Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

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

1…2425272930…44

Comments

  • #782
    CeilingFly
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,369 ✭✭✭CeilingFly


    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

    Do you understand basic justice?

    Innocent until PROVEN guilty - whether it Gerry Adams murdering people in Northern Ireland and Britain or some maniac openly shooting people in a street, there has still to be presumption of innocence until proven in a court for certain situations.

    So he is suspended for now and until a court proves guilt or he admits guilt they cannot sack him.

    Yes he was married (and a lovely wife) - and had plenty of flings with women over the years and yes the gardai were at his home (and his former parent's home where his brother now lives) and took away some items for further examination for a potential case here if evidence is found.

    So, whilst we are sort of know he's guilty, he can't be fired until there is a conviction. - And the same would apply to me and you if accused of any crime.


  • #783
    gramar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,045 ✭✭✭✭gramar


    If this fella didn't work in RTE it wouldn't have been more than a footnote in the news.
    Seems the media want to put the boot in precisely because of that.


  • #784
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,059 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    gramar wrote: »
    If this fella didn't work in RTE it wouldn't have been more than a footnote in the news.
    Seems the media want to put the boot in precisely because of that.

    I think they are using this to push the thing forward and expose what they are doing. There is no doubt allot of ego massaging going on among the vigilante group on the video. But no doubt they got their man, and one wonders in this case why aren’t police on top of this stuff.


  • #785
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,872 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    Do you understand basic justice?

    Innocent until PROVEN guilty - whether it Gerry Adams murdering people in Northern Ireland and Britain or some maniac openly shooting people in a street, there has still to be presumption of innocence until proven in a court for certain situations.

    So he is suspended for now and until a court proves guilt or he admits guilt they cannot sack him.

    Yes he was married (and a lovely wife) - and had plenty of flings with women over the years and yes the gardai were at his home (and his former parent's home where his brother now lives) and took away some items for further examination for a potential case here if evidence is found.

    So, whilst we are sort of know he's guilty, he can't be fired until there is a conviction. - And the same would apply to me and you if accused of any crime.


    I'm not going to get into the ins and outs of this particular case, but the above certainly isn't true. Anyone can be fired for gross misconduct. Why he hasn't been fired isn't at all necessarily predicated on the outcome of any trial.


  • #786
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Omackeral wrote: »
    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.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/792908/bluewater-fight-the-hunted-one-paedophile-hunters-grooming

    I'll just quote you the headline as it's all that needs to be said:

    "Brawl at shopping centre after paedophile hunters confront suspect live on Facebook. VIOLENT scenes broke out at a shopping centre after a man was confronted by a vigilante paedophile hunter group."


    You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think live streaming it is going to prevent violence. When emotions are highly charged, it can and DOES turn violent very quickly regardless of cameras filming it.

    You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to condone their methods when everyone from the police down condemn their methods.

    up for anything wrote: »
    Enough said. There should be absolutely no reason.

    If someone got chatting to an 18-year-old girl on a dating site and she confessed after a few days that she's 15 but is depressed/lonely and could do with a friend to talk to, they should simply block her?

    There's a million and one reasons why someone might continue talking to her but the relevant point is she had 18 listed as her public age. That means these guys were trying to chat to adult women not children.

    I'm 100% against these paedophile groups tactics when they are using adult dating sites like Plenty of Fish, setting up profiles claiming to be 18, 19, 20 years old and then fishing for someone stupid enough to keep talking when the decoy reveals she's actually younger.

    That's completely different to a genuine paedophile searching facebook trying to randomly befriend children. In that instance it's the paedophile actively seeking out a child. In the former instance, it's men seeking to chat to adult women and being tricked by a bunch of thugs with a fake profile.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    Discodog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    That 40 minute video may make a trial very difficult. How can you find an unbiased jury ?


  • #788
    Dev84
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Dev84


    Discodog wrote: »
    That 40 minute video may make a trial very difficult. How can you find an unbiased jury ?

    He'll just plead guilty.


  • #789
    NIMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,500 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    He's unlikely to be found innocent in this, he's admitted it.


  • #790
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,033 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    NIMAN wrote: »
    He's unlikely to be found innocent in this, he's admitted it.

    To who? To the court? A judge? In a statement?

    Or under duress for a facebook video?


  • #791
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,448 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    NIMAN wrote: »
    He's unlikely to be found innocent in this, he's admitted it.

