no doubt about it, Ian Watkins is a nonce

[thesecretingredientiscrime]

Again your not getting my point, its not the journalists that will make assumptions its the public who will do that for them. For example the original poster who called him a nonce, I am sure folk like that dont really care if he is proven guilty or innocent.

Will the female name be made public if hes found innocent? Nope didnt think so.

Edited December 19, 2012 by thesecretingredientiscrime

[jump]

So journalists should be restricted from reporting because of the possiblity of public reaction? That would mean the majority of the press, right wing tabloids (Mail, Express etc.) would be stopped from reporting.

And secondly, I don't think the child's name should be made public. They're under 13, it's not as clear cut as on the borderline of 16, it's a child under the age of 13. If it turns out to be true or false, there's something obviously wrong in the child's life, and I don't think that it's right for someone that young to have it made public.

[LondonTom]

Wonder if they think they still headline after this?

[jump]

Wonder if they think they still headline after this?

[the wonderwhy]

Again your not getting my point, its not the journalists that will make assumptions its the public who will do that for them. For example the original poster who called him a nonce, I am sure folk like that dont really care if he is proven guilty or innocent.

Will the female name be made public if hes found innocent? Nope didnt think so.

Edited December 19, 2012 by MattDavies__

[Benj]

The female name wont be published because she's under 16 and, by law, newspapers aren't allowed to.

I agree with what you're saying about the public taking it the wrong way and jumping to conclusions, but that doesn't media shouldn't report it- its absolutely essential that they do.

[Frankly Mr Shankly]

This is probably the one exception that proves that rule!

Although Jackson just about got over it

[AcademicPistol]

In my opinion they should not mention names at all until he is proven guilty especially with something as damaging as this just for the sake of a news story.

[jump]

On the topic of the girl there isn't enough info to even speculate on that. We don't know if the girl has accused him or the police intercepted a messages between them or if there even was a girl and not some fat guy pretending to be an underage girl to entrap him. All the article say is he's been arrested on conspiracy and it hasn't actually mentioned any details of a victim at all.

Edited December 19, 2012 by jump

[Benj]

On the topic of the girl there isn't enough info to even specualate on that, we don't know if the girl has accused him or the police interpeted a messages or if there even was a girl and not some fat guy pretending to be an underage girl to entrap him. All the article say is he's been arrested on conspiracy and it hasn't actually mentioned any details of a victim at all.

[the wonderwhy]

In my opinion they should not mention names at all until he is proven guilty especially with something as damaging as this just for the sake of a news story.

[jump]

The fact that 2 youngish women from across the country have been arrested too, makes me thinkthat they may be the ones who sent the pictures to him when they were younger.

A 13 year old sending a picture of themselves naked is in effect making child porn.

I may well of course be completely wrong

[jump]

True, although if the police are doing their job properly whoever accused him would've been interviewed/given a statement before any arrests were made, so we can pretty much rule out the fat guy

[the wonderwhy]

I don't think you can be arrested simply for sending explicit pics. If you could, there would be a hell of a lot of schoolkids potentially in trouble as it is (unfortunately) a rising culture between youngsters at the moment. I'm saying that as someone still at school, and off the back of this http://www.channel4.com/news/generation-sex-explicit-pics-the-norm-for-teens before anyone says anything

Edited December 19, 2012 by MattDavies__

[the wonderwhy]

The charge was conspiracy so if it is someone 16+ pretending to be a underage child and then then agree to meet them for sex it would hold up in the court.

[thetime]

I can see with no facts people are speculating, give it another few hours and got knows what you lot will be speculating.

Which is another reason it shouldnt be reported until after the verdict.

Its pure titilation.

[jump]

I can see with no facts people are speculating, give it another few hours and got knows what you lot will be speculating.

Which is another reason it shouldnt be reported until after the verdict.

Its pure titilation.

[the wonderwhy]

I can see with no facts people are speculating, give it another few hours and got knows what you lot will be speculating.

Which is another reason it shouldnt be reported until after the verdict.

Its pure titilation.

[Yellow_Fellow]

They have done for this long. Ever since I'd gotten into the Lostprophets fanbase there'd always been a weird buzz about him. Heard all sorts.

[jump]

Yellow_Fellow as our resident Lost Prophets fans I'm just curious if he is found guilty would you or other fans stop listening to them and if they got a replacement for Ian would you still go see them live?

[Yellow_Fellow]

Hahahaha. I'd keep listening. There's nothing inherently sexually deviant about the lyrics. But I don't want to see him at a gig, if true; that's for sure. I'd rather a stand in. Wade McNeil, someone like that.

Edit; actually, Jamie can do all the vocal leads. He may as well step up and do lead vocals. If this is true Ian won't be going back to the band he has now. Lee has kids and wouldn't possibly agree to it.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Yellow_Fellow

[mrtourette]

I'm with thetime on his, while the media may only be technically be reporting that he's been arrested rather than anything that he's done for too long have they hidden behind the 'freedom of speech' and 'in the public interest' arguments and reported incidents like this knowing full well that whether the person is guilty or not the mere fact that it's being reported in such a way will have a major effect on the rest of that person's life. However asking the mass media to self-regulate and apply any sense of morals or decency over titilation and sensationalism is a waste of time and effort.

[chriseede]

I'm with thetime on his, while the media may only be technically be reporting that he's been arrested rather than anything that he's done for too long have they hidden behind the 'freedom of speech' and 'in the public interest' arguments and reported incidents like this knowing full well that whether the person is guilty or not the mere fact that it's being reported in such a way will have a major effect on the rest of that person's life. However asking the mass media to self-regulate and apply any sense of morals or decency over titilation and sensationalism is a waste of time and effort.

[mrtourette]

As a journalism student, I completely disagree. All of the reporting of this story from official news outlets has been done correctly and reported facts, not supposition. It is the job of journalism in this case to perhaps give courage to other victims (not saying there are any in Watkins' case, I'm talking about this generally) to come forward and report to the police, as has previously been stated. A blanket ban on reporting court proceedings before conviction is a ridiculous prospect and a form of censorship in my view.

Edited December 19, 2012 by mrtourette

[lightning1000]

He's been raping the ears of UK youth for over 14 years.