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

[Deleted User]

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

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

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.

Insect Overlord

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2009-02-14

:pac:

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was entrapping paedos

Imagine your hobby was chatting on a forum about a group that was entrapping paedos :pac:

BillyBobBS

Hector Savage wrote: »

Yeah God forbid... any Irish children, cos they are just better than all those durty fordeign childers ...

:rolleyes: Jesus F*cking Wept

Swing and a miss.

mikeysmith

gozunda wrote: »

The police do not appear to have issue with how he was reported and there appears to be actual evidence that he posted pornographic photos to the targeted profile. He has been charged and arranged for court appearance.

I don't think we need worry about how he is to be charged - that's for the courts to decide. The fact is that he believed he was contacting a young girl and he then acted on it by arranging to meet up with her with the alledged intention of illegal activity. He was 'caught' as he arrived at his prearranged meeting place.

If anything it's going to make paedophiles think twice about trying this sh!t elsewhere - if it results in them getting caught or not doing it in the first place - I and sure others don't have any problem with that.

I note some evident low level attack on the group who caught this guy out like the above - branding the group as "weirdos" or some type if criminals etc - beware shooting the messengers for the reason that some perhaps don't like what is being outed. I would have concerns with that response tbh ...

it wasn't an attack on the group as such and you have no need to be concerned about my opinion in any way as it is merely my opinion

it is merely an observation that these paedophile vigilante groups tend to attract all types to their ranks including undesirables using the mask of vigilantism to distract from their own undesirability

also there are questions over their tactics such as livestreaming

jmayo

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.
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 don't much care if he is labelled Paedophile, would be child molestor or kiddie fiddler, there is something wrong with guy that wants to groom young girls for sex and have sex for young girls.
End of discussion.

Splitting verbal hairs is the norm nowadays where analysis often goes to the nth degree.
If someone fancies and has "genuine romantic interest" in a child then that sooner or later will in all probability lead to more.
And besides who in their right mind would have a "romantic interest" in a child.

Minderbinder wrote: »

...
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.

Many police forces and agencies have units specifically tasked to act as honeypots to trap these predators.

The guys and gals working there have to keep up to date on teen bands, childrens tv, celebs, etc.
That you would have to listen to absolute shyte music, read teen mags, watch teen tv must enough of a headwreck before you even start having online conversations with middle aged guys in their shorts.
How the feck they unwind after a days work like that is mind boggling.

The other thing this story should reinforce with parents is to monitor kids online activity.
And that includes teenagers.
Girls are targeted by guys online and before they know it they are being blackmailed because they have for some freaking reason shared intimate photos.

Eventually the parents may find out when the daughter is freaking out that someone is going to share the photos with all her facebook, instagram friends.

And nothing much can be done because these guys are god knows where.

BTW another interesting thing about this thread was how long a certain poster was allowed insult half the population, I wonder if the comments were reversed how long that shyte would be tolerated ?

DodgerOfSheep

mikeysmith wrote: »

it wasn't an attack on the group as such and you have no need to be concerned about my opinion in any way as it is merely my opinion

it is merely an observation that these paedophile vigilante groups tend to attract all types to their ranks including undesirables using the mask of vigilantism to distract from their own undesirability

also there are questions over their tactics such as livestreaming

This group records the interactions with the suspected pedo and calls the police without violence. They seem like an aggressive neighbourhood watch really.

Strazdas

gozunda wrote: »

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.

But the child doesn't even exist and he was talking to a group of men. The entire legal case seems to rest on 'intention' to commit a crime, but that seems a somewhat shaky concept and not a solid one.

suicide_circus

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Imagine your hobby was chatting on a forum about a group that was entrapping paedos :pac:

Paedception

Peatys

Strazdas wrote: »

But the child doesn't even exist and he was talking to a group of men. The entire legal case seems to rest on 'intention' to commit a crime, but that seems a somewhat shaky concept and not a solid one.

Looking for loopholes where none exist. He's fücked.

lalababa

Is pedergast still a thing or are they all classed as paedofiles , is one seen less abhorrently or what's going on?

Buford T. Justice XIX

jmayo wrote: »

I don't much care if he is labelled Paedophile, would be child molestor or kiddie fiddler, there is something wrong with guy that wants to groom young girls for sex and have sex for young girls.
End of discussion.

Splitting verbal hairs is the norm nowadays where analysis often goes to the nth degree.
If someone fancies and has "genuine romantic interest" in a child then that sooner or later will in all probability lead to more.
And besides who in their right mind would have a "romantic interest" in a child.

Many police forces and agencies have units specifically tasked to act as honeypots to trap these predators.

The guys and gals working there have to keep up to date on teen bands, childrens tv, celebs, etc.
That you would have to listen to absolute shyte music, read teen mags, watch teen tv must enough of a headwreck before you even start having online conversations with middle aged guys in their shorts.
How the feck they unwind after a days work like that is mind boggling.

The other thing this story should reinforce with parents is to monitor kids online activity.
And that includes teenagers.
Girls are targeted by guys online and before they know it they are being blackmailed because they have for some freaking reason shared intimate photos.

Eventually the parents may find out when the daughter is freaking out that someone is going to share the photos with all her facebook, instagram friends.

And nothing much can be done because these guys are god knows where.

BTW another interesting thing about this thread was how long a certain poster was allowed insult half the population, I wonder if the comments were reversed how long that shyte would be tolerated ?

Mod note: You know better than to question any mod actions in a thread. If you have a question, PM a mod!

On that note, mods are all volunteers on the site. We don't sit by the computer all day looking for something to do, we all have jobs and other stuff that keeps us busy. The posts were dealt with as soon as they came to our attention, the same as any other post.

If you feel that the actions were not appropriate, please contact one of the listed Cmods and take the issue up with them.

Now, back to the discussion, please.

Buford T.Justice.

lalababa

lalababa wrote: »

Is pedergast still a thing or are they all classed as paedofiles , is one seen less abhorrently or what's going on?

I hope this doesn't affect next week's rugby coverage.

AnneFrank

i know it's easy to say now, but he has the look of a creep aswell, it's in the eyes

ancapailldorcha

Spanish Eyes banned for one month.

[Deleted User]

If the allegations against him are proven in court then I hope he gets a good sentence.

Just reading the Times and turns out he is married. My heart goes out to her. Can you imagine the shock to her. Very sad

Hector Savage

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Swing and a miss.

hmmm Judging by thanks don't think so!!!

A Little Pony

Is this the video of a guy up against a wall being shouted at? Saw that last night if so, let justice follow if wrong doing is proved in a court of law.

Edit - Just saw it's not, it was another video of the Garda arresting another guy caught out in a sting type operation from some justice group on Facebook.

fepper

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

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.

He said In the group video that he has no children

skinny90

Off the topic trail of thought here. but if this guy was too kill himself as a direct result of the video would that put those behind it in trouble ?

[Deleted User]

A Little Pony wrote: »

Is this the video of a guy up against a wall being shouted at? Saw that last night if so, let justice follow if wrong doing is proved in a court of law.

No that's the one from Drogheda last night. Guy was a definite creep and brazen as hell.

Avatar MIA

skinny90 wrote: »

Off the topic trail of thought here. but if this guy was too kill himself as a direct result of the video would that put those behind it in trouble ?

What court would convict (even if some were rabble) a gang that prevented child rape because they threw some insults? Surely the person that committed suicide did so because of the exposure, and not the manner.

Strazdas

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What court would convict (even if some were rabble) a gang that prevented child rape because they threw some insults? Surely the person that committed suicide did so because of the exposure, and not the manner.

A person being arrested under normal circumstances by police would be one thing. It's arguable though that the public humiliation of having videos of the confrontation by vigilantes all over the internet multiplies the humiliation of that person and their family members many times over.

sbsquarepants

Avatar MIA wrote: »

What court would convict (even if some were rabble) a gang that prevented child rape because they threw some insults? Surely the person that committed suicide did so because of the exposure, and not the manner.

Not with me it wouldn't!

Id be very much of the "fúck him" mindset.

Avatar MIA

Strazdas wrote: »

A person being arrested under normal circumstances by police would be one thing. It's arguable though that the public humiliation of having videos of the confrontation by vigilantes all over the internet multiplies the humiliation of that person and their family members many times over.

He was going to be on video at some stage. His pic is already on the main page of RTE news.

Is he embarrassed at being discovered to be a danger to children or because he got called names on camera.

Grayson

Avatar MIA wrote: »

He was going to be on video at some stage. His pic is already on the main page of RTE news.

Is he embarrassed at being discovered to be a danger to children or because he got called names on camera.

That's not the same as being live streamed on the internet by a group of guys throwing insults at him. The video isn't being watched because a guy is getting arrested it's being watched because it's being turned into entertainment by the guys who baited him.

They should have arranged the rendezvous and then had the police there when he arrived. Then the police arrest him and that's it. And don't record it.

vicwatson

Marty Bird wrote: »

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.

Though the law is - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/7/enacted/en/html

Meeting child for purpose of sexual exploitation

7. (1) A person who—

(a) intentionally meets, or travels with the intention of meeting a child or makes arrangements with the intention of meeting a child or for a child to travel, whether or not from within the State, having communicated by any means with that child on at least one previous occasion, and

(b) does so for the purpose of doing anything that would constitute sexual exploitation of the child,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

(3) In this section “child” means a person under the age of 17 years.

GeorgeBailey wrote: »

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.

Legal position? Why would they want to know their legal position? Other media outlets had given the name, so there was nothing to check out, it was RTE protecting their own.

ibarelycare

Grayson wrote: »

That's not the same as being live streamed on the internet by a group of guys throwing insults at him. The video isn't being watched because a guy is getting arrested it's being watched because it's being turned into entertainment by the guys who baited him.

They should have arranged the rendezvous and then had the police there when he arrived. Then the police arrest him and that's it. And don't record it.

I somewhat agree with that...but on the other hand this approach is surely going to put many predators off trying to groom children, and that can only be a good thing.

Shurimgreat

While this might ruin his life, I think if I was working in RTE I'd like to know if the guy sitting beside me/working in the same office/guy you chat to at the coffee station every morning is up to this kind of thing.

Avatar MIA

Grayson wrote: »

That's not the same as being live streamed on the internet by a group of guys throwing insults at him. The video isn't being watched because a guy is getting arrested it's being watched because it's being turned into entertainment by the guys who baited him.

They should have arranged the rendezvous and then had the police there when he arrived. Then the police arrest him and that's it. And don't record it.

No it's not, but lets not forget the context here. He was going to have sex with a child. That's his shame, that he was vilified by the mob is only a tiny factor. Can you really compare them both?