I did say that. But telling them their mothers didn't protect them is also ok, it's telling them the rest of it that I have a problem with, it'll destroy them.
Lying is far more destructive than taking professional advice about how to inform them and talk through the issues.
What happens in 20 years when their mother turns up or someone mentions it of some interfering do gooder tries to introduce grandma to her grand kids. Lies and concealment nearly always are discovered so why attempt it in the first place. I think it is more about people's discomfort with dealing with issues than the welfare of the child when they plan to lock away the family skeletons.
I was of the firm opinion that the children should never be told but, having read some of the discussion in this thread and from my own experiences I'm now not so sure. I can remember being sexually abused when I was very young, not pre verbal though, I think I was three. I also have memories of being much younger than that so maybe the children will remember, and/or maybe they will be affected in other ways suggested in this thread like their emotional development or skewed connection of the sensation of genital touch and emotions.
I'd have to read more about it, I'm really not sure now. And perhaps it's different for different children too and so the best way forward is to monitor these children as individuals?
I'd have to read more about it, I'm really not sure now. And perhaps it's different for different children too and so the best way forward is to monitor these children as individuals?
I think it is porting that they are raised by someone who knows about the abuse and is prepared to take advice and be sensible enough to look for signs of problems or trams and deal with them appropriately - rather than with someone who would prefer to pretend the whole thing never happened. That will probably be a family member as they themselves will have to deal with the trauma of the events and have to come to terms with the fact that a relative was an abuser so they have an advantage over a stranger in that regard.
There is no reason why they should have been mentioned. Identifying them could compromise the children's anonymity.
It would seem very wise IMO to keep the identity of the fathers quiet. It is one way to try to ensure that the babies get some ongoing parental contact if possible. The fathers bear no blame and I'm sure that they are as appalled by what has happened as everyone else is. I would hope that they are receiving counselling as imagine that they are very traumatised
Surprised not to see a thread on this in GD given the case is now closed and sentence passed.
Watkins received 29 years plus an extended licence of six years. Good to see the two mothers involved also got 14 and 17 years respectively though why are they still only known as "woman A" and "woman B"? They should have been identified.
[highlight]Admin notice:[/highlight] Users are reminded that people should not be named.
I don't agree that the mothers should have been named, nothing to do with protecting them (I don't care about them at all), but it's important that the children remain anonymous, especially as they're too young now or at the time of the abuse to even remember these events when they get older.
I can't understand why B got 14 years whereas P got 17 years, considering B facilitated Watkins attempt of rape. Is it because B admitted it straight away, whilst P was very shady on whether she took her daughter along to a hotel to meet Watkins? Or was it down to the depravity of P and their plans for her daughters future (i.e.planning to torture her for fun/making her have sex with animals/saying that her sole existance was to make mummy and daddy cum etc).
Despite reading the judicary report I can't help but feel that both women should have gotten longer, probably a knee jerk reaction from myself but I just can't fathom how a mother could do that to her infant.
It would seem very wise IMO to keep the identity of the fathers quiet. It is one way to try to ensure that the babies get some ongoing parental contact if possible. The fathers bear no blame and I'm sure that they are as appalled by what has happened as everyone else is. I would hope that they are receiving counselling as imagine that they are very traumatised
It occurred to me that Ian Watkins may be the father.
It occurred to me that Ian Watkins may be the father.
If that were the case then it would certainly have been mentioned in the Judge's statement.
From postings on other sites it would seem that Watkins had a long history of seeking out easily influencible girls with young children / babies and had been carrying on his vile practices for years. There is also anecdotal eveidence that he blackmailed these young girls from reporting it by telling them that they would be proscecuted because of the drugs that they had taken with him. Some of the sites go as far as indicating who other victims may be so I hope that they are fully investigated by the police this time.
I don't agree that the mothers should have been named, nothing to do with protecting them (I don't care about them at all), but it's important that the children remain anonymous, especially as they're too young now or at the time of the abuse to even remember these events when they get older.
The children might be identified in the future if someone sees images of the children's mothers next to an article about how their child was sexually abused by Watkins.
It used to be listed on wikipedia that watkins was the father of B's child.
