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

21-11-2017 01:37AM

deco nate wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't on point yesterday when I posted my views on those groups. I just assumed people would understand my point at the time. But looking back at my post and replys. I found out I omitted this part of my argument. That is on me.
It's a pity I didn't put this as the main point. Again, sorry

Not at all, it's not on you to spell it out for people! Thanks for giving me a fresh perspective and stuff to think about.

gozunda · 21-11-2017 01:38AM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

He broke the law.

I presume you meant the guy caught in Leeds? - yes he did. What has that got to do with Gay people?

21-11-2017 01:40AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Tell that to Darren Kelly who was stabbed to death after a vigilante sting operation by another paedophile hunter group in Essex. He was lured to a meeting and killed by the group because he was resisting. Oh and he was resisting because he was completely innocent (text messages proved he was led to believe he was meeting a grown woman).

"Speaking after the hearing senior investigating officer Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Jennings said: “While nothing will bring Darren back, we hope the verdict will help give his family some closure so they can move forward.

“Darren was viciously attacked and lost his life due to the completely unfounded belief that he intended to meet an underage girl.

“Essex Police strongly deter anyone from vigilante behaviour at any level. They could be acting upon inaccurate information and putting innocent people at serious risk.

“Anyone who has a genuine concern about potential criminal activity should always contact us so that we can investigate and not take the law into their own hands."

Win some, lose some I suppose, right?

That's horrible and they're scum. I haven't once advocated violence against these suspects by the way. Major difference in this case we're discussing is that the police were en route from the start of the video. Nobody was physically harmed or injured.

gozunda · 21-11-2017 01:43AM

Strazdas wrote: »

As I said further up the thread, there's a real risk you're 'creating' criminals where none exist. A pervert or potential predator only becomes a threat to society if he (or she) is actually acting out his desires and meeting and abusing people. If the vigilantes are luring people who have never actually abused anyone, then it is debatable if they achieved anything and this would also be counterbalanced by the trauma, distress and shame they have caused to the family, relatives and friends of that individual. Saying that all of this would be down to the perv and nothing whatsoever to do with the vigilantes is a cop out - they're the ones who have turned this stuff into a career and a mission.

Yes you said that- once again without any qualification

Do I really have to post this for the third time?

Unlike Santa Claus these scum do exist and are getting caught with the help of some of these groups.

:...the BBC revealed that 44% of prosecutions in 2016 for the crime of meeting a child after sexual grooming in England, Wales and Northern Ireland used vigilante evidence - up from 11% in 2011.

Chief Constable Simon Bailey, who works as the national lead for child protection, admitted, “I think [working with them]'s something we're going to have to potentially have to look at, yes, but it comes with some real complexity."

Source: https://www.irishcentr...exual-activity-child

Like it or not it would appear that these groups are making some signifiant impacts with regard to the collection and use of evidence in relevant court cases

Lackey · 21-11-2017 01:47AM

deco nate wrote: »

That's the courts, nothing to do with the hard work the police force put in to the case.

I never said otherwise...
I've posted on more than one occasion here that a guards job is like pissing against the wind...
bring criminal in front of judge, criminal released, rinse and repeat...

What I actually said still stands.....
When you see scumbags walking away from our courts with 80+ convictions, including the lenient sentences that are handed down for sex crimes.....
people taking things into their own hands is no surprise.

I'm sure we would all like to be against it...until its one of our kids on the wrong end of it

if it was one of your kids how cool would your head be?

Strazdas · 21-11-2017 01:55AM

gozunda wrote: »

Yes you said that- once again without any qualification

Do I really have to post this for the third time?
Jeez H Chxst ....
Unlike Santa Claus these scum do exist and are getting caught .

Reaction to those 'paedophile hunter' documentaries that were shown on Ch. 4 in recent times was overwhelmingly negative towards the vigilantes. People felt what they were watching was disturbing and sinister, definitely not something positive or empowering.

It's obvious that the police would secretly regard these guys as scum and nothing but a nuisance but they cannot say so publicly, especially as the vigilantes are going on the pretext of supposedly helping the police.

wonderfullife · 21-11-2017 01:56AM

Omackeral wrote: »

That's horrible and they're scum. I haven't once advocated violence against these suspects by the way. Major difference in this case we're discussing is that the police were en route from the start of the video. Nobody was physically harmed or injured.

Nobody was physically harmed or injured partly because the fella didn't resist or attempt to run or fight. So what if police were en route? Police were on the way to Darren Kelly too but he was stabbed in the meantime. Not everyone will be passive. People will get hurt, people will die. Innocent people have lost their lives and had their lives destroyed by these groups.

