OMG I am shocked .Lostprophets

(149 Posts)
threesocksfullofchocs Wed 19-Dec-12 11:26:02
SantasHugandRollintheSnow Wed 19-Dec-12 11:33:02

Wtaf? Surely not, I used to go and see them before they were famous etc. my friend from school is personal friends with them all. I'm flabbagasteted.

Wetthemogwai Wed 19-Dec-12 11:36:14

I really don't know what to say! The fact that he's been charged and isn't just 'suspected' is just awful beyond words, I have always been such a fan of his!

SantasHugandRollintheSnow Wed 19-Dec-12 11:38:17

I still have my signed copy of fake sound of progress. I had the original version of fake sound of progress before they changed it slightly for the released album!!

I have 3 albums! I loved their varying style.

Wrong, wrong and more wrong.

TenPercenter Wed 19-Dec-12 11:49:34

It is really shocking, did a proper double take reading it on twitter.

JaquelineHyOnChristmasSpirit Wed 19-Dec-12 11:53:36

I'm not suprised by any of this any more.

Actually I'm glad that the public is finally waking up and realising that this kind of thing is out there in mainstream life and not just hidden away being comitted by sterotypical peadophiles wearing thick rimmed glasses and grubby clothes.

GerardWay Wed 19-Dec-12 11:56:59

DS told me about this this morning. I honestly didn't believe him. We've seen them loads of times. I really am shocked about it.

Witchety Wed 19-Dec-12 11:59:08

I'm not surprised either

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 12:02:49

No one ever wants to believe it is someone "normal" nothing shocks me anymore

It's not that we're surprised by age or appearance or fame or anything like that.

I guess it's the shock that someone we 'like' (fan wise) was not what we assumed.
I know he dated Fearne Cotton for a while so I guess we all assumed that he was an average (if that's the right word) heterosexual male.

CatchingMockingbirds Wed 19-Dec-12 12:06:35

I read about it this morning, how awful.

EldritchCleavage Wed 19-Dec-12 12:10:20

He's been charged, not convicted, so it is a bit unfair to be talking about him as though he is guilty.

I agree Eldritch I hate it when these stories come out before anyone has been found guilty. If he is guilty then he deserves all he gets, but if he is innocent then this story will taint his life forever and has probably already ruined his career.

threesocksfullofchocs Wed 19-Dec-12 12:14:18

EldritchCleavage good point.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 12:18:03

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

That is very true Eldritch but unfortunately it will follow him for the rest of his life/career.

R Kelly's career never really recovered after the video was leaked even though the girl in the video said she was over the legal age of consent at the time.
Michael Jackson is another example. There are still people who think he got away with it even though he was cleared in a court of law.

PersonClown hmm

You know what? Plenty of people do get away with it, even though they are cleared in a court of law.

I know that WildStrawberry. I'm not saying he is innocent.
I'm just saying that IF he is cleared, it will more than likely destroy his career and we will never know the truth.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 12:27:30

In a system with such low conviction rates, where abuser after abuser walks free - how would you protect the public then?

People have a right to know and make up their own minds about who and what they expose their children to.

Yeah I was more hmm about the Michael Jackson comment to be honest - the facts of that case that I am familiar with leave me with my own opinion that yes, he did get away with it.

I'm not decided either way until I hear the facts of the case as regards Ian Watkins.

EldritchCleavage Wed 19-Dec-12 12:37:10

I'm not decided either way until I hear the facts of the case as regards Ian Watkins

Exactly. But I also think it is better for comment to be circumspect until after the trial has taken place.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 12:41:02

But you will never hear all the facts - because the defendants rights outweigh the victims and so much is inadmissible in case it "prejudices" the jury.

threesocksfullofchocs Wed 19-Dec-12 12:50:02

if that was the case..then the person would not be named.
always seems unfair to me that people are named, yet they haven't been found guilty of anything yet,

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 12:54:34

That is the case - and there is nothing at all stopping the defendant naming the victim as long as it isn't in "print" (including digital).

