09:24 AM on 12/19/12
Always thought it would be the blond one. Safe to say I'll never enjoy this band again.
09:33 AM on 12/19/12
I read three of them before the court hearing, they must have changed since. I take 99% of stuff from English papers with a pinch of salt. But the Independant saying that is pretty damning. If true scumbag should be locked up forever. Ashamed I used to listen to them.
10:10 AM on 12/19/12
Yep if the BBC say it I'll believe it. The "conspiring" part might mean that the child was thebdaughted of one of the women that were also charged.
10:10 AM on 12/19/12
They say under 13. Usually used when the child in question is a pre-teen
10:21 AM on 12/19/12
He discussed his plans to "rape a baby" with a 20 year old girl.
I'm not sure why that conversation would ever take place, outside of a joke.
People "conspire" to rape other people (and babies) all the time. Ever played a game on xbox live? It's wrong then, too.
Fact is, when the media reports a story like this without all of the facts (see: ALL OF THEIR STORIES,) then people get on their soapbox and condemn someone without knowing every single circumstance.
It's called sensationalizing a story, and you fall for it. Every time.
That said, usual diatribe: rape is wrong. Check. Child porn is wrong. Check. Other sex crimes are bad. Check. Crime in general. Check.
Good luck with the justice system, Ian. Show's over.
There is something inherently wrong with you.
11:14 AM on 12/19/12
It's more than likely the other two aren't recognizable names and just regular shitty humans. If/when the official report comes out, pending the guilt factor, they would almost surely be named. Since this is speculation/charges at this point, it makes sense to only name the person with recognition.
Could be related to the child in question and therefore won't be named.
03:17 PM on 12/19/12
Do people no realise this child was far younger than 13? I mean it's been addressed and the age is right there in the article.
04:40 PM on 12/19/12
I actually thought it mean 12 years old. Otherwise why wouldn't the age just be announced, or simply the phrase "a minor" or "a child" used.
First time I've seen that. Would be sick if the the song was based on any of this.
Surely certain celebrities get stuff like this bandied around online though?? Surely?? Perhaps?? I mean you can call anyone anything on the internet without any evidence. The website is hardly legitimate and thus neither are the comments.
Though saying that some comments on here have suggested (no doubt from people in South Wales) that some of this was well known.
It's a one year old dude under 13 is used when the child in question is pre-teen.
05:45 AM on 12/20/12
Well consent laws here are 16, so it's surprising if it's 18 under Canadian and American law.
But to be honest I still don't see anything wrong with this. The fact is that sex is a natural part of being human and really it is hard to put an "age" on when people should be having it. In some cultures it's younger than 18.
I first had sex at 15, and my girlfriend was 16. Under UK law I presume she's doing something illegal. Though really it's not like that at all - she was my gf and we both wanted to.
You can't do define when sex should be legal through consent, because then say a 14 year old could 'consent' to having sex with a 30 year old, which is clearly wrong.
Therefore I actually think a sliding scale (especially for 16 and 17 year olds in the US if the law is 18+) would be much much more suitable. Because at the end of the day, 16 year olds do have sex.
The rule 27 would say:
16 yrs - 15 yrs - 12 month diff,
17 yrs - 15.5yrs - 18 month diff.
18 yrs - 16 yrs - 24 month diff.
19 yrs - 16.5yrs - 30 month diff.
20 yrs - 17 yrs - 36 month diff.
^^ In most non-Western cultures those figures are pretty normal.
Technically that's legal I believe, however if you were 16 and she was 15 it would be illegal. Strange laws.
07:52 AM on 12/20/12
Can i just point something out, People are saying one of the girls is 13. that has not actually been confirmed. He has 6 charges, 4 of which relate to having indecent pictures of children and animals, one is for conspiracy to rape a one year old girl and the other is conspiracy to have sexual activity with a child UNDER 13. It never specifies the age of the child. just that they are under 13. They could be 3, 8 or 12. So how can you say that they should know what they are doing? and even if they did want to have sex with him its still illegal. The fact that that charge is not for rape suggests the child did consent to have sex but at the end of the day he is the adult and should know better.
The under 13 is the one year old
10:14 AM on 12/22/12
Good thing you're not a lawyer
10:45 AM on 12/22/12
whys that? if you were in a famous rock band, and a bunch of chicks sent you naked pics, should you be arrested over that?
because thats exactly what happened
11:23 AM on 12/22/12
I appreciate your sense of humor. and props on correcting my typo.. with that said, I truly believe there is a grey area non of you guys are opening your minds to. and thats the possibility that someone in a famous band has been sent pics of underaged fans, and is now being wrongfully charged with sex crimes.. if he is found guilty, I will eat all my words. but it seems too 'far fetched' for now :)
Look, he wasn't granted bail, that means there is some unreal evidence against him. Some pictures of his fans would not mean he wouldn't be granted bail. The police are very very careful when approaching cases like these, I'm pretty sure there is some damning evidence against him.
05:56 AM on 12/23/12
It took 705 posts but FINALLY
Buy The Music