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."

Trending stories

179 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    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
    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.)
    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?
    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.