RTE "paedophile" exposed (Read Admin note post #1)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jace_da_face wrote: »

Is intention to commit a crime against a fictitious person illegal? Therein lies the dilemma. You could argue that the vigilante group is guilty of incitement. But then incitement to do what? Commit a crime against a fictitious person?

THIS is why they've got to be careful. As long as the guy makes all the moves and suggests the encounter then there's no incitement. He's intending to have sex with what he believes is a real underage girl, regardless of whether she exists or not.

His only defence would be to somehow prove he was there for some other reason.

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Probably the same reason as most other vigilante groups. They have somehow been affected by, or seen, some crime being committed that (in their eyes at least) no one seems willing to do anything about.

So they feel they need to do something about it themselves. After my discussions with the police about the things I was seeing online in my college days around pedophilia..... like MIRC scripts that other chatters could log into and upload porn for "credits" to download porn from your hard drive........ no body seemed to be doing ANYTHING about it.

So I myself was tempted on occasion to try and form such a group. Then AND perhaps even now, if such a group approached me and asked me to help out I would find myself very tempted to consider it.

But I think a lot of such people rush into such groups and do not stop to consider the negative sides of their actions. The ends justify the means and everything in between. But even that would tempt me to join such a group more, as I would see it as a chance to work from their inside in reforming their methods to be more ethical as best I could.

Not saying I WOULD join such a group. But if asked to, I certainly would not give a quick answer either way. I would think long and hard about it.

I would agree with much of what you have said here. I can also understand the attraction and increasing number of such groups.

The advent of the internet and social media has led to paedophiles becoming adapt at using these tools to facilitate their behaviour in ways and means previously unavailable to them. The law in some cases has been slow to follow these changes.

The deliberate and sickening denial of the sexual abuse of children as for example evidenced by the Rotterdam child abuse cases and described as the biggest child protection scandal in UK histoy which went largely unchallenged by legal authorities there.

I believe parents and those advocating for children to be protected have become increasingly frustrated and it is not hard to imagine how such groups are created and why ordinary people become involved.

The fact that equally ordinary looking people like the current guy are actively participating in grooming and predating children I believe adds to a sense of helplessness and frustration with what has become a societal scurge

PARlance

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

THIS is why they've got to be careful. As long as the guy makes all the moves and suggests the encounter then there's no incitement. He's intending to have sex with what he believes is a real underage girl, regardless of whether she exists or not.

His only defence would be to somehow prove he was there for some other reason.

Or to (claim to) know he was talking to an adult / decoy all along?

nozzferrahhtoo

anna080 wrote: »

Imagine being the Internet

Imagine the internet becoming sentient and wondering at all these really weird thoughts that keep careening through it's mind.

Chrongen

gozunda wrote: »

Not this sh!te again ...

Paedophillia is understood very well. It remains correctly a Pyschriatic Disorder. To suggest that behaviour which is characterised by the sexual predation of children is an orientation is the same as sexual activity between consenting adults is simply vile and perverse.




Where are the figures to support your assertion*? I would wager that like the current guy - many many such individuals are active paedophiles but have not been caught or convicted. These monsters walk amongst us.





Post vile and frankly disgusting comments and you can expect that call from lots more than just me. :mad:




A sexual orientation describes attraction and activity amongst consenting adults.

It is not so those with a recognised pyschriatic disorder pushing their agenda to abuse children.

Psychiatric diagnosis does not recognize paedophilelia as a sexual orientation. It is of note that this agenda is the reserve of pro-paedophilia groups.

And yes I am disgusted by the actions and behaviour of paedophiles. The majority of people are.

I would suggest you get help.

First of all, your shabby and cynical attempts at redefining what you think other people have said in order to lend weight to your own emotionally fuelled outbursts sap all credibility from your posts.
You shoehorn the word "predation" into the concept of paedophilia even though it has been made quite clear to you that paedophilia is an attraction to children that in most cases never results in any kind of interference or abuse of a child or minor.
Can you not have an intelligent, scientific discussion without having a mental meltdown or putting words into other peoples' mouths.

Secondly. what qualifications do YOU have to be an authority on what constitutes paedophilia? There are many doctors and professors who would disagree with you and they are eminently more qualified.

Finally, you shoehorn the word "consenting" into your own personalised definition of orientation. Consent has nothing to do with one's orientation. You just rammed that word in there to suit your own narrow and inaccurate definition of what you THINK it means. A homosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual male. The attraction is not going to be mutual, is it? So how can the heterosexual male be consenting. Likewise a heterosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual female who in turn may not feel the same way as she may find him repulsive.

gozunda

Chrongen wrote: »

First of all, your shabby and cynical attempts at redefining what you think other people have said in order to lend weight to your own emotionally fuelled outbursts sap all credibility from your posts.

Your very first post on this thread was an hate filled attack on other posters. I have no need to "'redefine' anything which was said . It's there in black and white to all to read. I really dont care what you think. I will continue to call out paedophilia for what it is. No more no less.

Chrongen wrote: »

You shoehorn the word "predation" into the concept of paedophilia even though it has been made quite clear to you that *paedophilia is an attraction to children that in most cases never results in any kind of interference or abuse of a child or minor.

That is your take on paedophilia* - which by the way does not agree with much which has been written on the subject. There is a continuim of behaviour within Paedophilia. As you are so fond of saying- it is neither black nor white. Taking individual words of context does not prove your point.

Chrongen wrote: »

Can you not have an intelligent, scientific discussion without having a mental meltdown or putting words into other peoples' mouths.

The only one here as ascribing thoughts and actions to others is yourself. As I said some of the comments posted on here are fully deserving of scorn and negative comments imo.

Secondly.

Chrongen wrote: »

what qualifications to YOU have to be an authority on what constitutes paedophilia? There are many doctors and professors who would disagree with you and they are eminently more qualified.

Well as for all boards posters - it is within anyone's remit to challenge baseless or frankly misleading statements such as "Paedophilia is not a mental illness". I also see you rather grandiousely place yourself on the side of "eminently more qualified doctors and professors" lol. If that wasn't so funny I would say it is sick...

Edit: I see you returned and made more deranged assertions- you said:

Chrongen wrote:

you shoehorn the word "consenting" into your own personalised definition of orientation. Consent has nothing to do with one's orientation. You just rammed that word in there to suit your own narrow and inaccurate definition of what you THINK it means. A homosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual male. The attraction is not going to be mutual, is it? So how can the heterosexual male be consenting. Likewise a heterosexual male can have an attraction to a heterosexual female who in turn may not feel the same way as she may find him repulsive.

I said:

A sexual orientation describes attraction and activity amongst consenting adults.

Repeat I said attraction and activity

The word is 'describes' btw and not 'definition' or can you not read? You can feelings or urges to have sex with trees with your logic - however that does not make such feelings or urges in anyway a sexual orientation as the other party can never give consent one way or the other - Paedophilia defined as a sexual orientation can only ever be abusive whether that is online or otherwise. Otherwise such urges fall into the category of psychiatric disorders and not orientation.

nozzferrahhtoo

wakka12 wrote: »

Just impossible. Paedophilia is an endemic problem that will plague humanity forever until theres some type of technology to cure the illness in the brain

Unfortunately I think, as we learn more and more about it, it will turn out to be something like "cancer".

The reason we do not have a "cure for cancer" is that cancer has no ONE cause and is not ONE thing. Each type of cancer has its own unique sets of causes and processes. There will never BE one cure for cancer because cancer is not one condition. It is a collection of them under a single umberella term.

I think both pedophilia, and sexual offences against children (which as has been pointed out a few times on the thread do not have to be the same thing) will be similar. We will have one term "pedophile" for all kinds of things going on including in fact people who offend against children but are not actually attracted to children.

gozunda wrote: »

Paedophilia is a psychiatric condition. Being gay is not.

The problem is that scientifically we do not really know what EITHER is. We do not know what causes homosexuality either. I have my own theories about how it is genetic (but not that there is a gene for it, which is entirely different though many people think it is the same) but no area of science has a full 100% complete thesis on it's roots and causes.

So it is massively helpful to do what you yourself already did.... and distinguish between one being consenting sex between adults and the other.... well.... not being so.

But we have to be very cautious in our current period of ignorance of saying one is X and the other is Y in terms of their roots and causes. We simply do not know. And in fact, as I said above to wakka...... there may not be any ONE causes to point at.

But what is not in much doubt is when you ask such people about their sexuality and who they are attracted to..... they often give the same answers as you and I might do as heterosexuals (presuming you are, if not sorry!) which is simply that there is no reason for it..... we were always as we were..... seemingly born that way.

Where things get dangerous is many people see being born that way as excusing or normalizing a behaviour. There is, thankfully, nothing to excuse about homosexuality. It is acts between consenting adults and I am all for it.

But if indeed pedophiles (or some subset of them) are "born that way" and we show that to be so somehow scientifically...... this conclusion or theory should hopefully never be attacked as if it is somehow trying to normalize it, accept it, excuse it, or anything when such people offend against children.

But my suspicion is for every offending pedophile there is a NUMBER of non offending ones.... and what a lonely and confusing world it must be to live in having feelings you A) do not want to have and never for one moment intend to act on.

There are those who would lynch them for just who they are, not what they have ever (not) done.

Strazdas

SnakePlissken wrote: »

Just to be clear, this was a 41 year old who travelled across the country to rape a 12 year old, the evidence gathered by "the scumbag" as you so eloquently put it, was substantial enough for the police to have begun proceedings against this sick individual.... and yet you speak of empathy?

Online grooming does not carry the death penalty to the best of my knowledge.

If I was a vigilante and I caused a man to commit to suicide, I would be absolutely wracked with guilt and self doubt in the aftermath, no matter what he was accused of.....it would be the most human of reactions. These chavvy creeps with their criminal records pretending to be "concerned citizens" is utterly laughable.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

Well as for all boards posters - it is within anyone's remit to challenge baseless or frankly misleading statements such as "Paedophilia is not a mental illness".

I definitely dont want to get drawn into this debate (its one you never get out of!) but just to point out that it is only one aspect of 'peaedophilia' which is recognised as a psych disorder, namely 'pedophilic disorder' which has 3 criteria (DSM V)

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

So, if you dont actually act on the urges, or the urges dont cause any particular distress/interpersonal difficulties for you, you dont have a psych disorder. Those persons are said to have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not a pedophilic disorder. Some might say its a bit of an arbitrary distinction, but it is worth noting that paedophilia simpliciter is not - in fact - a psychiatric illness.

Whether pedophilic disorder should be one is another question i suppose. Ive always been more comfortable with the old adage - still kinda used by psychiatrists actually - that you are either 'mad, bad or sad'. I'm not sure that trying to shoe horn everyone into the 'mad' category is necessarily the right or effective thing to do.

gozunda

Strazdas wrote: »

Online grooming does not carry the death penalty to the best of my knowledge.


If I was a vigilante and I caused a man to commit to suicide, I would be absolutely wracked with guilt and self doubt in the aftermath, no matter what he was accused of.....it would be the most human of reactions. These chavvy creeps with their criminal records pretending to be "concerned citizens" is utterly laughable.

And exactly - how would you know that you 'caused his suicide?" If a person is caught with incriminating information of being a paedophile and is handed over to the relevant authorities- and that person subsequently commits suicide - are you to blame?

*That person may be overcome with guilt or remorse

*That person may not be willing to face the consequences of their actions

* That person is by all indications may be mentally unwell and took their life as a result

Those who are concerned about the behaviour of paedophiles are never laughable imo. Those individuals who have concerns and fears for the protection and safety of children in mind - should they put this concern above the apprehension of a paedophile? Even if that paedophile on the off chance 'might' take their own life for any reason?

Chrongen

gozunda wrote: »

Just you wind your thick neck back there boyo.
Attempting to rationalise a psychiatic disorder and glossing over the impacts of paedophile behaviour is to put it simply vile and disgusting. Some of the comments on here deserve every bit of reproach and negativity they recieve. I will reserve logical, emotion-free discourse for those not posting frankly disturbing posts.

Pretending something is ok does not make it so.

Have you come across ANY post here that suggests that child-molestation is ok? Because if you have then I strongly recommend you report that post to a moderator. Have you encountered ANY post that promotes or encourages violence? If so, the same recommendation applies.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

I definitely dont want to get drawn into this debate (its one you never get out of!) but just to point out that it is only one aspect of 'peaedophilia' which is recognised as a psych disorder, namely 'pedophilic disorder' which has 3 criteria (DSM V)

So, if you dont actually act on the urges, or the urges dont cause any particular distress/interpersonal difficulties for you, you dont have a psych disorder. Those persons are said to have a pedophilic sexual orientation but not a pedophilic disorder. Some might say its a bit of an arbitrary distinction, but it is worth noting that paedophilia simpliciter is not - in fact - a psychiatric illness.

Whether pedophilic disorder should be one is another question i suppose. Ive always been more comfortable with the old adage - still kinda used by psychiatrists actually - that you are either 'mad, bad or sad'. I'm not sure that trying to shoe horn everyone into the 'mad' category is necessarily the right or effective thing to do.

Agreed this is not the thread for that discussion
However I stand by my statement that paedophilia is best described as a continuim of behaviour.

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

This presumes that a person has been seen and diagnosed by a qualified psychiatrist. For those who have urges or are attracted to prepubescent children and do not seem help - they remain an unknown at best. Like the current guy - he was not known to be a problem until he was caught.

Of note DSM does not recognise paedophilia as a sexual orientation.

Regarding the issue of interpersonal difficulties- that may be a simple as not being able to be safely in the presence of children. So therefore that person is suffering from as you put it a 'psych disorder' by definition.

The basic point here though is that pyschriatic evaluation is required before it can be declared that those who are attracted or have urges towards prepubescent children do not have Pyshriatric disorder. Posters claiming that there is no problem whatsoever with those who have not been seen to have acted on their attractions or impulses are misinformed or are being misleading...

gozunda

Chrongen wrote: »

Have you come across ANY post here that suggests that child-molestation is ok? Because if you have then I strongly recommend you report that post to a moderator. Have you encountered ANY post that promotes or encourages violence? If so, the same recommendation applies.

Talking out of the side of you mouth there perhaps? You are referring to "child molestation" and "violence".

I have commented on specific posts. I have found some comments to be frankly vile and deserving of the opprobrium they recieved imo.

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

Pedophilia is termed pedophilic disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and the manual defines it as a paraphilia involving intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that have either been acted upon or which cause the person with the attraction distress or interpersonal difficulty.The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines it as a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.

It is an interesting definition as much for who it does NOT include so much as who it DOES.

For example imagine someone who has fantasies about it in their head....... never has and never would act on it.......... but suffers no distress or interpersonal issues from it either.

So in other words the definition does not think it any kid of disorder if it has never been acted on, never would be, and the person who has the thoughts solely in their head?

Not saying I have a problem with that, or the definition. I just find it interesting that it seems to distinguish from pedophiles who have no urges to act, and no personal suffering caused by their inner feelings.

And perhaps that is ok. Perhaps someone enjoys occasionally imagining repeatedly punching the face of, or even murdering their boss. Does not mean they are disturbed by their thoughts or would ever actually hurt, let alone kill, anyone.

It is a distinction I am always quick to make on threads like this. In and of itself, there is nothing WRONG with being a pedophile. And I suspect a LOT more people than we think actually are.

But if that pedophilia causes the pedophile misery, or leads them to harm a child, then that is something else completely.

I think there are those who would never, in fact COULD never, make that distinction. The moment they find out a person is a pedophile they would want that person castrated, locked up, or even killed.

drkpower

gozunda wrote: »

The basic point here though is that pyschriatic evaluation is required before it can be declared that those who are attracted or have urges towards prepubscet children do not have Pyshriatric disorder. Posters claiming that there is no problem whatsoever with those who have not been seen to have acted in the it attraction or impulses are misinformed.

The general rule is that psychiatric evaluation is required before it can be declared that anyone has a psychiatric disorder, rather than the other way round. But i have made by point.

wakka12

Omackeral wrote: »

When someone says that a 13 year old asking an adult to meet for sex is a difference maker and/or entrapment, yeah I'm gonna comment on that. If you think it makes a jot of a difference, then you're a sick puppy in my view.

My health is fine btw, apart from a bit of a head cold. Bring me some Lemsip if you're over 18 please. Ta lovey x

I said it didn't excuse his actions regardless of the circumstances that led to him meeting a child, and should be punished accordingly. But it does matter, it will matter a lot when it comes to his sentencing. Certain drugs are illegal but theres different sentences depending on whether you were offering people the drug or if you bought it off somebody
So can you please stop with they hysterics and claiming Im excusing paedophilia or something something else dramatic

pilly

wakka12 wrote: »

I said it didn't excuse his actions regardless of the circumstances that led to him meeting a child, and should be punished accordingly. But it does matter, it will matter a lot when it comes to his sentencing. Certain drugs are illegal but theres different sentences depending on whether you were offering people the drug or if you bought it off somebody
So can you please stop with they hysterics and claiming Im excusing paedophilia or something something else dramatic

It does NOT matter legally, morally or any other way when it comes to an adults interactions with a child. You're wrong, accept that.

It will not make a blind bit of difference to a judge if the child suggested meeting or the adult did, the adult is to blame.

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

I'd rather that than be related to a sexual predator of children. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone?

i'd rather be related to none of them.

gozunda wrote: »

Just you wind your thick neck back there boyo.
Attempting to rationalise a psychiatic disorder and glossing over the impacts of paedophile behaviour is to put it simply vile and disgusting. Some of the comments on here deserve every bit of reproach and negativity they recieve. I will reserve logical, emotion-free discourse for those not posting frankly disturbing posts.

Pretending something is ok does not make it so.

except that isn't happening. such has never been stated anywhere in this thread. every single poster in this thread has made it clear that paedophilia is wrong. however, some of us have decided we would like an actual debate on the issues in a calm and rational manner.

gozunda

drkpower wrote: »

The general rule is that psychiatric evaluation is required before it can be declared that anyone has a psychiatric disorder, rather than the other way round. But i have made by point.

I see what you are saying - to clarify I based my reply on this part of your post

'pedophilic disorder' ... has 3 criteria (DSM V) ...

So, if you dont actually act on the urges, or the urges dont cause any particular distress/interpersonal difficulties for you, you dont have a psych disorder.

My point was that pyschriatic evaluation and diagnosis is required to determine if a person "doesn't "(dont) have a psych disorder"

gozunda

end of the road wrote: »

i'd rather be related to none of them.

except that isn't happening. such has never been stated anywhere in this thread. every single poster in this thread has made it clear that paedophilia is wrong. however, some of us have decided we would like an actual debate on the issues in a calm and rational manner.

Well I would disagree with you summary. And as far as 'debate in a calm and rational manner" - the insults that have been fired by some and the lack of referenced statements by others (with some exceptions) does not a rational debate make ...

Ash.J.Williams

I take there's no news... Due to the scutter being posted today.

I see he deleted his Facebook

wakka12

pilly wrote: »

It does NOT matter legally, morally or any other way when it comes to an adults interactions with a child. You're wrong, accept that.

It will not make a blind bit of difference to a judge if the child suggested meeting or the adult did, the adult is to blame.

Especially seeing as it wasn't a real child he met I guarantee you it would lessen his sentence, if the decoy had suggested meeting

KKkitty

Saruhashi wrote: »

I'm wondering if it's because people don't fully understand how these vigilante groups operate?

It seems to me that catching these sub-humans is a worthwhile endeavor and since they are being pretty successful I don't have any complaints at all. After all, those caught by the vigilante groups have clearly laid out who they think they are going to meet and what they think they are meeting them for.

There's another unsettling part to this though. The idea that there are these people out there who are posing as kids and getting into f*cking disgusting conversations with these creeps really turns my stomach and makes me think maybe the vigilantes are quite a bit f*cked up too. The are nowhere near as bad as the people they are catching but you get my point here? It's deeply disturbing.

It comes from my incomplete knowledge on how these vigilante groups operate and, to be honest, my unwillingness to do internet searches on it or to ask too many questions about it in public. I think it's just a case of you either support these groups 100% and applaud their results OR you are some kind of apologist for the criminals.

I understand that the police work closely with these groups so there is some kind of oversight and regulation and that puts my mind at ease, to an extent.

I'm not seeing anyone here explain the logistics of all this. Just that the process works and so that should be good enough.

Hell, I agree that the ends justify the means actually. Maybe that's irrational though. I just can't shake that feeling that something is "off" about these groups and there are concerns about how they do things. Again, that's likely down to lack of knowledge but I think it's understandable that people would have serious questions here.

The "live streaming" aspect, for example. I'm not saying they shouldn't do it but I'm kind of inclined to question why.

They live stream it because the accused can't say they were hit or whatever. Obviously to be a decoy takes some doing with what they're seeing but I'm sure they're a bit desensitised by it all.

Skullface McGubbin

It's been a while since I looked at this thread so I'm wondering are we allowed to mention the lad's name now? Or is it still forbidden?

PARlance

KKkitty wrote: »

They live stream it because the accused can't say they were hit or whatever. Obviously to be a decoy takes some doing with what they're seeing but I'm sure they're a bit desensitised by it all.

Recording it would serve that purpose too though? I think it would be a lot better if they recorded it, waited until the person was charged and then release the video.

KKkitty

PARlance wrote: »

Recording it would serve that purpose too though? I think it would be a lot better if they recorded it, waited until the person was charged and then release the video.

You can't edit a live stream though. The accused could say they were assaulted and the fact that it was live streamed will show they weren't.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Chrongen

gozunda wrote: »

Talking out of the side of you mouth there perhaps? You are referring to "child molestation" and "violence".

I have commented on specific posts. I have found some comments to be frankly vile and deserving of the opprobrium they recieved imo.

What comment have you found so vile? Or have you taken it upon yourself to select a legitimate or valid post/comment, twist it to misconstrue it to mean something else or try to paint the poster of that comment as something they are not, and then spew it back out as being, in your words, vile and disgusting?

gozunda

....... wrote: »

You are not capable of any kind of rational discourse on the matter so I will leave you to your hysterical pitchfork waving].

If I hold up a mirror you will see yourself ...

Chrongen wrote: »

What comment have you found so vile? Or have you taken it upon yourself to select a legitimate or valid post/comment, twist it to misconstrue it to mean something else or try to paint the poster of that comment as something they are not, and then spew it back out as being, in your words, vile and disgusting?

Oh do try a bit harder. Your and your friends ad hominem attacks are quite boring and repetitive at this stage. At least try and put forward a constructive argument for any position you may have.

Chrongen

end of the road wrote: »

i'd rather be related to none of them.



except that isn't happening. such has never been stated anywhere in this thread. every single poster in this thread has made it clear that paedophilia is wrong. however, some of us have decided we would like an actual debate on the issues in a calm and rational manner.

Well since it's estimated that 1 in 35 men have paedophilic tendencies:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11690451/One-in-35-men-has-paedophile-tendencies-crime-agency-claims.html

then it's pretty safe to assume that we are all likely related to one.

It's about a third of the percentage of those who are alcoholics and I'll bet most people can easily identify a drunk they are related to.