Lostprophets singer admits to being a baby rapist

Lou.m · 27-11-2013 05:38AM

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.

That is true but in naming them you name their offspring unless their offspring victims. get a new identity and I don't know what the legal status of that is when they are so young.

I know in Ireland that if the person is a person of authority (it mentions a teacher or parents etc) in the victims life the punishment and charge is more severe.

Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 (pdf) as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 (pdf) makes it a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years. The maximum sentence is five years, ten years if the accused is a person in authority. A person in authority means:

A parent, step-parent, guardian, grandparent, uncle or aunt of the victim, or
any person acting in loco parentis (in place of parent or parents) to the victim, or
any person responsible for the education, supervision or welfare of the victim.

clairefontaine · 27-11-2013 07:46AM

Grayson wrote: »

One thing I will say is I have no idea how the mothers became involved. Him I can imagine being someone who is incredibly sick. I think he will remain locked up either in prison or in a secure mental facility for the rest of his life and I think that's right. We're unfortunately used to hearing about his type of character.

But I have no idea what would ever compel a mother to do something like that or how there were two of them. It's utterly baffling.

I remember hearing of a case about a year ago where mothers did something not dissimilar.

A man went onto a single parenting website and pretended to be a child therapist. There were a couple of moms who were having difficulty with their children. So he convinced them he was a therapist, yes people do believe what they hear from others on the Internet, especially of hey have built up credibility over time, and told the he could help them with their children, what he did was get them to turn on their webcams and tell them to touch their children's genitals, that this was therapy for them and would make hem better. The mothers believed him and did what he told them to do on the webcam while he watched. And that's how these moms moneyed their own children.

ceadaoin. · 27-11-2013 09:02AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I remember hearing of a case about a year ago where mothers did something not dissimilar.

A man went onto a single parenting website and pretended to be a child therapist. There were a couple of moms who were having difficulty with their children. So he convinced them he was a therapist, yes people do believe what they hear from others on the Internet, especially of hey have built up credibility over time, and told the he could help them with their children, what he did was get them to turn on their webcams and tell them to touch their children's genitals, that this was therapy for them and would make hem better. The mothers believed him and did what he told them to do on the webcam while he watched. And that's how these moms moneyed their own children.

It reminded me of the Vanessa George case in England. A nursery worker for years met a guy online and became besotted with him and he convinced her to molest the kids in her care and film it. He also had another woman abuse her own child.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/01/vanessa-george-plymouth-abuse-background

Men like this are predators who can somehow spot the vulnerable women who will be susceptible to their manipulation.

Sunglasses Ron · 27-11-2013 09:21AM

My name is URL wrote: »

The mothers of the children were teens when they met him afaik.

Ah, sure that's grand so

His defence lawyers are nearly half as bad as the defendants. I know I know, everyone has the right to representation and blah blah but I still don't know how they are tasked with the job of getting him off the hook if a few warrants had the wrong date on them.

Sunglasses Ron · 27-11-2013 09:33AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I remember hearing of a case about a year ago where mothers did something not dissimilar.

A man went onto a single parenting website and pretended to be a child therapist. There were a couple of moms who were having difficulty with their children. So he convinced them he was a therapist, yes people do believe what they hear from others on the Internet, especially of hey have built up credibility over time, and told the he could help them with their children, what he did was get them to turn on their webcams and tell them to touch their children's genitals, that this was therapy for them and would make hem better. The mothers believed him and did what he told them to do on the webcam while he watched. And that's how these moms moneyed their own children.

While it sounds like and probably is an urban legend, anyone that stupid shouldn't be allowed to take care of themselves unsupervised, let alone kids.

Neyite · 27-11-2013 09:53AM

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.

This case was inches away from becoming another Baby P case. The mother in that instance was named, probably because Peter died. But throughout the trial and sentencing and even while imprisoned for a while, her identity was protected. She was denied a new identity on release from prison, and rightly so. So it might happen yet in this case, especially if the children are adopted into another family and have a new life for themselves. It would be a tragedy if those women had any further access to their victims.

I do hope that they are officially named.

April O Neill II · 27-11-2013 09:57AM

Duggy747 wrote: »

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.

Had a look... where? :eek:

Dravokivich · 27-11-2013 10:00AM

April O Neill II wrote: »

Had a look... where? :eek:

You really don't want to know. I kinda fell onto that same site yesterday while reading up on old comments from a couple of years back.

