Gardai cricitise paedophile hunters

timthumbni

Jmsg wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up your assertions and show you haven't just misread my post?

It should be made clear is that the perversion to feel arousal towards a 13 year old girl is NOT the same as the perversion to feel arousal towards a girl of say 8. The first is wrong but the second is a far more heinous matter altogether.

In a huge number of these vigilante schemes, they were going after men just looking for sex with women in general (often on sites in which you need to be of adult age to register) then after the decoy proclaimed to be underage (but post-pubescent) the men still went along with it. That's a completely different thing to men who operate by specifically targeting pre-pubescents, in such cases any attempts to bring them to justice be it via vigilantism or state means should be supported by any sensible person.

I would prefer not to debate any further on this matter with you tbh. Your views are completely strange to me and I am quite shocked that anyone would post something that you did.

Gimme A Pound

Well at 13 some girls (but not all) are capable of bearing children, so I suppose an attraction to them is not the same as an attraction to an eight-year-old. I'm not sure I'd say one is worse than the other though - they're both grim, just different.

Cartroubles

Egypt Scarce Cross wrote: »

Well at 13 some girls (but not all) are capable of bearing children, so I suppose an attraction to them is not the same as an attraction to an eight-year-old. I'm not sure I'd say one is worse than the other though - they're both grim, just different.

Careful, you're threading dangerously close to being called a nonce by some overly emotional posters here.

timthumbni

Egypt Scarce Cross wrote: »

They don't mean working class though. Working class people work.

Eotr thanking a post regarding working class people working.... priceless.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

timthumbni wrote: »

It is really strange and weird imo that some seem more concerned with the social status of those trying to catch nonces, than the crimes or potential crimes of the nonces themselves.

It’s quite sad actually.

It would be if that's what was happening, but as usual with this side of the argument, you've completely ignored the content of the posts in question and gone with an ignorant claim towards anything that simply disagreed with you.

Which is actually quite sad in itself.

timthumbni

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It would be if that's what was happening, but as usual with this side of the argument, you've completely ignored the content of the posts in question and gone with an ignorant claim towards anything that simply disagreed with you.

Which is actually quite sad in itself.

How so? I just think it’s amazing that some seem now to be debating if an adult having relations with a 13 yr old is worse than an 8 yr old.

It’s bizarre actually.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

timthumbni wrote: »

How so? I just think it’s amazing that some seem now to be debating if an adult having relations with a 13 yr old is worse than an 8 yr old.

It’s bizarre actually.

It is, to be fair.

But what's that guy to do with your initial claim that "it is really strange and weird imo that some seem more concerned with the social status of those trying to catch nonces"?

weldoninhio

joeguevara wrote: »

The issue is the fact of it’s all put live. It Leaves no chance of error. So it could ruin an innocent persons life just for the sake of Facebook likes. Also as a barrister I could see how easy it would be to throw a case out by the fact that the presumption of innocence has been irreparably damaged by an enforced admission when no actual offense (as in physical not the intention to commit an offense) has occurred.

So I think there is a place for this. Record everything and give it to the police or even the DPP. But going live is more harm than good. And also trial by Facebook jury is not a society I want to live in. If the intentions are as honurable as they purport to be then the above is achieveable.

As a barrister, you should know that if you do all of that and produce it to the Gardai, they’ll tell you that there is absolutely zero they can do because the paedo nonce was not chatting to an actual child. The law is an ass.

weldoninhio

Garibaldi? wrote: »

Someone, a law-abiding citizen needs to entrap one of the "entrappers", absolute loose cannons taking the law into their own hands!

Entrap them how? They aren’t breaking any laws.

weldoninhio

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

I am sure Louise and her merry gang wouldn't like it if a gang show up outside their houses shouting the odds.

Maybe you should turn up, with your “Leave the nonces alone” placard.

Potential-Monke

I like how a discussion can only go a certain way. While you may find it strange that different people have sexual interests in different age groups below the legal age, the law doesn't think so. In fact, paedophilia is a term for people who are sexually attracted to children who are pre-pubescent. Hebephilia is the sexual attraction to kids usually between 11-14, and ephebophilia is the sexual attraction towards teens between 15-19. While sex with anyone underage is just wrong, and those who do it should be hung imo, there is a distinct difference between the 3, and imo the paedo is the worst, the hebe the second worst and the ephebo is 3rd.

Just like someone who straight up murders someone with a single gunshot is a sick prick, he's not as bad as someone who hacks up a person imo. Just because someone doesn't consider one offence worse than the other, doesn't mean that there isn't a distinct difference in the eyes of the law. There is. In this case, all the -files are sick, twisted individuals, but I'd consider one worse than the other. Just my opinion.

And I don't think anyone is defending a sickos rights, i'm certainly not, I'm defending due course, legality and the presumption of innocence. I don't care is Louise does everything with a fine tooth comb, she's not qualified to, she hasn't done the proper courses. How long before they get it wrong, or there isn't enough evidence to prosecute, and they take a civil case against Louise and co. They will win, regardless of the texts, because Louise and co are breaching the sickos civil rights of presumption of innocent until proven guilty. That will damage any potential court case or civil proceedings.

And do you ever wonder why there are not many prosecutions for these offences? Because the law is quite specific about it. Yes, it needs to be updated, but vigilantism or this entrapment is not the stop gap needed. And again, to clarify, these sick pricks need to be locked up, but it needs to be done properly. Like many, many others on here, if they did all this but didn't live stream it, there wouldn't be an issue, but the live streaming is what removes all respect I might have had for them.

Credit Checker Moose

weldoninhio wrote: »

Entrap them how? They aren’t breaking any laws.

Really?

Lets see what laws they are breaking.

1. Harassment.
2. various breaches of the private security services act.
3. False imprisonment.

I am sure I could find plenty more if I could be bothered.

weldoninhio

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I like how a discussion can only go a certain way. While you may find it strange that different people have sexual interests in different age groups below the legal age, the law doesn't think so. In fact, paedophilia is a term for people who are sexually attracted to children who are pre-pubescent. Hebephilia is the sexual attraction to kids usually between 11-14, and ephebophilia is the sexual attraction towards teens between 15-19. While sex with anyone underage is just wrong, and those who do it should be hung imo, there is a distinct difference between the 3, and imo the paedo is the worst, the hebe the second worst and the ephebo is 3rd.

Just like someone who straight up murders someone with a single gunshot is a sick prick, he's not as bad as someone who hacks up a person imo. Just because someone doesn't consider one offence worse than the other, doesn't mean that there isn't a distinct difference in the eyes of the law. There is. In this case, all the -files are sick, twisted individuals, but I'd consider one worse than the other. Just my opinion.

And I don't think anyone is defending a sickos rights, i'm certainly not, I'm defending due course, legality and the presumption of innocence. I don't care is Louise does everything with a fine tooth comb, she's not qualified to, she hasn't done the proper courses. How long before they get it wrong, or there isn't enough evidence to prosecute, and they take a civil case against Louise and co. They will win, regardless of the texts, because Louise and co are breaching the sickos civil rights of presumption of innocent until proven guilty. That will damage any potential court case or civil proceedings.

And do you ever wonder why there are not many prosecutions for these offences? Because the law is quite specific about it. Yes, it needs to be updated, but vigilantism or this entrapment is not the stop gap needed. And again, to clarify, these sick pricks need to be locked up, but it needs to be done properly. Like many, many others on here, if they did all this but didn't live stream it, there wouldn't be an issue, but the live streaming is what removes all respect I might have had for them.

And if they don’t live stream it, they leave themselves open to claims of assault etc. The public also wouldn’t know who the dirty nonce was either.

weldoninhio

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Really?

Lets see what laws they are breaking.

1. Harassment.
2. various breaches of the private security services act.
3. False imprisonment.

I am sure I could find plenty more if I could be bothered.

They aren’t a private security firm. They are normal people who volunteer their time. They don’t imprison anyone, falsely or otherwise. And as for harassment, that’s laughable.

I wonder if the people defending the nonces are doing so due to a sense of worry. Maybe they think they’ll be next on FB live??

Discodog

I wonder what would happen if someone voiced an objection, in person, to the group ? I suspect they would be assumed to be a "paedo nonce".

Btw a Nonce is a sex offender. Until convicted non of these men are nonces.

Discodog

weldoninhio wrote: »

They aren’t a private security firm. They are normal people who volunteer their time. They don’t imprison anyone, falsely or otherwise. And as for harassment, that’s laughable.

I wonder if the people defending the nonces are doing so due to a sense of worry. Maybe they think they’ll be next on FB live??

So the "victim" is allowed to leave unhindered ?

Harassment: aggressive pressure or intimidation

So if you don't agree the mob will assume you are a sex offender :rolleyes:

That line between which is worst, the Peados or the Hunters, is getting thinner with every post

Gimme A Pound

Discodog wrote: »

That line between which is worst, the Peados or the Hunters, is getting thinner with every post

I don't agree with their methods but they are not worse than people who sexually abuse children. Please stop suggesting that. It's insulting to abuse survivors.

timthumbni

So someone confronts a paedophile. That’s harassment.

Yes, why not let him on his merry way. Sure it’s only a child. This thread is turning into a sick joke.

Discodog

Egypt Scarce Cross wrote: »

I don't agree with their methods but they are not worse than people who sexually abuse children. Please stop suggesting that. It's insulting to abuse survivors.

But when these vigilantes act no one has abused a child. The only person being abused is the accused.

timthumbni

Discodog wrote: »

But when these vigilantes act no one has abused a child. The only person being abused is the accused.

I really hope that you taking the piss here.

Discodog

timthumbni wrote: »

So someone confronts a paedophile. That’s harassment.

Yes, why not let him on his merry way. Sure it’s only a child. This thread is turning into a sick joke.

No. If you have evidence then give it to the appropriate authority.

Discodog

timthumbni wrote: »

I really hope that you taking the piss here.

How many people, caught in these stings, have actually abused a child ?

timthumbni

Discodog wrote: »

How many people, caught in these stings, have actually abused a child ?

So they were only arranging to meet a child for the purposes of research were they? They just sent the sexual messages for the craic?

People like you sicken me. Thank feck most people aren’t excusers like yourself.

Gimme A Pound

Discodog wrote: »

But when these vigilantes act no one has abused a child. The only person being abused is the accused.

Yeah but I think a distinction must be made between actual abusers, those who have the thoughts but don't action them (and no matter what anyone says, this is not a crime) and those who are grooming children on line, which is the midway point between the two above - yeah they haven't touched a child (that we know of) but look at their intentions.

Discodog

timthumbni wrote: »

So they were only arranging to meet a child for the purposes of research were they? They just sent the sexual messages for the craic?

People like you sicken me. Thank feck most people aren’t excusers like yourself.

Are you going to accuse me of being a Paedo ? That's how it works isn't ? If the Guards don't act then they must be Paedos ? A lawyer acting for them must be too ?

I am talking about the law not your fantasies. If you don't like the law then lobby to change it. Meanwhile it's the so called Hunters that are breaking the law & being asked to stop by the authorities.

Discodog

Egypt Scarce Cross wrote: »

Yeah but I think a distinction must be made between actual abusers, those who have the thoughts but don't action them (and no matter what anyone says, this is not a crime) and those who are grooming children on line, which is the midway point between the two above - yeah they haven't touched a child (that we know of) but look at their intentions.

I agree but the facts are that hundreds of thousands of people view illegal child images. The NSPCC calculate that, based on current figures, around half a million people, in the UK, have viewed child pornography. It's the manufacture, access & the fact that 10 year olds have smartphones that needs addressing rather that a few vigilantes wasting police time.

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nspcc-sheer-number-people-viewing-online-child-porn-should-be-tackled-social-emergency-1590363

timthumbni

Discodog wrote: »

Are you going to accuse me of being a Paedo ? That's how it works isn't ? If the Guards don't act then they must be Paedos ? A lawyer acting for them must be too ?

I am talking about the law not your fantasies. If you don't like the law then lobby to change it. Meanwhile it's the so called Hunters that are breaking the law & being asked to stop by the authorities.

Why would I accuse you of that? Stop talking nonsense.

I can assure you that if a child close to you was approached by one of these types you would soon stop “seeing it from their perspective”

Discodog

timthumbni wrote: »

Why would I accuse you of that? Stop talking nonsense.

I can assure you that if a child close to you was approached by one of these types you would soon stop “seeing it from their perspective”

Because that's what mobs do. They make huge & often wrong assumptions & then break the law under the pretense of doing good.

I don't see things through the perspective of anyone. I see a Police force asking people to stop as it may hinder catching real offenders. Then I see a group who want to defy this because they think they are above the law.

I could suggest that I would ensure that my child doesn't have unsupervised access to these "types".

Auguste Comte

timthumbni wrote: »

So they were only arranging to meet a child for the purposes of research were they? They just sent the sexual messages for the craic?

People like you sicken me. Thank feck most people aren’t excusers like yourself.

There is only the word of self intrested face book heros to say that anyone was trying to arrange anything. If these publicity seekers have gathered any hard evidence of criminal behaviour then they should present to the Gardaí or PSNI to follow up on and do it in a way that doesn't facilitate the destruction of evidence by those that might be guilty.

I suppose you were a big fan of the RA handing out hidings to the local "hoods" who might have had the neck to look at someone the wrong way.

Discodog

Auguste Comte wrote: »

There is only the word of self intrested face book heros to say that anyone was trying to arrange anything. If these publicity seekers have gathered any hard evidence of criminal behaviour then they should present to the Gardar PSNI to follow up on and do it in a way that doesn't facilitate the destruction of evidence by those that might be guilty.

I suppose you were a big fan of the RA handing out hidings to the local "hoods" who might have had the neck to look at someone the wrong way.

Don't mention the RA & child abuse :pac::eek: