I asked earlier but will ask again as I still don't know the answer. What if when the 29 years are up the Police think that he is not fit to be released? Can they keep him inside or have him sent to an institution or do they have to release him? It might be a stupid question to ask so sorry in advance!
It's not a police matter but a matter for the parole board.
If he ever gets out, he'll be under such a strict MAPPA regime he won't be able to drop litter without getting done for it. He will probably be subject to an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order that will be hugely restrictive as to where he can go, what he can do, who he can associate with, where he can live etc.
If he's diagnosed with any mental illness, he could be locked up for ever.
Yes these were serious crimes, but so is murder so please explain to me how this is considered more serious?
When serial rapists of adults are walking out after less than five years there is something seriously disproportionate here...
Frankly I think it's pandering to the whole media driven pedophile hysteria that abounds, particularly among the semi literate subculture that is taking over our country. I also can't help wondering how much difference the fact that he was well known made.
I'm sorry, but are women really so intellectually inferior to men that every time a woman committs a hideous crime, if there is a man involved, she gets half the sentance of him because he 'made her do it'?
I'm sorry, but are women really so intellectually inferior to men that every time a woman committs a hideous crime, if there is a man involved, she gets half the sentance of him because he 'made her do it'?
Yes these were serious crimes, but so is murder so please explain to me how this is considered more serious?
When there are serial rapists of adults are walking out after less than five years there is something seriously disproportionate here...
Frankly I think it's pandering to the whole media driven pedophile hysteria that abounds, particularly among the semi literate subculture that is taking over our country. I also can't help wondering how much difference the fact that he was well known made.
I'm surprised he got so long I have to be honest. I was expecting him to get between 10 - 12 years or something at the very most.
The jurors may well have had to sit through video evidence, transcripts of texts etc.
I hope they're all exempt from jury service forever.
I read that there'd already been counseling arranged for all the jury for after the trial- thank god they never had to see any of that stuff. Not that I've read the judge's report, I'd rather not have those images in my head, I can only imagine what's in there.
Just as I posted earlier. He will only do 22 years though before he is eligible for parole.
Not even that. The 35 years is composed of 29 custodial years plus six years on license. He's eligible for parole after two-thirds of the 29 custodial years, which I work out as being 19 years and 4 months. Whenever he's let out, though, his period on licence will only end 35 years from when he was taken into custody, which was a year ago. At least, that's how I think it all works.
It is actually possible to feel sympathy for people other than the direct victims, whilst reserving most sympathy for the direct victims. People who are the direct victim of a crime aren't the only people who suffer.
I appreciate the reply Relly and please believe me I totally understand that it's possible to feel sympathy for others affected whilst reserving most for the victim.
The only point I make is that I've seen a number of people talk about the band and/ or his parents with no mention of the real (or I should say the 'primary') victims. I find that odd.
To me, whilst I appreciate there may well be multiple victims affected, including the offender's family, it massively surprises me the frequency that they (or the other band members) have been mentioned. For me whilst it isn't irrelevant of course, given the nature of the crime, I'd say these 'victims' pale into huge insignificance when compared to the primary victims in this all.
I think what people are rightly pointing out is that there are often unseen, unthought about and forgotten victims in crimes and we can have sympathy with all the people affected by this, even if they are not the direct victims.
It a given that the utmost sympathy is with the victims, but most crimes, but especially sexual or extremely violent crimes make victims across the board.
People don't need to point this out to me, rightly or wrongly I can assure you. My point is being glossed over here- the parents of Watkins/ other band members etc 'suffering' to me pales into minute insignificance compared to the main victims in all this. The number of times they are being mentioned surprises me- ironically the 'forgotten victims' are the exact opposite of that.
To express my point better- would you think it strange if there was a thread about Holy & Jessica and the Soham murders for example and a multiple people expressed their sympathy for Huntley's mum or perhaps his work colleagues at the school who may be pretty distressed by it all/ thought he was a lovely guy etc. Would you not find it odd if people talked about Maxine Carr's relatives (all of whom could technically be loosely described as 'victims' give your reasoning) as opposed to talking about the 2 little murdered girls and their family?
Personally I would find that weird. It's the same difference here.
For me it massively detracts from (and is almost an insult to)the 'primary' victims, and makes me questions people's 'sympathy priorities' (for want of a better phrase.
his [apparently deluded] stepfather appears to be putting the blame on fame and pressure to shock.
I find it hard to believe that someone as depraved as this didn't show any signs until he became famous. This guy was probably abused himself at some point in his childhood, and so were the women involved. It's a cycle that is so often repeated.
..What makes this case more bizarre is the fact that you'd comprehend this from an old over the hill rocker (no names mentioned) but the fact that Watkins was a handsome young man who had all kinds of beautiful women throwing themselves at him just makes it all the more bizarre.