Transcripts of these paedophile hunter groups conversations are hard to come by but I found one example and to be honest I don't even ethically know what to think of it.

The decoy girl is "15 nearly 16", the "groomer" is 21.

DANIEL Hey there.
DECOY Hi.
DANIEL You look way older than 15! No offence LOL.
DECOY We'll I'm not LOL. I'm 16 in March and I can't wait. No offence taken.
DANIEL So whatcha doing on here?
DECOY Nothing really just bored cus I'm off school didn't feel well this morning. What about you?
DANIEL Passing the time till I fall asleep.
DECOY And it's bliming freezing here. Where you from?
DANIEL Australia.
DECOY Wow that's far.
DANIEL So are you from the UK?
DECOY Ya I'm from UK. Gloucester.
DANIEL Ah cool.
DECOY I'm Katie by the way, nice to meet you (smiley face symbol).
DANIEL Daniel here. Pleased to meet you too Katie.
DECOY Thank you.
DANIEL You are cute btw.
DECOY Well I wouldn't go that far but thanks.
DANIEL Well I'm transfixed by your profile pics eyes.
DECOY They're my mums eyes LOL.
DANIEL I can't stop looking at it.
DECOY She has the same eyes.
DANIEL Is she as pretty as you though.
DECOY Yes of course she's a beautiful woman.
DANIEL Random question for you though, what is your bra size?
DECOY That was a bit random.
DANIEL I did say it was a random question. Not going to answer it....?
DECOY Do you always ask random questions Daniel. I'm a B cup.
DANIEL Oh that's a nice handful. He he.
DECOY Cheeky.
DANIEL Have any boys been lucky enough to see them or even get to play with them?
DECOY Well if I'm honest most boys at my school are idiots. So no, none of them.
DANIEL Never taken a pic of them?
DECOY Never really had a reason to.
DANIEL So what are you wearing atm?
DECOY I see them every day.
DANIEL Lucky you!

I have a difficult time accepting a 21 year-old being placed on the sex offenders list for the above conversation.

deco nate · 21-11-2017 01:56AM

Lackey wrote: »

When you see scumbags walking away from our courts with 80+ convictions, including the lenient sentences that are handed down for sex crimes.....
people taking things into their own hands is no surprise.

I'm sure we would all like to be against it...until its one of our kids on the wrong end of it.

Your posts in full, I said that's the courts. Not the police, I said the police work hard, not their fault a judge let's them go. Your post alludes to the police not doing enough, so people take things into their own hands.(ie.) vigilante law.

Imo

end of the road · 21-11-2017 02:03AM

Omackeral wrote: »

Anyway, you don't really engage in proper debate IMO, it's just ''nope, proof, wrong, fact'' in no particular order.

not true. i very much debate. yes sometimes i will ask for proof of claims if they are questionable, as i'm entitled to do.

Lackey · 21-11-2017 02:05AM

deco nate wrote: »

Your posts in full, I said that's the courts. Not the police, I said the police work hard, not their fault a judge let's them go. Your post alludes to the police not doing enough, so people take things into their own hands.(ie.) vigilante law

I quoted my full post and can quote previous posts where I have specifically said a guards job is like pissing against the wind
You are focusing on a point that I have clarified twice, I can see why these situations will happen

If it was one of your kids would you keep a cool head...but before you reply really think about it.
Close your eyes and picture an adult sending one of your young teenagers pictures of their genitals...fantasising about them asking them questions about their body and arranging to meet up with them.

Edited to add/change the tone of my post: as no actual vigilantism took place in this case ...I'm just interested TBH what your stance would be if it was a child close to you and not the hypothetical child in this case

end of the road · 21-11-2017 02:16AM

gozunda wrote: »

Adults targeting young children for sex is not normal behaviour either and yet you fail to mention this. Why?

because it goes without saying. and i already made my feelings clear on what should happen this individual in my first post in this thread.

gozunda wrote: »

Are those attempting to stop such behaviour really deserving of your derision?

the police officers involved in catching criminals, no . that's their job. people looking for likes on social media, absolutely.

gozunda wrote: »

Not everyone may agree with the methods however the proof that their operations do work are there for all to see.

the proof that their operations often don't work is there to see, but in a greater amount.

