can't believe ilx has no lostprophets thread

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

its happened again to poor H
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/steps-star-ian-h-watkins-2945155

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bb4jdDaIYAAGUKA.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RleE--HDBiU

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

nice. Whitehouse never glorified child abuse fyi

Lovely chaps

god dude don't you remember that "Don't Abuse Kiddies Mmmmmkay?" split 10"??

Whitehouse never glorified child abuse fyi

A photocopy from a magazine of child pornography was used as the cover of issue #2 of Pure which led to Sotos pleading guilty to possession of child pornography, receiving a suspended sentence.

Anyway, ancient history aside, saying they could get an album out of this is hardly the same as saying they glorified child abuse, is it?

he wasn't glorifying it tho, the same as he never glorified serial murder, misogyny, sexual violence, fascism etc

Christ but he looks like dude from deadwood

Is there a chance watkins is father to either child, or are we not speculating for whatever reason or

I think it's fairly clear he isn't

Re the leg: one of those c4 documentaries had someone having had 'extreme tatoos' with scenes of rape, various etc.. So yeah I can believe it.

that pic was doing the rounds approx 24 hours after the relevant quote started getting reported so even if you assume that someone instantly leapt from their computer chair and sprinted to the nearest tattoo parlour I don't think it would have healed like that

the issue of the pixels can be tackled by someone else I'm sure

http://spoilertv.co.uk/images/cache/archived-old-shows/deadwood/season-1/cast-promotional-photos/s1-cast-silas-adams_595_slogo.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/AdiBQLW.jpg

you can't not trust anyone these days

i'm with you, no way that picture was a fresh tat

Inking? That's a pre-draw, right?