WARNING UPSETTING CONTENT - Ian Watkins to be sentenced this afternoon

[hobnobsaremyfavourite]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25412675
Could this vile excuse for a human being sink any lower? His defense team pleading that he is a suicide risk and so very sory for his crime whilst he "LOL's" down a phone to a "Young fan". WTAF is he doing being allowed to contact young fans.
I hope he never leaves prison.

I didn't get kicks out of reading that but I had genuinely wondered what some of the vague details of the case actually pertained to, as the reports have obviously been toned down as it's very disturbing. Though I can safely say I wish I hadn't as it's ten times worse (if that's possible) than it sounds in the press. Just how...How on earth does any parent even manage to think like that let alone do that to their children. So sad that it seems it could've been prevented a little earlier too.

I am not going to read the full report. I don't think it should have been published to me it feels like taking dignity away from those poor babies I think they should be able to get on with their lives without all and sundry knowing the graphic details of what happend to them.

I think most people will read it out of interest but a minority may get kicks from it and be encouraged to become even more extreme in their behaviour.

No it isn't the only public interest I agree Auntie but I do question the need of most people to read that.

There is a good reason for 'need to know' in Health and Social Care. This falls into that regarding the public domain.

The trouble is, over on another thread there is a lot of discussion of the need for openness in court judgments. If the Court Service didn't publish it, it would be accused of trying to suppress the truth and free speech. I think that, given the lurid hints the Press has been putting out, there is a public interest in producing a factual summary.

I feel sorry for his parents - how in the world do you reconcile loving your child with the knowledge of what he has done.

I hope the children involved get all the care and love in the world - which they should have gotten from their "mothers"

Yes I agree we need our courts to be seen to be transparent but I would question why people feel they need to read such details. It is there-we don't need to read it.

I do think some of the interest is rubbernecking in nature. Some people stare at accidents as they drive past. Some people do not.

Christmascareeirstbitchnigel - I am indeed woefully ignorant of the legal system here in the UK, and I promise this is not intended to be a slanging match (more keen to have a genuine discussion as I am genuinely interested in another perspective here). However, I still find it hard to understand her comments such as:

Earlier on Wednesday, defending barrister Sally O'Neill QC how Watkins "belatedly realised the gravity of what happened" and was "deeply, deeply sorry". - That is clearly prime horse-shit when his taped phone call shows the complete opposite.

The key thing for me is that he admitted guilt. If he insisted he was not guilty, then I guess crack on and defend him - the idea of a miscarriage of justice is horrendous. However he admitted he was guilty and she defended him. Forget the idea of defending in the legal sense, her words in court were aimed at defending a guy who admitted to doing what he did.

I think the other thing that comes into play in my mind here is the fact that those in the legal profession (understandably) want to win / succeed in their cases, but surely there is a conflict of interest in 'wanting to win' and the fact they think their client is guilty. I know at this point you may well say 'it doesn't matter whether they think their client is guilty', but my point is that it kind of does. Morally, how can you defend someone who is guilty?

Of course people in e.g. the police have a duty to keep a neutral stance if they arrest someone (innocent until proven guilty and all that), but this woman defended someone who was guilty. And she defended him with some extremely questionable (by any lay wo/man) statements. See first quote above.

I wonder how much he was allowed to get away with on tour? Everyone says what a nice bloke he seemed but really, at their height! What sort of behaviours would he not be getting pulled up for because he was the leader of the band. There must have been some inkling or was it just brushed off as rock star behaviour.

It's sickening to think that this probably isn't the end of it.

nappy defence is not just on guilt and innocence, but to offer mitigation once found guilty that might effect the sentencing.

Those saying will he be in solitary for ever - nope. Thre is only one prisoner that is in constant solitary... He killed other prisoners. I expect he will be kept with otherc'vulnerable' prisoners. In fact there are some prisons that only hold vulnerable prisoners.

And those women will be out with plenty of child baring years left. I think the court was very lenient towards them.

lighthouse, it's highly unlikely that they would be allowed to keep any subsequent babies

It's just so twisted. Did he just wake up one morning and become like that? If they hadn't met him would they have led normal life's and had normal relationships? I can't get my head around it.

