Ian Watkins Denies Baby Rape Charges

The Lostprophets frontman has vowed to clear his name for 24 shocking sex offences which he denies.

Ultimate Guitar

Lostprophets frontman Ian Watkins has appeared in court to deny 24 sex offence charges that involve children, and has vowed to clear his name.

The 35-year-old was arrested in December last year with shocking allegations that he conspired to rape a one-year-old girl. Now details of his charges have been revealed, which include two of raping a baby, conspiracy to rape another child, assault, aiding other assault, and more of making indecent images, according to the BBC.

A 24th charge is for possession of extreme pornographic images involving an animal. The alleged offences date back to 2007.

At a court hearing this week, Watkins only spoke to confirm his identity. A statement from him was read outside which said:

"I want to thank my family, friends and all the fans for their continued support throughout this whole ordeal. Your support gives me strength, I deny all the allegations made against me and will continue to fight to the end to clear my name."

Watkins will next appear in court on Thursday.

135 comments sorted by best / new / date

    People from Wales are a different story...
    Nero Galon
    Thats not true
    And that is why british people have bad teeth. One nation under gnikcuf ttub amen.
    What? It's a Deftones song... British people get mad butt hurtings on this site, especially when you hate on pedophiles... So many post's with up votes for anyone defending it as sexuality rather than mental illness. I guess I would do the same so that I didn't feel bad about being a filthy slimy pervert too, if I was one. Down vote if you like kiddie porn & want to have sex with babies!!!
    24 charges... holy crap
    If your penis was as small as his, having sex with a 1 year old would be the only way that you could cum too... I know mine is.
    He does?! What?!
    Innocent until proven guilty eh? Clearly don't have time for that. EDIT Totally meant to reply to the comment below.
    Seems an awful lot of allegations for it to not be true. I guess we'll see how it pans out.
    After writing a huge post about me feeling bad for him, I'll put it plainly- I hope that the truth comes out of this and that he meets his rightful fate whatever that may be.
    Okay let me get this sorted. He has been CHARGED with CONSPIRACY to rape a 1 year old child. The act is dispicable but two things about this are very keep so i capsed them. To be charged is not to be guilty of, and conspiracy means they believe based upon some form of testimony which itself is inadmissable thus they put conspiracy. I disagree with naming him without solid evidence, and espeically before a jury reached a verdict on it. His name has been destroyed now, even if found innocent of all charges (Unlikely because people will always assume the police had enough reason to believe it and it being such an emotional act they accuse of), he will always be seen as the guy that did it and got away with it. The ONLY reason they would have to name and shame him before a verdict is to get people to speak out about him doing stuff, meaning they have weak evidence at best. Before you go around flaming him for raping a baby consider these points.
    It would betray the core principles of open justice if defendants were only named once a verdict was reached. Can you imagine the types of abuse the legal system would be open to if nobody was allowed to know what was going on in a court case until it was over? Your last assertion is utter rubbish. All adult defendants are named (not 'shamed') in UK courts, unless naming them would lead to the identification of a victim or witness granted anonymity. Choosing not to name defendants is the exception rather than the rule, and it's certainly not up to the prosecution as you seem to suggest. I could be wrong but I don't think they've made any appeal for witnesses. And even if they have, that fact alone does not infer anything about his guilt or lack of it - believe it or not, it's incredibly tough to speak out about rape and child abuse. Not everyone will readily come forward. That doesn't mean he did or didn't do it. Either way, magistrates have deemed the evidence sufficiently valid to go ahead with trial. If there wasn't enough evidence that he *may* have done it, and they needed to appeal for more, then he wouldn't have been charged. (EDIT: slash_rocks, while the same principles do apply in America, this case is taking place in Britain)
    I have sufficient knowledge of the legal system. I just disagree with core principals. The media is something that is a double edged sword. In cases where there is a high profile act there should be anonymity until the verdict is reached because releasing the info compromises the jury. Allow me to explain this in case you don't understand what I mean. By releasing his name and stating he is being charged with this highly emotional crime, it will become a very well known case, people will judge from the public reaction which is always going to be "He should rot in jail for this". Because of this fact there can be no fair jury. A jury must be comprised of people who are impartial and who have no already pre-determined guilt or lack of. And btw it is up to the police to release the information. They could use a court injunction against the media to blockade the forced naming. So once again i reiterate, I believe the only reason they had to name him was to encourage those to step forward. (Which is a common practice in regards to rape cases btw)