    Hes only admitted to meeting up with a 13 year old because he has no kids of his own and wanted to get a feel for what it was like....the poor man ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/792908/bluewater-fight-the-hunted-one-paedophile-hunters-grooming

    I'll just quote you the headline as it's all that needs to be said:

    "Brawl at shopping centre after paedophile hunters confront suspect live on Facebook. VIOLENT scenes broke out at a shopping centre after a man was confronted by a vigilante paedophile hunter group.




    You're not including the rest in that post since it wouldn't fit with the rest of yer posts rabidly defending them



    That waste of space got jail :

    http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/news/jail-for-pervert-attacked-during-128887/

    Mirza Mispa Beg jailed after being confronted by The Hunted One at Bluewater

    In the first message to Beg, originally from Bangladesh, “she” said: “I am 14 years old and come from Kent.”


    "You plainly have a sexual interest in young children a fact which is self-evident in the circumstances of this offence
    - Judge David Griffith-Jones

    and now :

    The vigilante group live streamed the confrontation on Facebook, but because of the violence it has since stated it will no longer do so in such cases.


  • #793
    Lackey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    To who? To the court? A judge? In a statement?

    Or under duress for a facebook video?

    Guess he was under duress when he sent those dick pics to a 13 year old too?


  • #794
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,033 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Lackey wrote: »
    Guess he was under duress when he sent those dick pics to a 13 year old too?

    Is there some point you are trying to make here?


  • #795
    Hammer89
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,004 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Hes only admitted to meeting up with a 13 year old because he has no kids of his own and wanted to get a feel for what it was like....the poor man ;)

    I think he just wanted to get a feel full stop.


  • #796
    Lackey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Lackey


    wonderfullife wrote: »

    If someone got chatting to an 18-year-old girl on a dating site and she confessed after a few days that she's 15 but is depressed/lonely and could do with a friend to talk to, they should simply block her?


    Absolutely YES!!! they block her not only for her protection but their own!

    There is NOT ONE good thing that could ever come from the above situation.


  • #797
    Gwynplaine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,909 ✭✭✭Gwynplaine


    Watched most of the video, he seems very calm.

    "Doobalin Island, ya Bastid"


  • #798
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    wakka12 wrote: »
    He is that way because of his genetics. Who would choose to be a paedophile and have the possibility of what happened to him happening? Regardless its a mental illness that needs to be treated

    It's not a mental illness that can be treated?

    ....he's attracted to kids....it's horrible and should never ever be acted on/encouraged....but no amount of therapy will ever change what someone finds attractive??


    Best people can hope for is things like this where those inclined to act on it are caught before anything bad happens,....and locked away for long while and banned from unguarded contact with children


  • #799
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Reati wrote: »
    Seemed to imply they don't have any support from police but as it's not ilgeal thay can't stop them.
    There is no law preventing an individual or a group from engaging in this kind of investigatory work.
    There is nothing stopping them from setting up this kind of sting.

    An obligation to report to police really only appears when you know of a crime being or been committed. In this instance, they don't know a crime has been committed until the guy appears at the meeting point and he's clearly not who he claimed to be. Then they call the cops.

    That's how they operate "legally". But of course, vigilante groups are not controlled or audited in any way, they're not trained, they're not authorised to gather evidence for legal purposes, and so forth. So the police line is always going to be discouraging of vigilante groups, because it can't be any other way. 9 times out of 10, the vigilantes fnck up an ongoing investigation or physically attack an innocent person. Sometimes they get it right, usually they don't.
    Said it's not entrapment based on the law and how they do things. I.e the person who is grooming needs to add the fake account (no idea how that works) and suggest the meet up and sex acts etc
    Set up a fake profile, add yourself as a friend to every teenage girl that comes up in the suggestions (teenagers are idiots and will add everyone). Wait for a bite.

    You could even go through their friends' lists looking for suspect accounts and adding them as friends. It's only entrapment if they accept the request and initiate conversations about meeting up.
    wonderfullife wrote: »
    You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think live streaming it is going to prevent violence. When emotions are highly charged, it can and DOES turn violent very quickly regardless of cameras filming it.
    As I said yesterday, what will happen is that people arriving to these meetups will just come armed.
    The groups are making the mistake in believing that these are otherwise rational individuals doing something horrible. If they were rational, they wouldn't go to the meetup at all. They wouldn't take that risk.
    But they're not. So they'll still go to the meetups, but go armed with a knife or worse. If they get caught, their life is already ruined, so they've no reason not to double down and try fight their way out.

