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

FrancieBrady

Spudmonkey wrote: »

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.

It's completely wrong. And the courts need to rule this out as a means of catching someone.
If a video gets released on line before a proper court case then the case should simply fail.
Be tough on it from the get go and tough on the glory hunters. Their motives are little more than self promotion imo. If it is, as they claim, the greater good then they should have no problem complying with privacy and decency measures.
The abuse the innocent people caught up in this are getting has to be addressed.

Dev84

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's completely wrong. And the courts need to rule this out as a means of catching someone.
If a video gets released on line before a proper court case then the case should simply fail.
Be tough on it from the get go and tough on the glory hunters. Their motives are little more than self promotion imo. If it is, as they claim, the greater good then they should have no problem complying with privacy and decency measures.
The abuse the innocent people caught up in this are getting has to be addressed.

Madness. Your logic is typical lefty liberal portect everyone except the law abiding hard workers.

Thats grand. Let the pedo they have caught red handed go.

What happens when he then abuses a child for real? Will you explain it to their parents?

Utter nonsense.

The means are fully justified by the outcome.

Dev84

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's completely wrong. And the courts need to rule this out as a means of catching someone.
If a video gets released on line before a proper court case then the case should simply fail.
Be tough on it from the get go and tough on the glory hunters. Their motives are little more than self promotion imo. If it is, as they claim, the greater good then they should have no problem complying with privacy and decency measures.
The abuse the innocent people caught up in this are getting has to be addressed.

What innocent people?

Chrongen

Omackeral wrote: »

That's hard to argue against in all honesty. It's sad. I agree with you. Never really thought of it from that point of view.

That's what people have been trying to say all along. But the pro-vigilante elements on here won't listen to any kind of reasoning. The moment you express reservations about the tactics of these groups you get met with a barrage of bile about how you're defending kiddy-fiddlers or such.

They even go on to heap derision on the police stating that if they did their jobs then these groups wouldn't be needed.

These groups claim to be protecting children from predators but then they go on to video and stream it live for the shock value, the clicks, the likes and the views and the income that that will generate. If they were solely interested in protecting children and catching predators they would simply pass on all their findings to the police and let justice take its course. Instead they destroy the lives of the relatives of the perp but they also potentially destroy the lives of an INNOCENT person who they may easily mistake for a predator and then go streaming a confrontation with him.

Do you think these groups, if they got it wrong, would come online with a statement saying "Folks, the guy that we confronted in the street 2 weeks ago and called him a disgusting paedo and scum and a nonce and all that....well we made a mistake. We had completely the wrong guy. Now we know that that person's father has since committed suicide and his wife and kids have left him and he has been fired from his job as an architect and has gone into hiding. But can you all please stop firebombing his car and daubing graffiti on his house coz he's actually clean. And to the guy himself, sorry mate. Our bad."

FrancieBrady

Dev84 wrote: »

What innocent people?

His family.

There is no need to broadcast this to the public before a trial.
If these vigilantes are genuine, do the entrapping, hand the material over to the police and courts and walk away and let justice take it's course.

What is the point of handing fodder to the internet warriors and voyeurs? I don't get that bit. Only that is self promotion.

Dev84

FrancieBrady wrote: »

His family.

There is no need to broadcast this to the public before a trial.
If these vigilantes are genuine, do the entrapping, hand the material over to the police and courts and walk away and let justice take it's course.

What is the point of handing fodder to the internet warriors and voyeurs? I don't get that bit. Only that is self promotion.

Vigilantes would suggest they are taking the law into their own hands. Have they broken the law?

FrancieBrady

Dev84 wrote: »

Vigilantes would suggest they are taking the law into their own hands. Have they broken the law?

My understanding of 'vigilante' are those who take law 'enforcement' into their own hands.

Which is what these guys are doing.

It isn't something I have a problem with.

When they publish their work live online or online, before a trial, then i do have a problem.

DrPhilG

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is the point of handing fodder to the internet warriors and voyeurs? I don't get that bit. Only that is self promotion.

I have no issue with the video being shown. The look of absolute despair on these peoples faces as they realise their lives are screwed should be a serious deterrent to someone on the verge of stepping over the line from fantasy to reality.

But it should not be live. Should be released only after the suspect is convicted.

Grayson

Dev84 wrote: »

Vigilantes would suggest they are taking the law into their own hands. Have they broken the law?

There are occasions where they do open themselves up for a civil suit. However the question isn't "Have they broken the law" but rather is this the correct way of doing what they do.

There's an ethical question about whether this guy did anything wrong. He talked with adults and didn't make contact with a child. It may be that he has on other occasions but in this particular case he hasn't. It's like the difference between screaming racial abuse at a black man or screaming it at a black mannequin or a white person in blackface.

