Lost Prophets...

[Treacle Toes]

I will share this. When i finally shared the fact that a neighbour had molested me as a child with my mum (I was in my 30's) She was gobsmacked, she couldn't remember our opposite neighbour?... but then told me about her own experiences of being molested as a child, I was the 1st person she had ever told, she was in her late 60's at this point. I can't control what this will mean to you or anyone else, I actually don't care in many respects because I recognise the need to face these things. I do however want you to know that my mum and I are not unusal, not by a long shot.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Actually, he can't have been on remand because some offences were committed whilst he was on bail.

 

[N_igma]

DP

 

[ViolentPanda]

We do that culturally and then are shocked because it is acted out on a micro level?

Well, quite.

 

[poului]

Peaches Geldof is an idiot shocker.

 

[Sweet FA]

There's a link to the names on this thread...

 

[Boycey]

awkward laughter on never mind the buzzcocks

 

[D'wards]

On one of the links on this thread, the one that names the women, it isstated one of them always maintained her baby was Watkin's. The poor thing will have to be told at some point, i just hope if its true she/he gets put with a loving caring family and it will not effect their life.
It might be best to keep this from someone until they are an adult and have fully developed their personality. Although i can see a strong argument for never telling them at all...

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Peaches Geldof is an idiot shocker.

What has she said?

 

[Gingerman]

What has she said?

Tweeted the women's names I think.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Tweeted the women's names I think.

 

[trashpony]

On one of the links on this thread, the one that names the women, it isstated one of them always maintained her baby was Watkin's. The poor thing will have to be told at some point, i just hope if its true she/he gets put with a loving caring family and it will not effect their life.
It might be best to keep this from someone until they are an adult and have fully developed their personality. Although i can see a strong argument for never telling them at all...

No, they should be told as early as possible in an age appropriate way. It's really important that children understand why they aren't being brought up by their birth families and that they don't feel that the world knows about them and their background when they don't. It's hugely traumatic to grow up and find out your entire perception of who you/your parents are is a lie.

 

[Athos]

In fact, I wonder if publishing the link to the article that names the mothers (and might, thereby identify the victims), as happened on this thread, would amount to an offence.

 

[Citizen66]

In fact, I wonder if publishing the link to the article that names the mothers (and might, thereby identify the victims), as happened on this thread, would amount to an offence.

I think it does.

 

[thriller]

awkward laughter on never mind the buzzcocks

how is that an awkward laugh?

 

[Part 2]

I wonder if any more victims will come forward as the police are asking.

I'd imagine he may have slept with a lot of under age girls but wonder whether they'll consider themselves victims or willing participants who just want to forget about it.

 

[Boppity]

In fact, I wonder if publishing the link to the article that names the mothers (and might, thereby identify the victims), as happened on this thread, would amount to an offence.

I was thinking that, it should probably be removed. (If it hasn't already, I haven't checked)

 

[Limejuice]

In fact, I wonder if publishing the link to the article that names the mothers (and might, thereby identify the victims), as happened on this thread, would amount to an offence.

I think you're correct.

AFAIK: Unless the victims of rape (etc) specifically waive their right to anonymity, details that will identify them shouldn't be publicised.

 

[wiskey]

So essentially he was caught by chance? Drugs bust seizes his pc, plod find stuff.

That's pretty miserable.

I mean the whole case is miserable but I might be heartened to know he was caught by a system set up for such a purpose... Except he wasn't, if he hadn't been so blatantly into drugs he might have kept going for how long?

The fact that the police ignored the warning by the Jo woman, bailed him meaning he had chance to continue offending and took ages to rearrest him is equally crap frankly.

I'm sure' lessons will be learned'

 

[Giles]

In fact, I wonder if publishing the link to the article that names the mothers (and might, thereby identify the victims), as happened on this thread, would amount to an offence.

How does this work, when one day its totally OK to mention some fact, or someone's name, and then some judge decides that now it isn't OK?

Like that pervy eloping teacher and his 15 year old girlfriend ..... the one whose name is a bit like "stutters".

