Lostprophets Singer On 'Conspiracy To Rape One-Year-Old' Charge

Details of the shocking accusations against Ian Watkins emerged in court yesterday, where he was also charged with making indecent images and possessing "extreme" animal pornography.

Ultimate Guitar

Following yesterday's shock announcement that Lostprophets singer Ian Watkins has been charged with child sex offences, Ian Watkins has appeared in court where more details of his accusations emerged. He is accused of conspiring to rape a one-year-old girl. He also stands accused of two incidents of conspiring to engage in sexual touching with two young children, making and distributing indecent images, and possessing "extreme" animal pornography, according to the Independent.

Watkin's lawyer said he would be denying all charges. Watkins, who is 35-years-old, was kept in custody, as were two other women aged 20 and 24 who face similar accusations but cannot be named for legal reasons. It is worth noting that, while the charges are serious, they are yet to be found guilty or innocent. His band Lostprophets, who released their fifth album "Weapons" this year, recently cancelled tour dates in Russia and Japan, citing family health issues as the reason. The band have responded to yesterday's news with a statement on the Lostprophets website:

"Following charges made against Ian Watkins, we find ourselves in a state of shock. We are learning about the details of the investigation along with you. It is a difficult time for us and our families, and we want to thank our fans for their support as we seek answers."

179 comments sorted by best / new / date

    I say again... hold your judging to when he's found guilty... you can't take your words back if it's decided he's innocent.
    Uh, I'd say he's got a pretty solid case against him. They don't just call out celebrities on "hunches" that there may be sexual abuse.
    Well, there's been a case recently in the UK where they did exactly that to a famous politician. Everyone went nuts against him, and it turned out it was mistaken identity. Granted,he wasn't charged, but a lot of people learned a lesson about waiting for the real truth to come out completely. If he's found guilty, be as damming as you want, but honestly, hold fire until we know what's gone on, and it's sorted legally.
    Except if you've appeared in court there is evidence enough for the CPS to bring a case. The politician never got that far
    Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? They were charged with rape, kidnapping, and first degree sexual offense. Charged, meaning, they were arrested and were indicted on those charges. A s*** storm began after that. The coach was fired (forced resignation), Duke suspended the rest of the lacrosse season, and the 3 players charged were kicked out of Duke. On top of that, the charged players and their families (even the families of the players not charged) received numerous form of death threats and harassment. A few months later, all charges were dropped. Not only were they dropped, the prosecutor said they were innocent. the charges of this guy are heinous, but unless he gets convicted, it's too early to cast judgment. The matter with the Duke case is a prime example of what happens when you jump the gun. Sure, they were found innocent in the end, but the things they went through can never be undone.
    Yeah withold your judgement. Remember how Pete Townshend got arrested for possessing child pornography? He ended up being acquitted for that
    ... also, as an aside, the mentioned politician is now in the process of suing internet users who made false claims against him on Twitter
    Townshend was dirrferent tho, while he paid the site, it was for research purposes, it was later proven that he never downloaded any images
    What reason has a guy who is not investigating such stuff as part of his job got to research child pornography?
    True, but they haven't actually revealed any actual evidence that proves he's guilty as-of-yet. They haven't said whether or not they found the incriminating material, and they haven't stated why they think that he was involved in a conspiracy to molest a 1-year old. Trust me, there was a case in my home-town a couple years ago where a teacher was accused of molesting underage girls. Everybody immediately started creating groups on facebook claiming he was guilty, and he lost his job because of the accusations. It was revealed later that the girls who claimed he molested them were lying about what had actually happened, and that he was innocent. However, by then the damage was done. Wait until we have actual prove instead of speculations before you start saying bad things about him.
    I live in the UK and part of my job involves working with the people who put case files together for people who've been charged with offences. I can honestly say that there is no way the police and CJS could charge him, release his name and then deny him bail without being 99% sure he's guilty. And the case masterofpuppies mentions, the politician was accused by the media, he was never arrested or charged like Watkins has been.