Even if we excuse that and assume that the vigilantes were correct in what they did, there's the question about whether or not they took the correct action afterwards. If they had handed over all the information to the police they would have the same effect. Someone would be arrested and charged.

So why turn it into a public spectacle? That's the main difference. They did it because it made them feel good. there's no practical benefit. It's not going to stop any other paedophiles. It'll just make them more careful. And if anyone here can show me proof that their actions in creating a spectacle have prevented any crimes, then I'd like to see it.

Once they had the evidence they should have turned it over to the police and that's it. That is the safest way of doing this. They don't risk damaging any ongoing investigations and they don't risk naming someone who might be innocent.

The simple fact is that these guys do what they do because it makes them feel like heros. they don't care about the potential negative impact of what they are doing all they care about is that they get to slap themselves on the back in front of a large audience.

Chrongen

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.

But if they live streamed a video of a completely innocent guy who was then taken into police custody and whilst being questioned a massive campaign of hate and harassment began to gather steam. He is eventaully released after questioning, returns home and gets set upon by a mob baying for blood and kicked to death, how would that justify the tactics of these gangs?

Cantona's Collars

FrancieBrady wrote: »

My understanding of 'vigilante' are those who take law 'enforcement' into their own hands.

Which is what these guys are doing.

It isn't something I have a problem with.

When they publish their work live online or online, before a trial, then i do have a problem.

I dunno if it was already posted but the leader of this group was interviewed yesterday on The Last Word and asked about the live stream,he said that they make sure that the people caught have already incriminated themselves by their online actions and the actual catching them on camera is only the end of their work and all the chats, online contact is what's used in court. What's on camera is merely the unveiling of the culprits.
This fella travelled to Leeds after 12 months of online interactions and this is what the 'vigilanties' pass on to the authorities. The unmasking of paedos was " to show the public who might be living on your street as they usually are arrested then bailed for trial yet very few see their faces so this group wants to unmask these fellas to protect kids".

I'm sure the interview can be got on Today FM's listen back facility.

FrancieBrady

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

I dunno if it was already posted but the leader of this group was interviewed yesterday on The Last Word and asked about the live stream,he said that they make sure that the people caught have already incriminated themselves by their online actions and the actual catching them on camera is only the end of their work and all the chats, online contact is what's used in court. What's on camera is merely the unveiling of the culprits.
This fella travelled to Leeds after 12 months of online interactions and this is what the 'vigilanties' pass on to the authorities. The unmasking of paedos was " to show the public who might be living on your street as they usually are arrested then bailed for trial yet very few see their faces so this group wants to unmask these fellas to protect kids".

I'm sure the interview can be got on Today FM's listen back facility.

I heard the guy on Claire Daly last night and a more self righteous dangerous fool I have yet to hear.
He brooked no caution on the negative effects his actions might have and seemed set on his save the world mission regardless.

There was an interesting discussion afterwards where expert legal opinion was that this methodology would probably fail in Irish courts.

Iseedeadpixels

Some of the comments on his fb page are a bit much "I bet you wish you f*****d them girls" under a video.

What kind of freak thinks that.

seamus

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?

I'm not a legal eagle, but for the most part crime is about intent. There's often only a crime when someone has intended to commit one.

For example, if I were to trip while walking, fall into someone else, they fall over and hit their head and die, then I will not be done for any crime. It was a pure accident.

But if I walk up and push that same person and they die in the same way, then manslaughter it is. My intent is the key factor.

Likewise, just because no girl existed in this case, doesn't mean that the accused did not intend on committing a crime.

A similar example exists in the Irish child porn laws. There doesn't actually have to be a child. Being in possession of any pornographic materials which depicts (it can be video, photo, audio, written word, drawings) a child in a sexual act is child porn. It doesn't matter if it's entirely fictional, a drawing from an artist's head, a story from a writer's mind, it's still child porn.

In fact, it can be video or photos showing an adult woman, but if they are depicting a child, then it's child porn.

The crime is the intention of depicting a child engaging in sexual acts.

Cantona's Collars

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I heard the guy on Claire Daly last night and a more self righteous dangerous fool I have yet to hear.
He brooked no caution on the negative effects his actions might have and seemed set on his save the world mission regardless.

There was an interesting discussion afterwards where expert legal opinion was that this methodology would probably fail in Irish courts.

Matt Cooper brought up the point of Irish law,I don't think they could do the same here.
IMO though I would rather see the faces of men who want to abuse kids.
A case in point was a guy who moved into my locality a few years ago and eventually was recognised by someone as a paedophile,it came to a head when he was confronted outside a local school.Nobody knew for quite a while that he was a threat to kids. People may not agree with vigilantes putting up videos of catching men like this but as a father I'd like to know my kids are as safe as can be and if this means publicly shaming such cnuts I've no problems with it.

Roger_007

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I heard the guy on Claire Daly last night and a more self righteous dangerous fool I have yet to hear.
He brooked no caution on the negative effects his actions might have and seemed set on his save the world mission regardless.

