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

Ash.J.Williams

spurious wrote: »

I abhor paedophiles as much as the next person, but legally are these 'stings' not on shaky ground?

Yes, he may well have had all sorts of evil intentions, and yes you could argue he is certainly guilty of grooming (even if there is not an actual victim) but it all seems a bit weak legally. If it's a first offence (which it may not be, but it may also be the first time he has been caught) I would not be surprised if he's bailed once he appears.

I'm not saying a real child should have been used as bait, but how do we know if met by a real child he might not have realised what he was at and stopped himself? Could he argue he is some sort of fantasist that would not have followed through?

Again, I don't want to appear an apologist for this guy and others like him, but legally is it not a fairly weak case?

I believe this group are well seen of entrapment laws and work with the law to ensure a conviction

[Deleted User]

spurious wrote: »

I abhor paedophiles as much as the next person, but legally are these 'stings' not on shaky ground?

Yes, he may well have had all sorts of evil intentions, and yes you could argue he is certainly guilty of grooming (even if there is not an actual victim) but it all seems a bit weak legally. If it's a first offence (which it may not be, but it may also be the first time he has been caught) I would not be surprised if he's bailed once he appears.

I'm not saying a real child should have been used as bait, but how do we know if met by a real child he might not have realised what he was at and stopped himself? Could he argue he is some sort of fantasist that would not have followed through?

Again, I don't want to appear an apologist for this guy and others like him, but legally is it not a fairly weak case?

Legally, they are fine in the UK though right? Which is all that matters in this case

spurious

Hopefully, plus when his name and photo are out there, people may recognise him and stronger evidence will appear. I can't imagine how sick the parents of the young ones on his 'friends' list must have been when they saw their child's name.

Grayson

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I believe this group are well seen of entrapment laws and work with the law to ensure a conviction

I've heard of law enforcement agencies saying that they're still not a good idea. They can mess up ongoing investigations. The best thing to do if you have evidence is to go to the police and let them do their jobs.

The guys who make these stings don't really care about that, they're to busy being fecking hero's.

Laois_Man

GypsyByName wrote: »

Two paedophiles caught the same way in Drogheda last night too and not a mention of them anywhere on the news?

There is

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/two-men-interviewed-by-gardai-after-confrontation-with-vigilante-group-36335862.html

Sin City

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I believe this group are well seen of entrapment laws and work with the law to ensure a conviction

Can civilians be subject to entapment?

Also how can they preserve the chain of custody of the evidence ?

Especially when they relived the suspect of his phone, this can be argued that the chain is broken as not in official hands
Once relived surely the suspect can argue he didnt send anything

CIARAN_BOYLE

Sin City wrote: »

Also how can they preserve the chain of custody of the evidence ?

Especially when they relived the suspect of his phone, this can be argued that the chain is broken as not in official hands
Once relived surely the suspect can argue he didnt send anything

It's a major risk. I suppose the organisation will have a procedure.

X took custody of the phone. X testifies that he did not tamper with the evidence. Y testifies that he watched X full time from the point that he took custody of the phone and Y further testifies that X did not tamper.

Or X takes custody and immediatley places the phone in a locked box. X hands the box to Z and the key to P. Z and P don't come within a hundred meters of each other until the evidence is handed over. All parties testify this.

The procedure will be investigated and reviewed by the defense legal team who will hope to find a flaw to base their defense on.

Laois_Man

Sin City wrote: »

Can civilians be subject to entapment?

Also how can they preserve the chain of custody of the evidence ?

Especially when they relived the suspect of his phone, this can be argued that the chain is broken as not in official hands
Once relived surely the suspect can argue he didnt send anything

I don't think so. His defense will surely depend on the content of the text messages or e-mails (e.g. if the picture of his lad was sent BEFORE it was revealed that the girl was 13 years old, was the age revealed to him just minutes before he was confronted, he could claim that that peado hunters deleted e-mails and texts that went against their case and that would have exonerated him, etc). He's not overly clever himself as he did way too much talking to the crew who nabbed him - but there's a good chance his legal people will find some things.

Sin City

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

It's a major risk. I suppose the organisation will have a procedure.

X took custody of the phone. X testifies that he did not tamper with the evidence. Y testifies that he watched X full time from the point that he took custody of the phone and Y further testifies that X did not tamper.

Or X takes custody and immediatley places the phone in a locked box. X hands the box to Z and the key to P. Z and P don't come within a hundred meters of each other until the evidence is handed over. All parties testify this.

The procedure will be investigated and reviewed by the defense legal team who will hope to find a flaw to base their defense on.

Still for some thing like a phone they would need to be placed into sealed farady bags to preseve the integrity of the evidence

RustyNut

Help!!!! wrote: »

Is that the Pakistani guy?? He works for RTE?

No. Turns out he's a white Irish guy, probably identifies as a Catholic. Are you disappointed? doesn't feed into your agenda.

vicwatson

I assume the Gardai will be arresting him when he arrives back in the country after being given bail to reappear on Dec 18th to answer charges here?

Marty Bird

spurious wrote: »

I abhor paedophiles as much as the next person, but legally are these 'stings' not on shaky ground?

Yes, he may well have had all sorts of evil intentions, and yes you could argue he is certainly guilty of grooming (even if there is not an actual victim) but it all seems a bit weak legally. If it's a first offence (which it may not be, but it may also be the first time he has been caught) I would not be surprised if he's bailed once he appears.

I'm not saying a real child should have been used as bait, but how do we know if met by a real child he might not have realised what he was at and stopped himself? Could he argue he is some sort of fantasist that would not have followed through?

Again, I don't want to appear an apologist for this guy and others like him, but legally is it not a fairly weak case?

Over here maybe as our judicial system is so weak in the UK I’m not sure, would he went through with it I’m going say yes he went to great lengths to meet this imaginary girl and was sending explicit pictures to further add weight he would have went through with it.

vicwatson

tayto lover wrote: »

Name and photo.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1120/921370-leeds/

Took them long enough

Marty Bird

vicwatson wrote: »

I assume the Gardai will be arresting him when he arrives back in the country after being given bail to reappear on Dec 18th to answer charges here?

You would like to think so, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they don’t based on some BS excuse that he hasn’t committed a crime over here.

Laois_Man

Marty Bird wrote: »

Over here maybe as our judicial system is so weak in the UK I’m not sure

At the danger of going off topic on a mad tangent....I'm not having that!
There are many many many things to point at in the UK judicial system down through the years where you can call bull****!
Far more than there are here!

GeorgeBailey

vicwatson wrote: »

Took them long enough

Must have been at least 12 hours. Bloody idiots probably wanted to fact check or get their legal position straight first. So annoying. Don't they know I wanna know stuff NOW goddamit.

keith_sixteen

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

To be fair to the group in question (and I'm just going by the video of this incident), they were - mostly - polite and decent in how they spoke to him and dealt with him. They didn't attack him, didn't just hurl abuse at him, and recorded everything they said/did.

Hmm....I'd normally agree with you Kaiser but these people were not really polite. Not that they had to be or anything, but they did give him plenty of abuse.

At one stage the main guy in the video is like "tell me your problems, why are you attracted to 13 year olds" and a few mins later he is saying "I don't want to be sitting here with you paedo scum"

To be honest, the guy seems like a nasty bigot, and this type of high profile sting will only embolden them - how far will they go next time?

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

This wasn't a witch-hunt IMO. They had the evidence with them and knew who he was when they approached him. In any case, there's another pedophile off the streets and that can be only be a good thing.

But this is the bottom line unfortunately.

Dr Crayfish

I am not entirely comfortable with these kind of groups, I would question the mentality of people getting involved. However they probably stopped this guy for good, so it's hard to know how to feel. Like others, when I heard he had a wife and kids, part of me feels really sorry for him, at least he wont be going near anyone again however.

Avatar MIA

vicwatson wrote: »

Took them long enough

Oh gawd, not Phil Colins as well!

Marty Bird

Laois_Man wrote: »

At the danger of going off topic on a mad tangent....I'm not having that!
There are many many many things to point at in the UK judicial system down through the years where you can call bull****!
Far more than there are here!

Hence why I said “I’m not sure”

Strazdas

One thing that occurs me is if what if the suspect says "I knew I was talking to a group of vigilantes and expected to see you here."? The entire case seems to rest on whether the suspect thought he was talking to an underage person but that strikes me as very shaky legally.

gozunda

At the court this morning it appears that he has been charged with two separate counts. He has also been granted bail but must return to face the Crown Court on December 18.

suicide_circus

Imagine your hobby was entrapping paedos

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was entrapping paedos

Imagine your hobby was attempting to groom and have with sex kids on the internet.

suicide_circus

Omackeral wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was grooming kids on the internet.

Imagine your hobby was pretending to be 13 year old girls on the Internet

[Deleted User]

Omackeral wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was attempting to groom and have sex kids on the internet.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was pretending to be 13 year old girls on the Internet

You tell me which is worse.

retro:electro

Imagine being the Internet

gozunda

Strazdas wrote: »

One thing that occurs me is if what if the suspect says "I knew I was talking to a group of vigilantes and expected to see you here."? The entire case seems to rest on whether the suspect thought he was talking to an underage person but that strikes me as very shaky legally.

I suspect there is clear and fairly unieqivical evidence online that he knew from the profile that the child was 13 yrs of age

He has been charged with attempting to meet a child under 16 following grooming. The second charge was attempting to court or incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity. The age bracketing refers to specific legislation afair.

Boom_Bap

f692e6004c47ff05661537ce56a04fe292e8c4e1b71284f23b23c6301b05c771.jpg

Dr Crayfish

Omackeral wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was attempting to groom and have sex kids on the internet.

Imagine your hobby was imagining about people's hobbies on the internet