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!
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
orangerhyme wrote: » he doesn't seem too lonely from his real Facebook
keith_sixteen wrote: » How long until they expose the wrong person? Stings like this should be left to the police.
TallGlass wrote: » Yeah he will get a sentence for it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_grooming
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.
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.
BillyBobBS wrote: » I'm very comfortable with groups like that and the guy is a hero.
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.
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.
keith_sixteen wrote: » Just a note on the main "protagonist" in the vigilante group. He clearly comes across as a desperately bitter little Englander. .
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.
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 ?
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.
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? .
wonderfullife wrote: » Jesus wept is right. People ... seem to have serious issues comprehending the difference between a paedophile and a child molestor....
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/abstracthttp://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.
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.
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
