Lost Prophets singer charged
Discussion
elephantstone said:
The text above the video is b
ks. He says 'I just answered it' (referring to previously saying 'heroin') not 'you just answered it' referring to 'babygirl'budgie smuggler said:
elephantstone said:
The text above the video is bks. He says 'I just answered it' (referring to previously saying 'heroin') not 'you just answered it' referring to 'babygirl'MercuryRises said:
I'm just not convinced the threat of death has as much effect as people like to think
None at all if the murder rate in the US is anything to go by.When people commit crimes they are not thinking of the possible punishment that awaits them - nobody commits a crime expecting to be in the dock the next day - least of all Murderers.
Incoming multi-quote epic.
Instead, charge attempted rape which carries exactly the same penalty and you negate the need to prove the most troubling point to prove of rape when the victim cannot give evidence and medical examination cannot prove it either way.
Sickening, but that's the way it works. It's sensible and pragmatic prosecution.Well said, i think the likelyhood of what he did is far greater than what he's been charged with.
We can only hope the children wont be permanently physically damaged by this.
Only click this if you are happy knowing some of the video details that are in the judge's summing up
The video seems to show him succeeding with oral rape and attempting anal rape, i would have thought that would have classed as rape but it seems there has to be something more than penetration involved.
Whereas in a case where there's no video i should imagine both attempted and actual rape will both require fairly high proof, perhaps even harder with attempted as there may be no forensic evidence.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Whatever, you have to remember that a lot of the worse stuff reported he never actually went through with. It was probably just warped fantasy.
Like I say, on this topic, some people (posters) and the system lose the plot.
i'll bet my house on the violence he inflicted upon those children is far worse than what he was charged with and with what the judge's summing up contains.Like I say, on this topic, some people (posters) and the system lose the plot.
Dan_1981 said:
The report makes for some hideous reading, the women were as bad as he was.
27 terrabytes of data as well.
Christ.
That's not 27 terabytes of porn, i'll wager a lot of it is the masters for songs and videos, HD video takes up 9Gb per minute or more, i have 10 terabytes of storage here for videos from our stud farm.27 terrabytes of data as well.
Christ.
catso said:
I agree, kill the stbag but as that's not going to happen the best I can hope for is eternal suffering.
State sponsored killing is not the answer, he's better in prison for the rest of his life, he's going to have to do some changing to get out.tbag but as that's not going to happen the best I can hope for is eternal suffering. BJG1 said:
None of his band mates had any idea apparently, 6 mins 20 into this video seems a bit of a strange exchange then http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THumayDY8bA&t=6...
edit: I can't work out actually if they're laughing at "baby girl" or something inaudible one of them says.
edit: I can't work out actually if they're laughing at "baby girl" or something inaudible one of them says.
Band member 1 said:
What's your guilty pleasure
Watkins said:
Heroin
Band member 2 said:
Baby Girl asks what's your guilty pleasure
In Unison said:
giggling
Watkins said:
I (maybe you) just answered it
WeirdNeville said:
Silent1 said:
I presume he wasn't done for rape as they felt the burden of proof was too high but those poor kids will either have to be told what happened or everyone involved in their care will have to lie to them
THe issue with proving rape against the very young is that you have to prove penetration. The pure physicality of this (sorry) can lead to prosecutions failing on grounds that it is "impossible" unless there is very good evidence that penetration HAS occurred.Instead, charge attempted rape which carries exactly the same penalty and you negate the need to prove the most troubling point to prove of rape when the victim cannot give evidence and medical examination cannot prove it either way.
Sickening, but that's the way it works. It's sensible and pragmatic prosecution.
We can only hope the children wont be permanently physically damaged by this.
clonmult said:
Out of interest, is this the case for rape in general?
An ex was raped a few years before I met her. She actually got a conviction and he was put away (for 5 years iirc). I didn't think many rape cases resulted in conviction due to this burden of proof?
I think the burden of proof is similar in the case but the reason they went with attempted is they have a video An ex was raped a few years before I met her. She actually got a conviction and he was put away (for 5 years iirc). I didn't think many rape cases resulted in conviction due to this burden of proof?
Only click this if you are happy knowing some of the video details that are in the judge's summing up
The video seems to show him succeeding with oral rape and attempting anal rape, i would have thought that would have classed as rape but it seems there has to be something more than penetration involved.
Whereas in a case where there's no video i should imagine both attempted and actual rape will both require fairly high proof, perhaps even harder with attempted as there may be no forensic evidence.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Not only that....we all know how the prison population 'appreciate' child abusers.
IW better hope they keep him in solitary for the duration of his stay.
The wings that sex offenders are kept on can quite often be worse than the general population, manipulators don't change just because they're in prison and many will have insatiable sex drivesIW better hope they keep him in solitary for the duration of his stay.
garrykiller said:
this is my view too. the only problem is it isnt a small sell, its a lovely room with a tv and a playstation.
Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, it really isn't.WCZ said:
what are you talking about, how are the baby/infants / subjects of child pornography he downloaded to blame?
for videoing and having sex with the 16 year old girls he was sentenced for 1 year per girl (I'm not sure what was illegal though as it was presumably consensual or he'd be charged with rape and within the age of consent)?
He's talking about the mothers of the children, he turned them into sex offenders they almost certainly wouldn't have done what they did without his influence.for videoing and having sex with the 16 year old girls he was sentenced for 1 year per girl (I'm not sure what was illegal though as it was presumably consensual or he'd be charged with rape and within the age of consent)?
im said:
MercuryRises said:
I'm just not convinced the threat of death has as much effect as people like to think
None at all if the murder rate in the US is anything to go by.When people commit crimes they are not thinking of the possible punishment that awaits them - nobody commits a crime expecting to be in the dock the next day - least of all Murderers.
Prob with death penalty is just 1 wrong conviction is too many.
jdw1234 said:
If 35 years in the slammer isn't a deterrent, I don't think death penalty will make much difference.
Prob with death penalty is just 1 wrong conviction is too many.
And the problem with 35 years is that you only end up with better prepared criminals, which in this case could well lead to the death and suffering of most certainly innocents as opposed to those who have not been proven guilty to the required standard.Prob with death penalty is just 1 wrong conviction is too many.
It is not an easy debate. I have my views on this and have tried to voice my ‘new’ standard of proof I believe there should be before the death penalty can be applied only to be shouted down by those that can’t understand that there is a difference between “all reasonable doubt” and “all doubt”.
Rude-boy said:
It is not an easy debate. I have my views on this and have tried to voice my ‘new’ standard of proof I believe there should be before the death penalty can be applied only to be shouted down by those that can’t understand that there is a difference between “all reasonable doubt” and “all doubt”.
The only difference between "Beyond all reasonable doubt" and "Beyond all doubt" is that the latter, by definition, must exclude unreasonable doubts. I put it to you that if the defence is able to circumvent the death sentence by raising doubts which are unreasonable, you will have great difficulty putting anyone to death.Silent1 said:
He's talking about the mothers of the children, he turned them into sex offenders they almost certainly wouldn't have done what they did without his influence.
that doesn't make them victims, that's like saying a man is a victim if he cheats on his wife supposing a 10/10 looking girl offers him casual no strings sex.WCZ said:
Silent1 said:
He's talking about the mothers of the children, he turned them into sex offenders they almost certainly wouldn't have done what they did without his influence.
that doesn't make them victims, that's like saying a man is a victim if he cheats on his wife supposing a 10/10 looking girl offers him casual no strings sex.that's BS, underlying ethics will prevail over desire to fk a rock star in the context of most of the population IMO - no matter how gradual he introduces the concept. same with religion, do you think the murderers of lee rigby were also victims because they were brainwashed into doing so?
k a rock star in the context of most of the population IMO - no matter how gradual he introduces the concept. same with religion, do you think the murderers of lee rigby were also victims because they were brainwashed into doing so?They're as bad as he is. Anyone with half a brain would turn around and tell him to fk off, and report him to the police. Anyone who does what they did on request of a "singer" from a "famous" band has a screw loose. LP weren't even any good.
The two women are rapists, it's just that a biased law doesn't see them that way.
k off, and report him to the police. Anyone who does what they did on request of a "singer" from a "famous" band has a screw loose. LP weren't even any good.The two women are rapists, it's just that a biased law doesn't see them that way.
ADM06 said:
They're as bad as he is. Anyone with half a brain would turn around and tell him to fk off, and report him to the police. Anyone who does what they did on request of a "singer" from a "famous" band has a screw loose. LP weren't even any good.
The two women are rapists, it's just that a biased law doesn't see them that way.
Perspective is a wonderful thing ADM06 - It's easy for us who have never been obsessed with the power/awe/influence of someone to look at what they did and simply say they cannot be victims - certain people who are easily manipulated can be made to do the most horrific acts (as shown in this case) and rationalise it within themselves. k off, and report him to the police. Anyone who does what they did on request of a "singer" from a "famous" band has a screw loose. LP weren't even any good.The two women are rapists, it's just that a biased law doesn't see them that way.
Whilst they have committed the most depraved acts and should suffer all of the punishment they have been given, the psychological aspects of what roads and steps they took to go from young mothers to standing trial with one of the most dangerous paedophiles I've ever had the displeasure to witness should be taken into account.
The sentences handed out are, imo, fair and justified. There are reasons why Ian Watkins received double the sentence of the mothers - as is described in the .pdf
Have a read of the Jonestown murder/suicides for an insight into the power some people can have over others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown
TTwiggy said:
ADM06 said:
The two women are rapists, it's just that a biased law doesn't see them that way.
Rape requires penetration, by a penis. Women don't have penises, so cannot commit rape. I don't understand how this can be viewed as a 'biased' law really.Have you never heard of a woman committing and being convicted of rape?
I agree that 35 years rotting in a jail cell is a good punishment I just object, as a tax payer, to having to pay for it. Killing people like this is better for all of us. Is it a deterant? No, because such people are often too arrogant to think they will ever be caught. But it is efficient (forget the US and their ridiculous system) and has no moral downsides that I can see.
I wonder how much it has cost to keep Ian Brady alive to date, just so that he can continue to show no remorse and allow the mother of one of his victims to go to her grave not knowing where her child's remains are. Then we waste more taxpayers money debating his request to be allowed to transfer to a different prison. There is something very wrong with a society that wants to keep people like this breathing. What is the moral argument for keeping him alive? That he is human? Define 'human' as I'm not so sure. Surely it should amount to more than the biological.
"Human is as human does." Discuss...
I wonder how much it has cost to keep Ian Brady alive to date, just so that he can continue to show no remorse and allow the mother of one of his victims to go to her grave not knowing where her child's remains are. Then we waste more taxpayers money debating his request to be allowed to transfer to a different prison. There is something very wrong with a society that wants to keep people like this breathing. What is the moral argument for keeping him alive? That he is human? Define 'human' as I'm not so sure. Surely it should amount to more than the biological.
"Human is as human does." Discuss...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff