Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Excellence in Public Sector consulting

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, or connect with
54 Responses to
Name of alleged Conder paedophile released [With poll on the matter of bail]
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
HenryBG 11:46 pm 19 Apr 12

farq said :

Truthiness said :

Really we should be reopening the CP investigations into politicians and police, you know those investigations that get shut down every time they get too close to the real criminals. There are children being trafficked for sex in Canberra, and there have been for decades, I have had friends who escaped from that life, but it is ignored because the clientele is so exclusive.

Truthiness slips a conspiracy theory of epic proportions in his post and no one called him on it?

This site used to pound crazycheaster for her conspiracies about CIT management, but let one go about a child-sex ring operating above the law?

There *was* a ring of extremely well-connected paedophiles operating in Canberra between the 70’s and 90’s. They were well-acquainted with the bent pervert lawyer John Marsden (who can no longer dishonestly sue people, on account of his being dead, hooray), and John Marsden wasn’t the only member of the legal fraternity of their number. Not by a long shot. In fact, it was a bit of a lawyers’ own boy-molesting club.
The AFP looked into them for a while in the late 90’s and experienced all the same things Channel 7 experienced with Marsden at around the same time: the paedophiles had the best legal advice/training money could buy and they expended inordinate resources on interfering with all the potential witnesses. And the victims were all powerless and scared, damaged and easily discredited.

Tetranitrate 11:03 pm 19 Apr 12

BearBuns said :

Every person that downloads these images contributes to the abuse of a child and the destruction of their innocence.

Really? “Downloading music is killing the music industry”, “downloading movies is killing the film industry”, “piracy is killing game developers” but downloading Child Porn HELPS the child porn industry?

I assume you meant to say “purchasing” or something of the sort – I’m not in any way shape or form defending the possession of such images by the way (likely a stepping stone toward offences against real children), but it’s hysterical and absurd to claim somebody merely downloading such material is directly supporting its production.

Unless they’re actually paying for it (which some such offenders presumably are), there’s no incentive to produce further material created by someone downloading the material. They’re a sick f*ck who needs to be dealt with before they commit an offence in person, but don’t make absurd claims of a causal link that isn’t there.
It’s most certainly necessary that the state intervene, punish, counsel and keep a very close eye on anyone who’s found in possession of CP of course (particularly the latter).

kakosi 11:01 pm 19 Apr 12

Having been a primary school teacher and seen the effects that sexual abuse had on children I think the only real solution for those found either abusing children or posting pictures of children being abused is capital punishment…end of story.

c_c 9:51 pm 19 Apr 12

Mordd said :

The fact he was in a position that carried a duty of care (as a youth worker) and he broke that duty of care, I think his presumption to be bailed has been lost as a consequence of his act. It is one thing to commit an offence, it is another when you have a specific duty of care to prevent offences like this. Bail is a priveledge not a right, and in this instance I think he has lost that right as his act can be described as “heinous” due to the breach of the duty of care specifically entrusted to him. For that reason I would deny him bail.

s22 of the Bail Act 1992 is a good place to look for the actual criteria they use.

I suspect 22(1)(c) in particular was the issue, these creeps tend to get beaten up in custody. Court probably doesn’t want to see him get beat up then get compo and endanger the case. Sucks in the short term but he’ll get to meet his match eventually behind bars.

I-filed 9:50 pm 19 Apr 12

Sammy said :

Odd statement from CGS:

The AFP has strongly assured the School and the ACT Magistrates Court and the media that the alleged offences took place months before the man’s employment with Camp Australia and do not in any way involve the School or any of its students or Camp Australia or any of the students attending the Camp Australia program from any other schools.

So what they’re saying is that the guy was a pervert long before he was employed by Camp Australia for activities involving CGS, and therefore parents shouldn’t be concerned?

Indeed. Very “brush under the carpet” sort of response. Shouldn’t the school instead be calling for anyone who might have something to report to contact them confidentially and in an emotionally safe environment?

Mordd 8:39 pm 19 Apr 12

The fact he was in a position that carried a duty of care (as a youth worker) and he broke that duty of care, I think his presumption to be bailed has been lost as a consequence of his act. It is one thing to commit an offence, it is another when you have a specific duty of care to prevent offences like this. Bail is a priveledge not a right, and in this instance I think he has lost that right as his act can be described as “heinous” due to the breach of the duty of care specifically entrusted to him. For that reason I would deny him bail.

far_northact 8:19 pm 19 Apr 12

Until we name and shame every child sex offender, and make these offensive topics common conversation, kids won’t feel that its something they can discuss and raise with their parents and they keep the shame, and secret to themselves. It needs to be a conversation every parent has with their child, nephews, nieces etc…. the more its discussed – the less shame and ‘taboo’ there is about this, and the more reporting will occur. IMO

Watson 7:38 pm 19 Apr 12

BearBuns said :

Any idiot who believes that Child Porn consists of naked kiddy pictures is seriously deluded. Any person who thinks that there is no correlation between a person who commits an act of indecency against a child won’t look at images that encourage their prediliction is also seriously off their rocker. Having worked in a place where I have seen the descriptions of child exploitation material (thankfully not the actual pictures or I would be a basket case) I know that they are never just pictures of naked children. Every person that downloads these images contributes to the abuse of a child and the destruction of their innocence.

