Lost Prophets...

[Smyz]

Just for him, or are we going to draw up a list of things which get you disqualified from royalties?

iTunes gave refunds on James Arthur's single after some public melt down he had.

You could argue that it is not possible to refund all Lostprophets sales but that Watkins share of future royalties should go to the victims and relevant charities.

Might depend how watertight his personal contract is.

 

[butchersapron]

Just for him, or are we going to draw up a list of things which get you disqualified from royalties?

Yeah, why not? Are contracts now sacred? #Creepinglibertarianism

 

[8ball]

Yeah, why not? Are contracts now sacred? #Creepinglibertarianism

They don't have to be, you can tear up agreements whenever you like. Not sure whether that would lead to more revenue for lawyers or less...

Not sure I'd want my employer changing their mind suddenly about whether they were paying me.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Also because a person might, legitimately, worry that they won't be believed.

One of the bigger issues with consistent abuse is that to some extent victims become indoctrinated into the abuser's views, and take up the idea that they're worthless; that they'll never be believed; even that the abuser is acting out of "love".
Add to that the astonishing degrees of complacency and inertia in the criminal justice system with regard to abuse, and people do indeed have legitimate worries w/r/t being believed.

 

[butchersapron]

They don't have to be, you can tear up agreements whenever you like. Not sure whether that would lead to more revenue for lawyers or less...

Not sure I'd want my employer changing their mind suddenly about whether they were paying me.

In what way does that mean that there should not be or could not be specific conditions which kick in on certain offences?

 

[Pickman's model]

They don't have to be, you can tear up agreements whenever you like. Not sure whether that would lead to more revenue for lawyers or less...

Not sure I'd want my employer changing their mind suddenly about whether they were paying me.

depends which way they went.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you think folks would feel self righteous about someone being castrated for RAPING A BABY??? fuck off.

No, I think calling for castration gives someone like yourself a feeling of righteousness through touting that simplistic castration "solution", and that you either couldn't be arsed, or are too stupid to realise that castration solves no problems with regard to people who commit sexual abuse.

 

[8ball]

In what does that mean that there should not be or could nor be specific conditions which kick in on certain offences?

There are. There's the 2002 proceeds of crime act (I think there are other older laws too).

Not sure how you do it in this case - are you talking about restricting any income after a given category of offence, or do you have a period where you try to demonstrate extra income has been garnered as a direct result of the case (in which case it would have some overlap with the proceeds of crime act)?

Or with this "#Creepinglibertarianism" nonsense are you actually trying to say the Government or someone else should just be able to confiscate monies due for whatever reason they like?

 

[8ball]

depends which way they went.

Maybe you should speak to your HR people.

 

[Pickman's model]

Maybe you should speak to your HR people.

i think i should. and see if i can talk them up.

 

[butchersapron]

There are. There's the 2002 proceeds of crime act.

Not sure how you do it in this case - are you talking about restricting any income after a given category of offence, or do you have a period where you try to demonstrate extra income has been garnered as a direct result of the case (in which case it would have some overlap with the proceeds of crime act)?

Or with this "#Creepinglibertarianism" nonsense are you actually trying to say the Government or someone else should just be able to confiscate monies due for whatever reason they like?

No, i'm saying that your reliance on contract is a bit silly.

And if the 202 act can't be applied, then, you know, it probably doesn't apply.

You asked:

Just for him, or are we going to draw up a list of things which get you disqualified from royalties?

So i played this logic game and said yes. You haven't said why not - beyond the implied - the contract is sacred stuff. Do you want to have a go at your own logic here?

 

[8ball]

No, i'm saying that your reliance on contract is a bit silly.

And if the 202 act can't be applied, then, you know, it probably doesn't apply.

In what sense did I say contracts were sacred? I don't think personally that the 2002 act can be applied but you could amend the law. I wanted to know what you actually have in mind. I sketched out a couple of outlines myself.

So i played this logic game and said yes. You haven't said why not - beyond the implied - the contract is sacred stuff. Do you want to have a go at your own logic here?

So just shadow-boxing again...

 

[ViolentPanda]

nah thats bollox. Baby rapists are a differnt few - as i explained earlier (but which was ignored about the need for gradation of paedophiles)

They're no different to any other rapist - they rape.
Are you somehow claiming that the rape of a toddler, a primary schoolkid or a secondary schoolkid might be somehow less traumatic than for a baby? They may seem less horrible, but they're no less damaging, physically and psychically, for the victims.


