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

PARlance wrote: »

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.

It's a bit different,they have texts and dick pics before he did anything.
Robbery and sexual abuse of a child...strange comparison.

PARlance is agreeing with you there I think! He/she is saying there's intent in both cases so obviously they should be punished.

Strazdas

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

I read in an article somewhere this type of activity is illegal in many countries and would not be permissible in a court of law. Pretty sure Germany was one such country mentioned.

Omackeral wrote: »

PARlance is agreeing with you there I think! He/she is saying there's intent in both cases so obviously they should be punished.

I read it twice the 2nd time I realised they were.

My point still stands for any other clowns though lol.

Strazdas wrote: »

I read in an article somewhere this type of activity is illegal in many countries and would not be permissible in a court of law. Pretty sure Germany was one such country mentioned.

All I saw was a citizens arrest at most. Actually, they didn't even detain him forcefully. So what was illegal about anything they did? People are quick to write these guys off as Neanderthals but I'd wager they know the law enough so as not to break it.

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.

You said

strazdas wrote:

....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 victim

What does this guy's age matter?

Where he contacted someone who he believed to be a minor and attempted to groom them for the purposes of sex (which is in itself a criminal act) - is it of any matter whether we know or otherwise there are or are not other victims?

At this point - we do not know if there are other victins or not. There may very well be. Again we do not know.

If you have stats showing those caught and charged with similar behaviour which have or have not involved other victims - then please link to that information .

Otherwise your statements hold no water.

PARlance

JenovaProject wrote: »

It's a bit different,they have texts and dick pics before he did anything.
Robbery and sexual abuse of a child...strange comparison.

Maybe it was poorly written or maybe you just missed the tone. I was agreeing with you and posing a rhetorical question to the person you were replying to. In short, I agree with you. I disagree with the sentiment that a crime hadn't yet been committed.

The dick pics and the texts are the balaclava and an illegal gun. I was comparing them because they're both crimes.

Edit: ignore, you got there before me.

For all the people giving out about the vigilantes....what was the better outcome?

The lad caught and arrested before he could ruin a child's life or wait till he comes to the attention of the police?

This crowd as rough and ready as they seem have done things within the laws and have stopped a childs life from being ruined.
There is no beating up innocents or anything of the sort,they confronted a guy who tried to lure a 13yo girl to have sex with him and handed him to the police,not harmed,only humiliated on live facebook.

PARlance wrote: »

Maybe it was poorly written or maybe you just missed the tone. I was agreeing with you and posing a rhetorical question to the person you were replying to. In short, I agree with you. I disagree with the sentiment that a crime hadn't yet been committed.

The dick pics and the texts are the balaclava and an illegal gun. I was comparing them because they're both crimes.

Edit: ignore, you got there before me.

My bad:)

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.

A. He is a media figure (admittedly not a very well known one) employed by RTE

B. RTE- being the national broadcaster is usually the carrier of such news as was the case of Tom Humphries (of note -also worked in sport related media)

That was probably enough to include same in title ...

Some fair points there but the group's interaction with him on the street will have little bearing on the case if the evidence stacks up like they say it does. I don't think they placed him under a citizen's arrest, nor did they they explicitly tell him he couldn't go anywhere. They said the police are on the way. That, combined with their numbers plus the camera rolling actually probably kept him there as he knew running would be futile. Is that an ethical approach? Maybe not... but then again ethics are a world away from this deviant I'd imagine.

Get Real wrote:

...And for those who may use "citizens arrest" as a reason, a good barrister can also find fault in that. Was the reason for his phone being seized explained to him? Was he informed that he was under citizens arrest? Was he told he can remain silent? (No, as can be seen by the video)

Not overtly sure about any citizens arrest or otherwise. But detaining to prevent fleeing is a valid reason
See:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4086524/citizens-arrest-rules-laws-making-one-uk/

It was also explained him that they were waiting for the police to resolve the issue.

As to the phone been taken - it was said on the video that they didn't want him to delete incriminating messages - and to help prove it was him - in case he tried to leg it. The spokesperson for the group actually gave the guy back his phone until he apparently started fidling with it. A good barrister would put forward the case that they had reasonable doubt as to the suspect attempting to do so

As was previous stated - the police appeared to be happy enough working with the group - responded to their report and took a statement from the person who posed as the child online whilst charging the suspect.

