can't believe ilx has no lostprophets thread

Good luck anyone on Twitter with the misfortune to have the same name as either of the co-defendants. That's going to get nasty.

@AVB

jesus christ i assumed "megalolz" was some twat commenting on the case not a thing he actually said after his conviction

he still would've had space for 1,620 songs - about three times as many as Dylan's ever written.

And about a fifth of what Robert Pollard's written

also, so immensely depressing that the ex-gf who reported him again and again wasn't believed. wonder how much of that was because she's a former sex worker

and room for 3/4 of dream theaters guitar solos

https://www.facebook.com/IanWatkinsSupporters

Judge's summing up is at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-and-others.pdf but seriously do not read it.

How stupid would you need to be to Like anything on that page? Christ.

Fuck me.

Having made the mistake of not heeding EK's advice, seriously seriously do not read the summing up.

gave up reading by page 5.

yeah, i'm good thanks

the real story here is how the South Wales Police system uses only 5 TB total, that's the size of the HD of a kid who wants to download all the eps of South Park in 1080p

He was emphatic as he was growing up through his teenage years that he would never drink, never do drugs. That’s what he told us.

‘Whether that was to reassure us as parents, I don’t know. But obviously something went wrong in later years. I think it coincided with being in the American scene.

‘He started giving interviews and there were concerns that perhaps he was just trying to shock, or create an impression or trying to push boundaries to reinvent himself and the band.’

Watkins’ younger brother Daniel, 24, added: ‘They were all teetotal. We have no idea what happened. That was when they decided to base themselves in LA, which is obviously a totally different culture to the South Wales valleys.’

Got to page 7 of the report. Pretty fucking far from megalolz

the judge claims that the children involved will inevitably find out what happened to them as adults even though they will be living with foster parents etc.....like surely there are means available to conceal their identities so that doesn't happen

i wd imagine that there will still be the possibility of some kind of contact, at some point, with their birth parents

also i think there are ethical questions about deliberately withholding that kind of information from people as they become adults

xxxpost - so it's America's fault?

Why does the public crave this kind of shallow reassurance every time? It's some stranger's fault, he wasn't one of us, the rest of us are still normal, we're all safe again, all of which are just not true, but still have to be repeated constantly.

i don't know what's recommended in cases such as this, but i would say let the birth mothers live the rest of their lives not knowing where their children are and withhold the info. that may not be "ethical" i guess but i'm not sure what good can come from the other option.

that's the only ethical option in these circumstances

it's not even from the perspective of the birth mother's rights as far as i understand it. people have a legal right to be made aware that they're adopted iirc. i don't think this means automatically telling them the circumstances in which they were removed from their parent tho.

altho since people who discover they've been adopted often want to try and contact their birth parents i wd imagine some explanation might have to be offered at that point

fucked up as this is i think it's better than the alternative i.e. secret adoption for which see e.g. Ireland over the last century

there should be some sort of exception for cases like this so they can be registered as being of unknown parentage like kids who are found abandoned etc

i think the right to know where you come from outweighs any attempt by well-meaning authorities to protect you from that information. fully accept that this is a really difficult call.

the children's right to know that footage exists of them being subjected to an attempted rape with their birth parents as accomplices

i think there's the right to know and there's the fact that this information would be life-destroying. i mean at a certain age yes they would ask (if they know.) and at what age would one be legally obligated to tell them if they ask?

Why does the public crave this kind of shallow reassurance every time? It's some stranger's fault, he wasn't one of us, the rest of us are still normal, we're all safe again, all of which are just not true, but still have to be repeated constantly.

― StanM, Thursday, 19 December 2013 01:24 (14 minutes ago)

nb it is his family coming up with these excuses about him being 'corrupted' by fame etc, they at least have the mitigation of being in denial or traumatized or whatever

al i think in the UK adoptees are legally informed at 18 if they haven't already been told.

nakh yeah the truth may be horrible but faced with a choice between 2 unknowables, i.e. how damaging it wd be to find out about the horrible shit that's been done to you in infancy vs how damaging it wd be to have the facts of your birth obscured and hidden from you, my instinct is to go with the choice that doesn't involve systematic deception.

especially since the systematic deception route would entail the very real possibility that at some point not only would the victim find out about the abuse, but would find out in a context that potentially alienated them from adoptive parents with whom they'd had a loving and nurturing relationship

al i think in the UK adoptees are legally informed at 18 if they haven't already been told

not strictly true - adoptees have the right to access their birth certificates at 18 but aren't automatically informed. obv at some point in adulthood tho people usually need their birth documents.

read a bunch of interesting stuff about open and closed adoption systems. still believe that the system we have is the best of some terrible choices.

There's also the issue of where the children's fathers are in this and how much they know. I'm assuming totally absent, but if they even know these children exist then it's potentially another complication in keeping it all totally secret.

Having made the mistake of not heeding EK's advice, seriously seriously do not read the summing up.

― Ian Glasper's trapped in a scone (aldo), Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^ Totally OTM. I actually, very literally threw up when I got four or fives pages in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25447856

Why did I read that? :-(

-- All kinds of heinous things

It's worse than the Jerry Sandusky grand jury report, which is saying something.

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2944300.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Ian-Watkins-tattoo-2944300.jpg

holy shit

did someone really get that photoshopped on to their leg?

no way that's real. It's just an attempt to get mentioned in a scummy tabloid

Aye, I fucking hope not.

But, at the same time, part of me thinks we're at a point in culture where some fucknut, somewhere, will do any stupid and abhorrent thing you can imagine.

... just to get in a scummy tabloid

But, at the same time, part of me thinks we're at a point in culture where some fucknut, somewhere, will do any stupid and abhorrent thing you can imagine.

And then someone else will get the fucknut's face tattooed on their leg?

wld be better if he'd used H from steps' face

the lostprophets guy's face tattoed on to H from steps' face?

Well I did nearly cite this whole case as proof. If some fucknut will rape a baby, some other fucknut will get the first fucknut's face painted permanently on their flesh.

Pity Whitehouse have split, they could have got an album out of this