Lostprophets Singer Charged With Child Sex Offences

Ian Watkins has been charged with "conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a female under 13 and possession/distribution of indecent images of children."

Ultimate Guitar

Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins has been charged with sex offences against children.

The 35-year-old will appear in court on Wednesday, and is charged with "conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a female under 13 and possession/distribution of indecent images of children," according to BBC News.

Two other women, aged 20 and 24, have been charged as part of the same case with similar offences.

The unexpected news makes one Lostprophets video, where Watkins appears as a children's TV presenter, appear quite sinister. You can see it in the player below.

Senior police officer Peter Doyle, who is investigating the case, said: "I want to encourage anyone who has any concerns or information which they think may be relevant to contact us."

If you have information that may relate to this case, officer Doyle asks that you contact 0800 056 0154 (in the UK), or 00 44 207 158 0011 for overseas callers. Alternatively, you can email operationglobe@south-wales.pnn.police.uk.

Lostprophets was founded in Pontypridd, Wales, in 1997 and have sold 3.5 million albums worldwide. Their breakthrough record "Thefakesoundofprogress" brought them to fame in the UK in 2000, and in 2004 "Start Something" brought them to the attention of US listeners. This year they released their fifth album "Weapons".

See the 2006 Lostprophets video where Ian Watkins appears as a children's TV presenter here:

153 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    What the ****?
    this has just been posted now, its even more dissapointing and disgusting http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...
    Rebel Scum
    Conspiring to rape a one year old!!! Unbelieveable. Still I never liked this band so it doesn't bother me if they never play again.
    Extreme animal porn. WTF!?!?!?
    because it wasnt extreme enough
    good thing they caught him before he dropped the E, and dare I say, added a hyphen. god, i hope nobody in Singapore is filming X-treme animal porn right now... What time is it in Singapore? Fuck, does it matter? These are X-treme animal porn enthusiasts were talking here...
    what i don't understand is why the 2 women can not be named for legal reasons.
    I think there was another article today asking for the WTF moment of the year, guess this is up there
    Innocent until proven guilty in my book. To be honest the press and the police should not be revealing this sort of information. Even If he is found to be Innocent a lot of people will forever think of him as guilty now. Remember people it's a charge and not an actual conviction, reserve your judgement till you see the result.
    He's been charged, which means the police & the CPS believe they have enough evidence to get a conviction which in my book says plenty. Let's see how this plays out.
    also if it's for possession of images etc, they must already have fairly solid evidence.
    Images? I've seen case like this where it was proven that the computer owner was nowhere near the thing when the images appeared on it. It's very possible that someone who had a beef with him set this up. Not that I think he's innocent, but most definitely wait you know more to make proclamations such this.
    That's possible but unlikely, as it doesn't happen as often as you might think.
    Actually no it does not mean they have enough evidence for a conviction. If that was true than every person who ever got charged would get convicted and there would be no real point in the court other than to give out sentences. All a charge means is they have some reasons to believe he did it I.e maybe a witness, an alleged victim and maybe they did find images, that does mean they 100% are his. There are all manner of situations that can lead to many possible outcomes and since I assume you know as much about the case as the rest of us, which is pretty much nothing, then you really don't have the right and it would be highly idiotic of you to be declaring him guilty. The whole point of court is to try and find out the truth and then give out punishment where it is deserved. It's your sort of backward illogical thinking that really needs to be eradicated. It's the same sort of thinking that spawned witch hunts hundreds of year ago "Oh she was charged with being a witch it must be true! I don't need to see the evidence for myself or see a fair trial, I'm happy to burn her right here!" If your going to build your views based on certain things then I would highly suggest you research them before assuming to just know because a charge is very different to a conviction and by no means indicates definite guilt.
    He also stands accused of two incidents of conspiring to engage in sexual touching with two young children; possessing, making and distributing indecent images; and possessing extreme animal pornography. Keep the faith hahahaha
    Yes "Accused" not proven guilty. Please learn the difference for the sake of your own dignity, because right now you just look monumentally stupid. For reference I don't particularly care if he is guilty or not.I just can't stand idiots like you who assume someone is guilty just because they were charged with something. But you are obviously an ignorant moron and I can already tell you are one of those people who just repeats their same mis-informed point over and over again without ever listening to what anyone says, so I wont waste my time on you any longer.
    In the UK, child protection is very serious. All they need is a child to say 'he touched me' and you're automatically being put in hand cuffs. Evidence for this type of crime isn't needed to charge someone
    "..and possessing extreme animal pornography." Way to encourage the Welsh stereotype.
    apparently he misunderstood being asked to play with kids in glass houses.
    When I was 15 I had a friend (girl) who was friends with him (this being only 6 years ago) and I always thought it was a little weird a famous grown man would be friends with a 15 year old girl. Now this.
    I had a couple of friends who somehow ended up on their tour bus about 10 years ago. They were about 14-15 at the time too and they HATED it. They said this guy and one of the others (I forget which) were just trying to get them as drunk as possible and feeling them up and stuff. They genuinely felt trapped and had to sneak off the bus. At the time we didnt think it odd either - I guess when your 15 you think your sexually responsible and all that - but I often think how weird it would be for someone now my age to do that. I dunno these things can quickly get blown out of proportion so best to see how it goes I suppose...
    dude, just imagine... there are so many underage fangirls of bands like this.... ugh.
    He was caught with images but did he actually try and 'Make a Move'? Could you say he is now giving 'A Thousand Apologies'?
    "Hi kids, welcome to Tom time. We have an amazing show today. We're gonna learn all sorts of important lessons." He said this at the ending of the music video. But damn, that video really does seem sinister now. Really disappointed in him.
    This is one of the oddest things I've ever heard, and why the **** is everyone a pedo these days?! Anyway, really curious as to what the 2 girls charged involvement was, that's what's confusing me the most!
    Women can be paedophiles too.
    I know...and I'm wondering what their involvement was?! Was it just with the internet stuff or did they have something to do with the child (which is now rumoured to be only one year old)?!
    I believe one of them was only involved with the indecent images whilst the other was involved with the conspiracy to rape.
    link no1
    At least his name is easy to make into a lame joke about the occasion. 'Ian Wantskids' I feel I could have done better but this will do.