My neighbour is currently serving two years for child abuse (the two mums will probably end up on the same wing as her) and she has also been given anonymity by the courts to protect her children. However, they are being raised by other family members and therefore are retaining the same surname etc. The judge in the Watkins case said the children are now in foster care, so presumably they will go up for adoption soon.
I can't name my neighbour on the internet and won't, but so many people in the local area know it was her that I can't see her kids not finding out. But if anonymity will protect them even a little, I think it's a good thing. My only concern with my neighbour is that she will be out at an age when she can carry on having kids and if she moves to a new area and chooses not to tell her new partner, he could find himself married to a child abuser and face social services involvement if they have kids.
Hopefully when the two mums are released they will be monitored by the probation services for a long time.
I appreciate the reply Relly and please believe me I totally understand that it's possible to feel sympathy for others affected whilst reserving most for the victim.
The only point I make is that I've seen a number of people talk about the band and/ or his parents with no mention of the real (or I should say the 'primary') victims. I find that odd.
To me whilst I appreciate they too may well be multiple victims,including the offender's family, it massively surprises me the frequency that they have been mentioned. For me whilst it isn't irrelevant, given the nature of the crime, I'd say these 'victims' pale into huge insignificance when compared to the primary victims in this all.
.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, although personally I disagree with you and do NOT think my comments are unfair at all.
People don't need to point this out to me, rightly or wrongly I can assure you. My point is being glossed over here- the parents of Watkins/ other band members 'suffering' to me pales into minute insignificance compared to the main victims. The number of times they are being mentioned surprises me- ironically the 'forgottoon victims' are the exact opposite.
To express my point better- would you think it strange if there was a thread about Holy & Jessica and the Soham murders for example and a multiple people expressed their sympathy for Huntley's mum or perhaps his work colleagues at the school who may be pretty distressed by it all/ thought he was a lovely guy etc. Would you not find it odd if people talked about Maxine Carr's relatives or perhaps her friends (all of whom could technically be loosely described as 'victims' give your reasoning) as opposed to talking about the 2 little murdered girls and their family? Who's thinking about THEM?
Personally I would find that weird. Same difference here.
For me it massively detracts from the main victims, and makes me questions people's 'sympathy priorities' (for want of a better phrase.
Well yes, I see what you're saying. From my side, though, I think a group of musicians are a lot more tightly knit than, say, a caretaker and a few teachers at a school. The teachers may be close with each other, but I doubt they'd include the caretaker. I have this image in my mind of six starving musicians stuffed into a scruffy little tour van, driving from venue to venue, working really hard to 'make it big' (or whatever they want to do) for years - they'd have to be tight-knit or the whole band would implode. And then they find out that one of their group did this, or could even think of doing it?
To be fair, this thread has mainly concentrated on the babies, and I really do hope I don't come across anyone on my FB or elsewhere saying the saddest thing is that the band or family suffered. I wouldn't let them get away with that.
I find it hard to believe that someone as depraved as this didn't show any signs until he became famous. This guy was probably abused himself at some point in his childhood, and so were the women involved. It's a cycle that is so often repeated.
groupies will do all sorts of things to get close to their heroes. Maybe this is all a combination of events which put him in a position where those latent feelings were able to flourish? Drugs, alcohol, fame, available young women who would further massage his ego and think he was beyond the law? Whatever the reasons, there is no excuse for what he did, but without those factors he might have been the sort of perv who is convicted for downloading child porn, rather than the sort who actively makes it. Anyway, he'll have a very long time to sit and ponder it.
..What makes this case more bizarre is the fact that you'd comprehend this from an old over the hill rocker (no names mentioned) but the fact that Watkins was a handsome young man who had all kinds of beautiful women throwing themselves at him just makes it all the more bizarre.
Its quite clear beautiful women were not what interested him. His appearance is no indication of his sexual predilections.
It must be very difficult for the parents of sex offenders or murderers. Even though its not logical, they must feel some sense of guilt as to whether the crimes would not have occured if they'd done something different (It wouldnt).
Do parents always cut off contact with their children who've committed terrible crimes? Most people would say "Yes" but its difficult if you have bought up the child into adulthood & some parents might have had a close relationship with their child before the crime was uncovered.
Anyone here know the families of a person who's been convicted of a serious crime??
Mothers hardly ever seem to abandon their children, whatever they are in prison for.
I don't see how anyone can not feel sorry for Watkins's mother. She is 60 and in 'very poor health'; she will never see him again except during visiting hours. And obviously her perspective will be different: he is not one of those criminals who was obviously a sick individual as a child. She has thousands of hours of memories of him as an affectionate, much loved child, in nativity plays, bringing his reading book over to practise with, learning to ride a bike, opening his Christmas stocking. She has lost him as much as someone whose child has died; I really do believe that, and that people who say 'she can still see him' don't understand. If he had been killed in a car crash, her whole community would have rallied round with kind words about him, tributes to him etc; as it is, I bet almost no one knows what to say.