One week her name and photo, pics of her weeping parents and family, address, etc are headline news. Then a few months later, mentioning her name is verboten.

Are all publications supposed to go through their back copies and archives and change the past, 1984 style?

If you have a web page published before the ban on naming someone, do you have a duty to go back and alter the past reality to reflect the court's orders?

Or can web pages (and back copies of newspapers etc) stay, but no-one's allowed to look at them / link to them / talk about them?

It just seems like an ill-thought out, illogical mess to me!

Giles

 

[butchersapron]

Unless you actively want to name the women now and in the future and open up the risk of identifying the abused children - against all specialist advice - then just use your loaf. It's really quite simple.

 

[likesfish]

Giles it does at first reading make you go
But its done for good reason and to name someone after the judge has made the ruling your either plankton brained or a git or possibly both in certain circumstances

 

[pinkmonkey]

How does this work, when one day its totally OK to mention some fact, or someone's name, and then some judge decides that now it isn't OK?

Like that pervy eloping teacher and his 15 year old girlfriend ..... the one whose name is a bit like "stutters".

One week her name and photo, pics of her weeping parents and family, address, etc are headline news. Then a few months later, mentioning her name is verboten.
Giles

Well no one has gone and edited the old articles about this schoolgirl, they are still online, but I guess if you'd kept an actual newspaper, no one would be round to demand that you destroy it either.

 

[Giles]

Giles it does at first reading make you go
But its done for good reason and to name someone after the judge has made the ruling your either plankton brained or a git or possibly both in certain circumstances

I know its done for a good reason - but what IS the law re existing publications, either on paper or online? Are you supposed to go and take down your blog / newspaper article / Facebook comment, etc? Or is it OK to leave it there?

 

[Serotonin]

I feel kind of bad for linking that blog post a few pages back- my point wasnt to link to the names of the mothers but I thought it was an interesting article about the case and the culture of celebrity/rock stars written by someone who has direct experience of the 'groupy' scene. Its been deleted now. It was also tied into the whole 'band members not knowing' line that they are holding, which seems to be contradicted by rumour from Lost Prohpet fans from 2-3 years ago about the sort of things Watkins was in to.

 

[Serotonin]

I know its done for a good reason - but what IS the law re existing publications, either on paper or online? Are you supposed to go and take down your blog / newspaper article / Facebook comment, etc? Or is it OK to leave it there?

Im assuming it will depend on where the author is based and the website hosted.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Thou shalt not follow Lost Prophets...

 

[Athos]

I know its done for a good reason - but what IS the law re existing publications, either on paper or online? Are you supposed to go and take down your blog / newspaper article / Facebook comment, etc? Or is it OK to leave it there?

To be honest, I'm not too bothered about what grief the other site might get into; my concern was that publishing a link to an article which allows a 'jigsaw' identification of the victims now, might mean this place offending against s.1(2) of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.

 

[salem]

I feel kind of bad for linking that blog post a few pages back- my point wasnt to link to the names of the mothers but I thought it was an interesting article about the case and the culture of celebrity/rock stars written by someone who has direct experience of the 'groupy' scene. Its been deleted now. It was also tied into the whole 'band members not knowing' line that they are holding, which seems to be contradicted by rumour from Lost Prohpet fans from 2-3 years ago about the sort of things Watkins was in to.

FWIW I thought it an interesting article from someone who seemed to have a bit more insider knowledge. I'm glad I read it. I got the impression that the person who wrote it named the women without knowing they shouldn't rather then as some shaming thing.

 

[Giles]

Im assuming it will depend on where the author is based and the website hosted.

Well, as Pinkmonkey said - you can find unchanged press articles about the runaway schoolgirl and pervy teacher on several UK newspaper web sites. Presumably they more than most are aware of the laws on this.

Which would imply that if they do not have to go back and delete articles naming someone when later they are granted "anonymity" by the courts, then presumably no-one else does either?

So the article that was linked to on here is OK since it was published months back?

Do they look at file change dates to determine if a web page pre-dates a ban on naming names?

Or how?

Giles..