    I don't think the potential for prejudice is much more serious here than when anyone is accused of horrendous crimes like this. When someone - famous or not - is put before you charged with rape, child abuse, murder etc then our natural instinct is to assume guilty, with or without media coverage. The judge then does all he or she can direct the jury towards fairness by telling them only to consider the evidence put before them in court. That's all that can be done unfortunately. Secret justice opens up countless opportunities for abuse and we should think very, very seriously before attempting to impose it. I should also point out that he faces two charges of raping a child himself, so your point on conspiracy is invalid.
    The original charges were of conspiracy, everything after that fact is attached from the initial charge which would have been their strongest at the time. Given this info i will only take the original charges under consideration. I am not saying secret justice, i'm saying delayed reveal until the verdict is reached then announce it. You are saying it like people will evade justice if their name is not strictly revealed which is invalid. Justice is carried out irregardless but to reveal high profile names in high profile cases will invalidate the validity of a fair court because people will enter having already determined from hearsay their opinions. A court is devised to allow only evidence, which is abused in trial sometimes but a damn sight better than people pre-judging based on trolls saying he definately did it. I will not be suprised if he is found guilty at this point irregardless of wether he did it or not. My point isn't that he did or didn;t do it but of how it was handled. I believe the validity of any trial he will face is comprimised because unlike everyone else involved in this case they decided to reveal his name publically, which I believe they did to encourage any possible offended partys to come forward, but with high profile cases people will come forward who have nothing to do with it. THAT is also why i am only ever going to take their initial charges into concideration.
    Personally I've never understood the practice of releasing the names of suspects to the public in the US and UK for example. I guess it's for the same reason as why the US has juries, for public involvement and knowledge. Still, it's a system that's ridiculously outdated. It's basically stuck on the Roman level of dragging suspects to the public forum to be condemned or released by the public (or whoever could buy the public on their side).
    I agree. I understand the theory of it, people need to know who is being tried for crimes... But people don't need to know at all. Think of it this way. He will never be able to escape the stigma anymore. Wether he is innocent or not his name is now linked strongly with the accusation. They had no reason to publically announce his name short of hunting for evidence off the public which is also a source that cannot be fully trusted due to the fame and damages aspect. But as I said I understand the why. People believe that if all names are obscured then the big bad politicians will get away with everything, but that is not the case. But I think more concerning is that people have been tried for MURDER under worse things, the Jill Dando case for example, the evidence was contaminated and they still made out that he did it. They tampered with his stuff to make him look worse and so on. Only after over a decade in prison did they finally clear him of the charges. But the reason he was tried under that impossible evidence is because it was made high profile and the public (Vast majority of em) at the time were sure of his guilt because everyone was saying he did it, and that what he did was wrong,never considering the possibility they were wrong.
    "The ONLY reason they would have to name and shame him before a verdict is to get people to speak out about him doing stuff, meaning they have weak evidence at best." apparently you don't know how the american legal system works. the public is entitled to know about everyone who has been arrested and charged. i'm not saying i don't agree with how his name is soiled whether he's guilty or not, but it's not b/c of 'weak evidence' that his name is out there. it's out there b/c police HAVE to release that info, unless it's an ongoing investigation that will be compromised by releasing such info. and what makes you think a testimony is inadmissable? brush up on your knowledge of the court system, you made good points but a couple inaccurate statements.
    Aidy Gerrard`