There was an interesting discussion afterwards where expert legal opinion was that this methodology would probably fail in Irish courts.

I saw that guy on Claire Daly last night. It was scary. If we are depending on scumbags like that for law enforcement, then we are are in big trouble.
The most scary thing he said was when Daly asked him if he considered himself judge, jury and executioner, he replied unequivocally "yes".
This guy is obviously using the paedophilia vehicle as a 'virtuous' method of getting his own kicks. He is definitely on a power trip of his own.
I seriously doubt if he has any real interest in protecting children at all. If he did he would not have gone live on social media with the evidence, thereby compromising the legal case.
Of course children need protection form paedophiles, but everyone needs protection from that low-life we saw last night.

spurious

seamus wrote: »

Likewise, just because no girl existed in this case, doesn't mean that the accused did not intend on committing a crime.

I'd be fairly sure they might find some 'real' children he interacted with if they check laptops etc..

On the intent thing though, if I decide I want to kill you, gather myself a bag load of hammers, find out where you live, get the bus there (pov crim!) and sit in a bush outside your door waiting for you to go to the shops...but when you come out realise I can't do it and get the bus back home - am I guilty of anything? Can I be charged?

Again, I'd be sure these boyos are not first-timers and probably have done something to 'actual' children, but I still think to go after someone for something they thought about doing is very risky ground.

I don't really want to kill you.....

Today.:eek:

Boom_Bap

I think that these vigilante groups need to work with the Police/Gardaí/Law Enforcement to be educated on what evidence and methods will help build a solid case and ensure that they do not cross any boundaries that they are not supposed to cross.
My understanding is that they already do work with the police, or there is a common knowledge of their presence. You can see from videos that they recognise each other and know the format on how to present the case to the arresting officers.
If these groups are to exist, and do the work that the law enforcement do not have the resources for, then they need to formally work together.

munsterlegend

Roger_007 wrote: »

I saw that guy on Claire Daly last night. It was scary. If we are depending on scumbags like that for law enforcement, then we are are in big trouble.
The most scary thing he said was when Daly asked him if he considered himself judge, jury and executioner, he replied unequivocally "yes".
This guy is obviously using the paedophilia vehicle as a 'virtuous' method of getting his own kicks. He is definitely on a power trip of his own.
I seriously doubt if he has any real interest in protecting children at all. If he did he would not have gone live on social media with the evidence, thereby compromising the legal case.
Of course children need protection form paedophiles, but everyone needs protection from that low-life we saw last night.

Well even looking at the Facebook video from Leeds, the one doing all the talking said this is our 'fun' until the police arrive. The group in Leeds have no interest in victims or justice but merely on a mission for Facebook viewers and likes to massage their own ego. The fact they show the video live and before a conviction only goes to show their full motivations. They also know once he is charged they can't post their video until the case is over which won't get as many views.

Of course what mr creaven was up to is repulsive and he deserves full exposure for the danger he poses to children but only after due process.

Mebuntu

This whole event has disturbing aspects from both sides.

If this group had notified the Leeds police in advance that a person was on his way to the city to meet someone at a designated place in order to commit a crime AND showed them the evidence they had and then went home leaving plain-clothes officers to handle the situation I'd say most people would have no problem with that.

The person interviewed on the Claire Byrne TV programme came across as a bullying thug who fancies himself as the caped crusader.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the fact it was actually an adult rather than a child he sent the pic to is irrelevant. he intended to send the picture to a child. He turned up with the intent of meeting a young child. it is his intent that is important. He didnt merely think of these things. he took action towards it.

munsterlegend

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the fact it was actually an adult rather than a child he sent the pic to is irrelevant. he intended to send the picture to a child. He turned up with the intent of meeting a young child. it is his intent that is important. He didnt merely think of these things. he took action towards it.

You see plenty of these sting operations by the American authorities such as the FBI when the paedophile think they are communicating with a child.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you dont??? I'm not sure there is much else i can say to you.

Reati

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's do to with the actions. Sending messages, pictures, booking hotel and flights all with the expressed (i.e prove of) intent of doing it.

Your example could be tried as conspiracy to commit murder if it was done in the same way and documented the same.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Pretty sure that comes under indecent exposure towards a child or something along those lines, and yes I would be pretty sure that count just as much if it were a picture of someone else's penis as opposed to your own.

.......

This post has been deleted.

AlanG

I don't have a problem with sting operations but they should be carried out by the police. These guys took his phone when they were trying to prove his crime so there is a possibility that the evidence is tainted. If a cop handed a suspects phone to a citizen to mind it would likely notbe admissible in court.
If they guy has his PC fully encrypted it may be impossible to gather evidence in the way police would have during an investigation.

The police should have been called in much earlier. There was no need to release the video before the court case.