April O Neill II · 27-11-2013 10:11AM

Dravokivich wrote: »

You really don't want to know. I kinda fell onto that same site yesterday while reading up on old comments from a couple of years back.

Oh no, I've no intention of visiting. It just sounded a bit dodge!

quad_red · 27-11-2013 10:13AM

nacho libre wrote: »

Watkins sent a text to one of the women saying: "If you belong to me, so does your baby."

In another exchange with a second woman, she messaged Watkins images of her child saying: "She needs to know mummy and daddy don't love her."

I find that really, really upsetting.

This person can never, ever be allowed loose.

prizefighter · 27-11-2013 11:19AM

P_1 wrote: »

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

They're now called the LostProfits

An Riabhach · 27-11-2013 11:34AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

well he's already left Twitter in recent days as a result of the abuse he's getting

Effin eejits.

salacious crumb · 27-11-2013 11:47AM

Just read this story in the paper this morning, one of the most appaling things I've ever read. That's all I've got to say about it.

tritium · 27-11-2013 12:37PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It reminded me of the Vanessa George case in England. A nursery worker for years met a guy online and became besotted with him and he convinced her to molest the kids in her care and film it. He also had another woman abuse her own child.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/01/vanessa-george-plymouth-abuse-background

Men like this are predators who can somehow spot the vulnerable women who will be susceptible to their manipulation.

God I hate the "poor little innocent woman" defence. He made me do it m'lud, I was starstruck and too thick to know right from wrong.

Just as guilty

27-11-2013 01:51PM

Sounds like one of the women may be called "Jo" based on that link above (she has a kid according to the posters). If you google his name and 'Jo' a few pics pop up.

randomer wrote:

he didnt get what he wanted for christmas "but there's always next year", he wasnt talking about the album.
Judging from Jo's twitter they saw each other around 20th or 21st November cause she tweeted at 4:31am on 21st November "I n c e s t! A fun game for all the family"

'orrible cants.

Dolbert · 27-11-2013 01:58PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Sounds like one of the women may be called "Jo" based on that link above (she has a kid according to the posters). If you google his name and 'Jo' a few pics pop up.

'orrible cants.

Jo is his ex-girlfriend and had nothing to do with it. She is the one who allegedly reported him initially. The two women's names are out there but she's not one of them. Stuff like this is how mobs end up descending on the wrong person's house...

Lollipops23 · 27-11-2013 01:59PM

Ok, given how brazen he appears to have been about his perverted tendencies (the messages he sent to the women etc. and the fact that LostProphet fans had apparently made complaints to police about him several yrs back) I'm starting to wonder how his bandmates were so oblivious...

I understand how you can live next door to/work with someone for years and not know, because abusers will often go to great lengths to cover their tracks and threaten people in keeping secrets.

But Watkins acted like he thought he was bulletproof or something...

Duggy747 · 27-11-2013 02:05PM

I'd say it's likely that at least one of the band members were aware of his kinky sex acts and all these rumours that had been around for years (shagging girls of questionable ages, drug abuse, supposedly being HIV positive, THAT website where he posted pictures of himself doing things, his behaviour in general, etc) but who knows.

We'll probably hear from them soon enough as the spotlight from the media / fans will shift to them eventually.

ScouseMouse · 27-11-2013 02:08PM

Wooooooo..

Let me at that f***er

He'd never do it again.

27-11-2013 02:19PM

Dolbert wrote: »

Jo is his ex-girlfriend and had nothing to do with it. She is the one who allegedly reported him initially. The two women's names are out there but she's not one of them. Stuff like this is how mobs end up descending on the wrong person's house...

They're all 'orrible cants tbh.

Grand Moff Tarkin · 27-11-2013 02:20PM

Hanging is to good and quick for scum like him.

D-FENS · 27-11-2013 02:25PM

6 min 15 seconds, unf*ckinbelievable.
Complete stain on Humanity

Also, a couple of his bandmates seem complete morons but one or two give me the impression they are aware of something about the horrible parasite

I am pie · 27-11-2013 02:30PM

D-FENS wrote: »

6 min 15 seconds, unf*ckinbelievable.
Complete stain on Humanity

Also, a couple of his bandmates seem complete morons but one or two give me the impression they are aware of something about the horrible parasite

Ah no, just five innocent lads out to earn a living apparently, sure it's more important they make a few quid from this than the feelings of the victims.

Madness. Delete this band from the history of music, get them off iTunes, get them out of record shops. Have a bit of compassion.

