.
The majority of 'life sentences', such as the ones handed out for murder, last for an average of 14 years, so a 35 year sentence is still a very heavy sentence, whether or not it's officially a 'life' sentence. The only life sentences that truly mean life are prisoners on a 'whole life tariff', of which there have only ever been 61 in total, some turned over on appeal. Whole life tariffs no longer exist (and rightly so in my opinion), thanks to a European court of human rights ruling this summer.
I personally think that Watkins will eventually be released; it would be an exceptional circumstance for him to still be deemed a dangerous sexual predator dangerous in 35 years time, and for him to have made no progress towards acknowledging and coming to terms with his crimes. Unless his mental health just deteriorates, though.
I'm talking about life sentences that can be handed down for a variety of offenses (not just murder). Murder is the only crime where 'life' is mandatory though.
I'm not sure what your '14 year' statistic for 'life' sentences refers to (not trying to be argumentative, I just don't know where the statistic comes from). Life sentences depend upon two things - the minimum term set by the trial Judge and whether (once the minimum term has been served) a parole board considers that the offender can be released. As such, each case is determined entirely on its particular facts and there is no 'average' time served for a life sentence.
Ian Watkins will not serve anything like 35 years - he will be eligible for parole after serving two thirds of the 29 years he has been set to serve in jail (so after approx 19 years). Even if he is not released then, the maximum he can possibly serve is the 29 (with the remainder on licence). If he had received life, he may have served a lot longer because it would have been down to a parole board as to whether to release him or not.
He may even have actually served a full life term as the European Court of Human Rights decision that you refer to did not rule that it was necessarily unlawful for prisoners to serve life sentences, but rather that it was unlawful to deny them any possibility of parole (which, like you, I think is absolutely correct)
I didn't realise that he couldn't serve more than 29 years. Hmm. I see your point. I guess there must be reasons for the sentencing but you would think that an indefinite sentence would be more appropriate. Maybe a life sentence wasn't deemed appropriate because he wasn't actually convicted of rape, despite the extremity of the other crimes?
I got the 14 year thing from this BBC article when I was googling life imprisonment stuff, it's from a few years ago now though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5086978.stm
and yeah, re: the full life term thing, that's what I meant- that at the time they're convicted, it now can't be decided that a prisoner will never be released- there's always a chance of parole, no matter how slim.
how many lives have been ruined here.
i can only guess that he's absolutely insane.
WARNING: these will almost certainly make grim reading (not read them myself yet)
i...i feel ill.
i want a lie down.
DON'T READ THIS.
you mean it's not light hearted and megalolz ? shocker
the funnier this post gets, what are you, lemmings?
Your life is better for having not done
no bants or bullshit, you'll be sorry if you read it, really, really upsetting.
I never liked watching TV coverage of ethiopia or other human tragedy, but you can't just tiurn off the tv and pretend it didn't happen.
I found it sickening but interesting. 9I would actuually be interested as to whatv incandenza thinks of thes epopel- are they evil, or helpless products of a society that hsa failed them? Too unwell to be culpable? I can't believe that somebody who cou8ld do this, and gain enjoyment form it. was of sound enough mind as to be fully ,legally capable, but I am a soft touch in this regard.
Slight liegal aside-The sentencing ratonale for watkins, in terms of how they balanced the need to run the B and P senteneces concurrently, against the overarching principle of totality, was not detailed enough tin my view, and might leave this open to appeal (on sentencing grounds, that is.)
But I'm not a lawyer (just an interested bystander), Plus I don't really understand totality. All the links I can find are far too long and wordy
vis a vis the Hall case- http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4431983#r7558575
I'd like to know a little more of the reasoning applied in this case (although I do accept that, sometimes, the reasoning for weighing consecutive against concurrent is not always defensible and may come down to gut instinct.)
I'd refer back to calumnlynn's post; this kind of thing happens. it gets called 'unnatural' and 'evil', but these are just the unpleasant extremes of what humans are capable of.
it's just like anything else, a cumulative result of nature (possible psycopath?) and nurture/neglect (everything else).
these atrocities will have occured countless times throughout the history of man (sexual assault of children, psychological manipulation, drug abuse causing people to do horrific acts they wouldn't otherwise do), and we don't like to contemplate it, even if we're aware in some distant way that it happens.
this court case and its grim details are probably as real as it's got for most of us, but the details, as sickening and upsetting as they are, already existed in the grisly negative potential of people.
not sure just how rife it is, what with Yewtree ripping up the proverbial floorboards, but it's safe to say these people are the fucked up outliers of society. however, there's the potential for many more to commit horrible crimes against humanity, and it's a tragedy that anyone ever turns out like that.
we don't know that much about any psychological abnormalities in the defendants, but in another life, the women could have been wonderful parents, and Watkins could have been the opposite of the heartless predator he turned out to be. at the least, they were once children themselves, innocents.
the minds of even relatively normal people are fraught with unpleasantness, and if someone hasn't the strength to know these things are wrong, let alone not act on them, then you have to treat these people differently.
I think there's a point at which people are too far gone to be reformed. people aren't machines that can be repaired, no problem. if Watkins was able to, he wouldn't have done what he did. ultimately, he has to be under the control of those with properly functioning consciences. hard to know if he'd ever reach a point where he could rejoin society; irrational and airy arguments for moral punishment aside, how can you trust in rehabilitation, in a severely warped mind not to unravel again?
(I really wish I had proper DK/johnny-rat-style REAL SCIENCE to back these thoughts up... like, recidivism in sex criminals, or any other type of criminal).
I'm intrigued as to at what point these tendencies arose in Watkins; it's crucial we understand better what drove him to it in order to look out for and prevent more of the same in others. not just in psychological defects, but in confronting the societal aspects that feed into this particular kind of crime.
I'm on a phone, plus I don't tend to do much critic writing or whatever these days. and I'm no academic.
then have a look.
...it makes it all the more relieving that prospective jurors were spared watching the video evidence in court.
Just reading it is troubling enough.
Hard to read that and not think the kindest thing would be to relocate the kids thousands of miles away and set up a thorough, fraudulent paper trail about their infancy
i feel a bit weird calling this the light relief, but christ after reading most of that it needs it:
"One of the passwords you chose, which needed the assistance of GCHQ to break was I FUK KIDZ."
On the few occasions The Daily Mail gets to me and I imagine what paedos are like, I think of sweaty, nervous weirdos who anguish over their existence, not someone who flamboyantly revels in it.
but it's all stuff that was mentioned or implied by previous reports and news stories.
didn't explicitly mention the technical detail of the abuse, and until now, I hadn't read the court papers. It's no worse than i had guessed, but still sickening to read.
Very unwell people (yet not criminally insane, it seems.)
If, yanked out of the situation they were in, esp. him - huge amts drugs, influence, etc - if they'll be able to come to terms with it at all. Or be able to cope if they do.
I know nothing about psychology at all really, and your own intuitions are just useless in a case this terrible / bizarre.
oh my GOD.
Read it last night. What an utter, utter cunt.
"grim reading" indeed. nearly in tears here.
But perhaps maybe delete it?
it's horrible but it's an official court thing rather than some seedy internet rumour; if people want to put themselves through reading about the official document they should be allowed to.
got immediately off it, where did you find it?
i just feel numb about the whole thing now, it's all too surreal, don't want to process it.
Actual sentencing remarks from today
Though I guess not many people are going to end up there by accident.
no one reads posts mate, they just see the links in bold and click away
as it's presumably going to be publicly available and exist for a long time (forever?).
WTAF? That's more than some government departments have
should be prevented from knowing who they are and the situation that led to their being up for adoption. That way there should be no chance of them ever finding out what they were victim to.
they may have to move to a different country...
a huge amount of damage will already have been done - a child's earliest experiences, remembered or not, are crucial to its development.
I haven't read the court document upthread or anything, the whole thing is upsetting enough already.
...is that this seems to me (legal bods feel free to refute this) an exceptional case of child abuse both based on the merciless depravity of the participants and the extreme nature of the relationship between all of them. That this was all orchestrated by the singer in a world-famous rock band who folk like us would've been keenly aware of and who some, like me albeit inadvertently, have even seen perform live makes it just that little bit more unbelievable.
Trite cliche, but if this had never happened and you wrote a screenplay of this as a fiction, every executive you showed it to would punch you and throw you out on your arse
As can be seen by the sentence handed out, which is the longest determinate sentence in 30 years
Extended determinate sentence is correct
Plus the 29 years (2/3 minimum) is pretty much what he would have got with a life sentence
Just that the Watkins could have received life if the Judge considered it was warranted. I'm almost positive that it would have been considered and for whatever reason was felt not to be appropriate (quite possibly so as not to set any sort of precedent that any 'pedophile' crimes should carry a life sentence given the sometimes exaggerated tabloid press reaction to crimes of this nature).
Personally, I think that this particular case is so horrific (pretty much everybody involved with it has said it is the worst thing they have ever had to deal with) that a life sentence would not necessarily have been out of proportion.
I also take your point that the minimum term if he did get life probably would have been at the 20-25 year mark, but again, given the nature of his crimes he could have found himself serving significantly longer as I doubt many parole boards would be in a hurry to let him out.
Surely if Watkins is still considered dangerous when he is up for parole, he just won't be released? Which amounts to the same thing as being given a life sentence.
the mind boggling thing is he found two people willing to do this, you'd think the chance of finding one person would be tiny, yet he found two of them. Makes you wonder how many people he tried first, if he didn't try it with other people it quite worryingly could indicate that vulnerable people can be manipulated in the most extreme way by a bit of celebrity power
and asked "should we plead mega-lolz at this point?"
he is properly, properly insane.
That after this disgusting, arrogant bag of shite serves every last second of his sentence, he's dragged outside and shot with his own balls.
Now I have a mental image of someone trying to load severed testicles into a rifle. Thanks, crosseyedsniper.
Just the knew jerk reaction of a father of 3.
Still don't believe in capital punishment. Two seconds on here and on Twitter makes you realise why the Daily Mail does so well.
when you became a parent?
I genuinely believe that a lot of people will find that they do. However it can still come across as trite to younger people/non-parents.
It used to grind my gears, but with a pregnant wife I have to admit to being even more repulsed by the Watkins stuff than I probably would have been, ceteris paribus
I don't see how it would be different
The only thing that has changed is that I really need to know these stories, and pay way more attention so that i am properly informed and can make judgements to be a better parent. So this story makes me think "raise her to not be naive/impressionable/easily led, make sure she has a strong character, teach her about being careful and think things through blah blah blah"I look at that story, and think, yeah, vile scum, knew there was lots of that about, useful to be reminded, don't ever put yourself in the position where your family could even possibly be the victim.
The one that plays on my mind in this context, way more than this story was that horrible nursery based one a few years back. Hand the kid over to strangers, pay them, trust them, be betrayed.
But again, doesn't make me get all Daily Mail and want people hanging from the lamposts, that hasn't changed at all. If he dies i won't be going to the funeral and i wont care, but that is very different to the whole put-him-in-the-stocks and shoot him with his balls mentality.
I'm not suggesting at all that being/becoming a parent suddenly turns you into a crazed capital-punishment/lynching nutter.
if you are reeling out the IYHCYWU* line. have you heard of empathy?
*if you had children you would understand
He's saying his views on this are influenced by the fact that he's a parents. I think that's inevitable in lots of situations, and is pretty honest too.
People's views and stances on things change over time, whether it's due to age, working, experience, becoming a parent.
However, there are plenty of people who are parents and against capital punishment etc.
Why don't they just drop that and always give determinate sentences?
it just isn't 'life without the chance of parole'
That makes sense. That's what he should have been given. How can he ever not pose a threat? Considering the zero remorse he's shown.
is quite a long time to mull things over...
The amazing chocolatier
than a "life" sentence, even if that means forever. If he knew he was going to die in jail then in a way you just sit there and get on with it (eventually you would come to terms with this anyway). A short sentence you can focus on the however many years you need to get through. But if you know you won't even be considered until you are 60, and if you are released your life will likely be even shitter than inside, that fucking sucks.
I hope he doesn't start appeals to reduce the sentence like Mark Bridger has apparently started. I know they are entitled to and they feel like they may as well, but it just makes people fucking hate them even more.
What has he got to lose?
What is interesting is whether the Attorney General will refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal for being "unduly lenient"
Now IMO, 35 years is hardly lenient, but discussions above about life with a minimum term are arguably valid. Is it more severe? Not sure about that
it was taking all the offences into consideration and adding up their individual sentences. So if they find more offences, could they presumably keep adding time on? A bit like America where people go down for 200 year sentences...
If he is found to have committed other offences, he will go to trial and be sentenced accordingly. Although it unlikely to build up and up as in America, due to the "Totality Principle"
Appeal for undue lenience only relates to this trial and sentence
This 5 page explanation I found seems to be the best bet yet
can you if you've already pleaded guilty for megalolz?
You can appeal length of sentence even if you've pleaded guilty.
Upon hearing a plea of 'megalolz' the judge pulls a lever that drops the defendant through a trapdoor into the rancor pit.
where he'll be tagged, have to report in at police stations regularly, have certain conditions placed on where he can go etc. It's decades away though, probably not worth getting worked up about.
They will find tweets where people seem to be supporting him and post them. The Mail have already been posting vague articles about Fearne Cotton (who had a brief relationship with him about 9 years ago) saying stuff like how she has a "brave face" on despite the sentencing and listing what designers she was wearing that day.
Looking brave. Basically identical pictures of a woman walking somewhere.
"She walked into work, as she does every day"
"Carrying her handbag with one hand the radio presenter walked with her other hand in her pocket wearing strappy green high heels."
Whatever else she might have going on in her life, Fearne Cotton always manages to rock up to work at the Radio One studios looking as stylish as ever. We love her outfit here, which although is somewhat more subdued than usual, still has a typically quirky twis
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2516831/Fearne-Cotton-seen-looking-subdued-ex-Ian-Watkins-pleads-guilty-attempted-baby-rape.html#ixzz2o0t554DM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
actually managed to mention his links to Fearne Cotton and Alexa Chung before the crimes he committed. I guess they are trying to pick up people googling what Fearne Cotton is wearing today.
are some of the rare times where the Mail readership don't support the article, all the high rated comments are asking why they are linking her to this crime.
is that Mega Lolz as a phrase will surely be virtually stamped out by association