Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Name of alleged Conder paedophile released [With poll on the matter of bail]

By kepayne - 19 April 2012 54

The name of the man to have committed seven sexual offences against a twelve year old boy (four acts of indecency, two sex acts and one count of using the internet to deprave young people) has been released in an article by ABC News today.

Michael David Watt, a 25 year old youth worker from Conder, allegedly committed the offences when the boy was in his care between November 16, 2011 and February 23 of this year.

Michael was granted bail by the ACT Magistrates Court, despite the prosecution opposing bail saying that they feared for other children.

Magistrate David Mossop granted bail on the conditions Watt surrender his passport, report to police, not contact the victim or work with children.

This isn’t the first time Watt has been accused of child sex offences according to the Canberra Times.

And the ACT Magistrates Court also heard the Conder man had been accused of child-sex offences in New Zealand but there was no evidence charges were laid.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not a fan of this guy walking around until his next court date next month, even if he’s ‘not allowed to work with children any more’.

What do you guys think?

Bail for Michael David Watt

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE 19/04/12 11:04: Canberra Grammar School have posted an Important Notice from the Head in relation to this.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
54 Responses to
Name of alleged Conder paedophile released [With poll on the matter of bail]
16
legal_chick86 1:20 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Our understanding is it’s the same man.

You are kidding me? OMG!

Report this comment

17
legal_chick86 1:21 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Our understanding is it’s the same man.

Johnboy – what is the link?

Report this comment

18
Truthiness 1:43 pm
19 Apr 12
#

The vast majority of child sex offenders in this country are people the child knows, typically their family members, and the vast majority of those never take or share pictures. The uncle abusing his niece is not incited by subscribers, the priest abusing choirboys is not cheered on by the internet. While sites do exist to share these pictures, and some do encourage the perpetrators to further acts, the majority of child abuse is not connected to the internet at all. By focusing so heavily on file sharing we shift resources away from the undocumented endemic abuse which is taking place in homes throughout our communities.

Traditional market theory can not be so simplistic applied to file sharing. Just as file sharing does not equal lost sales, so file sharing does not equal increased paedophilia. It is entirely possible to get tens of thousands of images in a single torrent, and it is entirely possible for someone to have been interested in the pictures without ever being interested in hurting a child. It is even possible for those pictures to reach your hard drive without you ever having intended for them to.

There is a culture of shock on the internet, gore pictures, extremists, and porn of everything imaginable. People see this and are scared, but it is important to remember that people who look at pictures of gore are not necessarily going to maim anyone, people who look at extreme porn are not necessarily going to do those acts themselves. Indeed, there is significant scientific evidence to show that the viewing of this material is a release mechanism, and that it is a reaction to the distorted morals of our broader society.

Our society is increasingly sexualising children and validating violence, we wage war, we sell miniskirts to four year olds and enter toddlers in pageants. Is punishing individual reactions really the answer to broader sociological phenomena? Or are we as a society encouraging people toward violence, drugs and sexuality, while simultaneously punishing them for those acts?

Report this comment

19
johnboy 1:47 pm
19 Apr 12
#

Truthiness said :

The vast majority of child sex offenders in this country are people the child knows, typically their family members, and the vast majority of those never take or share pictures. The uncle abusing his niece is not incited by subscribers, the priest abusing choirboys is not cheered on by the internet. While sites do exist to share these pictures, and some do encourage the perpetrators to further acts, the majority of child abuse is not connected to the internet at all. By focusing so heavily on file sharing we shift resources away from the undocumented endemic abuse which is taking place in homes throughout our communities.

Traditional market theory can not be so simplistic applied to file sharing. Just as file sharing does not equal lost sales, so file sharing does not equal increased paedophilia. It is entirely possible to get tens of thousands of images in a single torrent, and it is entirely possible for someone to have been interested in the pictures without ever being interested in hurting a child. It is even possible for those pictures to reach your hard drive without you ever having intended for them to.

There is a culture of shock on the internet, gore pictures, extremists, and porn of everything imaginable. People see this and are scared, but it is important to remember that people who look at pictures of gore are not necessarily going to maim anyone, people who look at extreme porn are not necessarily going to do those acts themselves. Indeed, there is significant scientific evidence to show that the viewing of this material is a release mechanism, and that it is a reaction to the distorted morals of our broader society.

Our society is increasingly sexualising children and validating violence, we wage war, we sell miniskirts to four year olds and enter toddlers in pageants. Is punishing individual reactions really the answer to broader sociological phenomena? Or are we as a society encouraging people toward violence, drugs and sexuality, while simultaneously punishing them for those acts?

Listen sport, you can apply whatever sick sophistry you like to justifying the horrendous.

But 100% of children being abused in the production of this material are being abused for the gratification of the consumers.

And if you don’t have a problem with that then frankly i hope the police come knocking on your door sooner rather than later.

Report this comment

20
DeskMonkey 2:03 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Listen sport, you can apply whatever sick sophistry you like to justifying the horrendous.

But 100% of children being abused in the production of this material are being abused for the gratification of the consumers.

+1

Report this comment

21
Truthiness 2:05 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Listen sport, you can apply whatever sick sophistry you like to justifying the horrendous.

But 100% of children being abused in the production of this material are being abused for the gratification of the consumers.

And if you don’t have a problem with that then frankly i hope the police come knocking on your door sooner rather than later.

I at no time supported the abuse of children, constructing a stawman argument, belittling me and wishing me harm in no way contributes to the discussion at hand.

I merely attempted to point out that child pornography is only the tip of the iceberg, and it is not necessarily connected to the majority of abuse. Even if we caught all online child pornographers, we would not have come close to scratching the surface of the daily abuses that happen in this country, and we would have arrested a lot of people who never touched a child.

The real abusers in this country do not do it to please an audience, they do it for power and for self satisfaction. Go and speak to some victims, you’ll find most of them were never video taped, they were abused by someone they trusted, and they saw no way of escape. This is the core issue we need to address, we need to be giving kids a way out of danger, not taking down file sharers, the two are only tangentially related.

Report this comment

22
legal_chick86 2:10 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Truthiness said :

The vast majority of child sex offenders in this country are people the child knows, typically their family members, and the vast majority of those never take or share pictures. The uncle abusing his niece is not incited by subscribers, the priest abusing choirboys is not cheered on by the internet. While sites do exist to share these pictures, and some do encourage the perpetrators to further acts, the majority of child abuse is not connected to the internet at all. By focusing so heavily on file sharing we shift resources away from the undocumented endemic abuse which is taking place in homes throughout our communities.

Traditional market theory can not be so simplistic applied to file sharing. Just as file sharing does not equal lost sales, so file sharing does not equal increased paedophilia. It is entirely possible to get tens of thousands of images in a single torrent, and it is entirely possible for someone to have been interested in the pictures without ever being interested in hurting a child. It is even possible for those pictures to reach your hard drive without you ever having intended for them to.

There is a culture of shock on the internet, gore pictures, extremists, and porn of everything imaginable. People see this and are scared, but it is important to remember that people who look at pictures of gore are not necessarily going to maim anyone, people who look at extreme porn are not necessarily going to do those acts themselves. Indeed, there is significant scientific evidence to show that the viewing of this material is a release mechanism, and that it is a reaction to the distorted morals of our broader society.

Our society is increasingly sexualising children and validating violence, we wage war, we sell miniskirts to four year olds and enter toddlers in pageants. Is punishing individual reactions really the answer to broader sociological phenomena? Or are we as a society encouraging people toward violence, drugs and sexuality, while simultaneously punishing them for those acts?

Listen sport, you can apply whatever sick sophistry you like to justifying the horrendous.

But 100% of children being abused in the production of this material are being abused for the gratification of the consumers.

And if you don’t have a problem with that then frankly i hope the police come knocking on your door sooner rather than later.

I think to solve this constant debate is for all child sex offenders to participate in a poll to see how many of them actually start their fantasies out by watching kiddy porn. If you want to do something that isnt the norm or something well known, you research it, and kiddie porn may well be that research for them. I think there is a definate link!!!

Comemnts such as “we sell miniskirts to four year olds”… this type of view is just the same as a man thinking he has a right to rape a woman because she obviously wants it if she is wearing a mini-skirt! That is just sick!

Report this comment

23
johnboy 2:12 pm
19 Apr 12
#

The point is it doesn’t matter if there is a link to consumers of this stuff committing assaults in real life.

assaults in real life are terrible and need to be caught and punished wherever possible.

and those creating a market for the sexual abuse of children also need to be caught and punished.

the link if any is not relevant, or significant.

Report this comment

24
legal_chick86 2:13 pm
19 Apr 12
#

Holden Caulfield said :

Well, he could be bailed if he’d been alleged to have murdered someone, so, really, what’s the difference?

Is the alleged murderer any more likely to kill a person at every opportunity as the alleged pedo is likely to fiddle with kiddies if the chance arises?

If you thought you were going to go to prison for whatever reason, wouldnt you spend your last days doing the things you love???? (having sex)!! Of course there is a posibility that this f@cker may re-offend while he is out.

This business about checking in with the Police is more about protecting the flight risk – its not going to stop him from hanging out the front of a school waiting for his prey… if your parents told you not to have a party when you were 16 or 17 – and they asked you to call at a certain time to check in, no doubt you were having that party, but simply ran outside to call them and check in like asked!?

Report this comment

25
Holden Caulfield 2:34 pm
19 Apr 12
#

DeskMonkey said :

Why should he be allowed into the community again.

Because he hasn’t been found guilty yet. Unfortunately, he deserves his rights as much as anyone else charged with any other crime.

I’m sorry to hear of your experience. :(

legal_chick86 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Well, he could be bailed if he’d been alleged to have murdered someone, so, really, what’s the difference?

Is the alleged murderer any more likely to kill a person at every opportunity as the alleged pedo is likely to fiddle with kiddies if the chance arises?