Morally, how can you defend someone who is guilty?

I work for the police within the court process so I see horrific cases every day, have dealt with a fair few. I would say that the vast majority of serious crimes are committed by people who have very serious problems -be it drink, mental health, drugs, have been sucked in with a "bad lot" or have dreadful pasts. While what they have done is inexcusable, some of these defendants are absolutely pitiful wretches. Most of them aren't some evil mastermind, they are deeply fucked up people whose actions have unfortunately spiralled out of control until they impact on other people.

The job of a defence barrister when a defendant pleads guilty is to say "yes, she seriously abused her child but she was beaten and sexually abused by her father between the ages of 5 to 18 and therefore she has grown up with this being normal". Pleas in mitigation don't generally try to downplay the offences but give a judge a reason why the defendant might have committed them.

Christmascareerist - Yeah, I've heard other people say that, too. And someone else once said to me that when they hear of someone that has become evil like this, they think of them as a small child and wonder what on earth happened in their lives to make them the evil they have become. Often, like you say, very sad things have happened to them.

But I just question how useful / relevant it is to tell the judge that they were abused by their father? Ok maybe this is something that should be taken into consideration when they are under e.g. 20 yrs old, but when they are 36?? If I knew he'd had a sad childhood, OK I'd be sad for him, and yes I guess feel sorry for the whole sorry situation, but ultimately, does it really change how he should be treated by the court now?? I don't think so.
So what's the point?

And I think the point about legal professionals wanting to win regardless of their moral duty is an interesting one too...

Thank you for posting, Christmas, I found your observations really helpful and insightful.

Yes ditto that, Christmas just re-read your last post and it is well put.

:(

It is, I am glad to say, an absolutely fundamental principle in our legal system that anyone accused of a crime is entitled to have a lawyer to defend them, and the day we start eroding that principle is the day we start sliding into a dictatorship.

I agree with that 100%.

I think it is one of the cornerstones of our justice system which, although flawed, I believe to be one of the best in the world.

What I emphatically disagree with is victim blaming and calling underage, and therefore raped, teenagers "extremely willing participants" is utterly deplorable.

Does anyone know why the children have to be told what has happened to them? Given that the abuse happened as babies so they will not remember, presumably the trauma will all come from eventually finding out what happened. It just seems so cruel for them to find out...

What about a witness protection type scheme - or other ways of preventing them identifying their birth mothers (clutches at straws...)

It's unlikely. Circumstances have to mirror precedents closely and there aren't similar cases to this that often (thank heaven). Also, without writing an essay on judicial precedent, it relates basically to evidence in trials, not sentencing as sentencing is controlled by the sentencing guidelines council.

It isn't about whether they remember but about what happens should they wish to restart contact with these 'Mothers' when they are of legal majority. They will need this information to make a balanced decision.

There is also the question of whether it is right for others to hold this knowledge about them without them knowing of it. Sooner or later they will encounter it via medical records, google or any other record system. Imagine the horror of learning that with no safety net to fall back upon. This way it can be controlled and managed psychologically (one would hope).

I am very pleased, however, that HHJ Royce declined to give credit for a guilty plea in the face of overwhelming evidence as this is a topic i feel strongly about

No legal professional wants to win at all cost. They have a duty to put forward the defences (where the defendant is contesting the charges against them) and the mitigation (after a guilty plea/conviction) their clients tell them to. If they don't they would be in breach of their professional obligations and would be struck off as a barrister. It is a very hard job. The people you see defending sex offenders are most likely reading their next brief which is as likely as not to be a prosecution brief. It is an extremely difficult and harrowing job and unlike the police service their is no real counselling available for people involved in these trials. They just have to get on with it.
The idea of people punching the air when they 'win' their case, using dirty tricks and have no moral compass is bollocks. It is a tv version of the profession.

He will never get out of jail. I found something horrible (although not illegal) related to this case on the web which has been passed on to the police.

There are crimes he has committed in the US which he is going to have to face trial for sooner or later. I have a horrible feeling these could eventually include murder.

But he will never get out. I think as other things start to be uncovered he may well off himself.

I think he's on a par with Charles Manson with a cult like following.