Grayditch · 27-11-2013 02:33PM

D-FENS wrote: »

6 min 15 seconds, unf*ckinbelievable.
Complete stain on Humanity

If you're looking to nail him over something, might I suggest the whole baby rape thing?

Neyite · 27-11-2013 03:13PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Sounds like one of the women may be called "Jo" based on that link above (she has a kid according to the posters). If you google his name and 'Jo' a few pics pop up.

'orrible cants.

Wrong. She is an ex, and actually was a key witness for the prosecution. She reported him twice, from as early as 2009 when she discovered child porn on his computer, but was likely dismissed as some batsh!t crazy ex who wanted to destroy his life and career by police just like she was vilified online by his fans.

The police only initiated a raid on his house because of reported drugs. They didnt give two hoots for years about the rumours swirling or his ex begging them to take her seriously.

27-11-2013 03:26PM

Neyite wrote: »

Wrong. She is an ex, and actually was a key witness for the prosecution. She reported him twice, from as early as 2009 when she discovered child porn on his computer, but was likely dismissed as some batsh!t crazy ex who wanted to destroy his life and career by police just like she was vilified online by his fans.

The police only initiated a raid on his house because of reported drugs. They didnt give two hoots for years about the rumours swirling or his ex begging them to take her seriously.

I'm not read up on the case. Was just throwing out random conjecture, as you do. Why is she making weird incest related tweets, anyway?

As i said above, all concerned are rotten cants.

Neyite · 27-11-2013 03:36PM

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm not read up on the case. Was just throwing out random conjecture, as you do. Why is she making weird incest related tweets, anyway?

As i said above, all concerned are rotten cants.

Rumour has it that Baby A is Watkins son - thats the child who was in a seventeen minute video clip being sexually assaulted by him. The prosecution was unable to determine from the video if it was rape, or attempted rape.

Fratton Fred · 27-11-2013 03:39PM

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Ah, sure that's grand so

His defence lawyers are nearly half as bad as the defendants. I know I know, everyone has the right to representation and blah blah but I still don't know how they are tasked with the job of getting him off the hook if a few warrants had the wrong date on them.

They're not tasked with getting a guilty person off, but with ensuring they get fair representation. It sounds as though in this case, the lawyers on both sides did an excellent job.

spiralism · 27-11-2013 03:41PM

I remember seeing their videos on Kerrang a number of times and they were in the magazine a ton, used to get it quite a bit...i feel dirty for ever having listened to them. Wasnt much of a fan but found a couple of early songs alright, i feel like i need to scrub my ears out with a wire brush now. This is pure ****ing evil, plain and simple.

Not only was he a paedo, the evidence coming out seems to highlight that he's the worst they've ever seen in Britain, which tells its own tale. The more you read the worse it gets, taping himself molesting a baby, having tons of ****ed up material on his pc, what he and the two girls had conspired to do, i thought it was some sick black humour when he said to one of the girls that he'd teach the baby how to take drugs...turns out he'd planned to blow meth smoke in the child's face.

One of the most vile cases i've ever heard of, and that's including the sorts you see on the crime channels. He's like something off that show Most Evil. I dont think he should be executed. Have him serve life without parole in general pop, much better treatment. Let him live in fear for the rest of his days and that may be the slightest shred of retribution next to what he did.

Vicxas · 27-11-2013 03:46PM

spiralism wrote: »

I remember seeing their videos on Kerrang a number of times and they were in the magazine a ton, used to get it quite a bit...i feel dirty for ever having listened to them. Wasnt much of a fan but found a couple of early songs alright, i feel like i need to scrub my ears out with a wire brush now. This is pure ****ing evil, plain and simple.

Not only was he a paedo, the evidence coming out seems to highlight that he's the worst they've ever seen in Britain, which tells its own tale. The more you read the worse it gets, taping himself molesting a baby, having tons of ****ed up material on his pc, what he and the two girls had conspired to do, i thought it was some sick black humour when he said to one of the girls that he'd teach the baby how to take drugs...turns out he'd planned to blow meth smoke in the child's face.

One of the most vile cases i've ever heard of, and that's including the sorts you see on the crime channels. He's like something off that show Most Evil. I dont think he should be executed. Have him serve life without parole in general pop, much better treatment. Let him live in fear for the rest of his days and that may be the slightest shred of retribution next to what he did.

You dont think that someone who has made so much money and could do anything they wanted would do THIS.

But then you look at Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter, and you wonder IS it the fact that they can do anything, or is it a mental thing?

Lostprophets singer admits to being a baby rapist

Comments