35 years meaning??
He was sentenced to 35, normally that means you serve about 20. He may find it hard to get parole though. They'll impose restrictions, but whatever.
Legally, they probably would have found it hard to impose a minimum term of something like 35 years. I just don't think it's possible.
Given his previous lifestyle, even 20 years will really hurt. And prison will be awful for him, the guards might find 'protecting him' a bit 'tiresome'...

The other band members have obviously come forward and said how they knew nothing and were disgusted to find out and how they had grown distant from him for a long time and how his behaviour was erratic and he stayed and travelled separately from them.

Apart from the crimes, I find a fair bit to dislike about him.

Anyway, 6:20 to 6:35 . You might have to play it a couple of times to make it out. And watch the faces.

Cliffs on the video?

They're narcissistic tossers, especially if you've heard their music. Just skip to 620. It's a webchat, and a user with handle 'babygirl' asks 'what's your guilty pleasure'...they lock up, Watkins looks embarrassed, is eyeballing the big guy in the middle (guitarist?), they have an awkward guffaw, try to change subject, Watkins is heard to say 'I think you've answered it yourself'...
They laugh it off and say 'smack', as if to shut it down. Curious interaction from everyone, bar the blonde on the right who looks clueless and left out.

At another point, they start talking about girls, the same guy in the middle again starts talking about Watkins, saying 'I've seen the videos he has', and Watkins says something like 'Oh we're moving to the dark side now?'...
Obviously no one but IW had any connection with any of the crimes in any way whatsoever.

I urge everyone not to read those sentencing remarks.

I find this whole thing hard to get my head around in any way at all. There have been a spate of historic sex crimes cases in the UK over the last few years, some very very serious, 9 year old kids Stuart Hall), that kind of thing, with household names involved... While all appalling, every time you could nod your head and kind of understand how a guy like that could go bad, the basic framework of the psychology of that kind of incident. But Watkins...I just do not get it. I cannot marry the person I see in the interviews with that kind of incident. The prosecuting barrister said that in the incidents, drugs played a big part. Part of me (while not trying to mitigate the guy's actions one bit), wants to just write it off to being totally off his head on crack or meth and having no idea what he was doing. The stuff with 15 year olds is very bad, but the other stuff...well I don't believe in the death penalty, but I'd make an exception for that.

yesssssss!

That **** really ain't right.

That is not her opinion if that's what you mean? She's a lawyer.

Probably not enough to legally implicate anyone else in the band but (hopefully) enough to ensure that none of them ever work in the business again and that they eventually go broke.

Disturbing even in the age of the internet

They wont load for me, for which I am glad.

He will never get paroled. The earliest he will get a hearing is 21 years and change but he could never prove himself to no longer be a threat.

A decent over/under for suicide is two years.

I think the 17 years for P is obv low and should be more like 25 years, though it should be 2/3 served before a parole possibility (which she wont get). B getting less than P makes sense reading the sentencing details that listed the crimes (seriously, dont read it) but it should be more like 20 years with no parole hearing before 2/3 served.

Sentencing report by Royce J is very much not entertaining. Again, you shouldnt read it.

Yep. Hopefully they're all squeaky clean and nothing will remain so after the many new revelations which will emerge. This case revealed 'the tip of the iceberg' apparently. And this video is from 2010.

I watched it again, starting at 6:00, it's quite an extraordinary transaction (set poker skills to 'on' lol)
Guy in middle starts 'babygirl asks, 'what's your guilty pleasure'...stares hard at Watkins. Watkins stares back and breaks down laughing. What's he laughing at? He looks like a complete madman, since the others, especially the guy in the middle, know nothing of the abuse. Man in middle then snap turns to the side, moving on.
Then Watkins says 'you've just answered it'. Man in middle is looking right at him, smiling, and raises eyebrow in some kind of acknowledgement.
Then Watkins looks round, and up at their 'mentor' off camera, and says 'They'll be asking back home, did he really say that?' Man in middle shrugs and says 'well I didn't hear it' (well, he did hear it).
May have thought it referred to Watkins' going with 16 year olds, how easy would it have been to conceal all that activity on tour. But then I reckon that can't be the case because all the other band members deny knowledge of any such activity.

oh, the bandmates had to know he was ****ing young women. Even if they didn't know the extent of his depravity, they knew about the other stuff. Mostly because it was a horribly kept secret on the internets for a few years that he liked ****ing his really young groupies. Message boards etc apparently had a bit of info about his acquired "type". They definitely had to have seen something.

Yeah I guess I didn't put that well. No that's not what i meant, and I know everyone has the right to a defence but how could you seriously take up this guy's case, and actually get up in court and say stuff like that in his defence. It's indefencible.

So when he's saying, you just answered it, is her referring to the fact that the guy in the middle says 'babygirl' right before asking the question about guilty pleasures?

This guy makes Micheal Jackson look good.

Yes, exactly that.

Holy **** those sentencing remarks. No matter how bad you think they are going to be, they are worse.

Maybe this is just my own odd consciousness, but for a molestation case, this really doesn't seem bad at all. Like a 7 or 8 year old that trusts their parents, and then gets molested anyway is going to be in a place of terrible mental distress at the time, and will continue to feel the reverberations for years and years, possibly throughout their entire adult life.

This is just a case of some babies getting touched a little bit while their mom talked dirty with some pervert. They won't know what happened, they won't be harmed, on some level it's just nowhere near as big of a deal. The only thing that's really bad is if they actually intentionally got the one high on meth.

Because that's how justice works? Everyone needs to be defended 100% to the best of the lawyer's ability if the justice system is to perform at an acceptable level. It's not just defensible, it's mandatory. Any Lawyer worth their salt should be willing to defend even the most heinous of criminals.

Oh BTW, I did physically laugh out loud hearing that his computer password was "I *** KIDZ". It is pretty hilarious how cocky he was about everything.

what three letter verb is censored?
***

Ohhh, the C is silent!

Wow you're ******ed

I'm very surprised how everyone is acting like he's the worst human being that has ever walked the earth.

He did a lot of drugs which is whatever... it's his body he can do wants with it. He molested an 11 month old baby, which is very bad and he definitely deserved to be punished by the law for it. But like one of the other guys said, it's not nearly as bad as molesting a child old enough to remember.

He got this 16 year old girl to dress up as a school girl and then ****ed her and after they ****ed he pissed on her and made her drink it. And I don't really see that as a big deal. If the girl was like 12 or 13 then obv it would be different but 16 year olds know what they're doing. And besides, she was a massive fan and obviously thought he was very attractive. I'm not really into piss porn but whatever.

The animal pornography charge just doesn't make sense to me. If you want to and kill a badger or a fox or whatever then that's fine. But if you want you put your penis in an animal then you're a monster

I think the worst thing that he did was say he wanted to get the child(s) into drugs. Now THAT is ****ed up. If you want to poison your own body then fine. But there's no excuse for trying to poison someone else's body. Especially that of a baby.

The grown women involved have nobody to blame but themselves. They shouldn't be allowed the excuse that they were exploited by Ian and his fame or whatever because they are grown women who knew what the were doing was wrong.

Personally I think Ian deserved maybe a ~ 8 year sentence

where as the women should get ~5 years each

Like I said, I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong but I'm just not putting him in the same category as James Holmes or Anders Breivik