OMG I am shocked .Lostprophets

[threesocksfullofchocs]

here

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.

Fuc. King. Hell.

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

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

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

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.

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

It is really really serious

(very sensitive link)

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lostprophets-rocker-ian-watkins-accused-1497254

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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

i know

i loved this band growing up

shocking

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

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.

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.

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 :(