Charges have already been made and a court appearance arranged. There will always be legal argument- however I would wager that this particular group is fairly savey with regard to the law and its ramifications.

Strazdas

Omackeral wrote: »

All I saw was a citizens arrest at most. Actually, they didn't even detain him forcefully. So what was illegal about anything they did? People are quick to write these guys off as Neanderthals but I'd wager they know the law enough so as not to break it.

By illegal, I mean not permissible in a court of law, not the actual setting up of the person and confrontation of them. It seems the UK is one of the few countries where this is allowed and is accepted as evidence. If you were to try and mount a sting like this in many European countries, the cops wouldn't want to know as they know it would be thrown out of any courtroom.

Strazdas wrote: »

By illegal, I mean not permissible in a court of law, not the actual setting up of the person and confrontation of them. It seems the UK is one of the few countries where this is allowed and is accepted as evidence. If you were to try and mount a sting like this in many European countries, the cops wouldn't want to know as they know it would be thrown out of any courtroom.

But it was done in the UK where such action is permitted.

Of interest which specific European countries are you refering to?

What are the country specific relevant statutes / legislation ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lhRkIXfzxk

Strazdas wrote: »

By illegal, I mean not permissible in a court of law, not the actual setting up of the person and confrontation of them. It seems the UK is one of the few countries where this is allowed and is accepted as evidence. If you were to try and mount a sting like this in many European countries, the cops wouldn't want to know as they know it would be thrown out of any courtroom.

So legal then?

Strazdas

gozunda wrote: »

But it was done in the UK where such action is permitted.

Of interest which specific European countries are you refering to?

What are the country specific relevant statutes / legislation ?

Most of them, if not all, from what I can gather. The only country in Europe where this type of "paedophile sting" appears to be going on is in the UK itself. I would assume from this that the laws of the majority of other countries simply wouldn't allow "evidence" like this be used in a court.

Outlaw Pete

Get Real wrote: »

And for those who may use "citizens arrest" as a reason, a good barrister can also find fault in that.

I doubt it. Read enough DM articles about many of these guys getting jailed and most of the videos show them being restrained.

I remember one guy even tired to top himself by running out in traffic.

Here's one where the guy (around 4mins in) gets held down after trying to make a run for it:

He was sentenced to just over three years in the end.

Strazdas wrote: »

Most of them, if not all, from what I can gather. The only country in Europe where this type of "paedophile sting" appears to be going on is in the UK itself. I would assume from this that the laws of the majority of other countries simply wouldn't allow "evidence" like this be used in a court.

Some actual links would be better. Thanks

So we are not dealing with "other countries" but with the UK where the incident occured and is the relevant jurisdiction.

The issue of "Entrapment" may be irrelevant- as the suspect alledgedly contacted the child in the first instance.

The rest appears to be Whataboutery....

wonderfullife

JenovaProject wrote: »

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

Jesus wept is right.

People (such as yourself) seem to have serious issues comprehending the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor.

A paedophile is someone attracted to prepubescent children. (not a crime)
A child molestor is someone who sexually assaults a child. (crime)

They are completely different things and in most cases one doesn't lead to the other.

There's a lot of peer-reviewed academic studies into these issues but depending on which study you go to, they estimate that between 1% to 20% of adult men are, in some capacity, attracted to children (15 years old and younger). Even if the lowest figure is most accurate that's still millions of men worldwide.

The overwhelming majority of paedophile's don't become sexual offenders. They live their life with nobody knowing their impulses.

http://www.europsy-journal.com/article/S0924-9338%2814%2977731-4/abstract

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/107906320101300103

Those studies are by two of the worlds leading authorities on the subject. Michael C. Seto and the European Psychiatry Association.

There's surprising conclusions in both. Seto's study of 117 convicted child molestors concluded that 27% of them were paedophiles. The EPA study concluded 16.2% of child molestors were paedophiles.

I.e. 73% and 83.8% of men who sexually assaulted children were not paedophiles. They did so for a whole myriad of reasons that were not attraction to children - revenge against a spouse being a surprisingly recurring one.

The point of all the above is pretty simple.

We don't know if this gentleman from RTE would ever have abused a child if we "just waited". The likelihood is that he would never have acted upon his impulses because the vast majority of paedophiles never act upon them and have no intention of ever committing a crime.

Vigilante groups like these are the equivalent to offering a person with addictive tendencies a new substance. Waving cocaine in front of an alcoholic every day and see if in temptation they give in to it. They've never been a coke addict and likely never would be because they adjust their lives to try avoid addiction.

One particular vigilante group have some downright diabolical and despicable tactics. There was one case where they started a chat on an adult dating site with a guy in the UK. The "girl" stated she was 18. "She" chatted with this guy for a few weeks until the meet was arranged. Minutes before the meeting took place, the "girl" texted the guy saying "I'm actually only 15 do you still want to meet?". At that point the guy stood up to leave only to be confronted by the group filming him accusing him of paedophilia.

The police cleared him of all wrongdoing but not before the vigilante group put the video online. He lost his job, his wife attempted suicide, he had to move hundreds of miles and is a broken man when all he was really guilty of was attempting to cheat on his wife with an 18-year-old.

Accessibility is a massive thing here. It's comparable to other areas of life.

All studies - even Government ones - in America have concluded the suicide rate is far, far higher when guns are easily accessible. The conclusion is pretty simple - if you're presented with easy lethal means to act on an impulsive suicidal thought, you're more likely to take it. Inversely where guns are not readily available, suicide rates are far lower and survival rates from suicide attempts are far greater.

That was also the case in the UK. Suicide rates decreased dramatically when carbon monoxide cookers were phased out in the 1960's and 1970's. Removing easily available lethal means of killing yourself meant reducing the risk of impulsive suicide.

Again the point is simple - these vigilante groups are dangling accessibility in front of people susceptible to acting on impulses they simply have. Most addicts use avoidance as a primary means of not acting upon their impulses. The vigilante groups aren't just waiting for predators to come to them, they go on dating sites and social media sites, make themselves visible and fish for paedophiles.

Even one of the most prominent "Paedophile Hunters" in the UK (Stinson Hunter) said the following:

"Guys that I catch generally aren't paedophiles. A massive percent of them are guys that have been lonely and someone has paid them attention and they've jumped on it."

I feel for this guy from RTE and hope he gets a lot of support from mental health professionals and family. He's innocent until proven guilty for a start and given the tactics of these groups I'd be looking to see firm evidence he knew the "girl" was 13 when he arranged the trip.

These vigilante groups have already claimed 4 lives in the UK from those accused killing themselves and they have scuppered genuine police investigations by allowing suspects to destroy evidence.

They are an absolute disgrace.

wonderfullife wrote: »

People (such as yourself) seem to have serious issues comprehending the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor.

Waffle dressed up as defending a filthy paedo.
Or child molester.
Makes no fcuking difference ,except on the internet where you live your life.

Just cos you post up a massive wall of text doesnt mean youre right.

People such as yourself...dont make me laugh you clown,point out anywhere in this thread ive said something wrong.

And not differenciating between paedo and child molester is far from the biggest issue in this thread.

Jesus wept is right....defend the paedo(child molester)as if its any fcuking different.

Go back to yer bed.

wonderfullife wrote: »

The likelihood is that he would never have acted upon his impulses

LOL

wonderfullife wrote: »

These vigilante groups have already claimed 4 lives in the UK from those accused killing themselves and they have scuppered genuine police investigations by allowing suspects to destroy evidence.

They are an absolute disgrace.

How many lives have they saved you sick bastard?
Fcuk the paedos that they expose.

Ya see words get lost in a bullsh1t wall of text like wonderfullife's but read through it and you will see its just simply blaming somebody else other than the paedo whos trying to have sex with a little girl.

wonderfullife wrote: »

Jesus wept is right.

People ... seem to have serious issues comprehending the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor....

Of note:

the term pedophile is sometimes used informally to refer to any person who commits one or more sexually-based crimes that relate to legally underage victims. These crimes may include child sexual abuse, statutory rape, offenses involving child pornography, child grooming, stalking, and indecent exposure. One unit of the United Kingdom's Child Abuse Investigation Command is known as the "Paedophile Unit" and specializes in online investigations and enforcement work.

Source: "Child abuse investigation impact". Metropolitan Police Service (met.police.uk).

The suspect has been arrested, charged and arranged for a court appearance- the police appeared fairly happy working with the group involved - are you going to tell us that the UK police and court system they have got it quite wrong?

The facts are that we don't know anything about what they suspect may or may not have done prior to the present incident. Your thoughts therefore are supposition at best.

We know that this person made contact with the online profile of the "13 year old child" - not the other way around

The suspects profile details many other young children which whom he has made contact

May I ask your I interest in this matter- you appear to have a lot of data on how such suspects are 'unfairly" maligned. What is your interest? Do you work in this area or have a specific interest?

What is more worrying - is that a small subset has been more critical of the group that was involved (termed vigilantes by some) than the actual (informaly) named paedophile.

Quite extraordinary imo.

Im out...the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I'm not gonna quote that absolute essay but here's the same point I'm gonna make again

The point of all the above is pretty simple.

We don't know if this gentleman from RTE would ever have abused a child if we "just waited". The likelihood is that he would never have acted upon his impulses because the vast majority of paedophiles never act upon them and have no intention of ever committing a crime.

He was on his way to a hotel room to sleep with a 13 year old, as far as he knew. Now that's bad enough.

Combine it with the fact he had a fake profile on Facebook (but with his real photo) with 52 friends, all of whom were underage girls.

Is it a stretch to say that he wouldn't meet one of those underage in a hotel room, seeing as we know he's up for that activity? Picture this , one of the girls on his fake profile puts up a status, "ugh I hate everyone". He sees this and messages her saying he hopes all is ok and he'd like to cheer her up. She's upset at some teenage sh*t and agrees to meet him. You gonna tell me he wouldn't?

I see the point of he didn't actually do it but he absolutely 100% would have and was actively trying to. Add that to his ultra inappropriate secret FB account and you'll soon see the problem.

Finally, this justice groups didn't make the first contact afaik, the would-be predator did.

wonderfullife

gozunda wrote: »

The suspect has been arrested, charged and arranged for a court appearance- the police appeared fairly happy working with the group - are you going to tell us that the UK police and court system they have got it quite wrong?

May I ask your I interest in this matter- you appear to have a lot of data on how such suspects are 'unfairly" maligned. What is your interest? Do you work in this area?

I'm sure you're aware being charged with a crime still means you're innocent right? You get that whole concept?

I'm interested in anything related to suicide prevention and after reading up on these vigilante groups I've read they are responsible for 4 reported deaths by suicide and none of the 4 died guilty men (all pre-trial), 1 of them wasn't even charged yet (though the police said they were considering bringing a charge). I'm certain they will be responsible for far more deaths in the future too and from innocent men.

They're not helping anyone. All the literature from experts, from forensic criminologists and sexologists points to the fact the overwhelming majority of paedophiles don't commit any crimes and the majority of child molestors are not paedophiles.

So these vigilante groups are likely not saving anyone elses child from abuse because the likelihood is they'd never have acted upon those impulses.

They're not even helping the police (who have spoken out against them because of the potential to ruin police investigations). Police can have very complex sting operations such as with child pornography rings. The first thing one of these guys entrapped by vigilantes is going to do is go home and destroy evidence - throw his laptop in the nearest river and burn every photo.

I'm not in favour of any vigilante group full stop. Mobs = Bullies.

wonderfullife

Omackeral wrote: »

He was on his way to a hotel room to sleep with a 13 year old, as far as he knew. Now that's bad enough.

Ok here's something easier for you to read seeing as you don't like essays.

"Police say the actions of the vigilantes can be damaging to abuse victims as well as innocent people wrongly suspected."

"Police say some hunters have exposed people whose potential child grooming behaviour was previously unknown, but that in the majority of cases examined the targets do not reflect any sexual interest in children."

"We are spending lots of time and effort with these cases and finding lots of deleted material that we can't access or even a computer-shaped hole in the suspect's bedroom," one police source said."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police