You're one sick individual. Why do you people want to wallow in the details of what that scumbag did to those children?
Why are you wanting to view and absorb such information?
Wanting to read about how child abuse was carried out and wanting to watch child abuse being carried out...almost no line dividing the two in my opinion.
See a doctor.
What a strange post, and how lucky that most people don't think like this.
Maybe the thought process behind giving somebody less than a full life sentence for murdering somebody is something that should be looked at rather than this crime. The judge gave a decent sentence in this case
I don't think a full life sentence is appropriate for most murders at all. In fact the dividing line between murder and assault is sometimes much narrower than is comfortable. In my days as a PC I once arrested someone for stabbing someone 68 times. He got probation, and it was the right sentence.
Yeah, in a way I think the mothers are even worse.
I assume that the judge's view was that Watkins would have committed the crimes without these particular women, but they would never have committed the crimes without him. (Especially the one who was 17.)
To me, whilst I appreciate there may well be multiple victims affected, including the offender's family, it massively surprises me the frequency that they (or the other band members) have been mentioned. For me whilst it isn't irrelevant of course, given the nature of the crime, I'd say these 'victims' pale into huge insignificance when compared to the primary victims in this all.
I'm sure the band members will survive. They have only lost a load of money and professional respect, and will have the chance to have another crack at it.
To express my point better- would you think it strange if there was a thread about Holy & Jessica and the Soham murders for example and a multiple people expressed their sympathy for Huntley's mum or perhaps his work colleagues at the school who may be pretty distressed by it all/ thought he was a lovely guy etc. Would you not find it odd if people talked about Maxine Carr's relatives (all of whom could technically be loosely described as 'victims' give your reasoning) as opposed to talking about the 2 little murdered girls and their family?
Personally I would find that weird. It's the same difference here.
For me it massively detracts from (and is almost an insult to)the 'primary' victims, and makes me questions people's 'sympathy priorities' (for want of a better phrase.
No, not at all, and it is plain wrong to suggest that an insult is intended. Not every post has to address every aspect of an issue; it is right to draw attention to the victims who are often forgotten in these matters. Even the slightest implication that those who sympathise with Watkins' mother, and don't add the caveat "but not as much as the babies of course", are insulting those babies is pretty bad. It really is possible to feel compassion for more than one person at a time, and even to discuss one without the other in the course of a debate.
Comments
It's not a police matter but a matter for the parole board.
If he ever gets out, he'll be under such a strict MAPPA regime he won't be able to drop litter without getting done for it. He will probably be subject to an indefinite Sexual Offences Prevention Order that will be hugely restrictive as to where he can go, what he can do, who he can associate with, where he can live etc.
If he's diagnosed with any mental illness, he could be locked up for ever.
I mean what kind of a hack job could you come up with dealing with these kind of behavior
EDIT: Just read an article, so I got the just of his 'defense'
When serial rapists of adults are walking out after less than five years there is something seriously disproportionate here...
Frankly I think it's pandering to the whole media driven pedophile hysteria that abounds, particularly among the semi literate subculture that is taking over our country. I also can't help wondering how much difference the fact that he was well known made.
No...
I'm surprised he got so long I have to be honest. I was expecting him to get between 10 - 12 years or something at the very most.
One word reply, I guess that really does answer my question.
I read that there'd already been counseling arranged for all the jury for after the trial- thank god they never had to see any of that stuff. Not that I've read the judge's report, I'd rather not have those images in my head, I can only imagine what's in there.
He has to serve just short of twenty years before even being considered for parole. We've seen murderers receive less than that full term.
Ask a silly question ...
Not even that. The 35 years is composed of 29 custodial years plus six years on license. He's eligible for parole after two-thirds of the 29 custodial years, which I work out as being 19 years and 4 months. Whenever he's let out, though, his period on licence will only end 35 years from when he was taken into custody, which was a year ago. At least, that's how I think it all works.
The only point I make is that I've seen a number of people talk about the band and/ or his parents with no mention of the real (or I should say the 'primary') victims. I find that odd.
To me, whilst I appreciate there may well be multiple victims affected, including the offender's family, it massively surprises me the frequency that they (or the other band members) have been mentioned. For me whilst it isn't irrelevant of course, given the nature of the crime, I'd say these 'victims' pale into huge insignificance when compared to the primary victims in this all.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, although personally I disagree with you and do NOT think my comments are unfair at all.
People don't need to point this out to me, rightly or wrongly I can assure you. My point is being glossed over here- the parents of Watkins/ other band members etc 'suffering' to me pales into minute insignificance compared to the main victims in all this. The number of times they are being mentioned surprises me- ironically the 'forgotten victims' are the exact opposite of that.