    Really? because it has happened many, many times before. A charge is a charge and not a guilty verdict. You don't need 100% evidence to be charged with something. If it worked that way there would be no point in court and bail at all. I've been charged for assault, when I wasn't even in the same city. Someone just thought they saw me and the police believed that was enough for a charge. I went to court and proved my innocence, they had no evidence other than the person who thought they saw me, who even admitted before the trial he wasn't 100% sure it was me, and a fairly blurry CCTV shot of which you could see the likeness of anyone in if you wanted. Luckily there was pictures of me taken on the same night while I was in another city. Also anyone charged as a Sex Offender is denied bail unless there are exceptional circumstances, probably more for their own safety since half the idiots in this country can't think for themselves and think a charge means guilt and like to go on premature witchhunts. The police in this country are by no means perfect they make tons of mistakes and people lie especially when there could be large sums of money involved from compensation. Honestly they shouldn't be allowed to release any information purporting to peoples charges until they have been proven guilty and even then it should only be released to the people that need to know. There is no reason the media and us need to know these things especially when at this point it is only a charge. If he is proven guilty then once he is released from prison those he lives close to should be given the information that he is a convicted Sex offender. I'm not saying Watkins is innocent but I am not going to declare and treat him like he is guilty either. I haven't seen the evidence and neither have you, neither of us has the right to judge him.
    Your mistaken identity analogy doesnt really work for the indescent images stuff. They would only bring that sort of charge against him if they had proof. Now excuse me while I go throw up.
    My mistaken Identity analogy was to show you need very little proof to be charged with something and nor does being charged with something mean your guilty, so it very much does work. The police purported to have an image of me assaulting a man. That image was not me. You have proof these images belong to him do you? and you know exactly what is in these images as well? Please show me all this information you apparently have relating to the case that no one other than the prosecution has access to. Are you an officer on the case? Otherwise stop pretending like you know what they have against him based on a very vague police description. You know pretty much **** all about this case just like the rest of us and therefore have no right to judge him. If you think you do have the right to judge someone without seeing the evidence or a fair trial then you are no better than the Witch hunters of the middles ages and should probably be euthanized for the good of humanity.
    They aren't going to charge somebody and take them to court on "little proof". They are going to build and build on evidence until they are certain they can obtain a guilty verdict. Especially when dealing with this magnitude of a crime and having it be a celebrity involved there is no chance that they have a "little proof" and are rolling with that against him. These items were in his possession, as in, inside his place of work, residence, storage locker, whatever. It's not like they found child and animal porn on his front lawn and went up to his door and arrested him. He has multiple accusations against him as well as being charged with these items in his possession, and even making and distributing it!
    oftentimes all the evidence they need to charge someone is a testimony by a witness. Witnesses sometimes make mistakes. I don't know the guy personally, so it wouldn't be fair to pass judgement on him until some evidence is brought forth that convinces me that he's guilty. As for your comment that there was 'no way the CJS could charge him, release his name and then deny him bail without being 99% sure he's guilty' I would like to point out that his name was leaked into the media by outside sources, and not by the police. Also, a charge doesn't mean that he was convicted, therefore he wouldn't need bail. He isn't in jail, he's just in court. He hasn't been proven guilty or innocent yet by the justice system, and there is no proof as-of-yet that is leaning towards either side. I'm not taking a side yet, i'm just saying that maybe we shouldn't be so quick to pass judgement until more information is revealed.
    If you follow this link, http://www.south-wales.police.uk/news/po... it's the original statement from South Wales Police and you'll find they clearly state his name and the fact he's in lostprophets. There was no "outside sources" leaking to the media at any point so no idea where you've got that from. And yes, I guess we should all wait until the trial before we judge him but personally, I've seen the level of evidence needed for a case to reach this point so if people want to give the guy a chance, that's fine but I'm gonna go throw away my 'Start Something' CD now.
    Yet again, I am ashamed of the ignorance of people on this site. Wait until he's found guilty to crucify him, please.
    'Standing on the rooftops, everybody scream PAAAAEEEEEDDDDDOOOOO!'
    I don't know why this made me laugh so much. It might be because I actually sang it to the tune in my head.
    That's exactly what you're supposed to do. Even funnier when you sing it out loud.
    W.T.F. Sick ***K
    Let's hold judgement man. If he is innocent, we should take that into consideration.
    but to be accused of this means there has to be a shred of truth...and that makes him a very sick man. A small bit of child molestation/pornography is still too much!
    Are you kidding me? You are exactly the type of person that should never be on a jury. What if you were the one accused and were completely innocent?
    i was scrolling down to type the same exact thing. Glad thats the first comment. true or not, what kind of sick shit do you have to do to even be accused of all that? please dont respond with answers.
    Afraid someone could point out the difference between "charged with" and "convicted", exposing your post as verbal diarrhea? (This goes to the OP, too.)
    Even the crappiest of bands have a decent sized following of adult women willing to drop drawers and this guy (allegedly) fancies kids and BABIES? Sick f*ck.
    Well... it was the baby's fault as well. She was caught naked.
    That is what I was thinking. He is a decent looking guy, and he is in a band. That should get him some action with women his own age.
    I'm not defending it, but pedophilia is in some cases exclusionary. He may not be interested in women his age, or these charges might be bullshit. It's not necessarily his choice. That's not to say that acting on it is a good thing. It's a very bad thing.
    But, he's attracted to 1 year-olds? C'mon. If that's the case then he's got a few screws loose, and should probably be sitting in a padded cell for a while.
    Some people are gay, some people are straight, some people like babies. It's not illegal to be sexually attracted to youngsters, it's illegal to act on your urges. Not that I'm defending Watkins, if the charges are correct, that's awful.
    keywords "he wasn't charged" Those were claims, these are charges against Ian. Which again means there is enough evidence in the prosecutor's mind to obtain a guilty verdict.
    There's obviously some evidence...you don't bring charges of conspiracy to rape a one year old against someone lightly. I agree he shouldn't be crucified before he has been found guilty, but he is facing the charges and it is quite possibly he will be found guilty.
    You know who else was crucified early? Jesus.
    Yes, but we are talking about real life here...
    You can't really argue that he wasn't real...There are tons of records of his existance, and it is known for a fact he was crucified like many other people at the time. Whether or not you think he's the son of God is a different story..
    Where are these records? Seriously, I'm interested.
    Go read any history text for about 30 AD.
    Thanks for the downvote and non-specific answer. I wasn't being sarcastic or doubting you, I was genuinely interested in which scholars you had been reading.
    How the **** do you even conspire to rape a one year old, was he sitting down and planning it with the other people who are being charged? "Oh well i will babysit my sister's baby and them you can come over and rape her". Hmm i think someone is going to notice a 1 year old baby has been raped. This is really sick shit. I would be inclined to feel sorry for someone who say is 18 or 19 and had sex with a 15 year old and was charged...countries like Japan have the age of consent at 13 anyway. But raping children or infants is just the most deplorable act and if he is guilty i hope he gets what is coming to him.
    Love how the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' is completely lost on commentators so far.
    Allow me to translate the pits opinion: 'if its true, he is one sick ****' and that's a sick avatar.
    Guilty or not, that stigma never goes away. Never been a Lost Prophets fan, but I feel sorry for the rest of the Band.
    OMG!... if this is true then lock that motherf**** in a prison cell and throw away the key.
    Thing is even if he is found not guilty this has already wrecked the band as a whole! Once the word peado is used even in the lightest of contexts 'if that exists' its probably already enough for people to boycott any other future releases! Innocent till proven guilty but images is pretty concrete.
    I think it was the lead singer of Modest Mouse who was unjustly accused of rape a few years back, so it just goes to show innocent until proven guilty. That being said, if he is guilty, I wouldn't mind seeing him locked up for good. "Conspiring to rape a one-year-old" shouldn't even be a thing; it's sickening.
    C'mon guys, if he's guilty then fair play, but raping a one year old and animal pornography seems a little far fetched to me in all honesty
    Well, he is Welsh, so maybe the animal porn thing isn't so far fetched... Okay, I kid. But seriously, what the hell.
    ehem!!^ i'm welsh ya mother****a, we don't literally shag sheep ffs, we just have a lot of them and all the sheep shagging crap is from england, the english say you shag 'em we eat'em because they don't like us and we don't like them.
    Chill mate, we all know the sheep-shagging thing is just a joke! No need to deny it like that and point the finger towards us English.. unless of course, YOU have got something to hide, that is!
