So no trial. Acceptance of the guilty plea. On face value, doesn't look to be any grey areas here.

Accomplices sound pretty unsavoury people.

For me, it shows it goes on.....its easier for evidence to be left nowadays, compared to 'historical' cases.................so the balance is between accepting it goes on and the level of evidence

I can't believe there is more or less going on........I can believe technology makes it easier, but technology also makes evidence gathering easier.

Historical cases are just not ever going to leave the modern age 'tech trail'.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25108439

We have mention of a lot of evidence,his comp,videos he had filmed etc.

sounds like an horrific case and yes there seemed to be much evidence.

But I would say that the hysteria re-inforces historic abuse claims as it creates an atmosphere of sensation.
Any old BBC star now faces certainty from readers that they must be guilty as it's clearly been established by the media that show-biz people are now to be feared.
Witch-hunts use real horrors to also create fantasy ones.

as can be seen from Mail readers who have all been 'sickened ' so they claim...they must scour the newspapers so they can throw up every day over some tale .

On a happy note, the MailOnline is to launch an Australian edition. What joy !

There is footage from a hotel room of him abusing a baby, which sounds pretty damming to me. Face facts paedophile de-niers who the hell would plead guilty to abusing a baby if they hadn't done so.

I haven't seen the details on this case but Robbie - please don't accuse people of being Paedo-Deniers when they are not. As for pleading guilty, my thoughts on this nasty legal twist are well known; in sex cases, where there is virtually no evidence, lawyers tell the accused to plead guilty even if innocent as jurors will believe shocking allegations (better stories) in order to get lower sentences (which are then increased).

JK2006 wrote:
I haven't seen the details on this case but Robbie - please don't accuse people of being Paedo-Deniers when they are not. As for pleading guilty, my thoughts on this nasty legal twist are well known; in sex cases, where there is virtually no evidence, lawyers tell the accused to plead guilty even if innocent as jurors will believe shocking allegations (better stories) in order to get lower sentences (which are then increased).
Not always jk, look at Michael le vell, I bet he's glad he didn't plead guilty.

JK2006 wrote:
I haven't seen the details on this case but Robbie - please don't accuse people of being Paedo-Deniers when they are not. As for pleading guilty, my thoughts on this nasty legal twist are well known; in sex cases, where there is virtually no evidence, lawyers tell the accused to plead guilty even if innocent as jurors will believe shocking allegations (better stories).
But there appears to be very clear evidence here, video footage of Watkins in a London hotel followed by an exchange of emails where Warkins described how he won't be going as easy on the baby the next time. Although extremely depraved, you could argue that the effects on the victim are not as bad as for older children as they wouldn't be as aware of what is happening to them.

I also refused to plead guilty Robbie, as I wasn't guilty; I was told I'd get two years if I pleaded; I fought and got 7 years. And I'm still pursuing my appeal, 13 years later.

robbiex wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I haven't seen the details on this case but Robbie - please don't accuse people of being Paedo-Deniers when they are not. As for pleading guilty, my thoughts on this nasty legal twist are well known; in sex cases, where there is virtually no evidence, lawyers tell the accused to plead guilty even if innocent as jurors will believe shocking allegations (better stories).
But there appears to be very clear evidence here, video footage of Watkins in a London hotel followed by an exchange of emails where Warkins described how he won't be going as easy on the baby the next time. Although extremely depraved, you could argue that the effects on the victim are not as bad as for older children as they wouldn't be as aware of what is happening to them.

Robbie, unless some posts have been removed I haven't seen ANYONE defend this rapist or any other.
The effects on a baby are very often devastating,especially where the primary care giver fails to protect the child.

Mr Reason wrote:


I can't believe there is more or less going on........


There is probably more baby rape going on as a result of paedohysteria. Society doesn't distinguish between what is normal (i.e. to find teenagers sexually attractive) and what is not normal (desire to rape babies). Both are defined as 'paedophilia'. If you define millions of ordinary men as paedophiles, unfortunately some of them are going to take that label and run with it.

robbiex wrote:
There is footage from a hotel room of him abusing a baby, which sounds pretty damming to me. Face facts paedophile de-niers who the hell would plead guilty to abusing a baby if they hadn't done so.

Robbiex, I didn't notice anyone denying Ian Watkin's guilt or that paedophiles or depraved persons exist - we've all heard of similar scenarios before e.g Ian Huntley, The Moors murderers, Fred and Rose West, i've not heard anyone on here saying it flat out doesn't happen, but given we know you get sick individuals out there, would it not also be rather naive to think that, while excepting sick monsters and child abusers exist, believing that liars don't?

There are all sorts of bad people in the world (good people too). Ian Watkin's has been caught bang to rights based on the overwhelming *evidence*, some people have been questioning the Jimmy Savile accusations and operation Yewtree in general based on the *evidence* that many of his accusers HAVE been lying and the contrived nature of the whole thing.

Jimmy Savile (and the others embroiled in Operation Yewtree) are not Ian Watkin's, it is a separate case, establishing the guilt of Ian Watkin's does NOT establish the guilt of Jimmy Savile or any one else accused of sex crimes.

Just because paedophile's *exist* (which we all know) doesn't mean that everyone accused of it has to be guilty - liars exist too, unfortunately...

