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
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.
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.
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.
up for anything wrote: » Enough said. There should be absolutely no reason.
Discodog wrote: » That 40 minute video may make a trial very difficult. How can you find an unbiased jury ?
NIMAN wrote: » He's unlikely to be found innocent in this, he's admitted it.
wonderfullife wrote: » https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/792908/bluewater-fight-the-hunted-one-paedophile-hunters-groomingI'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.
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
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
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.
bucketybuck wrote: » To who? To the court? A judge? In a statement? Or under duress for a facebook video?
Lackey wrote: » Guess he was under duress when he sent those dick pics to a 13 year old too?
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
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.
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
Reati wrote: » Seemed to imply they don't have any support from police but as it's not ilgeal thay can't stop them.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
