Lostprophets singer admits to being a baby rapist

I am pie · 27-11-2013 01:36AM

P_1 wrote: »

That's a bit of a kneejerk reaction IMO. What about the 5 other lads who were in the band?

Because their livelihood is more important than the feelings of the victims families and abuse victims in general?

Some perspective required here.

DMR1861 · 27-11-2013 01:36AM

P_1 wrote: »

That's a bit of a kneejerk reaction IMO. What about the 5 other lads who were in the band?

The other band members shouldn't be punished but it would be nice if his royalties could be seized to provide compensation for the victims.

Missyelliot2 · 27-11-2013 01:37AM

Abigayle wrote: »

Reading how he was 'shaking in the dock' while pale and shaken..

Imagine how his victims felt

P_1 · 27-11-2013 01:40AM

I am pie wrote: »

Because their livelihood is more important than the feelings of the victims families and abuse victims in general?

Some perspective required here.

It makes no sense to sacrifice the livelihood's of 5 people who seemingly had no idea of what a work colleague/bandmate did to the altar of a Daily Mail style vendetta

nocoverart · 27-11-2013 01:42AM

What this cnut done is horrific! on a lesser note though, I feel sorry for his fans. 1, for letting them down and 2, for listening to that rubbish band in the first place.

sadie06 · 27-11-2013 01:46AM

P_1 wrote: »

It makes no sense to sacrifice the livelihood's of 5 people who seemingly had no idea of what a work colleague/bandmate did to the altar of a Daily Mail style vendetta

I agree, but realistically, what are they going to make from here on in? They won't be receiving any airplay, and physical sales should be minimal.

Airplay would probably recover in time if the perpetrator was the drummer/bassist rather than the vocalist and lyricist, but no station could ever again air his voice and thoughts.

Lone Stone · 27-11-2013 01:46AM

Cases like this really should have lead to public executions, that guy and those mothers are utter scum :mad: i always hated that band my pedo sense must have been tingling but were put off by the bad music.

sadie06 · 27-11-2013 01:51AM

Lone Stone wrote: »

Cases like this really should have lead to public executions, that guy and those mothers are utter scum :mad: i always hated that band my pedo sense must have been tingling but were put off by the bad music.

The music is indescribably bad. Rock by numbers.

ceadaoin. · 27-11-2013 02:01AM

certifiedcrepe wrote: »

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread yet but apparently he wanted to spread HIV also. Not sure if there's truth to that but it was in another thread I was reading.

Also, if you google "Ian Watkins HIV" a thread from a website comes up that is 2 years old and it's a load of groupies that are talking about Ian and how he wanted to do things to kids. Horrible stuff.

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

Could you provide the link you mentioned please.

Sorry, it wasn't a link but the quote above is where it was mentioned originally by another poster

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 02:04AM

Maplespuds wrote: »

Really? Which others bands have been involved in something like this?

I don't know about that but NU - METAL does seem to have a lot of lyrics about rape mostly women though.

Not that writing about ANYTHING artistically is a crime though.

You can write about terrible things and read them but still be against them.

ceadaoin. · 27-11-2013 02:08AM

Lou.m wrote: »

I don't know about that but NU - METAL does seem to have a lot of lyrics about rape mostly women though.

Not that writing about ANYTHING artistically is a crime though.

You can write about terrible things and read them but still be against them.

Do you have any examples of this? I used to listen to 'nu metal' in my teenage years back in the day

and don't recall any rapey lyrics?

Kikin · 27-11-2013 02:11AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you have any examples of this? I used to listen to 'nu metal' in my teenage years back in the day and don't recall any rapey lyrics?

Was thinking the same myself, isn't nu metal bands like limp bizkit, papa roach, linkin park, AFI, etc? The more "rapey" stuff would be the likes of cannibal corpse, death metal kind of music

spank_inferno · 27-11-2013 02:11AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you have any examples of this? I used to listen to 'nu metal' in my teenage years back in the day and don't recall any rapey lyrics?

limp Bizkit were pretty mysoginistic, though I dont recall specifically 'rapey' lyrics either.

DMR1861 · 27-11-2013 02:13AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Do you have any examples of this? I used to listen to 'nu metal' in my teenage years back in the day and don't recall any rapey lyrics?

My ears were regularly raped with ****ty 'nu-metal' music as a teenager.

LoonyLovegood · 27-11-2013 02:16AM

I don't see why people are calling for the band's music to be taken off iTunes and the like. What's the point in hurting the livelihoods of the five men (who didn't know what was happening), just to satisfy some vendetta?

mada999 · 27-11-2013 02:16AM

pure scum

27-11-2013 02:36AM

Bambi wrote: »

a) they were in a band with a sex offender for how many years and had no inkling what he was like, yeah fair enough if you believe that, I don't

b) the f**ker was arrested ages ago and rather than disband straight away they hedge their bets until just before it goes to trial.

Miserable morally dubious f**kwits

Utter ridicolous nonsense. How many people are married to a child abuser and have know idea about their dark secret. Really got to wonder about some people, especially those who are do quick to judge others.

As for part two, well if they really were hoping that Watkins would get out then they wouldn't have disbanded till after the trial. For all we know there could have been a dozen commitments that they had to keep. It's not so simple as saying lets call it a day. Contracts mean that their just saying screw it a year ago could have seen them heavily penalised. I have a lot of sympathy gor the band. Their lead singer may be a disgusting, vile animal but that doesn't mean that they are guilty by association. Their musical legacy, poor as it is, is forever tarnished and their future royalties are going to be a lot smaller than they expected. They did nothing wrong and deserve to be left alone to get on with their lives and not have the actions of a friend forever tarnish them.

nocoverart · 27-11-2013 02:49AM

OK, I'm slightly drunk but very passionate about music. And I'm really derailing this thread now, but I generally don't bother listening to music with lyrics anymore. Nothing worse than a person whining on about their self-importance or their egotistical stories through song IMO. I also hate bands that have to have a certain look or theme to get noticed, just like this sh1tty band in question. It's all about the music dickheads! I get much more joy letting a piece of music take me on a journey rather than lyrics. Artists like Aphex twin, Boards of Canada, Burial, Carbon Based Lifeforms and Godspeed You! Black Emperor bring me to a place I want to be (they can be somewhat vocally driven, but more about letting your imagination go wild) . If a picture paints a thousand words then a good tune paints a million! so I'm glad I was never sucked into this band and this cnuts pointless lyrics.

I am pie · 27-11-2013 03:00AM

CTYIgirl wrote: »

I don't see why people are calling for the band's music to be taken off iTunes and the like. What's the point in hurting the livelihoods of the five men (who didn't know what was happening), just to satisfy some vendetta?

Vendetta?

Protecting the victims families and other victims from being exposed to this wretched scumbag is a vendetta?

Sounds more like compassion for the victims and their families to me.

Optimalprimerib · 27-11-2013 03:03AM

I really cannot pick a fitting punishment for this guy as he seems the type that would enjoy any torture given to him.

wonderfullife · 27-11-2013 03:11AM

I'm aware the 2 womens names aren't being revealed for legal reasons. I'm aware the victims (the babies) need to be protected.

However, i still think there's a massive public interest in naming the women at some point in the future. Perhaps having allowed enough time for name changes, relocations etc for the victims and their legal guardians.

As much as the lead singer is being villified (rightly so), the women are equally as dangerous.

In fact, there's a case to argue they are more dangerous than him. When you bring a child into the world it's your duty (and instinct) to protect that child. Their breach of trust and breach of their duty of care to those babies was off the charts.

Also there is absolutely no legal prohibition on future pro-creation. Unlike the lead singer, these women can theoretically have more children in the future. Even allowing for a massive "rehabilitation" nobody would want these predators within a country mile of their children.

Sooner or later they have to be named. This isn't about shaming anybody, it's far too serious for a word like shame to come into the argument. This is about protecting children. Anonymity most certainly protects the victims in this case (for now) but in 6/7/8 years i fail to see how it protects other children.

It's a complicated issue but i'd still be in favour of name changes and relocations for the children/victims/siblings of victims, a blanket ban on reporting their identities and naming the 2 women in question.