Voice of Sanity wrote:
Mr Reason wrote:


I can't believe there is more or less going on........


There is probably more baby rape going on as a result of paedohysteria. Society doesn't distinguish between what is normal (i.e. to find teenagers sexually attractive) and what is not normal (desire to rape babies). Both are defined as 'paedophilia'. If you define millions of ordinary men as paedophiles, unfortunately some of them are going to take that label and run with it.

I agree with both of you, it appears from many older cases (i.e the Moors Murderers, Fred and Rose West and many more) that this sort of thing was as prevalent in the past as it is today, though today perhaps because it is a talked about more perhaps a lot more people are aware of more clearly defined boundaries not to cross, so from that point of view, making people more 'aware' of it might help deter less sever forms of incest/child abuse, but on the other hand creating too much attention and drama around it *could* serve to give already 'unhinged' or mentally disturbed persons ideas or fuel their 'fantasies' e.g how can I plump the lowest depths or break the biggest taboo's (clearly there are disturbed people out there thinking along those lines).

I think Ian Brady was inspired by the likes of the Nazi's and the Marquis De Sade and the man who killed April Jones had been reading up on the crimes of Ian Huntley before he did what he did. So I think making the public aware is one thing, but creating excessive drama and hysteria around it *could* cause problems - as you do often get 'copy cat' criminals - looking for any kind of attention by trying to plump what they perhaps view as the depths of depravity. I'm not sure it helps that this guy also appears to be a goth (although the majority of goths are not like this)...

Voice of Sanity wrote:
Mr Reason wrote:


I can't believe there is more or less going on........


There is probably more baby rape going on as a result of paedohysteria. Society doesn't distinguish between what is normal (i.e. to find teenagers sexually attractive) and what is not normal (desire to rape babies). Both are defined as 'paedophilia'. If you define millions of ordinary men as paedophiles, unfortunately some of them are going to take that label and run with it.


spot on.

motherless.com/m/nastynasty

here is Ian Watkins adult profile. Several explicit images of himself (no kids so its safe to view) he uploaded these ages ago.

What puzzles me is these pics were widely known about long before he was arrested. He even tried to make out the blowjob pic was a photoshop he created himself
for some sort of publicity stunt.

i could go on, but its likely Watkins will kill himself within days anyway so.....

Jesus H Christ wrote:
motherless.com/m/nastynasty

here is Ian Watkins adult profile. Several explicit images of himself (no kids so its safe to view) he uploaded these ages ago.

What puzzles me is these pics were widely known about long before he was arrested. He even tried to make out the blowjob pic was a photoshop he created himself
for some sort of publicity stunt.

i could go on, but its likely Watkins will kill himself within days anyway so.....

I'm speechless. And shame on Jesus for making me view that filth and have to go back twice to check it was the perp in question. Clearly the man was affected by drugs.

I never through such things went on in the Welsh Valleys.

I'm actually not prepared to look so take it from you it's not pleasant. Should we remove the link?

horrified hedda wrote:
[quote]Jesus H Christ wrote:
motherless.com/m/nastynasty

I never through such things went on in the Welsh Valleys.

In very baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad taste?

It is a bit disturbing how some reports appear to portray the mothers as his victims too.
Maybe the idea of a mother facilitating the abuse of a child is too shocking to accept, but I have lost count of the times people have told me "My mother knew and she did nothing to stop it"

the pics on his nastynasy account are him giving a guy a blowjob, him with a dildo in his arse and the most amusing..one with a baseball bat up his arse.
his face is clearly shown on several.his tattoos on all of em.

i found the link soon after his arrest last year via a message board called whosdatingwho this seems to of also been the place where girls who he had
groomed were posting that he had shown em c-porn in his home and told em of his warped fantasies.

the guy clearly thought he was untouchable. narasist, ego maniac, self obssessed moron that he clearly is.

the fact he kept all the videos and pics etc is even more astonishing. these people clearly think they are so clever that the police will never come knocking.

it was the same with Glitter. why on Earth did he take a pc with a huge CP folder on it in for repair when he can afford to just bin the thing and buy another?

the cops in this watkins case have actually dug a lot deeper than i expected.

the nastynasty link is safe... but the site motherless is very dodgy. ...perfect for such a creature like watkins to hang around.

Jesus H Christ wrote:
the pics on his nastynasy account are him giving a guy a blowjob, him with a dildo in his arse and the most amusing..one with a baseball bat up his arse.
his face is clearly shown on several.his tattoos on all of em.

i found the link soon after his arrest last year via a message board called whosdatingwho this seems to of also been the place where girls who he had
groomed were posting that he had shown em c-porn in his home and told em of his warped fantasies.

the guy clearly thought he was untouchable. narasist, ego maniac, self obssessed moron that he clearly is.

the fact he kept all the videos and pics etc is even more astonishing. these people clearly think they are so clever that the police will never come knocking.

it was the same with Glitter. why on Earth did he take a pc with a huge CP folder on it in for repair when he can afford to just bin the thing and buy another?

the cops in this watkins case have actually dug a lot deeper than i expected.

the nastynasty link is safe... but the site motherless is very dodgy. ...perfect for such a creature like watkins to hang around.

Was all this freely available for anyone to see? What on earth were his management thinking?