Jump to content

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) pleads guilty to sex offences with children


Recommended Posts

Not sure how true this is but......

 

Ian Watkins: Lostprophets singer describes his child sex abuse as 'megalolz'

 

The paedophile singer said he wanted to release a statement saying 'I don't know what everyone is getting so freaked about'

 

On November 27, the day after he admitted he was a paedophile, he said of the court hearing: "It was, like, either me go up there and say 'Come on, it wasn't that bad, nobody got hurt', I do my charm. Or do I end up making things worse for myself? Or do I just say I was off my head and can't remember?"

 

Discussing his possible sentence, he added: "I'm going to put a statement on [December] 18th now just to say it was megalolz, I don't know what everyone is getting so freaked out about."

 

"Megalolz" is a more exaggerated version of "lol", meaning "laugh out loud".

 

In another conversation the following day he said: "It's so hard. There's a lot of ****ing meaningless bull**** like chat that I did to show off when I was ****ing off my head.

 

"There was no medical evidence, nobody was harmed at all.

 

"I'm not a paedophile, I'm not. You know I plead (sic) guilty just to avoid a trial, not realising 'Hang on, that makes me look a bit guilty' but I would never harm anybody."

 

When asked if he would still issue a statement saying his conduct was "megalolz" he replied: "No, it's just lolz now."

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/ian-watkins-lostprophets-singer-describes-6417103

 

"I plead (sic) guilty just to avoid a trial, not realising 'Hang on, that makes me look a bit guilty' but I would never harm anybody."

 

No, pleading guilty doesn't make you look guilty at all. Why would he think that!!

 

Hope someone shouts 35 years LOLZ when they first see him in prison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true. Why do people categorically state things like that when they have no idea whether it's true or not? I know for a fact it's not correct in at least one of the cases.

 

These children have extended families who've done nothing wrong. Why should they be taken away from those people who are familiar and love them just because someone wants to put their names on the web? They will be identified by who their relatives are.

 

Not that it really matters now. Poor little mites picture was still up on the web in some places till at least yesterday.

 

According the the sentencing remarks released today they will be placed in 'long-term foster care', this doesn't sound like the relatives are going to be raising them does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.