As for gradation, in law gradation refers to severity of crime (from non-contact offence to contact offence), not to an arbitrary decision to consider baby-rape more heinious than toddler-rape or schoolkid rape, which would be farcical. Rape is rape.

 

[frogwoman]

Of all the things that can get you disqualified from royalties I'd say noncery has got to be fairly high on the list

 

[butchersapron]

In what sense did I say contracts were sacred? I don't think personally that the 2002 act can be applied but you could amend the law. I wanted to know what you actually have in mind. I sketched out a couple of outlines myself.



So just shadow-boxing again...

What, i couldn't care less about the 2002 law. You asked about future offence/loyalties and who the censorious mob should jump on next.

Then you bottled it by not actually answering your own question. I answered it. Why can't you?

 

[8ball]

Of all the things that can get you disqualified from royalties I'd say noncery has got to be fairly high on the list

Would that be all royalties for the duration of the prison sentence or something more complicated (I remember the kerfuffle surrounding certain Tories who had been banged up writing about their experiences once they had come out, not sure how well that applies)?

Do we have a panel of charities for each offence bracket or does the Crown pocket the cash?

 

[8ball]

Then you bottled it by not actually answering your own question. I answered it. Why can't you?

Got anything specifically you would like me to answer? Or would you like me to answer that question too?

Quick- there's a lib under the bed!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

people fucking babies aren't doing it for sex.

That's the narrative, but while the power issue is probably the primary motivation, I don't think we should ignore aberrant socialisation as feeding a pathological secondary motivation - to experience intimacy on the offender's own terms. Some of the case studies I've read have some pretty clear signposts with regard to faulty socialisation, and I don't just mean intra-familial abuse and/or neglect, but also the kind of environment you develop in.

 

[butchersapron]

Got anything specifically you would like me to answer? Or would you like me to answer that question too?

Quick- there's a lib under the bed!!

Your own question.

 

[8ball]

That's the narrative, but while the power issue is probably the primary motivation, I don't think we should ignore aberrant socialisation as feeding a pathological secondary motivation - to experience intimacy on the offender's own terms. Some of the case studies I've read have some pretty clear signposts with regard to faulty socialisation, and I don't just mean intra-familial abuse and/or neglect, but also the kind of environment you develop in.

I thought in his case it was a kind of "transgression-egomania" thing (would sorta come under 'power', though tbf).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Where's the cut off point, though?

Usually the apex of the scrotum, with castration.

 

[8ball]

Your own question.

The answer so far would seem to be 'partially'.

That lib is still under the bed...

 

[butchersapron]

The answer so far would seem to be 'partially'.

That lib is still under the bed...

Let the beast out.

 

[8ball]

Let the beast out.

It's under your bed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I thought in his case it was a kind of "transgression-egomania" thing (would sorta come under 'power', though tbf).

That's certainly the implication. My point is merely that although we look at any incidence of rape and say "it's a power thing, it's nowt to do with sex", sometimes it's about both power and sex, and the fact that the offender only feels secure in having sex in such a way.
I mean sure, it's still horrifically pathological behaviour, but it's motivated by sex as well as motivated by the need to assert power in some cases.

 

[8ball]

That's certainly the implication. My point is merely that although we look at any incidence of rape and say "it's a power thing, it's nowt to do with sex", sometimes it's about both power and sex, and the fact that the offender only feels secure in having sex in such a way.
I mean sure, it's still horrifically pathological behaviour, but it's motivated by sex as well as motivated by the need to assert power in some cases.

True dat.

 

[butchersapron]

It's under your bed.

Let it out then.

 

[8ball]

Let it out then.

You let it out - I'm fucking miles away.

 

[butchersapron]

You let it out - I'm fucking miles away.

I'm going to have to call in LPUK then.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you want the government having that power over you?

And if the death penalty was introduced they wouldn't just be using it for scum like watkins.

300-400 years ago, we gave death sentences to minors for theft. Okay, the sentences were often (but not always) commuted, but that's not really the point. How savage do we want to get, and as you say, how much power do we want to let the government wield over us?