Gardai cricitise paedophile hunters

freshpopcorn

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Shes working in more than one case at a time. Do you not know that holy Ireland is full of paedophiles now. From all over the world now. ....as they get off constantly with suspended sentence or the friendly warning. Look up Michael shine...or bill kennelly says it all.

What's you point here?
I know all about cases of sexaul abuse in Ireland.
I can't help but question her attention to detail if she can't even figure out where somebody else lives.
What happens when she makes other mistakes because of all the other cases she's on?
What happens if they muck up a Gardai investigation. She could ruin the chances of jailing somebody for years.
What happens if she accuses the wrong person on Facebook live?

freshpopcorn

donkeykong5 wrote: »

That was one of many many stings. Maybe watch them live and not with a TV crew making her nervous.

She doesn't go live until she's at somebodies door tough.
Is she normally live when she's out in her car looking for directions? I doubt it.

donkeykong5

freshpopcorn wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Shes working in more than one case at a time. Do you not know that holy Ireland is full of paedophiles now. From all over the world now. ....as they get off constantly with suspended sentence or the friendly warning. Look up Michael shine...or bill kennelly says it all.

What's you point here?
I know all about cases of sexaul abuse in Ireland.
I can't help but question her attention to detail if she can't even figure out where somebody else lives.
What happens when she makes other mistakes because of all the other cases she's on?
What happens if they muck up a Gardai investigation. She could ruin the chances of jailing somebody for years.
What happens if she accuses the wrong person on Facebook live?

Hasn't happened. It's not just louise. There are decoys and security involved as well. She as I already stated DOES NOT make mistakes. Checks and double checks are done. She doesn't accuse anyone on face book. Her live stings show it all. Maybe watch them. From your posts in the past I realise you tske very negative posts towards certain people for no apparent reason. But you cannot rationally do that to louise and CPA.

Dante7

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the hunters. I reported a case to the Gardai a month ago and they have done nothing. My pre-teen daughter received very seriously explicit and grooming messages on Snapchat. I sent a link and got the IP and printed off all evidence and went to the local Garda station. They took my daughters phone and SIM. Heard nothing since. Great lesson.

Dante7

Oh, and the same fella is still sending messages to eleven year old girls a month after I reported him.

timthumbni

It says a lot that many on here take delight in belittling the social status and methods of those who try to catch nonces rather than the very serious crimes of the nonces themselves.

No surprise nowadays but as a parent I know i support the catchers.i really don’t give a feck about the civil rights of nonces tbh.

donkeykong5

Dante7 wrote: »

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the hunters. I reported a case to the Gardai a month ago and they have done nothing. My pre-teen daughter received very seriously explicit and grooming messages on Snapchat. I sent a link and got the IP and printed off all evidence and went to the local Garda station. They took my daughters phone and SIM. Heard nothing since. Great lesson.

Exact same happened to me. They couldn't care less. Actually bought laptop back to me about 3 months later and said they couldn't do anything. That's when you need to contact CPA.

freshpopcorn

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Hasn't happened. It's not just louise. There are decoys and security involved as well. She as I already stated DOES NOT make mistakes. Checks and double checks are done. She doesn't accuse anyone on face book. Her live stings show it all. Maybe watch them. From your posts in the past I realise you tske very negative posts towards certain people for no apparent reason. But you cannot rationally do that to louise and CPA.

My issue with Louise is she isn't trained professionally. That's a valid reason.
She couldn't even find a house and had to ask people where it was. That's a valid reason.
Anybody who check and double checks would know where somebody lives.
Just because she/They haven't made a mistake yet doesn't mean she won't in the future. Who be liable then. A person life could nearly be ruined because of un qualified persons actions.
I have seen there videos and I can see how something may go wrong in the future.

donkeykong5

Dante7 wrote: »

Oh, and the same fella is still sending messages to eleven year old girls a month after I reported him.

You need to contact CPA. For some reason the police couldn't care less.

timthumbni

Dante7 wrote: »

Oh, and the same fella is still sending messages to eleven year old girls a month after I reported him.

This is a very sad statement. In NI we wld probably have taken matters into our own hands at that stage. Nothing to do with paramilitaries or religion but simply not allowing this nonsense to be allowed.

donkeykong5

Dante7 wrote: »

Oh, and the same fella is still sending messages to eleven year old girls a month after I reported him.

11 years old. Omg.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Hasn't happened. It's not just louise. There are decoys and security involved as well. She as I already stated DOES NOT make mistakes. Checks and double checks are done. She doesn't accuse anyone on face book. Her live stings show it all. Maybe watch them. From your posts in the past I realise you tske very negative posts towards certain people for no apparent reason. But you cannot rationally do that to louise and CPA.

My issue with Louise is she isn't trained professionally. That's a valid reason.
She couldn't even find a house and had to ask people where it was. That's a valid reason.
Anybody who check and double checks would know where somebody lives.
Just because she/They haven't made a mistake yet doesn't mean she won't in the future. Who be liable then. A person life could nearly be ruined because of un qualified persons actions.
I have seen there videos and I can see how something may go wrong in the future.

Well I've seen everyone of their live stings and since gardai have in my opinion no time to take reports of filthy paedophile bastard scum seriously. I'm BLOODY DELIGHTED that louise and her team are there. Hope more teams set up as Ireland is now known as a place where the paedophiles are kept off daily in court with either a suspended sentence or a friendly warning.

s7ryf3925pivug

How do you look up the sex offenders register? Is there even such a thing in Ireland? I know one guy in the village here is a convicted abuser. This does not seem to be known to the community in general. I personally only know because I know people that know him. I find that alarming.

donkeykong5

Mark Huge Treatment wrote: »

How do you look up the sex offenders register? Is there even such a thing in Ireland? I know one guy in the village here is a convicted abuser. This does not seem to be known to the community in general. I personally only know because I know people that know him. I find that alarming.

In UK there is a file. But for some reason in Ireland it's a BIG SECRET. Ciaron craven is on the UK data base. But now hes back in Ireland hes untraceable in Ireland ????? Says it all really!

freshpopcorn

Mark Huge Treatment wrote: »

How do you look up the sex offenders register? Is there even such a thing in Ireland? I know one guy in the village here is a convicted abuser. This does not seem to be known to the community in general. I personally only know because I know people that know him. I find that alarming.

I don't think we have an official one. It's all linked in with the Garda pulse system and every division has a Gaurd in charge of people on the register to monitor them and the risk they are. Certain offences are recorded and others aren't on it. They are certain cases when you won't be put on it.(I think it's when your aged between 15/16/17 for certain offences.
We touched on it briefly when I did a semester in law but it's a few years ago now.

joeguevara

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.

freshpopcorn

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.

I'm in totally agreement with everything you've said here. My main issue with that they are doing is all this Facebook live thing.

Kermit.de.frog

Wasn't there a case recently in the UK of a father, wrongly targeted by these people, who took his own life a few days later because it was streamed live and his life was ruined anyway.

Don't even know if the imbeciles were arrested over it or if they could be.

Leave police work to professionals.

joeguevara

There was the case of a paediatrician who had to leave his home for fear of his life because mongos thought it meant paedophile.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

If you ever have a reason for not trusting these vigilantes it’s right there,

timthumbni

joeguevara wrote: »

There was the case of a paediatrician who had to leave his home for fear of his life because mongos thought it meant paedophile.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society

If you ever have a reason for not trusting these vigilantes it’s right there,

That story has been quoted numerous times. Of course there are idiots. However certainly in our case in N Ireland they exposed many nonces that otherwise wouldn’t have been known. For that I am very grateful.

I have already said I don’t give a monkeys about nonces legal rights .

joeguevara

timthumbni wrote: »

That story has been quoted numerous times. Of course there are idiots. However certainly in our case in N Ireland they exposed many nonces that otherwise wouldn’t have been known. For that I am very grateful.

I have already said I don’t give a monkeys about nonces legal rights .

Firstly I agree. Secondly our legal system is based on presumption of innocence and better 999 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person found guilty. The modus operandi of vigilantes specifically the ones we are talking about is to make a scene. Now, if the reason behind it is to make sure a paedophile is tried in a court of law and put in prison then I wholeheartedly support them. But if that could mean that an innocent person is wrongly accused or indeed a guilty person can walk free because due process wasn’t followed solely because they wanted public exposure then I cannot support that. What if someone was using a Facebook of their mate to talk to the decoys. Then an innocent person on Facebook live could have their life ruined through no fault of their own. Why not do everything they do but not put it live. Give evidence and follow due process. Trial by public makes us no better than public stonings in the Middle East.

You use the word nonce which is emotive. But however abhorrent they are, we must follow the same due process even if every core of our being wants us to rip them to shreds. If we don’t follow that for everyone then why not dismantle our criminal system and just go straight to public hangings.

And if we don’t follow due process it is highly likely that the ‘nonces’ never get brought to justice and get away with the disgusting acts that they perpetrated.

freshpopcorn

timthumbni wrote: »

That story has been quoted numerous times. Of course there are idiots. However certainly in our case in N Ireland they exposed many nonces that otherwise wouldn’t have been known. For that I am very grateful.

I have already said I don’t give a monkeys about nonces legal rights .

Anybody I know myself included doesn't have much time for abusers.
However I just feel this path may end in disaster for people.
If somebody is accused of a crime and police/Gardai arrest them and question them and if there's enough evidence they can charge them.
If the Gardai landed at somebodies door and just steamed a video live accusing you of a crime. I'd have a major issue with this.

timthumbni

joeguevara wrote: »

Firstly I agree. Secondly our legal system is based on presumption of innocence and better 999 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person found guilty. The modus operandi of vigilantes specifically the ones we are talking about is to make a scene. Now, if the reason behind it is to make sure a paedophile is tried in a court of law and put in prison then I wholeheartedly support them. But if that could mean that an innocent person is wrongly accused or indeed a guilty person can walk free because due process wasn’t followed solely because they wanted public exposure then I cannot support that. What if someone was using a Facebook of their mate to talk to the decoys. Then an innocent person on Facebook live could have their life ruined through no fault of their own. Why not do everything they do but not put it live. Give evidence and follow due process. Trial by public makes us no better than public stonings in the Middle East.

You use the word nonce which is emotive. But however abhorrent they are, we must follow the same due process even if every core of our being wants us to rip them to shreds. If we don’t follow that for everyone then why not dismantle our criminal system and just go straight to public hangings.

And if we don’t follow due process it is highly likely that the ‘nonces’ never get brought to justice and get away with the disgusting acts that they perpetrated.

I don’t agree re 999 guilty go free btw. I really fail to see how anyone innocent wld be meeting their victim by mistake after someone stole their phone. And then used it to set up an underage liaison and then handed back the phone and then the innocent victim turned up at a set point for whatever reason.

If a duck walks like a duck and quacks then it’s a duck.

timthumbni

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Anybody I know myself included doesn't have much time for abusers.
However I just feel this path may end in disaster for people.
If somebody is accused of a crime and police/Gardai arrest them and question them and if there's enough evidence they can charge them.
If the Gardai landed at somebodies door and just steamed a video live accusing you of a crime. I'd have a major issue with this.

The issue is that the gardai would never end up at these nonces doors. The law is an ass and it doesn’t protect anyone aside from the guilty anymore.

joeguevara

timthumbni wrote: »

The issue is that the gardai would never end up at these nonces doors. The law is an ass and it doesn’t protect anyone aside from the guilty anymore.

So it’s retribution is what your after and publicly going to people’s doors? Does that help in a legal case? You mention the law protecting guilty people which would suggest that there has never been a conviction for paedophila which is obviously not true?

I think there is a place for these hunters if they provide all evidence to build a case. But going to someone’s doors and doing it live is dangerous if it’s wrong and equally dangerous if it can a damage a case. The only thing I would suggest is not make it live. If their end game is justice and not publicity that shouldn’t be a difficulty.

freshpopcorn

timthumbni wrote: »

I don’t agree re 999 guilty go free btw. I really fail to see how anyone innocent wld be meeting their victim by mistake after someone stole their phone. And then used it to set up an underage liaison and then handed back the phone and then the innocent victim turned up at a set point for whatever reason.

If a duck walks like a duck and quacks then it’s a duck.

If somebody knew your address and had access to photos of you.
They could join you up to one of these app's on a different phone.
Send photos of you to them and ask loads of questions to suss out of they thought they were speaking to the organisation.(From what I've seen they keep on saying I'm only thirteen/etc) So you'd have a chance of spotting them.
They then could then give out your address.
A woman would turn up on your doorstep with screen shots and photos of you and accuse you you of arranging to meet a teenage girl. You'd deny it but it would all be streamed live online and as another poster has said they are never wrong.

Jmsg

These groups are almost never "hunting" prospective pedophiles but rather potential statutory rapists. One are directed towards pre-pubescents and the other post-pubescents which is a vast, vast distinction and one criminally detrimentally disregarded in these instances and in general by the media circus. Exactly the same folly exercised throughout the entirety of the church abuse scandals.

joeguevara

timthumbni wrote: »

I don’t agree re 999 guilty go free btw. I really fail to see how anyone innocent wld be meeting their victim by mistake after someone stole their phone. And then used it to set up an underage liaison and then handed back the phone and then the innocent victim turned up at a set point for whatever reason.

If a duck walks like a duck and quacks then it’s a duck.

If the whole structure of our legal system of innocent until proven guilty is inherently flawed to you then I cannot debate this. If your duck argument is what you rely on then criminal trials in front of a jury of your peers is meaningless.

Your belief that untrained vigilantes have the right to be judge jury and executioner based on unverified text messages means that a persons life should be ruined without any righ to defense. I hope the society that you purport to want serves you well bud! Hope your subscription to the daily mail is worth it.

joeguevara

Jmsg wrote: »

These groups are almost never "hunting" prospective pedophiles but rather potential statutory rapists. One are directed towards pre-pubescents and the other post-pubescents which is a vast, vast distinction and one criminally detrimentally disregarded in these instances and in general by the media circus. Exactly the same folly exercised throughout the entirety of the church abuse scandals.

Hold on a second here. I don’t agree in vigilantism but I cannot get on board with your assertion that there is such a difference between paedophilia and statutory rape (is there such an offense in Ireland?. Most of the decoys purport to. E 13-14 rather than nearly 17.

I wouldn’t think there is any difference between the above and someone younger. It is (if guilty) the same and deserves the full rigour of the law. But that is in no way what my argument was.

Jmsg

joeguevara wrote: »

Hold on a second here. I don’t agree in vigilantism but I cannot get on board with your assertion that there is such a difference between paedophilia and statutory rape (is there such an offense in Ireland?. Most of the decoys purport to. E 13-14 rather than nearly 17.

I wouldn’t think there is any difference between the above and someone younger. It is (if guilty) the same and deserves the full rigour of the law. But that is in no way what my argument was.

There is a categorical distinction between the two. A 13-14 year old is fully sexually mature. This is the whole dilemma of teendom, being mature sexually but not mentally which makes them too young for sexual activity and anyone older who initiates it on them should be punished by the law. However, molestation of one yet to reach puberty is a many, many magnitudes more heinous crime as the psycho-sexual development of said individual dictates that the psychological affects are potentially far, far greater.

It is an outright disgrace to conflate statutory rape with pedophilia as is done across the board in the media and culture today. Does a total injustice to the real victims of, and prevents understanding of the real monstrosity that is actual pedophilia.

joeguevara

Jmsg wrote: »

There is a categorical distinction between the two. A 13-14 year old is fully sexually mature. This is the whole dilemma of teendom, being mature sexually but not mentally and of course it is too young for sexual activity and anyone older who initiates it on them should be punished by the law. However, molestation of one yet to reach puberty is a many, many magnitudes more heinous crime as the psycho-sexual development of said individual dictates that the psychological affects are potentially far, far greater.

It is an outright disgrace to lump in pedophilia with statutory rape as is done across the board in the media and culture today. Does a total injustice to the real victims of, and prevents understanding of the real monstrosity that is actual pedophilia.

See I know where you are coming from but I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that a 13-14 year old is fully sexually mature. And if that is your belief then I’m not going to debate further. If you think that a 13 year old is mature physically to engage in any sort of sexual conduct with a grown man then WTF!