In B's twitter account she stated there he was the father (it included pictures of Watkins asleep next to the baby). That account was still up even after they had been found guilty >:(
In B's twitter account she stated there he was the father (it included pictures of Watkins asleep next to the baby). That account was still up even after they had been found guilty >:(
I remember seeing lots of comments on an aforementioned website debating whether he really was the father or not. Most posters didn't seem to believe her, but who can say.
If this had been claimed to the court though, would they have been able to take measures to find out the paternity?
In B's twitter account she stated there he was the father (it included pictures of Watkins asleep next to the baby). That account was still up even after they had been found guilty >:(
Eurgh.What was going on in her head? She even uploaded pics on tumblr of her giving ian a blowjob. The girl ain't right in the head.
Eurgh.What was going on in her head? She even uploaded pics on tumblr of her giving ian a blowjob. The girl ain't right in the head.
She was totally under his control and as such, not fully in control of her mental faculties. This can happen when someone comes into contact with a psychopath with extreme tastes and high charisma.
That does not excuse her from what she did as she had a choice to say "no". She still knew right from wrong.
Eurgh.What was going on in her head? She even uploaded pics on tumblr of her giving ian a blowjob. The girl ain't right in the head.
That really is the very least bad thing she did. In fact I don't really see why anyone would care.
If I've got it right, the psychiatrist found nothing particular re. A but made some vague diagnosis of multiple personality disorders re. B. Not that that makes any difference really.
That really is the very least bad thing she did. In fact I don't really see why anyone would care.
If I've got it right, the psychiatrist found nothing particular re. A but made some vague diagnosis of multiple personality disorders re. B. Not that that makes any difference really.
Well obviously it pales in comparrison to what she went on to do but it was an odd thing to post, especially as it was in the middle of group sex. It smacked of someone wanting to show off (as I expect that the majority of fangirls wanted to do).
I think Woman A was under his spell, perhaps a little bit unhinged to begin with but I think his fantasies were drip fed to her so gradually the idea of abusing children became rather normal.
I have the feeling Woman B was a bit of an outcast (if you google her name she created a website which suggests that she was a bit of a goth hideaway) and when Watkins showed an interest she grabbed the opportunity with both hands, sacrificing everything to be "his". The only thing is that Watkins was seeing both women at the same time, so was having his cake and eating it.
As for Watkins... genuinely cannot tell whether he is a born paedophile or whether his fame, power, charm and drugs led him to it. Although, I'm sure he was probably "kinky" from the outset, whoring himself out, putting things up his bum and wanting to drink menstrual blood from it's source... He's an enigma. I think he genuinely thinks he hasn't done anything wrong.
I am finding it most .... Odd and disturbing that fan girls are still saying they stand by him/ what he did on his time was his business/ he pleaded guilty to get a lesser jail term
I used to be a big Libertines can and thought their fan girls were bad
Well obviously it pales in comparrison to what she went on to do but it was an odd thing to post, especially as it was in the middle of group sex. It smacked of someone wanting to show off (as I expect that the majority of fangirls wanted to do).
I think Woman A was under his spell, perhaps a little bit unhinged to begin with but I think his fantasies were drip fed to her so gradually the idea of abusing children became rather normal.
I have the feeling Woman B was a bit of an outcast (if you google her name she created a website which suggests that she was a bit of a goth hideaway) and when Watkins showed an interest she grabbed the opportunity with both hands, sacrificing everything to be "his". The only thing is that Watkins was seeing both women at the same time, so was having his cake and eating it.
As for Watkins... genuinely cannot tell whether he is a born paedophile or whether his fame, power, charm and drugs led him to it. Although, I'm sure he was probably "kinky" from the outset, whoring himself out, putting things up his bum and wanting to drink menstrual blood from it's source... He's an enigma. I think he genuinely thinks he hasn't done anything wrong.
BiB. That is exactly how psychopaths work - as I know to my cost although luckily not to such extremes and I was strong enough to get away. Things that would previously have been unimaginable start to appear (almost) acceptable and that, combined with the charm that these people usually exude, drags their partners in debauchery further and further into the dark side. It is a very frightening situation to be in and if these girls were also loners they were his perfect victims.
What I don't understand is, on certain aspects of the case, the judge mentioned that 2 of his victims was 16 years old & consented to the sex. I was curious to why the Judge bought that up, yes there was the drug taking, but I didn't think that a Rock star had to follow the same laws as an authority figure like a teacher, when having sex with someone under 18.
