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

Shurimgreat · 20-11-2017 03:12PM

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.

You'd wonder if the gardai examined his home computer though what they would find? Have they jurisdiction to do this?

I understand though that the "victim" in this case was fictional. I hope he's not responsible for real victims however. I think though he will probably get off with a suspended sentence and maybe have to sign a sex offender's register.

Reati · 20-11-2017 03:13PM

ibarelycare wrote: »

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.

I've no sympathy for him but that is a false logic. They do it to humiliate the person plain and simple. It doesn't put people off groomimg though over time it will make them much harder to catch as they figure out new methods and ways to ensure if they get caught, there is no evidence against them.

ohnonotgmail · 20-11-2017 03:16PM

lalababa wrote: »

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

pederasty is still a thing but it has nothing to do with this. he went looking for sex with a young girl. pederasty is exclusively between men and young boys. he is a hebephile if you wish to put a label on it.

J Mysterio · 20-11-2017 03:18PM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

Some of the commentary on the girls pictures is disturbing ... some of tbe post from uber creepy looking ****ers seem to point at the girls acceptig friend requests from these weirdos ...

Is the need for friends on face book really that great? Ive rejected friend request from people sitting a desk away from me in work... i dont get on with u in person, im not gonna accept some phoney electronic handshake..

And on the lad himself i hope he gets a kick in the sack every remaining day of his life. Alarm goes off at 08.00, kick in the nuts by a designated kicker at 08.05, every morning!

:pac:

You could do like competitions to see who gets the privilege.

Chrongen · 20-11-2017 03:20PM

NIMAN wrote: »

I think the fact that he was planning to meet an 18yr old girl whilst he was married was maybe showing a bit of disrespect to his wife?

Whoa, you've just displayed what kind of person you are.

The guy was (knowingly) falsely accused of being a paedophile, in fact he was setup. His life was destroyed and you think that that's ok because he was going to have an affair with an adult woman?

Grayson · 20-11-2017 03:22PM

ibarelycare wrote: »

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.

Or it makes them more careful. There's also the fact that he could have already been under investigation and their actions mess up a police investigation.

Avatar MIA wrote: »

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?

It's the biggest factor. I read in the Irish Times this morning that 300,000 had viewed the video. It's not the fact that he was vilified by a mob it's that he was filmed whilst it happened.

I understand that people want paedophiles to be caught. I understand that they want to help. But this isn't the right way. Even if we move past the fact that they are baiting him and he hasn't actually hurt someone, the correct way to deal with this is by contacting the police and passing on the evidence you have.

mikeysmith · 20-11-2017 03:26PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Spanish Eyes banned for one month.

What did he do now?

andekwarhola · 20-11-2017 03:31PM

I don't think when people express disquiet about the vigilante method that they're denying it was effective in this case or that the guy deserves pity.

Rather that it's troubling that this might become a standard with all the aggrandisenent, unaccountability and huge margin for error that it entails.

gozunda · 20-11-2017 03:35PM

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.

If you check the thread someone has already posted the relevant law which covers this. So no it is not a shakey concept. The person who presented the profile was a woman - this is clearly detailed on the video.

He was charged this morning on two counts and is to present himself in court on the 18th December. He might just be getting a free Christmas stay over courtesy of HMP service ....

gozunda · 20-11-2017 03:39PM

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.

Perhaps he should have thought of that before creating a fake profile, befriending young girls posting photos of his willy and attempting to met up with one of the young 'girls' ...

PARlance · 20-11-2017 03:41PM

baylah17 wrote: »

Were they actually arrested?
And if so under our legal system the case may never come to court due to adverse publicity.
In this state you cannot be named until after you are charged and posting "evidence " prior to or during a trial would be contempt of court and probably lead to no case being heard at all.

One of them was out and about in Drogheda today. He was spotted at a bus stop this morning. He was the guy that pretty much admitted to everything and said he had no problem sleeping with a girl if she had developed.

Boom_Bap · 20-11-2017 03:42PM

Reati wrote: »

I've no sympathy for him but that is a false logic. They do it to humiliate the person plain and simple. It doesn't put people off groomimg though over time it will make them much harder to catch as they figure out new methods and ways to ensure if they get caught, there is no evidence against them.

They also do it to get a confession on video to present as evidence along with their chat logs etc.
I'd like to hope it acts as a deterrent to others to stop searching online for kids to groom.

gozunda · 20-11-2017 03:47PM

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

You said

mikeysmith wrote:

There'd be some amount of weirdos in those vigilante groups

The cops would probably find enough to keep them busy full time if they started investigating them

That looks like a fairly direct attack on all such groups tbh

mikeysmith wrote: »

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

How do you know this? Do you have some figures to back up your assertions?

20-11-2017 03:48PM

Vigilante groups make me twitch, they often seem more interested in the glory than the justice.

If this guy hadn't made the first move, it would have been entrapment. Which I'm not keen on either, enticing people to commit a crime is manufacturing a criminal. However, he sought out children with a view to grooming them leading to eventual rape, so it's difficult to pity him. I just hope his basic rights weren't infringed in such a way that a case against him would be jeopardized. It's a terrible thing to see someones life fall apart, even if they're the author of their own misfortune, but when you remind yourself he wanted to rape a child it does feel like the end justifies the means.

The innocent parties in all this public exposure and humiliation are the guys family and friends. His parents could be alive and have to deal with footage of their sons life crumbling on the back of his attempts to commit one of the most replusive acts possible, harming a child. I can't imagine how his family are suffering and how bewildering and painful it must be for them.

I just hope it's the furthest he's ever gotten. If his profile had lots of teenage girls as friends then it's fair to assume this fake girl wasn't the only one he was grooming. Since he's in his fifties, it's possible he's been a predator for decades, and I just hope that the fake victim in this case isn't just one failure in a long career of successful abuses.

Avatar MIA · 20-11-2017 03:52PM

Grayson wrote: »

I read in the Irish Times this morning that 300,000 had viewed the video. It's not the fact that he was vilified by a mob it's that he was filmed whilst it happened.

My main sympathies lie elsewhere, and quite a motivation not to try and groom a child don't you think?

Boom_Bap · 20-11-2017 03:55PM

Candie wrote: »

I just hope it's the furthest he's ever gotten. If his profile had lots of teenage girls as friends then it's fair to assume this fake girl wasn't the only one he was grooming. Since he's in his fifties, it's possible he's been a predator for decades, and I just hope that the fake victim in this case isn't just one failure in a long career of successful abuses.

In the video they talk about how he was talking to 3 of their decoy profiles.
When asked first, he said it's just the one.
He didn't seem to be able to say how many he was talking to.
When asked if he's ever met up with anyone else, he said no.
He also said he didn't send a d*ck pic, but they showed him the pic he sent.
He could recognise it as his penis.

So he was consistently lying and caught out in his lies. I just really hope that the not meeting anyone previously was the truth.

20-11-2017 04:02PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

In the video they talk about how he was talking to 3 of their decoy profiles.

That's a major point here that's probably going under the radar. You could maybe possibly see how talking to one young girl could come about. Maybe, at a stretch. Three though? No. Again, yes they were decoys but the fact he had a list of 52 real life girls on a secretive fake profile combined with the fact that he was en route to a hotel to, as far as he knew, defile a child leaves me with no sympathy for this scumbucket.

Boom_Bap · 20-11-2017 04:03PM

Omackeral wrote: »

That's a major point here that's probably going under the radar. You could maybe possibly see how talking to one young girl could come about. Maybe, at a stretch. Three though? No. Again, yes they were decoys but the fact he had a list of 52 real life girls on a secretive fake profile leads combined with the fact that he was en route to a hotel to, as far as he knew, defile a child leaves me with no sympathy for this scumbucket.

No only that, do we really know how many fake profiles he has?

Chrongen · 20-11-2017 04:07PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Simplest example would be a middle-aged guy coming home from a night out with the wife. While she's gone off to bed, he tries to kiss or force himself on a 15 year old babysitter.

That would be what the FBI call a "situational offender". Someone who is sexually attracted to adult women but for whatever reason commits an impulsive act against a child.

He wouldn't meet the definition of a paedophile but would meet the definition of a child molestor.

You should try lay off Breitbart and Fox News and learn some adult debating tactics. Screaming whataboutery to avoid answering questions and making sly insinuations is childish.

You seem very interested in paedophile behaviour judging from your post count on this thread. See? :rolleyes:

Anyway, if the purpose of videoing the confrontation is to document it as evidence, there is NO NEED to stream it live or publish it, especially as these groups often accuse the wrong person.

Otherwise mob justice is EXACTLY what they're dishing out by sharing the video to the public. These groups can and have ruined peoples lives by this instant justice where they state unequivocally someone is a paedophile who absolutely isn't.

They may have got it right this time. They may get it right 90 times out 100. I'm not in favour of ruining ten mens life for some bullsh1t witch-hunt that does absolutely nothing other than catch harmless/vulnerable/lonely middle aged men and does nothing to deter genuine sexual predators.

And that "lonely" comment was made by the most famous UK vigilante paedophile hunter himself who admits the people he catches are relatively harmless and lonely.

SMH. Some messed up opinions in AH these days honestly think a lot of you are more suited to Reddit or Breitbart. Or maybe this is the new way of the world nowadays.

Time to delete account methinks rather than argue with some of you clowns.

I'd rather you stuck around. Your posts are intelligent, well written, logical and level-headed.

Yes, "whataboutery" seems to be the new buzzword when someone makes an ass out of themselves and can't counter a logical debate point.

It also seems that some people's brains are so poorly evolved that they can't comprehend either being disagreed with of the fact that there are many, MANY ways to deal with a potential situation but if you express doubt about THEIR way then you must just be some kind of limp wristed sap who wants the worst possible solution to the problem.

orangerhyme · 20-11-2017 04:07PM

keith_sixteen wrote: »

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?

But this is the bottom line unfortunately.

I agree. The vigilantes seem like idiots who are clearly getting off on it.

At the start the guy says "you've a high profile job, they know your voice from the radio"
He obviously thought the R in RTE standing for "Raidio" meant that he worked on the radio.

Not the brightest spark.

Chrongen · 20-11-2017 04:10PM

gozunda wrote: »

And once again you revert to attacking anyone whom with you disagree and everyone that does not subscribe to such a paedophile lite philosophy....

Delete away - God forbid there is a record assigning any excuses for paedophilia and related behaviours ....

Mate, your posts are really quite petty and juvenile.

end of the road · 20-11-2017 04:12PM

gozunda wrote: »

In this instance there's was no evident threat to 'peace"

if the police were not seen to be okay with these groups and to tolerate them to an extent, i'd suggest things may be very very different.

gozunda wrote: »

yet the group are being disparaged by a minority.

on this thread maybe. out there in the general world, i'm not so sure. no doubt they have a bit of support but it's not as much as you might think.

gozunda wrote: »

You can think what you wish - you are wrong. The point is that the individual was caught out by concerned citizens who came together to report the issue.

"concerned citizens" hmmmmmmmm. not 100% sure about that one. i'd suggest that i'm not wrong either.

gozunda wrote: »

It clear that they did not go wrong- in any sense. Stop introducing Whataboutery as an diversion.

the police sort of being alright with them helps in these matters.

gozunda wrote: »

So a group of concerned citizens get together to report on information that they have gathered and you would dismiss them because they are doing what you have advocated in various posts but because you don't like the group message - you now disparage them? Weird....

concerned citizens get on with what they have to do without seeking attention on social media. for example if i have evidence of a crime, i pass my information on to the police, job done. no comment afterwords, no nothing. i get back to my life unless asked to testify in court.

Dr Brown · 20-11-2017 04:14PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

In the video they talk about how he was talking to 3 of their decoy profiles.
When asked first, he said it's just the one.
He didn't seem to be able to say how many he was talking to.
When asked if he's ever met up with anyone else, he said no.
He also said he didn't send a d*ck pic, but they showed him the pic he sent.
He could recognise it as his penis.

So he was consistently lying and caught out in his lies. I just really hope that the not meeting anyone previously was the truth.

He shot him self in the foot.

If he had half brain he would of kept his mouth shut and just said nothing.

I think that video alone is enough to convict him.

20-11-2017 04:15PM

Chrongen wrote: »

Mate, your posts are really quite petty and juvenile.

Chrongen wrote: »

It also seems that some people's brains are so poorly evolved[/B] that they can't comprehend...

Pot, kettle.

Grayson · 20-11-2017 04:16PM

Avatar MIA wrote: »

My main sympathies lie elsewhere, and quite a motivation not to try and groom a child don't you think?

You used the word vilified. That's why I used it. So not sure why you put it in bold.

Also, we have the law, we don't need public shaming. It just makes it worse.

Strazdas · 20-11-2017 04:17PM

andekwarhola wrote: »

I don't think when people express disquiet about the vigilante method that they're denying it was effective in this case or that the guy deserves pity.

Rather that it troubling that this might become a standard with all the aggrandisenent, unaccountability and huge margin for error that it entails.

There was a documentary about these specific guys on Ch. 4 a couple of years ago. The TV reviewers at the time described the vigilantes and their methods as 'disturbing', 'sinister', 'very troubling', 'chilling'.....absolutely nobody said 'Fair play to them, they're doing society a great service'.

PARlance · 20-11-2017 04:17PM

I know a guy whose identity was taken for use on a dating site. It was so easily done, his photos were taken from his facebook page to step up the account. The weirdo that did it was chatting up women and sending dick pics etc under this guys name.

It all came crashing down when one of the girls reached out to the real guy on facebook (as opposed to just chatting to the weirdo on the dating site and texts). She hadn't become suspicious btw, she just wanted to friend him on Facebook. It took a few days but they managed to find out who the weirdo was by the phone number he had given her.

It's scary to think but someone could easily be set up like this in an even more sinister way, i.e someone could easily seek out these underage decoys and start chatting to them. A "meet" could also easily be staged as some people share way too much on social media.

(The guy above pretty much shared the whole event as it unfolded from screenshotting the random messages he was getting from the girl... it wasn't fair on her but it was entertaining at the time... half the town was checking in on developments over the 2-3 days).

I'm not saying one of these groups would do such, but some copycat nutter could easily do something similar.

rustynutz · 20-11-2017 04:23PM

I think these vigilante groups, while unpleasant, are a necessary evil. I would say every paedophile currently in contact, or planning to contact kids online, are thinking twice about it.

They have undoubtedly stopped future abuse of children by trapping these scumbags. Pity the police hadn't the resources to do this type of thing on a larger scale

Reati · 20-11-2017 04:26PM

Boom_Bap wrote: »

They also do it to get a confession on video to present as evidence along with their chat logs etc.
I'd like to hope it acts as a deterrent to others to stop searching online for kids to groom.

I'm not against them filming it. I'm not even against them Live streaming it when they are 100% sure but that's the inherent problem. They won't be 100% right all the time.

If they, as they state in the video record it for their and his protection, then there is no need to need to make a big fuss of it by posting it to Facebook. They do it so they can humiliate the person. There is very little proof I'd say if any these videos are a deterrent to others. I again would fear it would makre them more careful and try to hide harder. There is a trial by media angle to this too. The problem is it's such a fine line to walk and they have no powers conferred to them here. I'd hate to see someone like this get off on a technicality due to "unfair" media coverage. People do get off crimes on the smallest technical things. That's my concern.

Also, why didn't he walk away. They have no power to arrest him or force him to stay put. I'm curious more to see how the group handle that when it happens.

Chrongen · 20-11-2017 04:28PM

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.

And what are they going to arrest him for? The same crime for which he was arrested in the UK?

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

Comments