If you thought you were going to go to prison for whatever reason, wouldnt you spend your last days doing the things you love???? (having sex)!! Of course there is a posibility that this f@cker may re-offend while he is out.

This is true and I understand the assertion. But, I’m guessing those questions had to be answered before bail was granted.

Otherwise, why bother having a bail process at all, whatever the charge?

Report this comment

26
PantsMan 2:37 pm
19 Apr 12
#

legal_chick86 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Well, he could be bailed if he’d been alleged to have murdered someone, so, really, what’s the difference?

Is the alleged murderer any more likely to kill a person at every opportunity as the alleged pedo is likely to fiddle with kiddies if the chance arises?

If you thought you were going to go to prison for whatever reason, wouldnt you spend your last days doing the things you love???? (having sex)!! Of course there is a posibility that this f@cker may re-offend while he is out.

This business about checking in with the Police is more about protecting the flight risk – its not going to stop him from hanging out the front of a school waiting for his prey… if your parents told you not to have a party when you were 16 or 17 – and they asked you to call at a certain time to check in, no doubt you were having that party, but simply ran outside to call them and check in like asked!?

Murders really don’t keep offending, while these types do. I’d prefer to see a murderer out on bail than this guy.

He’ll probably go to jail and do his time verrrrrrrrry hard, which means that when he gets out he’ll be even worse. There are alternatives for him, but that I won’t discuss them here.

If the number of people who had their lives f*&ked by this, or domestic violence etc was able to be recorded, no one would give a f^&k about the road toll.

Report this comment

27
Watson 2:37 pm
19 Apr 12
#

I welcome an open (read: beyond screaming ‘send out the lynch mob’) discussion about it, but this case has absolutely nothing to do with kiddy porn?

In the NZ case the “using the internet to deprave young people” was explained as showing pornographic images to a child. And I assume it was the same in this case. Still totally immoral, but nothing to do with being an accomplice to widespread child abuse.

The other charges tragically fit the profile of the average child abuser. Which is why you should talk to your kids about this sort of stuff to try and equip them with the skills to protect themselves. They are tough conversations, but the most effective way to reduce the risk.

Report this comment

28
smeeagain 2:44 pm
19 Apr 12
#

This is what concerns me

“The court heard Watt worked with children but had been suspended from his job in February after the boy came forward with the sexual abuse allegations.

However, he found work with another organisation and continued to work with children.”

He clearly wants to be in a position where he has access to children.

Report this comment

29
DeskMonkey 3:06 pm
19 Apr 12
#

Holden Caulfield said :

DeskMonkey said :

Why should he be allowed into the community again.

Because he hasn’t been found guilty yet. Unfortunately, he deserves his rights as much as anyone else charged with any other crime.

I’m sorry to hear of your experience. :(

Can they put him under house arrest? Who’s policing his contact with other children or the victim?
The comment about being allowed back into the community was in relation to rehabilitation instead of / or as well as incarceration before allowing him back into the community.

Report this comment

30
c_c 3:41 pm
19 Apr 12
#

johnboy said :

Truthiness said :

The vast majority of child sex offenders in this country are people the child knows, typically their family members, and the vast majority of those never take or share pictures. The uncle abusing his niece is not incited by subscribers, the priest abusing choirboys is not cheered on by the internet. While sites do exist to share these pictures, and some do encourage the perpetrators to further acts, the majority of child abuse is not connected to the internet at all. By focusing so heavily on file sharing we shift resources away from the undocumented endemic abuse which is taking place in homes throughout our communities.

Traditional market theory can not be so simplistic applied to file sharing. Just as file sharing does not equal lost sales, so file sharing does not equal increased paedophilia. It is entirely possible to get tens of thousands of images in a single torrent, and it is entirely possible for someone to have been interested in the pictures without ever being interested in hurting a child. It is even possible for those pictures to reach your hard drive without you ever having intended for them to.

There is a culture of shock on the internet, gore pictures, extremists, and porn of everything imaginable. People see this and are scared, but it is important to remember that people who look at pictures of gore are not necessarily going to maim anyone, people who look at extreme porn are not necessarily going to do those acts themselves. Indeed, there is significant scientific evidence to show that the viewing of this material is a release mechanism, and that it is a reaction to the distorted morals of our broader society.

Our society is increasingly sexualising children and validating violence, we wage war, we sell miniskirts to four year olds and enter toddlers in pageants. Is punishing individual reactions really the answer to broader sociological phenomena? Or are we as a society encouraging people toward violence, drugs and sexuality, while simultaneously punishing them for those acts?

Listen sport, you can apply whatever sick sophistry you like to justifying the horrendous.

But 100% of children being abused in the production of this material are being abused for the gratification of the consumers.

And if you don’t have a problem with that then frankly i hope the police come knocking on your door sooner rather than later.

+1

I don’t think any court, nor any sane minded person is going accept the excuse “well they made me do it” or “everyone else is doing it.”

You and you alone are responsible for your conduct.

The conduct of others, whether in the minority or the majority does not grant a licence to do what is repugnant to the law and to decency.

Report this comment

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site