Truthiness, your comments scare the hell out of me, you appear to be trying to justify something that you perceive as harmless. Viewing Child Exploitation Material is not harmless. It is certainly not harmless to the child and it only encourages those who perpetrate these acts to continue doing so because they now can share with so-called like minded people. And yes, Truthiness, they do share. I have seen the documentation to prove it. I have also seen documents about paedophile sites where subscribers are encouraged to share their abuse images to prove that they are who they say they are as a ‘buy in’ to the sick little community.

Truthiness, get some help. Get it now. There is no excuse for looking at these images no matter what you say. Anyone who thinks differently is trying to justify this behaviour and there is no justification for the abuse of a child. Ever.

I acknowledge that it is a very emotional topic. Which is why it becomes extra important to read what people are writing and not just jump to conclusions. The way I read that, the point that was being made was that there is a risk in focusing a significant part of the available resources on this issue because in the scheme of things it involves only a very small percentage of all sexually abused children. And I think every case is one too many and also that the penalties for downloading child porn should remain. But personally I can kind of understand thrutiness’ frustration with there being a real risk that this issue will distract too much attention from the far more tragic fact that the majority of sexual abuse happens in the home (I think it is about 85% of cases) and next by people known to the child. Abuse by strangers is very rare, despite what the media and hysterical parents try to make us believe. And in that context it is probably pretty irrelevant to the victims if the abuser does or does not download child porn.

In addition to that, the best way to prevent the abuse that results in the images is for the AFP to continue the work they are doing in cooperation with international colleagues to track down the source and catch the animals who are responsible for it. They have had a couple of success in recent years and I have nothing but praise for their efforts.

And after all that, I have to repeat that this guy in the OP was NOT charged for possessing child porn images.

farq 6:21 pm 19 Apr 12

Truthiness said :

Really we should be reopening the CP investigations into politicians and police, you know those investigations that get shut down every time they get too close to the real criminals. There are children being trafficked for sex in Canberra, and there have been for decades, I have had friends who escaped from that life, but it is ignored because the clientele is so exclusive.

Truthiness slips a conspiracy theory of epic proportions in his post and no one called him on it?

This site used to pound crazycheaster for her conspiracies about CIT management, but let one go about a child-sex ring operating above the law?

    johnboy 6:24 pm 19 Apr 12

    After what the Wood royal commission dug up you wouldn’t want to discount the possibility.

    It just doesn’t excuse anything else.

farq 6:03 pm 19 Apr 12

legal_chick86 said :

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.

Exactly this guy has nothing to lose.

It seems cruel to give someone a last-taste of freedom when it’s almost certain they are about to spend a big chunk of their life in prison. Mr Watt will be sitting at home nothing to do except dwell on his bleak future, counting down the days until sentencing.

Also, until Mr Watt is locked-up the victim’s family has to fight that natural urge of just driving over to his house and bashing/killing him.

BearBuns 5:41 pm 19 Apr 12

Any idiot who believes that Child Porn consists of naked kiddy pictures is seriously deluded. Any person who thinks that there is no correlation between a person who commits an act of indecency against a child won’t look at images that encourage their prediliction is also seriously off their rocker. Having worked in a place where I have seen the descriptions of child exploitation material (thankfully not the actual pictures or I would be a basket case) I know that they are never just pictures of naked children. Every person that downloads these images contributes to the abuse of a child and the destruction of their innocence.

Truthiness, your comments scare the hell out of me, you appear to be trying to justify something that you perceive as harmless. Viewing Child Exploitation Material is not harmless. It is certainly not harmless to the child and it only encourages those who perpetrate these acts to continue doing so because they now can share with so-called like minded people. And yes, Truthiness, they do share. I have seen the documentation to prove it. I have also seen documents about paedophile sites where subscribers are encouraged to share their abuse images to prove that they are who they say they are as a ‘buy in’ to the sick little community.

Truthiness, get some help. Get it now. There is no excuse for looking at these images no matter what you say. Anyone who thinks differently is trying to justify this behaviour and there is no justification for the abuse of a child. Ever.

SnapperJack 4:06 pm 19 Apr 12

Where’s BerraBoy68?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!?

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!

    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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site