To express my point better- would you think it strange if there was a thread about Holy & Jessica and the Soham murders for example and a multiple people expressed their sympathy for Huntley's mum or perhaps his work colleagues at the school who may be pretty distressed by it all/ thought he was a lovely guy etc. Would you not find it odd if people talked about Maxine Carr's relatives (all of whom could technically be loosely described as 'victims' give your reasoning) as opposed to talking about the 2 little murdered girls and their family?
Personally I would find that weird. It's the same difference here.
For me it massively detracts from (and is almost an insult to)the 'primary' victims, and makes me questions people's 'sympathy priorities' (for want of a better phrase.
I find it hard to believe that someone as depraved as this didn't show any signs until he became famous. This guy was probably abused himself at some point in his childhood, and so were the women involved. It's a cycle that is so often repeated.
I can't name my neighbour on the internet and won't, but so many people in the local area know it was her that I can't see her kids not finding out. But if anonymity will protect them even a little, I think it's a good thing. My only concern with my neighbour is that she will be out at an age when she can carry on having kids and if she moves to a new area and chooses not to tell her new partner, he could find himself married to a child abuser and face social services involvement if they have kids.
Hopefully when the two mums are released they will be monitored by the probation services for a long time.
Well yes, I see what you're saying. From my side, though, I think a group of musicians are a lot more tightly knit than, say, a caretaker and a few teachers at a school. The teachers may be close with each other, but I doubt they'd include the caretaker. I have this image in my mind of six starving musicians stuffed into a scruffy little tour van, driving from venue to venue, working really hard to 'make it big' (or whatever they want to do) for years - they'd have to be tight-knit or the whole band would implode. And then they find out that one of their group did this, or could even think of doing it?
To be fair, this thread has mainly concentrated on the babies, and I really do hope I don't come across anyone on my FB or elsewhere saying the saddest thing is that the band or family suffered. I wouldn't let them get away with that.
groupies will do all sorts of things to get close to their heroes. Maybe this is all a combination of events which put him in a position where those latent feelings were able to flourish? Drugs, alcohol, fame, available young women who would further massage his ego and think he was beyond the law? Whatever the reasons, there is no excuse for what he did, but without those factors he might have been the sort of perv who is convicted for downloading child porn, rather than the sort who actively makes it. Anyway, he'll have a very long time to sit and ponder it.
Its quite clear beautiful women were not what interested him. His appearance is no indication of his sexual predilections.
The admission of guilt meant they didn't have to. The Judge said that they were all extremely fortunate he plead guilty when he did.
I don't see how anyone can not feel sorry for Watkins's mother. She is 60 and in 'very poor health'; she will never see him again except during visiting hours. And obviously her perspective will be different: he is not one of those criminals who was obviously a sick individual as a child. She has thousands of hours of memories of him as an affectionate, much loved child, in nativity plays, bringing his reading book over to practise with, learning to ride a bike, opening his Christmas stocking. She has lost him as much as someone whose child has died; I really do believe that, and that people who say 'she can still see him' don't understand. If he had been killed in a car crash, her whole community would have rallied round with kind words about him, tributes to him etc; as it is, I bet almost no one knows what to say.
What a strange post, and how lucky that most people don't think like this.
I don't think a full life sentence is appropriate for most murders at all. In fact the dividing line between murder and assault is sometimes much narrower than is comfortable. In my days as a PC I once arrested someone for stabbing someone 68 times. He got probation, and it was the right sentence. Eligible to apply for parole. The parole board is likely to be made up of people like most of us, who will see his offences as most of us do. I assume that the judge's view was that Watkins would have committed the crimes without these particular women, but they would never have committed the crimes without him. (Especially the one who was 17.) The press being what it is, they would probably have had more press attention than him.
I'm sure the band members will survive. They have only lost a load of money and professional respect, and will have the chance to have another crack at it.
No, not at all, and it is plain wrong to suggest that an insult is intended. Not every post has to address every aspect of an issue; it is right to draw attention to the victims who are often forgotten in these matters. Even the slightest implication that those who sympathise with Watkins' mother, and don't add the caveat "but not as much as the babies of course", are insulting those babies is pretty bad. It really is possible to feel compassion for more than one person at a time, and even to discuss one without the other in the course of a debate.
This music video is now seen in a completely different light!
The link is from judiciary.gov.uk so is perfectly legal to view. Just in case any admins try and slam the door.
You can read them here (.PDF reader needed)
*WARNING: VERY DISTURBING CONTENT*
http://t.co/uvooAfTgX5
is all their music that shit?
Me too. However it seems there were numerous individual crimes and he received a separate sentence for each one.