    Nero Galon
    Im Welsh too, but really... Its just banter that we have to play along with, the funny thing is that some people do take the joke literally.
    I know the feeling. Well in my case because I'm Northern Irish people assume I know how to make a pipe bomb. Nothing to do with sheep shagging but still annoying as hell.
    I heard the sheep shagging thing comes from a time where stealing a sheep was punishable by death but sex with a sheep was punishable by removal of a hand. You get caught stealing a sheep, what are you going to say?
    That was my first thoughts. It's odd that the other day it was two 13 year old girls (I think it was, anyway), and now it's animal pornography and conspiring to rape a 1 year old. If he's guilty, then that's his own fault and he can face the consequences, but until then, it's all just words.
    What they reported earlier was conspiracy to rape someone under the age of 13, with the help of two women, which is what it still goes under, just that now it's specified what the actual age was, and the extreme animal porn was always there.
    My opinion of many of the ultimate guitar community has just been flushed down the toilet. Innocent until proven guilty, everyone has an inherent right to defend themselves. I'm a law student in the UK. The CPS ****s up all the time. [Some of] you people are terrible.
    The awkward moment when you made a joke about Ian Watkins and sheep the day before it is revealed that he actually (allegedly) possesses 'extreme' animal pornography.
    As much as I despise paedophilia, I dislike the hysteria that the media and everyone on the internet generates about cases regarding it just as much
    Hahaha, really? I personally think paedophilia is worse, but hey ho.
    I'd like to see the evidence material of the child and animal pornography (Not in detail, in case anyone decides to be a comedian), but like I said, if he's being charged on a case like it, the police is going to have substantial proof or it wouldn't happen. I hate the fact that people run around playing guardians of justice and pull the "innocent until convicted" card, when all the circumstances speak for that he's guilty.
    Makes the video for Town Called Hypocrisy all the more disturbing... But seriously, they must have a good amount of evidence in order to charge him AND keep him locked up over Christmas, given how squillionaires routinely get away with murder just because they have money.
    He has not even been convicted yet and you lot have released the hounds, calm the **** down. Innocent until proven guilty is why the West is free. The media, including UG, shouldn't even be allowed to report this until it's proved because now, even if he is proven innocent, his name will be forever tarnished.
    by the articles its already proven 100% that he is guilty.maybe not the conspiracy to rape a 1 year old but It states that images of him mo,esting childeren were found on his computer.I think after this the band should probably scrap their master tracks and forget relesing a new album. im not hatin on the band but it is the respectful thing to do or they can scrap the name and get someone to rerecord his parts.Either way the bbands name is completly tarnished
    The moment you find a 1 year old baby attractive you should immediately get your brain checked out cuz that is seriously messed up.
    Holy shit, if this is true, then this guy is just sick and needs to be isolated from society. Sick f uck
    Goddamn, this is really disappointing for me as a huge fan of this band...
    Sick and disturbing? very....but as a fan I'll still listen to their old music. It's difficult to just let go all of sudden.
    I'm a fan of this band a decade ago. They made very strong social and political lyrics at the time which has probably influenced my songwriting a bit... but we can separate us being fans with the band with the personal shenanigans of the members.
    i think people should reserve judgment for now, since the claims do seem kinda sensationalised. however some of the jokes i've seen are pretty funny.
    I hope you don't actually hope that.
    We're talking about a guy who wanted to rape a 1-year-old. I hope he dies.
    He's not even been convicted yet. Innocent until proven guilty, please. And even if he is guilty, it's still wrong to wish death upon him.
    Everyone drinking the koolaid i see. If this man is guilty of any of these child sex offences leveled against him, he should burn in hell forever. But please, until that evidence comes forth, hold back on crucifying the guy. Don't let media outlets tell you who to hate
    If we go by his creepiness factor, he did it. I'm not jumping to any real conclusions though. We'll have to wait and see...
    He looks like a creepy kid toucher. Hope for his sake it isnt true because if it is he's not going to have a good time in prison.