The only right a victim has over a defendant is anonymity in the press - the defendant has many, many more rights.

Shall we use a specific example? Accused of violent sexual abuse of children over a specified period of time - school records show a clear pattern of violence against younger children and regular suspensions during that period of time for this behaviour - inadmissible. Victim - one poor school report - admissible.

No-one who works with victims of sexual abuse believes the system as it stands is a)working and b)in favour of the victim.

Xenia Wed 19-Dec-12 14:20:55

They say they released the name to let others come forward which does seem to work (where someone is guilty) in the other cases. Difficult decision for the police.

EldritchCleavage Wed 19-Dec-12 14:21:02

and there is nothing at all stopping the defendant naming the victim as long as it isn't in "print" (including digital)

It is a criminal offence under s.1 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, however you do it. Telling your mate in the pub is just as illegal as tweeting it, only you may not get caught doing the former.

At trial, the judge is very likely to make specific orders to protect the anonymity of victims, over and above the general right not to be named.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep Wed 19-Dec-12 14:56:59

Fuc. King. Hell. shock

Kerrang says he's been refused bail, remanded in custody till Dec 31st. That's not something they do lightly.

foreversunny Wed 19-Dec-12 15:22:15

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 16:59:34

Eldritch - is that correct? Im really interested because that completely contradicts the advice the local police have dished out.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Wed 19-Dec-12 17:00:13

These cases are only ever referred to Magistrates for referral to Crown, its just an additional unnecessary step.

EldritchCleavage Wed 19-Dec-12 17:30:46

Actually, the 1992 Act IS limited to media publications, sorry:

"Anonymity of victims of certain offences.(1)Where an allegation has been made that an offence to which this Act applies has been committed against a person, neither the name nor address, and no still or moving picture, of that person shall during that person’s lifetime—
(a)be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or
(b)be included in a relevant programme for reception in England and Wales,
if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify that person as the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed."

However, any court orders made by a judge pre or during trial e.g. under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 cover everyone and all kinds of dissemination of the information. If victims have reason to fear that there will be a naming campaign (such as happened in that awful Chad Evans case) they can apply for appropriate court orders, though you'd hope prosecutors would do it for them.

AmberLeaf Wed 19-Dec-12 19:01:18

R Kelly's career never really recovered after the video was leaked even though the girl in the video said she was over the legal age of consent at the time

It made no difference to his career, despite his liking of young girls being very well known and ongoing.

Only vaguely recognise Ian watkins, sounds very serious if they've remanded him

FanjoTimeMammariesAndWine Wed 19-Dec-12 19:14:45
FryOneFatChristmasTurkey Wed 19-Dec-12 19:16:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

I was really shocked on hearing this on the radio this morning.

Many correct comments here about innocent until proven guilty but the fact that he's been remanded in custody is (as someone has already said) not a decision that would have been taken lightly and would have been weighed up on the strength of the evidence amassed for a court case. Said on the local news this evening that one of the charges being brought against him is a sexual offence against a 1yr old........there are just no words

Regardless of Watkins and this specific case, anyone capable of abusing or harming a baby/child for their own sexual gratification is evil and fucking sick in the head. You will never rehabilitate people like this.

Xenia Wed 19-Dec-12 20:40:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FanjoTimeMammariesAndWine Wed 19-Dec-12 20:41:56

He has been charged with conspiring to rape a 1 year old baby

WildWorld2004 Wed 19-Dec-12 20:42:25

What i dont get about this is that they have named him but they havent named the two women involved. They should name them all or not at all.

NigellaLawless Wed 19-Dec-12 20:49:54

I suspect the women are related to the children involved and therefore aren't being named to protect the children offence' identities.

Xenia I'm not sure what you mean by ' a stitch up offence' in relation to the charges of making indecent images?

jinglebellyalltheway Wed 19-Dec-12 20:54:25

I agree that charged doesn't = convicted

but am irritated by everyone who is surprized that it's not just smelly gurning old men that get charged with this!

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Wed 19-Dec-12 21:01:19

yes i assumed the women must be related to the alleged victims so couldn't be named to protect teh victims' identity.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Wed 19-Dec-12 21:01:51

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

MoomieAndFreddie Wed 19-Dec-12 21:04:42

i know

i loved this band growing up

shocking

NigellaLawless Wed 19-Dec-12 21:13:28

Dunno why a random 'offences' appeared in my post?!

WinkyWinkola Wed 19-Dec-12 21:41:32

He has been charged with conspiring to rape a 1 year old girl according to the BBC news website.

Thank god they have managed to stop this from happening.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Wed 19-Dec-12 21:48:52

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

threesocksfullofchocs Wed 19-Dec-12 22:11:04

I am shocked because I like the group.
it is shocking

I am shocked because I knew him over a decade ago when he was in his old band. He was an acquaintance bordering on friend (knew mike much better). As a survivor of abuse I feel incredibly triggered by this and sick to my stomach.

Agree that names of women are not being reported as it is likely to identity the child.

I'm shocked because it's somebody I know. Working with children's social services I'm not surprised by who does this sort of thing. Just that it's a person I know.

MyChemicalMummy Wed 19-Dec-12 23:10:06

Totally gutted been a huge fan for years and years.

made me feel sick, just hoping it is all just a huge mistake, though it sounds like it isn't.

That is beyond grim sad

2012 appears to be the year of the paedophile

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Wed 19-Dec-12 23:53:33

i dont understand that comment goths

what do you mean? they've always existed.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Wed 19-Dec-12 23:56:37

I think she means that they are all coming out.

Look at the amount of paedophiles that have been in the news in just the past couple of months.

BertieBotts Thu 20-Dec-12 00:06:19

I agree with MsFanacker. It is shocking, not because it's a "nice young man", but because he is so well-known and the band is, too.

I suppose it's also surprising because he doesn't come across as a sleaze like some popular artists do. But then of course that isn't always the way, at all. I suppose though because of our culture it's easier for a "sleaze" kind of character to get away with lusting after 14/15 year old girls because "she wanted it" or "she looked older" etc.

Yuck.

Santa Because it seems to be in the news every single day this year

NigellaLawless Thu 20-Dec-12 00:08:42

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:10:50

well that can only be a good thing that they are being caught more this year than in previous years. they existed last year as much as this year. if it's been in the news more this year it's because they are being caught, reported etc. thank goodness.

NigellaLawless Thu 20-Dec-12 00:10:59

Goths that doesn't make it the year of the paedophile, but the year of increased awareness and investigation!

NigellaLawless Thu 20-Dec-12 00:12:06

Cross posted with Santa

"well that can only be a good thing that they are being caught more this year"

Agreed.

My point is that, when people look back on this year the things that are likely to stick in the memory will be that so many paedophiles were named this year.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:14:22

do you mean celebrity peadohiles?

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:15:15

sorry that's a horribly phrased term. i mean do you mean this year will be associated with the outing of paedophiles who are/were famous?

It does seem to be mostly "famous" ones this year, but I've definitely noticed more paedophile news stories in general this year.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:23:44

really? i cant say i have but i try to avoid the news TBH. i dont watch any or buy any papers. if i do hear any news it's because i've seen it here or on fb or someone in RL has mentioned it to me. i dont think i could recall a single paedophile story of this year that wasn't jimmy saville related. that's just being honest but obviously, i dont watch news so wont have seen them all.

Ah fair enough. Wishing I hadn't read the news much this year. It's been pretty grim when isn't it I guess

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:25:23

but i am very glad there are more being reported and caught. i doubt it's an increase in paedophilia, just more awareness and less tolerance/doubt about reporting, hopefully.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 00:28:05

it is grim. i know it's a very selfish attitude but i choose the 'ignorance is bliss' method when it comes to the news. there are lots of things i dont need to hear. i know how that might sound but i really do dwell on things like that and they affect how i am with my dcs so i just prefer not to expose myself to it. i know the victims dont get a choice an how lucky i am that i can choose but i've been there as a child and dont need to relive it every evening in the news.

wannaBe Thu 20-Dec-12 00:44:53

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FlourFace Thu 20-Dec-12 01:14:26

What's MN HQ'a thoughts on threads like this? My understanding was that comment like this while legal proceedings are active is illegal.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 01:26:20

comments like what?

TenPercenter Thu 20-Dec-12 02:54:23

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

TenPercenter Thu 20-Dec-12 02:58:08

Oh shut up flourface of course it is not illegal to discuss things that are now in the public domain. People like you do my nut in, always wanting authority to shut discussions down ,tut.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 03:13:22

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SantaIAmSoFuckingRock Thu 20-Dec-12 03:15:39

and yes i'm really struggling with the idea that someone would 'conspire to rape a 1 year old'. i mean how does that conversation even go? i dont actually want to know, i'm just finding it really difficult to imagine that taking place as if it's a normal thing to 'arrange' or want to do. sorry i'll shut up now.

FlourFace Thu 20-Dec-12 09:05:23

I was thinking of sub judice, terpercent. And defamation with regards to other stuff I see on here. Not an entirely ridiculous question, especially given people's lack of understanding re total anonymity for victims of sexual offences for life. ^

FiercePanda Thu 20-Dec-12 09:12:37

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 09:23:07

it is in the news...
it is in Kerrang
of course people are going to talk

Feenie Thu 20-Dec-12 09:34:57

Oh well, if it's in Kerrang....

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pagwatch Thu 20-Dec-12 09:36:41

I can perfectly understand the shock and surprise of people who are fans etc.

But personally I think that the sooner we get beyond the ridiculous notion that paedophiles are a sordid looking type the better. Our children might be a bit safer if people really process the idea that a popular, good looking, young person can be a paedophile.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

EldritchCleavage Thu 20-Dec-12 10:11:18

Proceedings are now 'active' under the Contempt of Court Act. Linking to earlier internet allegations and alleging guilt (directly or tacitly) is not a very good idea.

noddyholder Thu 20-Dec-12 10:11:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Aboutlastnight Thu 20-Dec-12 10:15:07

I think this thread will be pulled - it is contempt of court.

In fact if you want to ensure the trial go ahead I would STFU now as you may prejudice the proceedings.

We are a civilised country, he is entitled to a fair trial whatever he is accused of.

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 10:17:24

don't be silly
how can saying you are shocked about a news story be contempt.
and do have a look at the JS threads if you want that.

Surely it's not contempt of court to talk about what is already out in public? Otherwise the papers wouldn't have been able to publish the article linked to in the OP?

Talking about stuff not published I can understand. But stuff that is?

Pag Absolutely. With the whole Saville thing there were a lot of comments about how he "looked the type", which is ridiculous. And why so many get away with it.

Though in this case my shock is less to do with how this guy looks, or who he is, more the thought that anyone could even think about doing anything like that to a 1 year old. It's just totally beyond my comprehension.

Aboutlastnight Thu 20-Dec-12 10:27:07

I am not being silly.

It is contempt of court. Once someone has been charged you are only allowed to print basic details, what charged with, who they are, where appearing etc. links to idle Internet speculation, commenting as if he is guilty; that is contempt.

But go ahead...

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 10:34:30

"We are a civilised country, he is entitled to a fair trial whatever he is accused of."
I agree.
but he has been named in the press, so people will talk about it.

EldritchCleavage Thu 20-Dec-12 10:35:12

Doesn't matter whether material is 'public' in the sense of having been published or not. What matters for contempt is whether it poses a 'serious risk of substantial prejudice' to a future trial.

