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 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:)

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: »

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

LOL

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.

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

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.