Advanced search

OMG I am shocked .Lostprophets

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


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

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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

Think you have missed the point hugely Xenia.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.


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.

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. and I think he was found not guilty in the end but I imagine his whole life is ruined.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

oops sorry MN... x posted.

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

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

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.

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

Yes 10 weeks - bail set by police until then.


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

It was successful!

<freaks out>

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 12:44:17

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

Chickens It is very confusing!

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows Thu 20-Dec-12 12:42:12

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.

GalaxyDefender Thu 20-Dec-12 12:41:58

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

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

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

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 12:38:07

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

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: