Lostprophets lead singer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Words cant describe how evil this man is, I hope they chemically castrate him as part of his lengthy prison sentence.

Welsh, nuffsaid.

The only suitable punishment for this despicable c--t is a slow and extremely painful execution.

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

AstiSpumante wrote:

The only suitable punishment for this despicable c--t is a slow and extremely painful execution.

I concur entirely.

They're most likely the 'mothers'   of the two babies involved so if named it would lead to the babies being identified..................it's making me sick thinking about it, hang the b@stards.  

Just shocking.

Scum, the only word to describe them!

I hope he suffers in jail!

Like anyone needed any more reason to dislike the Lostprophets...

Can only hope that his next outing will be as the Lostknackers.

Better still his funereal.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

He'll enjoy prison. Nonces are always made welcome, especially those who rape babies. I give him 2 weeks before his first visit to A&E. Prison does sometimes work.

hairy j wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

Two wrongs don't make a right, Hairy - I agree with you to an extent. But - you may think different if it was your children that was attacked/abused/raped.

If it was my children , I wouldn't think twice about doing untold damage to the perpetrator. That's not some sort of bravado, macho statement for keyboard warrior effect. That's how I feel about this, what can only be described as sickening, depraved human behaviour. But hey - humans never cease to amaze me in as far as how low they will go. We will be our own demise. We are well on our way.

hairy j wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

its the same in cases of rape, even when the fella is acquited, he is named but the other party is nt

i can see and agree with the reasons in cases where the defendant is found guilty, but surely it should be visa versa if not guilty. name them liars.

The women wont be named in order to perserve the children in question safety. However Bob Geldof's daughter peaches (what a shit name btw) tweeted the names of the parents is now under police investigation.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

hairy j wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

So you're in the 50 hours community service and £200 fine brigade are you? Or is that a bit too harsh? A short spell of rehab and then off to work in the local nursery?

Hairy doth troll for a reaction I recks.

A good barometer for understanding why people would wish ill upon cnuts like Watkins, is to imagine for a moment that it was YOUR kids he was fantasizing over and planning to rape.

I do get that entirely but it still won't stop peadophiles from abusing children; it really won't. It's not trolling at all. Every single thing I posted is completely true - if Ian Watkins is hurt, tortured, killed in prison, it won't reverse the crime. It won't unabuse those children and I agree 100% that the other guilty parties aren't named as it protects the families of those people and the victims.
Punishing crimes with violence and state sponsored murder/euthenasia isn't something I'd personally like to see; they have the death penalty in the USA, crimes still happen, people are still murdered, children are abused. It isn't a deterent as the perpetrators don't expect to be caught and, in cases like these, they often don't believe they are doing anything 'wrong'.
I wouldn't expect or want someone like Ian Watkins to be rehabilitated back into society, I don't think he could be but, I don't have some desire to see him killed in prison - I've always found the "string 'em up" brigade very odd

This recently also needs to be raised
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The two murderers thought the guy was a sex offender so took the law into their own hands - completely tragic.

Mapperley, darling wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

its the same in cases of rape, even when the fella is acquited, he is named but the other party is nt

i can see and agree with the reasons in cases where the defendant is found guilty, but surely it should be visa versa if not guilty. name them liars.

The unnamed women were also guilty of abusing their own children with Ian Watkins. They weren't 'victims'. They weren't named because it would identify their children - the victims.

AstiSpumante wrote:

hairy j wrote:

Mapperley, darling wrote:

how come woman a and woman b arent named? they pleaded guilty too.

I am assuming that the victims would be identified if the other people involved were named.

Also, it's a horrific crime and it's deeply upsetting to read even the vaguest detaiks but I've never understood the vengeance and desire to see the guilty parties in this hurt, maimed and killed. It doesn't reverse the crime, the children involved wouldn't be un-abused and the treatment by society of convicted peadophiles, no matter how harsh/violent doesn't seem to deter any of them from commiting offences.

So you're in the 50 hours community service and £200 fine brigade are you? Or is that a bit too harsh? A short spell of rehab and then off to work in the local nursery?

Yep. That's exactly what I said.... Jesus.

hairy j wrote:

I do get that entirely but it still won't stop peadophiles from abusing children; it really won't. It's not trolling at all. Every single thing I posted is completely true - if Ian Watkins is hurt, tortured, killed in prison, it won't reverse the crime. It won't unabuse those children and I agree 100% that the other guilty parties aren't named as it protects the families of those people and the victims.
Punishing crimes with violence and state sponsored murder/euthenasia isn't something I'd personally like to see; they have the death penalty in the USA, crimes still happen, people are still murdered, children are abused. It isn't a deterent as the perpetrators don't expect to be caught and, in cases like these, they often don't believe they are doing anything 'wrong'.
I wouldn't expect or want someone like Ian Watkins to be rehabilitated back into society, I don't think he could be but, I don't have some desire to see him killed in prison - I've always found the "string 'em up" brigade very odd

This recently also needs to be raised
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The two murderers thought the guy was a sex offender so took the law into their own hands - completely tragic.

All I can really say hairy, is that if someone were to abuse your kids, and you genuinely WOULDN'T want to see them "strung up", then the very least you could be described as, would be "very odd".

Is that the whole crux of the issue? String 'em up, repeat, repeat. It doesn't stop it happening. I have no answer for stopping it; it won't stop and it's happened forever. I still cannot see how by killing people as a crimina deterent (which it isn't) makes our society better. Explain that without the "if it were your kids" argument - these weren't my kids. Ian Watkins certainly isn't a threat to my kids. Other people like him might be but killing Ian Watkins won't stop those people from offending.

Similarly, the whole Government stance on porn and the internet is misguided - peadophiles don't use google to obtain images etc. so banning certain search words on google will do the square root of nothing.

hairy j wrote:

Is that the whole crux of the issue? String 'em up, repeat, repeat. It doesn't stop it happening. I have no answer for stopping it; it won't stop and it's happened forever. I still cannot see how by killing people as a crimina deterent (which it isn't) makes our society better. Explain that without the "if it were your kids" argument - these weren't my kids. Ian Watkins certainly isn't a threat to my kids. Other people like him might be but killing Ian Watkins won't stop those people from offending.

Similarly, the whole Government stance on porn and the internet is misguided - peadophiles don't use google to obtain images etc. so banning certain search words on google will do the square root of nothing.

Hairy, no one on this thread (except you) is talking about "deterents" or "making society better". Scum like Watkins need to be punished. Severely. End of.

But if you wanna take it to the lowest common denominator, then for me, putting someone like Watkins in front of a firing squad actually does make our society better and safer, because he'll never be a part of it ever again.

Oh, sorry Czarcasm, it's the rabid revenge thread - revenge always works.

The Dad of this baby could shoot him and then Ian Watkins' Dad could shoot him and then someone's Mum could shoot Ian Watkins' Dad and then someone could shoot her - eventually we'd all be dead and there would be no more peadophiles ever AGAIN!