Lost Prophets singer charged

Author
Discussion

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
One of the women is from Doncaster rolleyes

It seems similar to that case a while ago with the women sending pics to a bloke.

barker22

1,037 posts

166 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
I don't get this whole conspire thing. How do you bring something like that up with another person, who may just turn out to have at least 1 good brain cell in their head and shop you in.
It beggars belief that these people manage to find like minded others. Its not like you start a topic on a forum.

PaperCut

640 posts

146 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
barker22 said:
I don't get this whole conspire thing. How do you bring something like that up with another person, who may just turn out to have at least 1 good brain cell in their head and shop you in.
It beggars belief that these people manage to find like minded others. Its not like you start a topic on a forum.
I agree, although I would imagine there are ways through the internet, but then I would rather not know what they are.

This story hasn't been mentioned on the tv news yet, why is that?

rohrl

8,711 posts

144 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
(Precis - Ian Watkins has not presently been convicted of anything and should be regarded as being innocent.)

I am not a parent, but reading the words "raping a one-year old" left me feeling a mixture of genuine physical nausea, frustrated anger and close to tears.

The natural reaction of an adult to a one-year old should be to protect it from harm shouldn't it? I know that child abusers concoct a narrative that the children are enjoying it or were asking for it or whatever but that just cannot apply in this case; no one could possibly persuade themselves that this type of offence was in any way anything other than 100% wrong, evil behaviour.

I'm the one here who will always take issue with anyone wishing physical harm to be done to convicted criminals and I will stick to that here. I wouldn't however object to anyone convicted of the offence described to be held in solitary for perpetuity and forever more be considered a risk to society.

Let's hope the child in question has not been physically harmed and is too young to remember anything, is brought up in a supportive and loving family and never knows anything of these events.

rah1888

1,546 posts

186 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
The comments lower down the page, written 11 months ago, make some interesting reading today.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_74997/ian-watkins/

boothy1987

223 posts

139 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Chuffing weirdo


rohrl

8,711 posts

144 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Probably best if we don't discuss the stuff posted on that fan page. It's definitely prejudicial to a trial, especially the unicorns and robots, and the bit where he has three penises.

I'm quite surprised how common knowledge the stuff those groupies are chatting about seems to be among them.

P-Jay

10,551 posts

190 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
rah1888 said:
The comments lower down the page, written 11 months ago, make some interesting reading today.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_74997/ian-watkins/
That's about the first thing I've seen today that might lead me to think its bullst. Some of the posters on that site come across as nutters with an axle to grind.

BoRED S2upid

19,641 posts

239 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Getragdogleg said:
A 1 year old ? Wow, what the hell is wrong with him ?

We all know some young girls act more mature and you need to have your wits about you when out clubbing and the like but actually wanting to have sex with a baby is quite disturbing.

Prison is probably not the answer for this guy if found guilty, a mental health facility is more suited as it is clear that his brain has got a few of its wired links quite bady crossed.
Whoa. 1? I read 13 somewhere which is pretty bad but 1 is a whole different level of bad!

hornetrider

63,161 posts

204 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
What the actual fk? One? I'm cuddling my 5 month old right now. The mind boggles how someone could consider such a vile act.

Getragdogleg

8,736 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
hornetrider said:
What the actual fk? One? I'm cuddling my 5 month old right now. The mind boggles how someone could consider such a vile act.
Yup, I keep mulling it over and I don't think I ever want to understand it because i don't want that information in my mind.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Well there's part of my teens ruined.

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
It is very disturbing.

As some others have said, you can understand how you could be caught up with a 'developed' teenager by mistake, but how you could find a baby........the mind boggles.

I'm pissed off because I actually quite like a few of the bands songs.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
P-Jay said:
That's about the first thing I've seen today that might lead me to think its bullst. Some of the posters on that site come across as nutters with an axle to grind.
Well without wanting to think about the details, the charge of "making and distributing indecent images of children" would involve a degree of self-incrimination no?

Silver

4,372 posts

225 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
No, it's hideous, but I think we still have the issue of ensuring there's a distinction between being charged and being convicted.
Quite. Not the same thing at all.

Getragdogleg

8,736 posts

182 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
P-Jay said:
That's about the first thing I've seen today that might lead me to think its bullst. Some of the posters on that site come across as nutters with an axle to grind.
Well without wanting to think about the details, the charge of "making and distributing indecent images of children" would involve a degree of self-incrimination no?
Is the "making" bit of that not just the act of printing it out or storing it ? In all the cases of people fiddling with kids locally when you read about it in the local rag I noticed they are always charged with this even if they have not actually touched any kids.

What is the legal definition ? is my interpretation correct or does it actually mean they got the old camera out and took the pics ?

P-Jay

10,551 posts

190 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Art0ir said:
Well without wanting to think about the details, the charge of "making and distributing indecent images of children" would involve a degree of self-incrimination no?
I've only read "downloading and distributing" which I take is 'just' being a member of say Limewire.

The whole thing is just horrible, not because I was a passing fan of the band or that I live reasonably close to him, just the idea of the poor victims, I hoping it all turns out to be BS.

Art0ir

9,401 posts

169 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
Perhaps I've misinterpreted then, I guess time will tell.

Horrible stuff, leaves you sick thinking of the depravity of it.

JB!

5,254 posts

179 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
rah1888 said:
The comments lower down the page, written 11 months ago, make some interesting reading today.

http://www.whosdatedwho.com/tpx_74997/ian-watkins/
Either:

Someone has an axe to grind

Or

He's sick

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Wednesday 19th December 2012
quotequote all
I've just noticed that he was remanded and refused bail. Is that normal for these sort of charges or does this suggest they have some serious evidence that makes him a danger?