nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dr Brown

Has anyone heard of this guy before?

<SNIP> link removed

Admin note - as this story is breaking late at night, please do not name the individual or link to the video. We will revisit this decision early tomorrow. Discussion in the story is of course permitted as long as there are no comments as to identity.

UPDATE 20-Nov, 11:40 am - The person in question has been charged in the UK & publicly named.

dudara

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PARlance

deco nate wrote: »

See, that's the problem. They gave the evidence After they live streams across Facebook. They had the info before the stream. If they had given the info to the police before hand, the police would have been there waiting to arrest him.
But they didn't, they waited till they streamed it before they called the cops. Because they are heros in there small minds.
I'm sure one of these groups streamed an Innocenced guy before. And he killed himself.

Just give the evidence to the police and stop the b*******

Completely agree with that, there's no need to live stream it.

I stated I was in favour of such groups earlier and I still am to the extent that they are more proactive than the Police. But they do seem to be in it for the attention and livefeeds are dangerous. The mob mentality they attract are dangerous. If these groups were in it solely for catching people, they would be keeping absolutely everything under wraps and not alerting the people they're trying to catch.

The only defence I can think of re the publicity is that they're doing it so the Police have no option not to act or work with them.

Outlaw Pete

JenovaProject wrote: »

Thats odd.
Highlights were paedo getting caught red handed.

You're thinking of 'Synopsis'.

'Highlights' means the best bits.

JenovaProject

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but this specific guy seems somewhat or even very unusual compared to the usual men caught by the vigilantes ie. being a TV producer and travelling to another country to meet the "girl". From what I've seen of previous cases, they've often caught middle aged loners living in bedsits and the likes. Even if they catch one genuine predator, it's debatable if a lot of men they are catching are serial predators or abusing a number of victims. If they entrap a 50 year old loner who has never done anything before, it's a complete waste of time and resources IMO, it's unlikely such a person poses a threat to society.

No just to young girls....ffs.

There is no usual suspect in these cases.
Any fcuker from any backround can decide to groom young underage girls for sex.
Fcuk him and the horse he rode in on.

Cant belive some of the crap posted tonight,these "vigilantes" are saving young girls lives from being ruined and theyre doing it all within the law.

JenovaProject

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're thinking of 'Synopsis'.

'Highlights' means the best bits.

No Im not.

I said what the best bit was and I called it the highlight.

Strazdas

Omackeral wrote: »

I've no love for innocent people being hit by vigilantes but this chap was far from innocent. They had the transcripts from his conversations to hand. Yes they could have just handed it to the police but this video shows him admitting things on film and catching himself out. That could prove useful.

Also, I think their work here was fairly thorough, they knew his flight times and which hotel he was going to. They did their research. In other words I think they're more than just a group of scumbags out for a fight. They're gruff and rough sounding but fcuk it, they got a result and got the police to arrest a would-be predator. I wouldn't be having a go at them.

How come these would be predators never seem to have a string of convictions or their arrest doesn't lead to a load of other victims? You would imagine the cops could go through their mobile phone records and social media accounts and charge them with a load of offences relating to other victims. And yet the only thing they ever seem to have done is talked to the vigilantes online. This is what worries me, that the vigilantes are merely 'creating' criminals where none exist.

[Deleted User]

The publicity or attention from the videoing of this really highlights it though. We wouldn't be discussing this case now if it wasn't for this group exposing the guy so publically. If this makes even one parent in Leeds or Dublin think harder about their child's online activity, it's a good thing. For example, Panda Poo posted that some children's games have an online function on them, I'd wager many people here didn't know that. All this stems from the publicity of that video, whether intentional or not.

JenovaProject

So the best bit is how he was questioned...ok...whatever floats your boat.

The best bit is seeing a paedo getting caught red handed.

Edit:Outlaw deleted his post I replied to.

Strazdas

JenovaProject wrote: »

No just to young girls....ffs.

There is no usual suspect in these cases.
Any fcuker from any backround can decide to groom young underage girls for sex.
Fcuk him and the horse he rode in on.

Cant belive some of the crap posted tonight,these "vigilantes" are saving young girls lives from being ruined and theyre doing it all within the law.

If some middle aged saddo in his 40s or 50s in a bedsit fantasies about this type of stuff, he doesn't pose a threat to society, only if he acts on these fantasies. It's debatable whether a lot of these guys would ever try and meet anyone if they hadn't come into online contact with the vigilantes (no inverted commas).

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

How come these would be predators never seem to have a string of convictions or their arrest doesn't lead to a load of other victims? You would imagine the cops could go through their mobile phone records and social media accounts and charge them with a load of offences relating to other victims. And yet the only thing they ever seem to have done is talked to the vigilantes online. This is what worries me, that the vigilantes are merely 'creating' criminals where none exist.

As I already said, this creep had a Facebook page devoted to young girls under a false name. If he's sending sick pics to a decoy (who he thinks is a real child) then chances are he'll do it to one of these actual girls given half the chance.

JenovaProject

Strazdas wrote: »

If some middle aged saddo in his 40s or 50s in a bedsit fantasies about this type of stuff, he doesn't pose a threat to society, only if he acts on these fantasies. It's debatable whether a lot of these guys would ever try and meet anyone if they hadn't come into online contact with the vigilantes (no inverted commas).

This lad was acting out his fantasy though.

The no inverted commas vigilantes gave him the bait and the filthy cnut took it.

Happy days, another potential child rapist off the streets,and best of all its done with tons of evidence for a conviction and no vigilantism.

Strazdas

Omackeral wrote: »

As I already said, this creep had a Facebook page devoted to young girls under a false name. If he's sending sick pics to a decoy (who he thinks is a real child) then chances are he'll do it to one of these actual girls given half the chance.

If he has done it before and there actual real victims as opposed to a fake one, that surely would come to light given that the cops could trace his social media activity since the moment the account was opened.

JenovaProject

Strazdas wrote: »

If he has done it before and there actual real victims as opposed to a fake one, that surely would come to light given that the cops could trace his social media activity since the moment the account was opened.

FFS...it doesnt matter if he did it before he was going to do it this time!!!!

gozunda

PARlance wrote: »

...

The only defence I can think of re the publicity is that they're doing it so the Police have no option not to act or work with them.

That's is certainly one possibility. However in the video the spokesperson clearly states they are videoing what is happening to protect them both. But also in the face of the evidence they have gathered and the guy admitting who he was - the group clearly states their wish to broadcast to as many people as possible - who the guy was and what he had been doing and also what he planned to do with what he the '13 yr old girl'

I find the groups methods were quite meticulous in that they carried on with the meeting right up to the point of the time and place he had arranged with the girl in order to be able to hand that information over to the police.

I believe that had the suspect seen the police around he would have legged it.

The group also used one designated spokesperson to talk to the guy and didn't imo engage in a mob mentality. The spokesperson was quite restrained considering the issues at hand.

I believe once they had the suspect in hand- they then rang the police to report the matter and not before. The police would have been unlikely to have arrived there that quickly- hence the time spent talking to the guy and publically live streaming the encounter in that it could not be thrown at them that they used threats or violence in this instance.

Whatever we think of the methods employed. They appeared to have achieved the end result of the arrrest and charging of the suspect by the police.

JenovaProject

gozunda wrote: »

That's is certainly one possibility. However in the video the spokesperson clearly states they are videoing what is happening to protect them both. But also in the face of the evidence they have gathered and the guy admitting who he was - the group clearly states their wish to broadcast to as many people as possible - who the guy was and what he had been doing and also what he planned to do with what he the '13 yr old girl'

I find the groups methods were quite meticulous in that they carried on with the meeting right up to the point of the time and place he had arranged with the girl in order to be able to hand that information over to the police.

I believe that had the suspect seen the police around he would have legged it.

The group also used one designated spokesperson to talk to the guy and didn't imo engage in a mob mentality. The spokesperson was quite restrained considering the issues at hand.

I believe once they had the suspect in hand- they then rang the police to report the matter and not before. The police would have been unlikely to have arrived there that quickly- hence the time spent talking to the guy and publically live streaming the encounter in that it could not be thrown at them that they used threats or violence in this instance.

Whatever we think of the methods employed. They appeared to have achieved the end result of the arrrest and charging of the suspect by the police.

Well said.

In Bold.....Ill put my discrimination hat on now and say the spokesperson looked like a fella you wouldnt want to cross and imo his restraint was nothing short of amazing.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

If he has done it before and there actual real victims as opposed to a fake one, that surely would come to light given that the cops could trace his social media activity since the moment the account was opened.

He was on his way to spend the night in a hotel with a 13 year old child as far as he knew. He flew in from a foreign country for this. Chap is a dangerous scumbag. End of story.

Strazdas

JenovaProject wrote: »

FFS...it doesnt matter if he did it before he was going to do it this time!!!!

It certainly does matter. Wouldn't the police be far more interested in charging him with genuine sexual abuse of real people than with having a conversation with a bunch of middle aged men online?

Outlaw Pete

JenovaProject wrote: »

So the best bit is how he was questioned...ok...whatever floats your boat.

No, mentioning how he questioned was the highlights.

The user asked for a summary as he didn't want to watch a 40 min video.

The best bit is seeing a paedo getting caught red handed.

He already knows that the "paedo" got caught ffs. How would repeating that give him a summary of what happens in the video?

Edit:Outlaw deleted his post I replied to.

Yeah, cause I thought it would shut you up. Clearly not.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

It certainly does matter. Wouldn't the police be far more interested in charging him with genuine sexual abuse of real people than with having a conversation with a bunch of middle aged men online?

Would you rather he got to abuse a real child before getting sent down? Or would you rather he was caught before having the chance to destroy a young girl's life.

He had every intention of committing statutory rape. He had a list full of real underage age girls on a fake Facebook account. Add them elements together and tell me it's a bad thing he's caught.

JenovaProject

Strazdas wrote: »

It certainly does matter. Wouldn't the police be far more interested in charging him with genuine sexual abuse of real people than with having a conversation with a bunch of middle aged men online?

oh great fcuking idea...lets let him sexually abuse a child so we have a real conviction for him.
Jesus fcuking wept.
Im speechless!!!!

JenovaProject

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, cause I thought it would shut you up. Clearly not.

Have you a problem with something Ive posted?
Best to report it to mods instead of trying to "shut me up".

Didnt feel brave enough to leave your post,deleted it,why?
Typical keyboard warrior!

gozunda

Strazdas wrote: »

zHow come these would be predators never seem to have a string of convictions or their arrest doesn't lead to a load of other victims? You would imagine the cops could go through their mobile phone records and social media accounts and charge them with a load of offences relating to other victims. And yet the only thing they ever seem to have done is talked to the vigilantes online. This is what worries me, that the vigilantes are merely 'creating' criminals where none exist.

Exactly how familiar are you with the myriad of offenders who have been suspected and / or convicted for paedophilia?

Please link to the stats that show how many do or dont have other convictions for similar crimes.

These cnuts don't materialise out of thin air. They 're ones making contact with both the real and virtual victims.

Remember paedophilia is not only actual abuse - it also involves the indirect abuse of children groomed for pornography and the online .sex industry. This is not a victimless crime either.

If they truly have done nothing wrong - then they can't be convicted of criminal acts.

Strazdas

Omackeral wrote: »

Would you rather he got to abuse a real child before getting sent down? Or would you rather he was caught before having the chance to destroy a young girl's life.

He had every intention of committing statutory rape. He had a list full of real underage age girls on a fake Facebook account. Add them elements together and tell me it's a bad thing he's caught.

I agree that he's a wrong 'un and a creep but would you not be even a little bit concerned about a guy in his mid 50s being entrapped in this manner if there are no other victims uncovered by the cops? Why would there be no other victims traceable if his favoured form of grooming was online? If there are other victims, then by all means throw the book at him.

Strazdas

gozunda wrote: »

Exactly how familiar are you with the myriad of offenders who have been suspected and / or convicted for paedophilia?

Please link to the stats that show how many do or dont have other convictions for similar crimes.

These cnuts don't materialise out of thin air. They 're ones making contact with both the real and virtual victims.

Remember paedophilia is not only actual abuse - it also involves the indirect abuse of children groomed for pornography and the online .sex industry. This is not a victimless crime either.

If they truly have done nothing wrong - then they can't be convicted of criminal acts.

All of this should be left to the police and the police only. I've no sympathy whatsoever for the sexual predators but none either for the vigilantes : their motives are probably not good ones nor well intentioned.

JenovaProject

Strazdas wrote: »

I agree that he's a wrong 'un and a creep but would you not be even a little bit concerned about a guy in his mid 50s being entrapped in this manner if there are no other victims uncovered by the cops? Why would there be no other victims traceable if his favoured form of grooming was online? If there are other victims, then by all means throw the book at him.

No...not at all...if he gets caught by this crowd he is acting on his fantasy,hes no longer **** behind a screen,hes trying to make it reality.
Lured or not,this scumbag is seeking out young girls to fulfill his fantasy and luckily enough the "girls" hes found are this crowd who expose him for what he is without resorting to violence.

Roger_007

What is the significance of the RTE connection in the title of this thread?
Are RTÉ employees to be treated differently from anyone else?
It looks like an attempt to implicate RTE as an organisation in whatever was going on.
Why? It has obviously nothing to do with RTE.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

I agree that he's a wrong 'un and a creep but would you not be even a little bit concerned about a guy in his mid 50s being entrapped in this manner if there are no other victims uncovered by the cops? Why would there be no other victims traceable if his favoured form of grooming was online? If there are other victims, then by all means throw the book at him.

No I am not concerned about him. I used to watch that show To Catch A Predator and they had a similar set up with decoys and sting operations. Basically, the decoys go on a message board posing as a youngster and the pedo messages them first. They initiate the conversation. From there, the decoy keeps the chat going until the dirt bag inevitably turns it sexual.

The first few episodes were done in an exposé type of way and didn't involve the police. After that, the police were on location with the film crew and made arrests there and then. I think the group were called Perverted Justice or something. They did great work.

So to answer your question, I don't feel sorry for this guy or others like him. There's a multitude of people over the age of 18 you can chat to online if you're lonely or whatever. The interest in 12 and 13 year olds is grossly immoral and inappropriate.

Outlaw Pete

Strazdas wrote: »

I agree that he's a wrong 'un and a creep but would you not be even a little bit concerned about a guy in his mid 50s being entrapped in this manner if there are no other victims uncovered by the cops?

It's only entrapment if they approach him initially.

[Deleted User]

Strazdas wrote: »

All of this should be left to the police and the police only. I've no sympathy whatsoever for the sexual predators but none either for the vigilantes : their motives are probably not good ones nor well intentioned.

Interesting that you call them vigilantes and seem to think they've bad intentions. They're concerned parents in a lot of cases. If these guys in the video were vigilantes in the usual parlance, they'd be knocking seven shades of sh*te out of the subject here. Police forces work in conjunction with many groups like these.

PARlance

JenovaProject wrote: »

No...not at all...if he gets caught by this crowd he is acting on his fantasy,hes no longer **** behind a screen,hes trying to make it reality.
Lured or not,this scumbag is seeking out young girls to fulfill his fantasy and luckily enough the "girls" hes found are this crowd who expose him for what he is without resorting to violence.

If a lad walks into a shop with a balaclava and gun and got arrested before he said or did anything, would these people think he should be let off because he hadn't actually committed the robbery.

[Deleted User]

Roger_007 wrote: »

What is the significance of the RTE connection in the title of this thread?
Are RTÉ employees to be treated differently from anyone else?
It looks like an attempt to implicate RTE as an organisation in whatever was going on.
Why? It has obviously nothing to do with RTE.

Em no I wouldn't see it that way at all, you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 5. It's basically a juicy headline to garner attention and make it more scandalous, nothing against the broadcaster itself. Tom Humphries was often described by his job title, doesn't mean the Times condone his noncery. Same with "architect" Graham Dwyer, his firm weren't to blame nor did anyone think that.

Also shows that the man in question would be a fairly normal/well to do guy, but he's apparently a bit of a monster walking among us.