I worry all the vitriol directed at the man, given his fame and sickening abuse, will deflect attention away from the women - who in my view are culpable to a higher degree than him.

Duggy747 · 27-11-2013 03:15AM

There was a thing a few years back where he created profiles on porno file hosting sites and uploaded a few pictures of himself doing various things.

Just had a look and one is still there, last login was 15th December 2012 which was a day or 2 before he was arrested.

magma69 · 27-11-2013 03:20AM

Reading that made me feel a bit sick. It's terrifying to think of the stuff happening we don't know about.

I don't like their music but it wouldn't put me off still listening to it if I did.

Wagner was a vile human, doesn't mean I don't enjoy his music any less.

wonderfullife · 27-11-2013 03:22AM

Genuinely can't see him serving more than 7 years either. Given the profile of the case, he's bound to get hit with at least 10-15 years sentence wise. Fail to see how it could be less, too high profile and too depraved to be any less than that. But he'll be out by the turn of the decade all things being equal.

I'm no expert and i could be totally wrong but i hope (and pray) that there wouldn't be any physical or psychological damage to the babies in the long term. I'm not sure how it works for everyone else but i certainly can't remember a single thing from my life before the age of 1. Fingers crossed they are in the right hands now and will have a thoroughly good upbringing and long happy life.

ceadaoin. · 27-11-2013 03:35AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I'm aware the 2 womens names aren't being revealed for legal reasons. I'm aware the victims (the babies) need to be protected.

However, i still think there's a massive public interest in naming the women at some point in the future. Perhaps having allowed enough time for name changes, relocations etc for the victims and their legal guardians.

As much as the lead singer is being villified (rightly so), the women are equally as dangerous.

In fact, there's a case to argue they are more dangerous than him. When you bring a child into the world it's your duty (and instinct) to protect that child. Their breach of trust and breach of their duty of care to those babies was off the charts.

Also there is absolutely no legal prohibition on future pro-creation. Unlike the lead singer, these women can theoretically have more children in the future. Even allowing for a massive "rehabilitation" nobody would want these predators within a country mile of their children.

Sooner or later they have to be named. This isn't about shaming anybody, it's far too serious for a word like shame to come into the argument. This is about protecting children. Anonymity most certainly protects the victims in this case (for now) but in 6/7/8 years i fail to see how it protects other children.

It's a complicated issue but i'd still be in favour of name changes and relocations for the children/victims/siblings of victims, a blanket ban on reporting their identities and naming the 2 women in question.

I worry all the vitriol directed at the man, given his fame and sickening abuse, will deflect attention away from the women - who in my view are culpable to a higher degree than him.

A quick google search and you can find out who they are but yes I do think they should be named publicly. Everyone who knows them locally would be well aware of what they have done but there is nothing stopping them moving away and making a new life for themselves when they are released. I would presume that they would have to sign a sex offenders register, is that not publicly accessible in the UK now? In the case of any possible future children, I hope that social services would be immediately involved.

wonderfullife · 27-11-2013 03:42AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

A quick google search and you can find out who they are but yes I do think they should be named publicly. Everyone who knows them locally would be well aware of what they have done but there is nothing stopping them moving away and making a new life for themselves when they are released. I would presume that they would have to sign a sex offenders register, is that not publicly accessible in the UK now? In the case of any possible future children, I hope that social services would be immediately involved.

They do (and it is) but i'm not positive that the Sex Offenders Register specifies what type of offence. Open to correction.

But, for example, a 22 year old girl sleeping with a 15 year old boyfriend. She may find herself on the Sex Offenders Register. Whereas in my book, whilst legally wrong, there's a world of difference between that and what has gone on in this case.

I'd like to see it in the public domain (and on record) who these 2 women are and make it infinitely more difficult for them to gain easy access to other children in the future.

As for having more children, most certainly social services would be involved from the get-go. However, lets assume they are in prison 6 years and come out "rehabilitated" and have a child. Social services cant watch a child 24/7/365 and it only takes seconds to commit a sexual offence.

The absolute priority in this case is protecting the victims. But it may well be possible in a few years time to name the offenders. I hope it happens.