Telling people that a person charged with an offence has been credibly accused of it before by people who apparently have evidence to back up their claims has the potential to do that. Talking about the person charged in a way that assumes (i) his guilt; or even just that (ii) he does have a sexual interest in children, also has the potential to do that.

Aboutlastnight Thu 20-Dec-12 10:40:36

Question is, do you want his defence to claim his trial has ben prejudiced due to Internet speculation? Would you be happy to see the trial collapse?

Ah, thank you for explaining that Eldritch

BornInACrossFireHurricane Thu 20-Dec-12 11:01:16

Fucking hell. A one year old?

I have a one year old daughter and could honestly be sick reading that.

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 11:05:20

then report those post.
mn hq can delete them
but stopping people from saying they are shocked is sill

wonderstuff Thu 20-Dec-12 11:05:34

It is awful. But it is the case that paedophiles appear to be nice, normal people. A ex-friend of mine was convicted of holding indecent images and abusing a girl several years ago - I had known him for years, had lots of friends in common, no one had any idea at all until it went to court - it was truly shocking.

I think that crimes like this are much more common than we think because everyone is, understandably, so reluctant to believe that people we know and trust are capable of this. I imagine that sexual offences against babies are rare - I fucking hope so - but crimes against young girls and holding and sharing images - I bet loads of people get away with that. sad

AlienRefucksLooksLikeSnow Thu 20-Dec-12 11:10:01

Oh Christ, It's horrific, not that it's a pop star, I don't give a rats wank what he does to earn a crust, but that a baby a baby could be raped, it's so heart breaking and what the Mother must feel god only knows. Start chemically castrating peadophiles is my honest opinion, you can no more 'rehabilitate' a persons lust for children that you could a normal man of fancying women.

PandaWatch Thu 20-Dec-12 11:11:57

The rest of the band have released a short statement www.lostprophets.com/. Aside from Ian and the drummer, all the others are married with young children. I can't imagine for one minute they had any idea about these allegations until now.

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 11:13:17

it must be very had for the band as their lives are now up in the air

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 11:22:30

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 11:24:13

alien the start needs to be a system that results in more guilty verdicts far too many people walk free

threesocksfullofchocs Thu 20-Dec-12 11:24:55

surely they can only find people guilty ......if they are guilty.

Xenia Thu 20-Dec-12 11:25:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

wonderstuff Thu 20-Dec-12 11:28:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FryOneFatChristmasTurkey Thu 20-Dec-12 11:29:39

Xenia Quote from Guardian:

The 35-year-old has been charged with conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a female under 13 and possession/distribution of indecent images of children.

EldritchCleavage Thu 20-Dec-12 11:30:33

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

PandaWatch Thu 20-Dec-12 11:35:08

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 11:40:15

panda it can take up to 10 weeks to get a magistrates court date - even for this sort of offence - maybe it shouldn't but in practice - it does.

EldritchCleavage Thu 20-Dec-12 11:46:31

Not 10 weeks for the initial hearing, surely. People get arrested and brought before Magistrates for hearings very rapidly after arrest, even on Xmas Day, etc. How else could bail/remand be decided?

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 11:47:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

FanjoTimeMammariesAndWine Thu 20-Dec-12 11:49:25

I would say trying to rape a 1 year old is "something real" hmm

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 11:51:26

Yes they can only find people guilty if they are guilty - but sexual offences are very hard to prove - especially in a one person's word against another scenario - find people not guilty when they are is far more likely under our adversarial system where a trial is simply a chess game between 2 barristers and it is no-ones job to find the truth in court.

Far too much is excluded - to protect through defendants rights - which makes for a fair trial for the accused but not for the victim.

Until I got dragged into this system - I had no idea how poor it is - I naively believed the truth would out - but I have discovered the truth has no place in a trial.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 11:52:25

Yes I cab assure you 10 weeks from charge to magistrates is a real lifer example

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Glittertwins Thu 20-Dec-12 12:00:01

When I first heard about this, it did cross my mind that it was a 12-13 yr old fan that looked and acted a lot older as this does happen. But the more I have now read makes me feel very squeamish and I really hope it is untrue for the children's sake.

Gah, meant to add, I am in now ay legally trained. This is just my understanding of the 'making indecent images' law. I believe it was brought in to prosecute paedophiles who were amassing images and sharing them. Am prepared to be corrected.

FryOneFatChristmasTurkey Thu 20-Dec-12 12:03:04

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

werewolvesdidit Thu 20-Dec-12 12:06:11

poor little girl sad

ThePoppyAndTheIvy Thu 20-Dec-12 12:11:07

Jesus Christ! I had never even heard of Ian Watkins before this (when I heard the news I thought they meant H from Steps - real name Ian Watkins blush). I have a one year old daughter - I really do feel sick having read the details, I was also assuming the charges would relate to a 12/13 year old he had met who looked & acted much older (not that that would be OK of course).

Not much shocks me, but that ANYONE could plot to do that to a baby is one of the things that does sad.

MyChemicalMummy Thu 20-Dec-12 12:12:48

@Izzy

he wouldn't have know any court dates in Nov when the tour was canceled. he was only arrested on monday.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 12:21:52

Chickens But would that not come under possession and distribution?

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 12:27:25

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 12:27:37

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 12:38:07

I'm totally prepared to be wrong, I just thought that file sharing would have been distribution.

AnyaKnowIt Thu 20-Dec-12 12:39:23

news.sky.com/story/1027393/lostprophets-singer-held-on-child-sex-charges

The singer, from Pontypridd, is alleged to have conspired with a woman to rape the girl, Cardiff magistrates were told.

He is also accused of two incidents of conspiring to engage in sexual touching with two young children; possessing, making and distributing indecent images; and possessing "extreme" animal pornography.

The conspiracy charges related to a period between May 1 and Monday this week, while the indecent images related to a period between August 12 and Monday, the court heard.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 12:39:59

"Where images originating on foreign websites are downloaded for viewing in the United Kingdom, the act of making is within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom: In the case of R v Waddon 6 April 2000 Court of Appeal the court held that the content of American websites could come under British jurisdiction when downloaded in the United Kingdom. See also R v Perrin [2002] 4 Archbold News 2, CA which is specifically concerned with 'publishing' electronic data under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Archbold 31 - 73 "

I stand corrected, you were right. smile

This is horrifying, I used to love Lostprophets sad
Never liked Ian, he always came across as arrogant and just not a nice bloke in interviews, but this?

Disgusting. I cannot even fathom what thought process would make one, let alone two people even consider hurting a tiny baby that way.
I feel sorry for the rest of the band too, what must it feel like knowing someone you care about is capable of such things? sadangry

I'm sure it was something to do with closing a loophole. I don't know what, though. Policing the internet must be a total bastard.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 12:44:17

Perhaps they already knew though. sad Or had an inkling and in denial.

Chickens It is very confusing!

wonderstuff Thu 20-Dec-12 13:00:11

I bet the rest of the band didn't know - its just not something you suspect people you know, presumably like and trust of. I mean what sort of person gets off on child porn??

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 20-Dec-12 13:03:30

It was successful!

<freaks out>

Izzyschangelingisarriving Thu 20-Dec-12 13:09:17

Yes 10 weeks - bail set by police until then.

.

JulieMumsnet (MNHQ) Thu 20-Dec-12 16:16:49

Hi all,

Many thanks for the reports about this thread.

We understand that this is a very emotive subject but please do resist the urge to speculate as this case hasn't been heard in court yet.

All we know so far is that Mr Watkins has been charged with offences, and any adverse comments regarding this could be prejudicial to any future hearings.

firefly11 Fri 21-Dec-12 00:26:58

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

firefly11 Fri 21-Dec-12 00:28:15

oops sorry MN... x posted.