    You know, I'm just as against pedophiles, having more experience with their presence in my day to day life than I'd like with a mother that worked in Child Protective Services, and I've really gotta say that everybody jumping on the band wagon really needs to step off for a second. What if, and I know it's a big step, but what if he really didn't do anything and it's just some ****er claiming that he did? There is a huge difference between "charged with" and "convicted". If he did it, **** him and he can rot in prison. If he didn't, his entire career has just been ruined. Does nobody remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing? Is that just lost on you guys?
    I don't want this to be true at all, stuff like this is just, beyond words. Here's hoping it's all a mistake.
    if he is guilty, which i suspect he is (they dont charge without evidence) then there is only one way to deal with scumbags like this, u tape them to the ceiling with only their balls dangling down, get a brick in each hand and give them a round of applause
    You know that pit at Jabba the Hut's palace with the rancor monster? Sounds like a good place for him...and all the other pederasts.
    im not defending Watkins in any way but why cant the other 2 women be named "for legal reason" but they can name Ian Watkins ? how does that work
    being accused is one thing being charged is another if he is being charged we can assume there is a good amount of evidence suggesting he did it if he is guilty i hope he rots in jail if he is innocent he should make it his life mission to get back at the sicko who spread the rumors tho,it is the most serious thing to be accused of,even corrupted psycho murderers treat pedos like scum of the earth in prison
    What if he was born that way? And found children sexually attractive? If it's possible to be "born" gay could you be "born" a paedophile?
    Just to clarify this statement, I'm not saying it's okay to touch children, but more is it possible to have no control over what you're attracted to and possibly younger people. I'm NOT saying it's right or normal but think about how the views on homosexuality have changed in the last 100 years
    That dosen't make it right. I do believe that people are born with those kinds of 'desires' (For lack of a better word), and I would feel sorry for anyone who was, but it goes without saying that it's still messed up.
    If he was born that way and had the urges the crime lies in acting on those urges; whether or not he feels it he knows it is wrong to do.
    What if, hypothetically, someone had those urges, and lacked the moral compass to distinguish the majority of other peoples right from their sexual desires? I mean in those cases I think it's common practice to section them. But are they guilty of being bad people if they have no control on either count? Just shooting ideas here not jumping on either side.
    regardless if someone is inclined to have sex with children and acts on those inclinations it doesn't really matter who's fault it is, at that point the priority is to simply resolve the situation so that at the end of the day children aren't in danger. The main issue with the homosexuality comparison is that although both behavior's root from the same process's (as do all sexual desires) acting out on homosexuality doesn't involve statutory rape by definition.
    No, people don't pull the 'guardians of justice card' - they just speak the truth. The concept of innocent until guilty is absolutely essential to our justice system. If someone's going to be imprisoned for something, then it needs to be proven. To say someone is guilty just for being charged is idiotic beyond belief. How about the Twitter-Bomber trial? That guy was charged at one point, is that enough to prove his guilt? Of course not, and as we all know he was eventually released after due justice.
    Yet you look away from that there's obviously enough evidence to charge him.
    No, I see that the Police think they have enough to charge him but, as a reasonable thinking person, recognise that this is not enough to establish guilt. Have you ever noticed how not everyone who is charged ends up convicted? That somewhat makes your point completely and utterly flawed :/
    "Have you ever noticed how not everyone who is charged ends up convicted?" Don't generalize, it'll only make you look stupid.
    That's not generalising. It's stating a fact. Not all charges result in convictions. Therefore, to state that being charged is the same as being convicted is categorically incorrect. Also, it's ironic that someone who says 'all people charged with a crime must be guilty' is accusing someone else of generalising! Evidence needs to be tested, that's why we have a judicial process. If evidence wasn't subject to strict scrutiny we'd be living in an awful police state. Take, for example, the guy in Barbados who was convicted of rape despite the fact that victims who reported the rape testified that he was the wrong person. That sort of system is utterly flawed and inherently unjust. Turn up in Court and say 'we've charged him, conviction please' would be laughed out of Court, and if it were successful, would make the entire judicial process superfluous! I'm utterly flabbergasted that people in this day and age hold such archaic and ignorant views such as 'no smoke without fire'. Its unbelievable. I'm glad people like you don't work in our justice system.
    So a hard drive full with child and animal pornography, as well as other evidence there may be in the case of rape conspiracy, isn't enough? I'm glad people like YOU don't work in your judicial system.