    why dont you brush up on the story? He's a welsh singer being tried in the UK....nothing to do with the US legal system...but thanks for playing.
    My main issue with this case is there are two women involved and being charged but the details on them is scarce and their identity is being protected perhaps through a plea bargain etc. So it is possible Watkins is being dragged through this. I do also think 24 charges is a lot to deny but if they are all from the same source he could still be innocent. More importantly though is the fact I'm assuming here but it seems that children have been harmed and that sickens me.
    There are just as much female pedophiles as males, but they just know how to get away with it, just like now.
    This will probably get downvoted. I just don't get why the article has 100% dislike. Nobody knows yet whether he's innocent or guilty so it's a bit silly for someone to go, "He denies the charges...but he must be guilty *dislike*" That's not to say that he is innocent, if he's found guilty he can most certainly rot in prison.
    Gerard Way Jr
    Could just be 6 people disliking because they don't want him to be guilty.
    Well, Ian aside for a minute, an article suggesting a baby being raped, innocent or guilty, i believe that the article in itself is very disturbing
    Plus when you get charged with 24 things one of them would have to stick... Maybe he was jaywalking when they arrested him and he happened to drop his coffee when they said show us your hands so he got a littering charge too...
    Innocent people don't get so many charges against them? That explains all the wrongful executions and incarcerations of innocent people over the years, right? The sad thing is, even if he's completely innocent, his name is destroyed forever. He'll never be able to recover from it. If he's guilty, he's a monster of a human being. But until the evidence is shown and he's sentenced for it, that's all it is: an if.
    I thought the sad thing was raped babies.....
    It's a little weird to be sad for an imaginary raped baby (because as far as I understood this story no one actually raped a baby, just conspired to)
    Who the hell rapes a baby?! that makes no sense, how could a person be sexually stimulated by a goddamn one year old? rot in prison you prick.
    This is why I'll never watch A Serbian Film...
    im a serbian and i never watched that film...
    I'm a human being and I'll never watch that film...
    Holy hell I just read the plot on Wiki, films don't get much darker than that do they? The sad thing is it kinda does sound like it was well conceptualized at parts, if it wasn't so damn extremely f*cked up. I mean, that last scene sounds like M. Knight Shamalam if he was a Nazi-doctor PCP addict.
    I'd recommend it if you like sick, twisted black comedy. It's not a bad film in terms of storytelling, by the way.
    Comeback Kiddd
    F*** that bitch when I asked her to recommend me some good horror movies. I was also recommended donkey punch but I didn't bother to try to watch that. No sir
    haha come on, it's a pretty funny film. It's very different to have a shock-gore black comedy and to actually commit any of those horrible (to say the least) crimes.
    If he turns out to be innocent you are going to look like a dumbass.
    Innocent people don't get these sorts of allegations pitted against them? He did something wrong its just a matter of finding out to what degree now.
    Actually, as a Criminology student I've learned that wrongful convictions and accusations happen far more often than I'm comfortable with. But once they have been accused the stigma against them never goes away even if it has been proved they are innocent. Now, I'm not saying he's innocent or anything - I have no idea. Just saying just because he's been accused does not mean he's immediately guilty.
    do you understand the importance of someone, no matter how evil and what he is charged with, being innocent, until proven otherwise? when he is convicted, if he will be, he will be entitled to any sort of condemnation there is, but let them convict him first.
    If he turns out to be guilty you are going to look like a dumbass.
    You did see that he has like 24 charges right? Sure, he's probably innocent on any actual baby raping because they're only charging him with conspiracy to rape a baby. Tim Lambesis is innocent for murdering his wife, that much we know. However, multiple counts of child pornography & bestiality are still serious offenses. R-Kelly was acquitted, do you think he's innocent? I'm not a prosecutor, I haven't seen the evidence but if this guy wasn't famous and couldn't afford a high profile lawyer he would probably already have a noose around his neck. I've faced charges in my life and been acquitted.. Fraud, theft, possession of marijuana and because of technicalities I had all charges dropped. I'm here to tell you that 1 charge can never guarantee guilt but 20+ is a pretty cut & dry sign that foul play is obvious but he will probably beat them. The legal system is a mess...
    innocent ppl might get blamed for such amount and so serulious s crimes the same reason because one might think it is impossible that such extreme stuff could be made up look up history books
    Holy crap! I just listen to one of their songs this dude is 100% guilty!
    I got taken to court once for rape charges. I'm a eunuch due to an accident at the age of 6. Was pretty lolzy on my behalf when I presented it as final evidence.
    that's a solid defense. sorry to hear it but doesn't a eunuch just mean you have no testicles? pretty sure it's the d that's doing the rape.
    Actually rape doesnt necessarily even have to be performed with genitals. Being an eunuch is by no means a blanket defense for rape charges.
    besides the people in the history books your talking about have some sort of political significance. They're not baby/sheep rapers that front some crappy band no one really cares about.
    "They're not sheep rapers" It's funny because Ian is welsh. I wonder if he picks daffodils on Sunday too...
    Sexual preference. Some people like older people, some like the opposite sex, some like the same sex. Some like children. Luckily quite a lot of the people who do like children know it is sick and twisted and absolutely refuse to ever give in. A 2002 peer reviewed paper by B.Mustanki, M. Chivers and J. Bailey suggests that pedophilia is a biological preference just like homosexuality. That doesn't make it right, but it just shows that some of these people don't have a choice.
    They may not have the choice of what they find sexually attractive. They do have the choice to act on that urge or not though.
    Exactly, just because I'm straight doesn't mean I go and fondle every girl I see. It's a matter of self-control.
    I'm sorry but sexual preference and mental illness are not the same and I read a peer reviewed paper that suggested that 'preferences' like this usually stem from exposure to sex at an early age rather than birth. The earth is flat, the earth is round, the earth is hollow with aliens living in the core... Hormones are good, hormones are bad. Gmo's are non-harmful, gmo's cause cancer. Corn syrup is the same as sugar, corn syrup causes diabetes. Vaccines prevent illness, vaccines cause illness... Science always has something to say and a counter argument while both can show data to support the theories... It's truly up to the reader to discern what they believe and who has the wording skills to make a better argument for things scientific.
    Gerard Way Jr
    While there is some oversimplified truth (preference for children being wired in at an early age due to trauma) to what you're saying, for the love of Christ, stop.
    Wow, I thought I was the only one that thought this. Even more surprised you actually got up-votes. I think, much like the drug war, the prosecution of pedophiles needs to be rethought. Simply making pictures illegal just punishes the ones who don't act on their feelings. I think the people they should be going after are the ones making the pictures.
    They are going after the people who film these things. I get your point about people not acting on their urges but I hardly think it holds water. Lock both of them up for good; end of story. Too costly? Stop mandatory minimum sentencing for petty bullshit, that'll save money and make room
    I knew a 17yo kid who went to jail for having pictures on his cpu. He was a nice guy and I doubt he would have hurt anyone. Anyway, there should at least be a distinction between a 17yo with pictures of other 17yos and a 50yo with pictures of 5yos.
    why does this comment have all down votes?
    Because when ever I say something negative about people who like children in a sexual way, UG'z go apespit. It's because it's a site filled with graduates of Hot Carling Academy.
    Gerard Way Jr
    I'm bothered both by the naivete and medical ignorance in this post.
    Gerard Way Jr
    "Who the hell rapes a baby?! that makes no sense, how could a person be sexually stimulated by a goddamn one year old?" Where do I begin?
    "Who the hell rapes a baby?! that makes no sense, how could a person be sexually stimulated by a goddamn one year old?" Where do I begin? With your point about medical ignorance, perhaps?
    Unfortunately, with your avatar and name, I can't take you seriously.
    Watch out, he's fragile. He might cry to the mods about "rating abuse" if you down vote his comment any more
    Gerard Way Jr
    No, but when you use 3 accounts to downvote contributions, I will. Enjoy your ban, HR369. The admin says hello.
    What's the issue with downvotes? So far as I know, there's no Rep total anywhere to worry about and, therefore, people can't see your reputation and deem you a troll if it's negative.
    lol that's quite a tall accusation, but you shouldn't flatter yourself so much, I wouldn't even consider wasting that much time on you.
    And now, to do, what everyone else should do: -sits down, and doesn't judge guilty/innocent until all evidence is presented and examined-
    A lot of charges to deny :/ Not saying he's guilty just I can't see 24 accusations being lies.
    24 charges over a period of around 6 years seems like a hard thing to fight, regardless of his innocence or guilt.
    Pretty messed up for a 1 year old baby to accuse an innocent man of such things
    Sick stuff, for which there is no biological or psychological or social case for excuse. I hope this is not true, purely because I hope nothing happened to those babies (unless they know something happened and it's only a matter of who did it, which is sadly probably true).
    Yeah there is, you don't become a pedophile by choice, they are born like this. It's their choice to act on it. There are cases where children who are abused eventually abuse their own kids but I think that's just the result of having the worst childhood you could have.
    "Innocent, until proven guilty Deny everything! Deny everything"
    I'm seeing a lot of people either judging this person innocent or guilty. This is far too serious to make a judgement based on either "I'm a fan of this person," or "he deserves to die because he's accused of this." If he did it, he does deserve to die and go to hell forever. If not, calm down, man, but none of us know at this point. Especially upsetting is the comment from a person who went to law school or whatever saying that he's seen too many cases of innocent people going to prison. He's basically implying that, regardless of what is actually known about the case, he's already pissed that this person was even accused of this. To me, the sheer amount of charges makes me lean toward "guilty," but that doesn't mean that I'm certain he is, I'm simply looking objectively at the situation. The thing that bothers me the most, though, about this comment thread is the amount of uninformed (as we all are at this point) people sticking up for this man accused of one of the most horrific crimes imaginable simply because they are a fan of his. If my favorite artist, who happens to be David Bowie, was in the same spot, I would not be mindlessly sticking up for him because I love his music, nor would I be condemning him for something he may or may not have done. At this point we all simply have to wait and see, and make no judgement until more light is shed on all of this.
    To quote you "To me, the sheer amount of charges makes me lean toward "guilty,". This is my point exactly. All 24 charges stem from one original charge which if disproven will squash the rest. You can make a tiny modification to something and charge them again in some countries, im not sure about the UK as I thankfully haven't had it happen to me. But the point I made is by releasing so much information about the case and who it is about, your natural presupposition is to lean towards guilty even before hearing anything else.
    The whole "born this way" or "chose to become this way" makes no sense to me. Which is it? Well, it seems the only real answer is a combination of both. Nature vs Nurture. For instance, one of my best friends was a lesbian throughout high school. Now she is straight and happily married to a guy. So was she born to be gay and then biologically changed genes to become straight? Sorry gay folks, it's both nature AND choice, whether you like it or not. Discuss please.
    Regardless at the end of it His career is gonna be messed up like hell....
    Yeah, that's the most important aspect of this case. Way to get to the heart of it. *sarcastic thumbs up*
    Shit, sorry, I let you off a little easy. What you're basically saying is that, regardless, at the end of it (if he did it, of course), his career matters more than the babies who were raped.
    I don't think that's even remotely close to what he said... I think he means that even if this turns out to be a bunch of defamatory statements that were pulled out of someone's ass, there's forever a stigma attached to him and Lostprophets as 'oh, you mean that band with the baby rapist as the lead singer?'. No venues or promoter will have him, album sales will descend madly and as artists they've already all lost a good deal of their image. Although you could be an ***** and contort what he said to mean 'babies being raped isn't S important as the Lostprophets career'
    Does anyone else notice that the title of this is essentially identical to an article run a couple of months ago? The only word changed in the titles is child and baby.
    Whether he is guilty or not, I still have huge respect for this guy considering what he has provided the muscic industry. A good man indeed.
    Just my opinion but it doesn't sound like he really has faith in himself. All that statement said to me was 'Thanks for supporting me through my terrible idea.' But thats just my opinion.
    If you were charged with conspiracy to rape a baby and your bandmates instead of saying "He couldn't have done it" instead replied wiyth "I didn't think he would do that" then your self confidence would be diminished too. Just saying.
    Whether the charges are true or false, that fact that things like this happen is just one more reason I drink too much, the other major one being the fact that I once heard St. Anger without earplugs... what a world we live in, full of nightmares.