    With this being a high-profile incident, I can see more wannabe heroes giving this a go. It's only a matter of time before a vigilante has a hunting knife (that you can buy in any camping shop en route) plunged through his chest. Then the government will outlaw the practice of luring paedophiles online and the Sun and Daily Mail will spit blood about the government protecting paedos from justice.


  • #800
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    seamus wrote: »
    There is no law preventing an individual or a group from engaging in this kind of investigatory work.
    There is nothing stopping them from setting up this kind of sting.

    An obligation to report to police really only appears when you know of a crime being or been committed. In this instance, they don't know a crime has been committed until the guy appears at the meeting point and he's clearly not who he claimed to be. Then they call the cops.

    That's how they operate "legally". But of course, vigilante groups are not controlled or audited in any way, they're not trained, they're not authorised to gather evidence for legal purposes, and so forth. So the police line is always going to be discouraging of vigilante groups, because it can't be any other way. 9 times out of 10, the vigilantes fnck up an ongoing investigation or physically attack an innocent person. Sometimes they get it right, usually they don't.

    Set up a fake profile, add yourself as a friend to every teenage girl that comes up in the suggestions (teenagers are idiots and will add everyone). Wait for a bite.

    You could even go through their friends' lists looking for suspect accounts and adding them as friends. It's only entrapment if they accept the request and initiate conversations about meeting up.

    As I said yesterday, what will happen is that people arriving to these meetups will just come armed.
    The groups are making the mistake in believing that these are otherwise rational individuals doing something horrible. If they were rational, they wouldn't go to the meetup at all. They wouldn't take that risk.
    But they're not. So they'll still go to the meetups, but go armed with a knife or worse. If they get caught, their life is already ruined, so they've no reason not to double down and try fight their way out.

    With this being a high-profile incident, I can see more wannabe heroes giving this a go. It's only a matter of time before a vigilante has a hunting knife (that you can buy in any camping shop en route) plunged through his chest. Then the government will outlaw the practice of luring paedophiles online and the Sun and Daily Mail will spit blood about the government protecting paedos from justice.

    ... or they get the wrong person, wind up in a fight and have to defend themsleves and either kill or maim said innocent person.

    Then the sun and mail will turn on the vigilantes and label them vicious or murderous thugs.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #801
    20Cent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,940 ✭✭✭20Cent


    If they hadn't done what they did yer man would have been in contact with real teenage girls and possibly raped one of them. The vigilantes stopped that and now he is exposed and charged. Good work by them probably saved some young person.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,874 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    It's not a mental illness that can be treated?

    ....he's attracted to kids....it's horrible and should never ever be acted on/encouraged....but no amount of therapy will ever change what someone finds attractive??


    Best people can hope for is things like this where those inclined to act on it are caught before anything bad happens,....and locked away for long while and banned from unguarded contact with children

    There's a number of possible reasons why something like that can happen. It's been shown that people who are abused are more likely to be abusers and it has nothing to do with sex.

    I wouldn't feel comfortable putting out a blanket statement like "they can't be cured/helped".

    In germany they started a campaign to get people who are attracted to children to come forward. the idea is that they can reach out to mental health professionals and get help before they offend. Apparently they're seeing some success with it.


  • #803
    Reati
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭Reati


    seamus wrote: »
    Set up a fake profile, add yourself as a friend to every teenage girl that comes up in the suggestions (teenagers are idiots and will add everyone). Wait for a bite.

    You could even go through their friends' lists looking for suspect accounts and adding them as friends. It's only entrapment if they accept the request and initiate conversations about meeting up.

    While I think this is also how it's work the guy on the interview said explicitly they don't do this. They are found by the groomer but with over a billion accounts on Facebook I can't see how they are not advertising or posting the accounts somewhere to get a bite.
    seamus wrote: »
    As I said yesterday, what will happen is that people arriving to these meetups will just come armed.
    The groups are making the mistake in believing that these are otherwise rational individuals doing something horrible. If they were rational, they wouldn't go to the meetup at all. They wouldn't take that risk.
    But they're not. So they'll still go to the meetups, but go armed with a knife or worse. If they get caught, their life is already ruined, so they've no reason not to double down and try fight their way out.