lukesmom · 21-11-2017 02:16AM

Not sure how I feel about the groups who use decoys to target and catch potential pedophiles. On one hand I think it's great to expose them and catch them out when they are on the way to meet their victim. On the other hand they are taking the law into their hands and are pretending to be younger than they are. They aren't 'technically' catching the supposed pedophiles physically doing anything wrong apart from apparent grooming, which by all accounts seems to be quite sketchy if the transcript above is anything to go by. I have very young children myself and the thought of them being groomed terrifies me, but at the same time, how can you be sent to jail for trying to groom and rape a minor that turns out to be a decoy? Where is the justice in that?. I also have watched quite a few of the videos where they rock up to where they have agreed to meet the perpetrator. There can be quite a bit of laughing and immature behaviour from these groups which really undermines their apparent intention and does little to validate their sincerity. I'm really 50/50 on how ethical this practice is (the decoy).

deco nate · 21-11-2017 02:24AM

Lackey wrote: »

I quoted my full post and can quote previous posts where I have specifically said a guards job is like pissing against the wind
You are focusing on a point that I have clarified twice, I can see why these situations will happen

If it was one of your kids would you keep a cool head...but before you reply really think about it.
Close your eyes and picture an adult sending one of your young teenagers pictures of their genitals...fantasising about them asking them questions about their body and arranging to meet up with them.

Edited to add/change the tone of my post: as no actual vigilantism took place in this case ...I'm just interested TBH what your stance would be if it was a child close to you and not the hypothetical child in this case

Leave it to the police, is it that hard? If something happens to your/my kid and I killed the pedo.
How is that helping? Really how is that helping?! The kid would lose a parent. You really think that will help the kid?
Delusional

Strazdas · 21-11-2017 02:29AM

lukesmom wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about the groups who use decoys to target and catch potential pedophiles. On one hand I think it's great to expose them and catch them out when they are on the way to meet their victim. On the other hand they are taking the law into their hands and are pretending to be younger than they are. They aren't 'technically' catching the supposed pedophiles physically doing anything wrong apart from apparent grooming, which by all accounts seems to be quite sketchy if the transcript above is anything to go by. I have very young children myself and the thought of them being groomed terrifies me, but at the same time, how can you be sent to jail for trying to groom and rape a minor that turns out to be a decoy? Where is the justice in that?. I also have watched quite a few of the videos where they rock up to where they have agreed to meet the perpetrator. There can be quite a bit of laughing and immature behaviour from these groups which really undermines their apparent intention and does little to validate their sincerity. I'm really 50/50 on how ethical this practice is (the decoy).

It doesn't help either that every one of them seems to be an inarticulate chav from a rough housing estate. They are unlikely bedfellows to be helping the police and I'd say the cops on the beat are sick of them and want absolutely nothing to do with them - these are people they'd normally be arresting rather than "liaising" with.

BorneTobyWilde · 21-11-2017 02:41AM

Strazdas wrote: »

It doesn't help either that every one of them seems to be an inarticulate chav from a rough housing estate. They are unlikely bedfellows to be helping the police and I'd say the cops on the beat are sick of them and want absolutely nothing to do with them - these are people they'd normally be arresting rather than "liaising" with.

Would love to see someone try their tactics on them. Would be funny if that guy on tape shooting his mouth off fell for same type of sting. I think he would, some journalist should try it. It would be very telling.

wonderfullife · 21-11-2017 02:45AM

lukesmom wrote: »

Not sure how I feel about the groups who use decoys to target and catch potential pedophiles. On one hand I think it's great to expose them and catch them out when they are on the way to meet their victim. On the other hand they are taking the law into their hands and are pretending to be younger than they are. They aren't 'technically' catching the supposed pedophiles physically doing anything wrong apart from apparent grooming, which by all accounts seems to be quite sketchy if the transcript above is anything to go by. I have very young children myself and the thought of them being groomed terrifies me, but at the same time, how can you be sent to jail for trying to groom and rape a minor that turns out to be a decoy? Where is the justice in that?. I also have watched quite a few of the videos where they rock up to where they have agreed to meet the perpetrator. There can be quite a bit of laughing and immature behaviour from these groups which really undermines their apparent intention and does little to validate their sincerity. I'm really 50/50 on how ethical this practice is (the decoy).

The other part I find completely unacceptable is the fact these paedophile hunters often use strictly over-18's dating sites.

There has been at least 6 examples I can find within the last 8 months of people being charged with grooming after a 'sting' operation where a paedophile group set up a fake profile on Plenty of Fish. The minimum age you can set on your POF profile is 18. People going on to that site are by definition seeking to chat to and meet adults.

Here's one such example from August of this year:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4169667/judge-blasts-paedophile-vigilante-who-poses-online-in-a-superhero-cape-after-child-grooming-case-collapses-because-of-his-misleading-and-inaccurate-evidence/

The guy (27) was acquitted of the charges. He said he believed he was talking to a girl who was 18.

To my mind, it becomes entrapment immediately because the first contact by the accused isn't to knowingly send a message to someone underage whatsoever. The intention is clearly to message an adult female because they are on an adult dating site and messaging someone who has listed their age as 18.

During the course of the conversation, the Decoy then reveals "Oh by the way I am actually 15 is that ok?".

Look let's call a spade a spade - that's not targeting paedophiles or trying to protect children. It's trying to entrap people who clearly are not seeking out children and for whatever reason they continue the conversation after the Decoy reveals a lower age.

The whole lot of these groups - and their tactics - stink to high heaven.

mkdon · 21-11-2017 03:13AM

Did this monster have kids himself?

Was he married?

Rte suspended him - surely that means he is fired for good?

Did gards check his laptop

GT_TDI_150 · 21-11-2017 03:53AM

We arent talking about letting a pickpocket steal a bag/wallet/phone so he can be caught around the corner and have his backpack turned upside down...

This is a 50+ fella meeting up with (what he thought was) a 13yr old CHILD (after sending on d!ck pics) to have sex...

How far do people propose you let him go before confronting him? Would ye have prefered he met with a real girl(even if one was used as bait - imagine how uncomfortable that cud make her), even then at what point is he guilty? In the room, in his underwear, in the bed, in the act...

I for one am happy people like him get caught before they get their hands on any real life kids (as far as we know anyway). Once he shows up to meet the child he sent dick pics to ... guilty... im sure hes not gone to leeds to say "oops wrong number"

orangerhyme · 21-11-2017 04:11AM

mkdon wrote: »

Did this monster have kids himself?

Was he married?

Rte suspended him - surely that means he is fired for good?

Did gards check his laptop

Im sure he will be fired for good but they cant until he is convicted I think, since right now it is only allegations by a vigilante group.

He is married to a beautiful portuguese woman, whom i assume is single now.

Outlaw Pete · 21-11-2017 04:23AM

Vitaly did a prank version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3txXyKfQZ4w

wonderfullife · 21-11-2017 05:08AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

I for one am happy people like him get caught before they get their hands on any real life kids (as far as we know anyway).

Everyone in their right mind agrees with you.

Nobody on here is advocating for allowing someone to molest a child. The issue a lot of people have is with the methods of the vigilante groups and the questionable causality on display.

Put it another way, it is absolutely staggering the amount of relatively harmless men with no convictions they have entrapped by putting up profiles of girls on adult dating sites as 18, tricking men into messaging what they believe is an 18 year-old only to go down a rabbit hole.

It's chicken and the egg stuff. How many of these guys would have messaged the 'decoy' girl if the decoy wasn't on an adult dating site? I'd guess a hell of a lot less.

I'm personally just as concerned (more so) with the institutional, endemic problems faced by children in western countries.

For example - America has one of the worst child-marriage problems in the world with over 250,000 children legally marrying adults since 2001 but there's crickets ever heard about it.

A 10-year-old girl in Tennessee legally married a 31-year-old and an 11 year-old boy legally married a 27 year-old woman. Why on Earth a woman of that age (or man) would want to marry an 11-year-old is beyond me. Frightening actually. The biggest age gap marriage was a 14 year-old girl marrying a 74 year-old man.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

The Washington Post ran an op-ed in February this year titled "Why can 12-year-olds still get married in the United States?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/02/10/why-does-the-united-states-still-let-12-year-old-girls-get-married/?utm_term=.31c0f8593d73

Almost every single State has legal loopholes to allow children as young as 9 to marry adults as long as there is parental consent and/or the consent of a Judge. A bloody Judge actually signed off on an 11-year-old girl marrying a 46 year-old because the parents approved of it.

In thousands of cases, young boys and girls are marrying their (statutory) rapists. Instead of prison, they're being walked down the aisle and married. If the older guy has a few quid, he often obtains parental consent by throwing the parents a few bob.

It's MENTAL that this carry on happens on a daily basis in a country that's supposed to be against this sort of carry on. SMH.

A bit off tangent there but I don't care if it's an American child, an Irish child, an English child, an Iranian child, we should stand up for children wherever they are and speak out against legally enabling child molestation.

21-11-2017 05:22AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vitaly did a prank version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3txXyKfQZ4w

I discovered that video a few months back. She easily looks like she's in her 20s.

Rumour has it some of his videos are fake.

up for anything · 21-11-2017 06:09AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

.......

During the course of the conversation, the Decoy then reveals "Oh by the way I am actually 15 is that ok?".

Look let's call a spade a spade - that's not targeting paedophiles or trying to protect children. It's trying to entrap people who clearly are not seeking out children and for whatever reason they continue the conversation after the Decoy reveals a lower age.

The whole lot of these groups - and their tactics - stink to high heaven.

Enough said. There should be absolutely no reason.

RabbleRouser2k · 21-11-2017 06:43AM

511 wrote: »

I discovered that video a few months back. She easily looks like she's in her 20s.

Rumour has it some of his videos are fake.

Except the ones where he did porn, including gay porn.

rebel456 · 21-11-2017 07:40AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Except the ones where he did porn, including gay porn.

And gay porn is worse?

21-11-2017 08:09AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Nobody was physically harmed or injured partly because the fella didn't resist or attempt to run or fight. So what if police were en route? Police were on the way to Darren Kelly too but he was stabbed in the meantime. Not everyone will be passive. People will get hurt, people will die. Innocent people have lost their lives and had their lives destroyed by these groups.

Right but here's the thing. In the video above and the Drogheda video, which are the ones I'm referring to, the stings were streamed live on FB. While we might not like to admit it or be comfortable with it, that's so no violence can take place against the suspect.

The groups in the videoes that have surfaced over the weekend seem to know the legalities of this stuff. They don't physically harm anyone. They say the filming is for everyone's protection, whether ethical or not. They also have fairly damning evidence to hang which they hand over to the authorities.

I'm exclusively discussing the cases that were brought to light over the weekend as they're the only ones I'm familiar with.

baldbear · 21-11-2017 08:15AM

rebel456 wrote: »

And gay porn is worse?

Dirty feckers

ride me sideways was another one he did.

Trekker09 · 21-11-2017 08:19AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's MENTAL that this carry on happens on a daily basis in a country that's supposed to be against this sort of carry on. SMH.

Well they actively encourage it with their sick children's beauty pageants.

While I'm delighted that these scum are caught red handed, I'm slightly worried that these vigilante groups could be causing legal loopholes by publishing the videos so soon after the event. I just get the feeling that for some of them, they enjoy being in the spotlight. That being said, having a young daughter myself, I'm delighted that this whole subject is in the spotlight as it should make vulnerable kids a lot more aware of the predators that are out there.

Hannibal_Smith · 21-11-2017 08:22AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Tell that to Darren Kelly who was stabbed to death after a vigilante sting operation by another paedophile hunter group in Essex. He was lured to a meeting and killed by the group because he was resisting. Oh and he was resisting because he was completely innocent (text messages proved he was led to believe he was meeting a grown woman).

"Speaking after the hearing senior investigating officer Detective Chief Inspector Stephen Jennings said: “While nothing will bring Darren back, we hope the verdict will help give his family some closure so they can move forward.

“Darren was viciously attacked and lost his life due to the completely unfounded belief that he intended to meet an underage girl.

“Essex Police strongly deter anyone from vigilante behaviour at any level. They could be acting upon inaccurate information and putting innocent people at serious risk.

“Anyone who has a genuine concern about potential criminal activity should always contact us so that we can investigate and not take the law into their own hands."

Win some, lose some I suppose, right?

Oh come on! That was a vigilante group who set out to murder. The ones Creaven did nothing of the sort. There's a difference between cold blooded killers luring a fella for such purpose. And catching a fella on camera who admitted he was there to meet a 13 year old.

But forget about that I suppose, right?

gozunda · 21-11-2017 08:30AM

Strazdas wrote: »

Reaction to those 'paedophile hunter' documentaries that were shown on Ch. 4 in recent times was overwhelmingly negative towards the vigilantes. People felt what they were watching was disturbing and sinister, definitely not something positive or empowering.

It's obvious that the police would secretly regard these guys as scum and nothing but a nuisance but they cannot say so publicly, especially as the vigilantes are going on the pretext of supposedly helping the police.

Surely the "scum" we should be most concerned in this instance with are paedophiles or is that now forgotten about? The police most recent statement regarding these groups appears to counter your opinion in many regards.

What 'may be obvious to you does not hold to the wider world

Were the police on this talk show?

Please at least provide link to this Ch4 talk show you refer to ...

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

Comments