GerardWay Mon 31-Dec-12 12:56:20

Ian Watkins has been remanded in custody for another 10 weeks!

Xenia Tue 01-Jan-13 10:19:25

So he has done nothing in a physical sense? I think that's very important to bear in mind. There may be laws stopping people writing things or holding material but that is very very different from taking a child and doing something to it. Nor has he been found guilty of anything yet either.

UnacceptableAmountOfSherry Tue 01-Jan-13 10:47:20

I'm not sure it makes it any less horrific that he has done nothing (that anyone knows of) in a physical sense Xenia.

ANY activity that involves children in a sexual manner is damaging and the fact that a physical act has not been undertaken means diddly squat AFAIC

AmberLeaf Tue 01-Jan-13 10:56:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Pagwatch Tue 01-Jan-13 10:56:34

I have to say that the line between doing nothing in the 'physical sense' and owning, copying or distributing images is a wobbly one for me.

I was 'lucky' enough to be abused in a time when taking images of my abuse was beyond the wit of my abuser.
Growing up haunted by my memories of what happened to me was bad enough. Were there to be images floating around the Internet my life would have been even harder.

And images of child assault and child rape are made to satisfy the audience. If scumbags didn't want thousands of images of children then a few less children might be harmed.

Of course being involved in the physical sense is worse but in my mind they are all on a continuem and owning images should be treated far more seriously.

Xenia Tue 01-Jan-13 11:34:28

We don't know what was written or what was said.
I don't think we should criminalise people who draw thigns others don't like for example. I certainly get the point that buying images damages children, of course.

I do think there is a huge difference between raping an 8 year old and holding material on your computer just as I think an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old girls should not be put in the same category as someone raping an 8 year old girl. It diminishes the worst of the offences when we lump them in in the same category. Anyway we will have to wait to see what the evidence is. There have been some very very wrong prosecutions against people holding images who have really not done anything wrong and we need to stop that.
www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/extreme-prosecution and I think he was found not guilty in the end but I imagine his whole life is ruined.

UnacceptableAmountOfSherry Tue 01-Jan-13 12:03:12

Not talking about this particular case but as a general discussion I'm a bit hmm about your views here.

Xenia I kind of get what you are saying. I don't agree with you ,but I understand the point you are trying to make in regard to Images and individual preference. But in no way is it or should it ever be acceptable to view/posses/share/make/seek images of children.

Never

Are you really, honestly comfortable with that?

Not coming down hard on any activity with regards to children, even what you may consider to be a lesser crime of looking at a picture is disgusting and leaves all of our children vulnerable.

acsec Tue 01-Jan-13 12:05:45

They were the first band I saw live! I am shocked!

Catchingmockingbirds Tue 01-Jan-13 12:11:53

I agree unacceptable. To be able to view and share images of children, a child would have had to be raped in the first place, it should always be seen as atrocious and result in prosecution.

Xenia Tue 01-Jan-13 15:11:40

Unacc, are you and presumably all other mumsnetters, saying if someone draws an image at home that is wrong? Where do you draw your line as it were?

Do you object to James Bond films - where people are shot?

Pagwatch Tue 01-Jan-13 15:15:34

I don't understand the point you are making.

I am not talking about drawing images. Making, sharing images of child abuse means photographs and videos of real children being abused. No one is talking about sketching.

James Bond is not real. People are not really shot.

AmberLeaf Tue 01-Jan-13 15:16:54

Think you have missed the point hugely Xenia.

HotheadPaisan Tue 01-Jan-13 15:22:08

Crimes are already graded and punished accordingly. You are absolutely complicit in the abuse of children if you possess and distribute photos and images of abused children.

The argument about where do you stop in terms of prosecuting drawings is irrelevant, there is more abuse going on than can be dealt with now.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now