    With this being a high-profile incident, I can see more wannabe heroes giving this a go. It's only a matter of time before a vigilante has a hunting knife (that you can buy in any camping shop en route) plunged through his chest. Then the government will outlaw the practice of luring paedophiles online and the Sun and Daily Mail will spit blood about the government protecting paedos from justice.

    This is exactly the longer term outcome I see too. At some point they will target a person from a well organized gang of exploiters or the like who will not be afraid of using a knife or similar. Interestingly in one of the videos, but not sure which one, they are wearing stab vests and mention it to another member of the sting to get something out of a stab vest that someone was wearing.


  • #804
    Spudmonkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    Myself and my housemate had a look at the video last night and had the same reaction.

    The guy is obviously wrong and should be caught and should be prosecuted but the manner in which it was done was wrong. Streaming this live, seeing someones life fall apart in real-time. There is some voyeuristic element to this which people watching can justify by his actions.

    He still has a family and kids and subjecting them to his crimes is clearly wrong. By all means catch him, prosecute him and jail him if necessary but don't drag other innocents into this before things have been done officially. What if he was an innocent guy? The guy who runs this group was on Newstalk this morning and said they've never caught an innocent guy but it has happened with other groups.

    It just seems wrong to me.


  • #805
    Mebuntu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 911 ✭✭✭Mebuntu


    Just on a point of law. How can you be charged with committing a crime against someone who doesn't exist?

    Any legal eagles on here?


  • #806
    TallGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,906 ✭✭✭TallGlass


    Come to think of it. I don't feel one bit sorry for him. I do for his friends and family, giving them abuse is not on.

    I would say this is more than likely why alot of abuse victims stay unnamed in court cases.

    I guess for the sake of his family or friends who are innocent in this it's not really a great idea to film it and release it.

    I have to agree. Its only a matter of time before someone ends up getting seriously injured or killed. And I think some guy killed himself after a sting.

    Suppose it's all a bit fúcked up on both parts, some guy wanting sex with a child and the others getting there jollys watching a persons life fall apart in front of there eyes.


  • #807
    Dev84
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Dev84


    TallGlass wrote: »
    Come to think of it. I don't feel one bit sorry for him. I do for his friends and family, giving them abuse is not on.

    I would say this is more than likely why alot of abuse victims stay unnamed in court cases.

    I guess for the sake of his family or friends who are innocent in this it's not really a great idea to film it and release it.

    I have to agree. Its only a matter of time before someone ends up getting seriously injured or killed. And I think some guy killed himself after a sting.

    Suppose it's all a bit fúcked up on both parts, some guy wanting sex with a child and the others getting there jollys watching a persons life fall apart in front of there eyes.

    Was the guy who killed himself a pedo?


  • #808
    Reati
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,924 ✭✭✭Reati


    Mebuntu wrote: »
    Just on a point of law. How can you be charged with committing a crime against someone who doesn't exist?

    Any legal eagles on here?

    Someone posted the legai text earlier but based on the wording it's the intent of getting a child to do something sexual is the crime. So it doesn't matter if the child isn't real in that case as they intent was show by flying to Leeds, booking hotel etc


  • #809
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    It's not a mental illness that can be treated?

    ....he's attracted to kids....it's horrible and should never ever be acted on/encouraged....but no amount of therapy will ever change what someone finds attractive??


    Best people can hope for is things like this where those inclined to act on it are caught before anything bad happens,....and locked away for long while and banned from unguarded contact with children

    What you are talking about is internment.
    You are suggesting that we devise some method of determining who might be inclined to commit certain acts and then lock them up "for a long while".
    What an idiotic suggestion?


  • #810
    Dev84
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Dev84


    Reati wrote: »
    Someone posted the legai text earlier but based on the wording it's the intent of getting a child to do something sexual is the crime. So it doesn't matter if the child isn't real in that case as they intent was show by flying to Leeds, booking hotel etc


    And sending a supposed child pics of his dick saying he was horney.

    Filthy animal.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Dev84
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 739 ✭✭✭Dev84


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    What you are talking about is internment.
    You are suggesting that we devise some method of determining who might be inclined to commit certain acts and then lock them up "for a long while".
    What an idiotic suggestion?


    Minority report.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement