privateer Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 (edited) This will tell you everything you need to know about this word removed and the two word removed women that were his co-accused. It will tell you what they did and makes clear what they have been convicted of, how the sentences were calculated and the minimum time to be served. However, I give you all fair warning, it is much less circumspect than the mainstream media as it is a transcript of the judge's judgement and sentencing and consequently is rather graphic in description of the offences. Think before you click. Ironically, it's a PDF file. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/r-v-watkins-and-others.pdf Edited December 19, 2013 by privateer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 That is **** horrendous and made me feel sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 It wasn't easy reading you were right. I looked because I hadn't seen anything in the media that said what he'd actually done. There was lots of condemnation and suggestion, but for various reasons, no facts. Now it seems that the facts are that it was mostly what he was about to do. The 2 mothers did the worst stuff by taking photos of their kids bits and sending them to him. He participated in non-penetration abuse. I'm not excusing, condoning, validating, anything, what this sick individual was involved in but he does seem to have been made an example of. Even the judgement reads like a newspaper article with SHOCKING and DISGUSTING highlighted words, and some seemingly non-related recount of a lawful sexual encounter at the beginning. I'm sure that without being stopped he would have gone on to worse and worse things so I'm glad he's been stopped now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I understand the "long sentence is a worse punishment than death", but that would rather depend on the manner of his demise. For example, were one to scale the execution to the crime than perhaps mr Watkins could be tied to a post and anally violated unto death by a sex starved elephant on viagra. Should do the trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 That is **** horrendous and made me feel sick. Yep. It wasn't far into the text before I uttered aloud the first of several "Jesus **** Christ". He's likely going to be looking over his shoulder for a lot of his 20 year minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 He participated in non-penetration abuse. Point 7 pretty much refutes that, I would say, even if the second part wasn't totally successful. Even the judgement reads like a newspaper article with SHOCKING and DISGUSTING highlighted words, and some seemingly non-related recount of a lawful sexual encounter at the beginning. I don't see any such words highlighted, it's a fairly dry transcript of the judge's statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 He participated in non-penetration abuse. Point 7 pretty much refutes that, I would say, even if the second part wasn't totally successful. Even the judgement reads like a newspaper article with SHOCKING and DISGUSTING highlighted words, and some seemingly non-related recount of a lawful sexual encounter at the beginning. I don't see any such words highlighted, it's a fairly dry transcript of the judge's statement. I didn't especially want to read it again, but I didn't think I was going mad. It said 'try' indicating not successfully. I wouldn't say it refutes it. On the 2nd point, yeah, I didn't want to read too in-depth so I saw MAKE in capital letters without seeing it was a direct quote. In fact, why am I even debating this. No requirement TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnie Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why have the Mothers got much lighter sentences?? (One of them may be out in 7 years) Also dont understand why the media cant publish the pictures of the women in question?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Why have the Mothers got much lighter sentences?? (One of them may be out in 7 years) Also dont understand why the media cant publish the pictures of the women in question?? Something to do with the protection of victims of sexual crimes, particularly those of a certain age. I.e. Showing photos of the women would reveal the identities of the babies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Yeah, if you name and show the mothers then neighbours etc would know who the two kids were and those kids would have to grow up with all this hanging over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 So are these babies still with the mothers or have they been taken into care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Considering the mothers are in prison I would hope the kids are being cared for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Absolutely depraved. Horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Considering the mothers are in prison I would hope the kids are being cared for. Ok, I'll rephrase. Will the children be returned to the mothers? I'm struggling to see why the anonymity of the mothers needs to be protected. If the children have been taken into care and the authorities are concerned about the children children growing up with the stigma of this event, why not just change their identity? I mean how difficult is that for a child under 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Well it's a lot easier when the mothers identities are unknown so why not just do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Well it's a lot easier when the mothers identities are unknown so why not just do that? Because it creates a two-tier criminal justice system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Well it's a lot easier when the mothers identities are unknown so why not just do that? Because it creates a two-tier criminal justice system?How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhatAboutTheFinish Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 Well if you had commited a crime and had the choice of a one year sentence with your name and picture on the front page of every newspaper in the country for a fortnight or two years with complete anonymity, which would you choose? I guess in an ideal world people serve their time in prison and then are released with a clean slate, we all know the reality is very different. Watkins will live the rest of his life, including his time inside, (and maybe justly so) in constant fear of retribution. Many other people have to carry around the burden of their crime for the rest of their life. The women in this case, who in my eyes commited a worse crime, are being excused from this element of punishment on a technicality. I don't think that is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The system doesn't do public shaming. It's looking after the interests of the victims here, and that rightly supersedes any voyeuristic desire to know who the women are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted December 19, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 19, 2013 So you'd make the children's lives more difficult just to satisfy public curiosity?The public don't actually have a right to know, the kids however have a right to privacy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts