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

Jim Bob Scratcher · 20-11-2017 07:09AM

I wonder what will actually happen to him ? Do ye lads think he will do actual time for this or wha ?

orangerhyme · 20-11-2017 07:14AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

Well researched post.
I heard a detective in the US once say that most rapes of children are by opportunistic rapist sociopaths as opposed actual paedophiles.
Paedophiles have a genuine romantic interest and will try to charm the child. Wrong I know but there's a clear distinction between the two.

I looked at his fake Facebook page and one of the "friends" looks like the jailbait.
I won't say the name in case I'm wrong but her bio says "13 from Bradford".
Leeds is right by Bradford.

I still have no sympathy for him though, sending pics to a 13 year old, and he doesn't seem too lonely from his real Facebook

Dr Brown · 20-11-2017 07:26AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

That statement makes no sense what soever its akin to saying that the majority of alcoholics do not have a drink problem.

By definition if someone sexual abuses a child they are a paedophile.

20-11-2017 07:37AM

Dr Brown wrote: »

That statement makes no sense what soever its akin to saying that the majority of alcoholics do not have a drink problem.

By definition if someone sexual abuses a child they are a paedophile.

A paedophile is someone who is attracted to prepubescent children. Puberty starts at around 10 - 11 for girls and 11 - 12 for boys.

The definition of a child is ambiguous. It differs from culture to culture. Some cultures consider a child to be someone under 18.

eviltwin · 20-11-2017 07:43AM

Dr Brown wrote: »

That statement makes no sense what soever its akin to saying that the majority of alcoholics do not have a drink problem.

By definition if someone sexual abuses a child they are a paedophile.

Not necessarily. Abuse is about power and control more than sex. Obviously in a lot of cases there is a sexual attraction but it's often about choosing a victim who is easily accessible and easy to control. Kinda like rapists who attack the elderly, they probably aren't attracted to 80 yr old women.

wonderfullife · 20-11-2017 07:48AM

orangerhyme wrote: »

Well researched post.
I heard a detective in the US once say that most rapes of children are by opportunistic rapist sociopaths as opposed actual paedophiles.
Paedophiles have a genuine romantic interest and will try to charm the child. Wrong I know but there's a clear distinction between the two.

Thanks.

Yeah it was a prominent FBI guy by the name of Kenneth Lanning who said that. He was the head of the FBI's Behavioural Science Unit and he wrote a book called: "Child Molestation: A Behavioural Analysis."

In his experience many of the perpetrators were not paedophiles, rather they were something he described as "situational offenders". The other type of perpetrator are "preferential offenders" - they are the paedophiles and these type of men seek out jobs that give them access to children (Teaching, coaching a football team). But he argued most of the crimes were not committed by "preferential offenders" but by opportunists whose sexual desires were for adult women.

Put it another way, if a man comes home drunk and pinches the 15-year-old babysitter's bum or tries to grope her, Lanning argues it's more likely a crime of opportunity (a situation) rather than some paedophilic preference.

Omackeral wrote: »

Since we're speaking about this particular case here, this incident here had this group call the police immediately and literally hand over his phone, presumably with plenty of evidence intact. I would say it was well executed and legal.

Since we're speaking about this case here, this guy was up for meeting 13 year old girls in hotel rooms. That's pretty damning, regardless of pedophile/molestor stats. He also had a list of 52 real girls who were potential victims on his secret FB account.

They have charged him with one count of "encouraging a girl between the age of 13 and 16 to engage in sexual activity". If he pleads guilty he's facing 6 months to 4 years in jail, probably dependent on the whim of the Judge. He'll have a lot of time on his hands to consider his actions.

If you say he had a facebook account with 52 other girls that the police know about, that means they have examined this facebook and found no evidence of any additional crimes on it. That's telling within itself because if he was attempting to groom any/all of the other 52, they'd have charged him with multiple counts of various crimes. It's especially telling that they haven't charged him with soliciting child pornographic images i.e. asking the girls on fb for dirty pics.

So, no, the facebook profile (if it exists) is not damning. It looks bad for sure but it's not a crime in itself.

Incidentally I'm not "defending" sexual predators one bit I'd just like people to spot the clear distinction because paedophilia and sexual abuse. The former is not a crime, has no victim and can be treated, while child molestation is a crime with a victim.

I'd much prefer genuine paedophiles who fancy teenage girls/boys or younger go see a counsellor so they learn to live a happy life without ever hurting anyone else. Same applies to women who fancy teenage boys/girls.

orangerhyme · 20-11-2017 07:48AM

eviltwin wrote: »

Not necessarily. Abuse is about power and control more than sex. Obviously in a lot of cases there is a sexual attraction but it's often about choosing a victim who is easily accessible and easy to control. Kinda like rapists who attack the elderly, they probably aren't attracted to 80 yr old women.

I agree. I heard that most child rapes and molestations are by opportunistic sociopaths as opposed to paedophiles

shoegal1 · 20-11-2017 07:53AM

Zillah wrote: »

The legal framework here is curious. He's being charged with encouraging a 13-year-old girl to engage in sex. But there is no actual girl, it was a fake account run as a sting. Like, if I see a silhouette in the dark and I stab it with a knife and it turned out to be a mannequin I can't be charged with attempted murder.

He's a scumbag and can rot in a dungeon for all I care, but it's interesting from a legal standpoint that one can be charged with a child sex offence without there being any actual child involved.

Is'nt there something in the law about grooming underage though? Nothing physical needs to happen for them to be charged. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

orangerhyme · 20-11-2017 08:15AM

shoegal1 wrote: »

Is'nt there something in the law about grooming underage though? Nothing physical needs to happen for them to be charged. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

It's a good point - there's no actual victim. Maybe it's the intent?
He defo needs to be convicted.

Lashes28 · 20-11-2017 08:21AM

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.

Check silent justice page on Facebook..they have done two stings last night in Drogheda. I've never heard of it happening in the republic u til now

Minderbinder · 20-11-2017 08:27AM

gozunda wrote: »

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 assertion are you making here?

Why aren’t you asking why these vigilante groups are so interested in this matter?

Why aren’t these groups going after drug dealers who cause damage to far more lives, including far more adolescent lives? Or why aren’t they going after drunk drivers?

Why are they pretending to be little girls? F**king bizarre behaviour. Can you just imagine pretending to be a little girl trying to attract some guy into committing a crime? That’s very f**ked up.

They’re not as sick as the guys they catch but I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a few skeletons in their own closets.

TallGlass · 20-11-2017 08:52AM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

I wonder what will actually happen to him ? Do ye lads think he will do actual time for this or wha ?

Yeah he will get a sentence for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

In England and Wales, sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 make it an offense to arrange a meeting with a child under 16, for oneself or someone else, with the intent of sexually abusing the child. The meeting itself is also criminalized. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment, and automatic barring of the offender working with children or vulnerable adults.[27]

The Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 introduced a similar provision for Scotland.[28]

Thus, a crime may be committed even without the actual meeting taking place and without the child being involved in the meeting (for example, if a police officer has taken over the contact and pretends to be that child). In R v T (2005) EWCA Crim 2681, the appellant, aged 43, had pretended to befriend a nine-year-old girl, but had done very little with her before she became suspicious and reported his approaches. He had a number of previous convictions (including one for rape) and was described as a "relentless, predatory paedophile". The Court of Appeal upheld a sentence of eight years' imprisonment with an extended license period of two years.

NIMAN · 20-11-2017 08:54AM

Minderbinder wrote: »

What assertion are you making here?

Why aren’t you asking why these vigilante groups are so interested in this matter?

Why aren’t these groups going after drug dealers who cause damage to far more lives, including far more adolescent lives? Or why aren’t they going after drunk drivers?

Why are they pretending to be little girls? F**king bizarre behaviour. Can you just imagine pretending to be a little girl trying to attract some guy into committing a crime? That’s very f**ked up.

They’re not as sick as the guys they catch but I wouldn’t be surprised if they had a few skeletons in their own closets.

Cos there is a stigma attached to paedo's that isn't there with drunk drivers or drug dealers imho.

Its almost like paedo's deserve a completely different level of vitriol. And so the mob see themselves as heroes tracking these criminals down, but likely couldn't be bothered tracking down and entrapping drunk drivers or drug dealers.

Also the fact that maybe a lot of the population partake in the odd bit of drug taking or driving with a few scoops in them, so don't want those areas being looked into.

keith_sixteen · 20-11-2017 08:54AM

Video is uncomfortable viewing. No sympathy for him however...unforgivable stuff and only himself to blame.

Just a note on the main "protagonist" in the vigilante group. He clearly comes across as a desperately bitter little Englander. The sheer pleasure and delight he takes in the situation is disturbing. Not sure how comfortable I am with groups like this. How long until they expose the wrong person? Stings like this should be left to the police.

anewme · 20-11-2017 08:59AM

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Just a note on the main "protagonist" in the vigilante group. He clearly comes across as a desperately bitter little Englander. .

Really thought this as well. scary.

TallGlass · 20-11-2017 09:00AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Cos there is a stigma attached to paedo's that isn't there with drunk drivers or drug dealers imho.

Its almost like paedo's deserve a completely different level of vitriol. And so the mob see themselves as heroes tracking these criminals down, but likely couldn't be bothered tracking down and entrapping drunk drivers or drug dealers.

Also the fact that maybe a lot of the population partake in the odd bit of drug taking or driving with a few scoops in them, so don't want those areas being looked into.

Drug Dealers could turn nasty and backfire, as in you could end up getting killed or the hunter will become the hunted.

But to my knowledge, there still are groups out there dealing with low level dealers.

Not sure about the drink driving. You wouldn't want to chase a drink driver who ends up crashing, you might find yourself in a bit of bother along with the drink driver.

BillyBobBS · 20-11-2017 09:01AM

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Video is uncomfortable viewing. No sympathy for him however...unforgivable stuff and only himself to blame.

Just a note on the main "protagonist" in the vigilante group. He clearly comes across as a desperately bitter little Englander. The sheer pleasure and delight he takes in the situation is disturbing. Not sure how comfortable I am with groups like this. How long until they expose the wrong person? Stings like this should be left to the police.

I'm very comfortable with groups like that and the guy is a hero.

keith_sixteen · 20-11-2017 09:05AM

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I'm very comfortable with groups like that and the guy is a hero.

I'm glad the guy is off the streets and hopefully behind bars. But this so called hero could have compromised the case by his actions. Taking his phone, taking the law into his own hands etc.

elefant · 20-11-2017 09:05AM

shoegal1 wrote: »

Is'nt there something in the law about grooming underage though? Nothing physical needs to happen for them to be charged. Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

There are laws against grooming. However, in such cases where they would apply there would be an actual underage person involved; this case involves a fabricated underage girl. It wasn't actually ever possible for him to commit the crime he was trying to commit.

It's been quite a while since I studied inchoate offenses (seeking to commit crime), so I can't really remember how effective a defence of impossibility would be under Irish law, or if British common law is similar.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Hannibal_Smith · 20-11-2017 09:08AM

Playing them at their own game. Love it! How many stories have we heard with dirty aul fellas hiding behind fake profiles to catch out kids? Now they're the ones being stung. Such a simple idea. Would loved to have seen his face when he was told!

BillyBobBS · 20-11-2017 09:09AM

keith_sixteen wrote: »

I'm glad the guy is off the streets and hopefully behind bars. But this so called hero could have compromised the case by his actions. Taking his phone, taking the law into his own hands etc.

I don't care. He's exposed this dirty pedo and ruined his life. I'm happy out with that result

wonderfullife · 20-11-2017 09:09AM

orangerhyme wrote: »

he doesn't seem too lonely from his real Facebook

Just quickly on this - you can have 3,000 "real friends" on facebook and be the loneliest person in the world.

keith_sixteen wrote: »

How long until they expose the wrong person? Stings like this should be left to the police.

If you read the link I provided, there are multiple lawsuits in motion from people wrongly accused. Defamation suits included. There are also 4 people dead from these vigilante groups - all four guys hung themselves before it even got to trial. Maybe they were guilty, maybe they were innocent we'll never know.

TallGlass wrote: »

Yeah he will get a sentence for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming

Not necessarily.

A female teacher in Cumbria was grooming one of the girls in her class. She sent her explicit photos of her boobs and vagina etc for almost a year. It started when the girl turned 15.

She walked free from court with a slap on the wrist (suspended sentence) and was placed on sex offender list.

Maybe the law treats female sexual offenders a bit more leniently but it's not guaranteed he does time especially because it's a victimeless crime. What is guaranteed is he will be placed on the list.

All of which assumes he's guilty. He retains the presumption of innocence for a few more hours at the least. If he pleads guilty, then that's that.

Full Marx · 20-11-2017 09:11AM

Lashes28 wrote: »

Check silent justice page on Facebook..they have done two stings last night in Drogheda. I've never heard of it happening in the republic u til now

Just had a look at that, wow. How many of these sick fcuks are there?

NIMAN · 20-11-2017 09:15AM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Playing them at their own game. Love it! How many stories have we heard with dirty aul fellas hiding behind fake profiles to catch out kids? Now they're the ones being stung. Such a simple idea. Would loved to have seen his face when he was told!

Its all there in the video, you can see his face.

NIMAN · 20-11-2017 09:17AM

Lashes28 wrote: »

Check silent justice page on Facebook..they have done two stings last night in Drogheda. I've never heard of it happening in the republic u til now

As mentioned away back at the start of the thread, there was also a school teacher entrapped in Derry too recently.

Video also on FB.

Hannibal_Smith · 20-11-2017 09:27AM

NIMAN wrote: »

Its all there in the video, you can see his face.

The video was taken down?

Just saw it :eek:. Yer man is a bit of a Muppet!!! I hope they're not wrong. I have no kids and I wanted to talk to some one younger. Oh my god :pac:

splinter65 · 20-11-2017 09:27AM

Dr Brown wrote: »

That statement makes no sense what soever its akin to saying that the majority of alcoholics do not have a drink problem.

By definition if someone sexual abuses a child they are a paedophile.

But a paedophile is not necessarily someone who has, or will ever, abuse a child.
Any kind of lynch mob does more harm then good.
These glory hunters baying for blood and posting their exploits on social media are just driving paedophiles who WOULD seek to harm a child further underground, where they won’t be detected, ever.

Dev84 · 20-11-2017 09:28AM

NIMAN wrote: »

As mentioned away back at the start of the thread, there was also a school teacher entrapped in Derry too recently.

Video also on FB.

Its not entrapment though if the pedo instigates contact?

TallGlass · 20-11-2017 09:31AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Not necessarily.

A female teacher in Cumbria was grooming one of the girls in her class. She sent her explicit photos of her boobs and vagina etc for almost a year. It started when the girl turned 15.

She walked free from court with a slap on the wrist (suspended sentence) and was placed on sex offender list.

Maybe the law treats female sexual offenders a bit more leniently but it's not guaranteed he does time especially because it's a victimeless crime. What is guaranteed is he will be placed on the list.

All of which assumes he's guilty. He retains the presumption of innocence for a few more hours at the least. If he pleads guilty, then that's that.

Sorry, I meant more so that it is possible to get a conviction/sentence from his actions. But that's down to the judge.

I think he is fairly snookered to be honest. At minimum he is going on the sex offenders register, he won't be coming back to a job either or friends. He's basically ruined his life.

splinter65 · 20-11-2017 09:34AM

BillyBobBS wrote: »

I don't care. He's exposed this dirty pedo and ruined his life. I'm happy out with that result

What if he gets off (probably will) on a technicality because of the amateur sting and then just goes underground to get at some kids?

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

Comments