Comments
What happens in 20 years when their mother turns up or someone mentions it of some interfering do gooder tries to introduce grandma to her grand kids. Lies and concealment nearly always are discovered so why attempt it in the first place. I think it is more about people's discomfort with dealing with issues than the welfare of the child when they plan to lock away the family skeletons.
I'd have to read more about it, I'm really not sure now. And perhaps it's different for different children too and so the best way forward is to monitor these children as individuals?
Why would you doubt it?
Not this again.
There is no reason why they should have been mentioned. Identifying them could compromise the children's anonymity.
It would seem very wise IMO to keep the identity of the fathers quiet. It is one way to try to ensure that the babies get some ongoing parental contact if possible. The fathers bear no blame and I'm sure that they are as appalled by what has happened as everyone else is. I would hope that they are receiving counselling as imagine that they are very traumatised
Just when you think it can't get any worse
I don't agree that the mothers should have been named, nothing to do with protecting them (I don't care about them at all), but it's important that the children remain anonymous, especially as they're too young now or at the time of the abuse to even remember these events when they get older.
THE CHILD PROTECTOR GENERAL!
Seriously, never mention that ghastly man's name again. He's a jumped up, self important ******.
Despite reading the judicary report I can't help but feel that both women should have gotten longer, probably a knee jerk reaction from myself but I just can't fathom how a mother could do that to her infant.
It occurred to me that Ian Watkins may be the father.
If that were the case then it would certainly have been mentioned in the Judge's statement.
From postings on other sites it would seem that Watkins had a long history of seeking out easily influencible girls with young children / babies and had been carrying on his vile practices for years. There is also anecdotal eveidence that he blackmailed these young girls from reporting it by telling them that they would be proscecuted because of the drugs that they had taken with him. Some of the sites go as far as indicating who other victims may be so I hope that they are fully investigated by the police this time.
The children might be identified in the future if someone sees images of the children's mothers next to an article about how their child was sexually abused by Watkins.
It used to be listed on wikipedia that watkins was the father of B's child.
In B's twitter account she stated there he was the father (it included pictures of Watkins asleep next to the baby). That account was still up even after they had been found guilty >:(
I remember seeing lots of comments on an aforementioned website debating whether he really was the father or not. Most posters didn't seem to believe her, but who can say.
If this had been claimed to the court though, would they have been able to take measures to find out the paternity?
Eurgh.What was going on in her head? She even uploaded pics on tumblr of her giving ian a blowjob. The girl ain't right in the head.
She was totally under his control and as such, not fully in control of her mental faculties. This can happen when someone comes into contact with a psychopath with extreme tastes and high charisma.
That does not excuse her from what she did as she had a choice to say "no". She still knew right from wrong.
That really is the very least bad thing she did. In fact I don't really see why anyone would care.
If I've got it right, the psychiatrist found nothing particular re. A but made some vague diagnosis of multiple personality disorders re. B. Not that that makes any difference really.
Well obviously it pales in comparrison to what she went on to do but it was an odd thing to post, especially as it was in the middle of group sex. It smacked of someone wanting to show off (as I expect that the majority of fangirls wanted to do).
I think Woman A was under his spell, perhaps a little bit unhinged to begin with but I think his fantasies were drip fed to her so gradually the idea of abusing children became rather normal.
I have the feeling Woman B was a bit of an outcast (if you google her name she created a website which suggests that she was a bit of a goth hideaway) and when Watkins showed an interest she grabbed the opportunity with both hands, sacrificing everything to be "his". The only thing is that Watkins was seeing both women at the same time, so was having his cake and eating it.
As for Watkins... genuinely cannot tell whether he is a born paedophile or whether his fame, power, charm and drugs led him to it. Although, I'm sure he was probably "kinky" from the outset, whoring himself out, putting things up his bum and wanting to drink menstrual blood from it's source... He's an enigma. I think he genuinely thinks he hasn't done anything wrong.
I used to be a big Libertines can and thought their fan girls were bad
They pale into consideration
BiB. That is exactly how psychopaths work - as I know to my cost although luckily not to such extremes and I was strong enough to get away. Things that would previously have been unimaginable start to appear (almost) acceptable and that, combined with the charm that these people usually exude, drags their partners in debauchery further and further into the dark side. It is a very frightening situation to be in and if these girls were also loners they were his perfect victims.
I was wondering the same