no doubt about it, Ian Watkins is a nonce

[Ted Dansons Wig]

Can we now take the "might be" back out of the thread title?

[eFestivals]

The thing is though, surely as soon as he's out, he's going to have enough money to just... you know... fuck off?

I don't think there will be many people sad to see that, but extended license or not, surely for his own well being more than anything, he'll just go?

I have a feeling that for at least while he's under licence they can take his passport from him.

It might even be the case with sex offenders that they can remove their passport from them permanently, tho I might be wrong about that.

[eFestivals]

Can we now take the "might be" back out of the thread title?

lol .... I'll do it now.

[FloorFiller]

lol .... I'll do it now.

[dentalplan]

Trial judge Mr Justice Royce

[LondonTom]

Original sentence would have been 53 years then, but with the 33% reduction due to early plea clause?

[Yellow_Fellow]

It was hardly an early plea was it? :S.....though I think yeah in cases like this, some insensitive for the Jury to not have to go through the Evidence is warranted.

Guesses for the Sun/Daily Mail headline in 20 years when his released "early" ?

[eFestivals]

It was, legally, an early plea.

I think they're changing it, aren't they? So it only counts as an early plea if it's made at the first court hearing.

One day soon our courts will resemble the USSR or the USA, where almost no one pleads not guilty - even if they're not guilty.

[FloorFiller]

considering he's being investigated even further by both German and American police, if more stuff comes out - which it no doubt will - can his sentence be lengthened or is it fixed now? (i know nothing about how the courts work or any of that jazz but, as a former fan, this all interests me greatly)

[FloorFiller]

I wouldn't want to know... Why would they tell the child unless they had memories ?

[Yellow_Fellow]

I think they're changing it, aren't they? So it only counts as an early plea if it's made at the first court hearing.

One day soon our courts will resemble the USSR or the USA, where almost no one pleads not guilty - even if they're not guilty.

[Guest]

I wouldn't want to know... Why would they tell the child unless they had memories ?

[FloorFiller]

Yeah I get that...

I have no ideas of the ages of the children involved but wasn't one of them a baby ? I would imagine a baby would have no memory ?

Obviously if they have memories / traumatised then it would of course make sense. But if they aren't / don't remember surely its better to let bad things stay in the past ?

I can only speak from my own position and if I didn't know, I wouldn't want to know...

[FloorFiller]

Maybe these children should get new identities ?

[bunique]

While they may not explicitly "remember" there is the chance of residual trauma which may manifest itself in other ways.

Any child who has been involved with social care will have a right to view their records which will include the reasons for social care being involved in the first place. Whether all of this stuff would be removed or not I'm not sure.

[bunique]

And the records are kept for 75 years from the child's 18 birthday, so there's plenty of opportunity for them to choose to view their files.

[thetime]

Lets say in years to come these children are getting on with life, they don't have any issues (lets just presume that for a moment)...

Should they be told ? Would you want to know ?

[thetime]

Well I would give them a new identity, let them be adopted and keep them as far away from this shit as possible...

Could you imagine what being told about this at 18 is going to do to you ? Fucking hell... Its like the twat gets to hurt them all over again

I do accept everything everyone has said here though...

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't want to know... Why would they tell the child unless they had memories ?

Depending what's happened with the children involved, it might be almost impossible for them to not find out.

I'm guessing that the women involved have lost all parental rights to the kids, as is normal in cases of sex abuse. But that doesn't necessarily get to mean that the kids disappear into the care system and come out the other side with no link back to their biological family.

I don't think it's too unusual for kids like these to end up in the care of other family members - which makes them finding out almost certain at some point.

And if adopted, they'd normally have a right to trace their birth parent once an adult, tho for cases like this perhaps the ability to trace is removed. But even then, the total lack of anything would surely be enough to at least raise some suspicions.

[bunique]

Under the DPA an individual has a right to see information held about them. That information can only be redacted in the most specific of circumstances. Their records are required by law to be retained for almost 100 years. Adoption records are usually "locked down" at the point of Placement Order so only limited individuals have access to add to the record.

[eFestivals]

Under the DPA an individual has a right to see information held about them. That information can only be redacted in the most specific of circumstances. Their records are required by law to be retained for almost 100 years. Adoption records are usually "locked down" at the point of Placement Order so only limited individuals have access to add to the record.

I fucking hate the word "redacted", it's the new cover word for censorship and hiding what "is being done in our name". Anyway...

I would have thought that this case is one that is likely to reach the level where the info is withheld - cos I'm struggling to think of many things that would class as having a greater reason to withhold that info.

But, as i said, that would only work if the kids have been fully removed from all family connections.

As far as i'm aware (please correct me if you know I'm wrong) in cases where kids are removed from their parent(s), the authorities try to find a place for them within their wider family before placing them fully within the state care system.

[bunique]

Yep, we always would look to family/friend first to retain children in their existing environment. There is new case law since the summer which dictates that adoption must be the *only* option for a child, not just the *best* option, which has major implications.

[zero000]

Here's the transcript of the actual judgement which sheds light on a few of the things mentioned in this thread previously.

WARNING - The content is understandably very graphic

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-and-others.pdf

[LondonTom]

Here's the transcript of the actual judgement which sheds light on a few of the things mentioned in this thread previously.

WARNING - The content is understandably very graphic

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-and-others.pdf

[eFestivals]

Actually I've read nothing about the kids dad? They have to have one, Would likely be placed with him if he wanted them?

I've no idea whether it's true or not, but one of the mother's is supposed to have claimed that Watkins was the father of her kid (from that site someone posted a link to).

From reading that judgement (horrible, enough said) it sounds like one of the mothers is going to have her kid returned to her after her sentence, because it's talking about "long term foster care" (rather than adoption), and it only talks about one of the mothers not getting access to her child again.

At a guess, it's probably from that (one of the mothers still having contact) that the judge talks about one or more kids finding out in later life.