Ian Watkins charged with child abuse

[onesecondglance]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...l-8425042.html

I'm totally in shock over this. I was nodding away to Shinobivsdragonninja just the other day.

[mirandashell]

If it's true.......

[leahzero]

The charges are beyond surreal. Apparently, though, they are "conspiracy to commit" charges, not actual abuse.

The only actual offenses Watkins seems to have committed involve possession/distribution of child and animal porn. According to the Mirror:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...embers-1498559

Watkins - a former boyfriend of TV presenter Fearne Cotton - was further charged with three separate charges of possession, making and distributing indecent images of children.

The "making" part is unclear. That could, obviously, involve actual abuse. The OP's article mentions "extreme animal" pornography.

Ugh.

Truly hoping that's as far as it goes, and the conspiracy charges are fabricated. There are two women being accused of this with him, so it's possible it's some he-said/she-said situation where they're all trying to save themselves.

[EMaree]

Posession of indecent images is a key charge for me. Even if the others are disproven, that charge is enough to make me lose all respect for that man.

I feel sorry for his bandmates, though. And spare a thought for the young father I know who's already working to get a cover-up done of his lostprophets-inspired tattoo.

[veinglory]

The story I read said he was charged with a conspiracy to abuse charge relating to a one year old. It all sounds a bit implausible to me, but who knows.

[EMaree]

Veinglory, what story did you read? Every article I've read refers to an under-13-year-old and some involved adult women.

EDIT: Ah, I did a google for "Ian Watkins one-year-old" and found results from the Belfast Telegraph and the Mirror. Not putting much stock into it until BBC/Guardian/Independant confirm that story, personally. Google seems to have picked up a cache of BBC News reporting it but the line is now missing from the story.

[onesecondglance]

EMaree, the Independent story I linked to in the first post mentions the one-year-old girl. These BBC news stories ({1}, {2}) also mention it in the opening lines.

[veinglory]

Maybe it was a typo that got propagated.

[EMaree]

Thank for for the corrections, onesecondglance and veinglory, and sorry that I missed that the first time round.

That charge sounds absolutely disgusting. I really hope it's false.
I can't even... process it, really. I don't want to think about how that could happen.

[onesecondglance]

Originally Posted by veinglory

Maybe it was a typo that got propagated.

I don't know. Could it be that the law only distinguishes between children above or below the age of 13?

[EMaree]

I do wonder how it could leak that the victim is only a one year old, considering the heavy child protection laws in place.

[fireluxlou]

Well Welsh papers are saying it's a one year old too. And it did say 'under 13 years old' so I'm guessing there is line in law to distinguish between the two.

There have been rumours for more than a year or so that he likes girls underage because images leaked of him from skype and twitter private message system of him chatting half naked with 14/15 year olds. So not surprised at the charges of child pornography.

I hope he gets locked up, we will find out come New Year, he's been refused bail by the way, as his lawyer tried to use his celebrity status to get him bail.

[veinglory]

Generally attraction to adolescents is not linked to attraction to babies/infants. That is why the age struck me as odd. But the story is pretty sparse at this point.

[EMaree]

A small update on the story from the BBC.

Things I found noteable: he appeared in court via video link so presumably he's been bailed? BBC also called one of his charges "conspiracy to rape a baby" -- not sure if that's meant to be a stronger-worded version of the charge or a way to avoid stating the exact age.

I'm guessing he's on house arrest over the holidays.

[crunchyblanket]

Jeez, this is horrible.

[Fallen]

Shocked me this one too. I saw Lostprophets a few years back when they were supporting Linkin Park, just before LostP hit the biggish time.

Oh man....

[BenPanced]

So, they can name him but not his accused co-conspirators? What "legal reasons" are there?

[ShapeSphere]

Originally Posted by BenPanced

So, they can name him but not his accused co-conspirators? What "legal reasons" are there?

According to Huffington Post on 31 December 2012:

"The pair ... cannot be named for legal reasons after magistrates granted an anonymity order."

This is highly unusual as it goes against the principle of open justice, but their lawyers asked for this order and got it.

And the International Business Times also states:

"A ban was placed by Cardiff Crown Court on the naming of the two women, aged 20 and 24. The section 39 order strictly prohibits publishing any detail likely to identify them."

On Twitter some people have ignored this order and named the women. Not a good idea.

Section 39 is part of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Why the secrecy? Not totally sure yet, and we may never know.

Maybe the ladies are related to the allegedly abused children or they are the children's teachers. So by disclosing the women's names it could lead to jigsaw identification of the allegedly abused children. Maybe the disclosure of their names would "frustrate or render impractical the administration of justice" (Lord Diplock's words on open justice). Which can have multiple meanings - fans of Watkins start threatening the women, etc, etc.

Ian Watkins denies the charges.

Also, some more info here: Media Law

[onesecondglance]

Originally Posted by ShapeSphere

Maybe the ladies are related to the allegedly abused children or they are the children's teachers. So by disclosing the women's names it could lead to jigsaw identification of the allegedly abused children.

That was the only thing I could come up with, although your other point about fans threatening them is (sadly) valid.