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

[Deleted User]

Chrongen wrote: »

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?

Well if that happens following a live streaming, I'll get back to you. This group had their research done on this chap it would seem. I doubt they would've went live otherwise.

Stonedpilot

All top media is like this. A cesspool at the top. Most 'Celebs' pay a high price for those 15 minutes of fame. RTE I'd say has more pedophiles than Cambodia and Thailand combined only their propaganda machine is so well organized we may never know.

Macy0161

Does the fact that there was no child make it easier to name people exposed in such stings? If it is, is that a potential knock on benefit of such operations, even if the case based on the sting is shaky? A real victim may be more inclined to come forward if an abuser is exposed?

I heard one of them on the Last Word, and while they didn't come across great, I think a lot of that was mannerisms/ language/ accent to be honest. I think the UK polices big issue is them potentially disrupting on-going investigations.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

AlanG wrote: »

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.

There are logs on the phone to show when it has been locked/unlocked and they would be able to verify that during the time of the video being taken.
There are also logs to show what has happened during the time of the phone being unlocked.
This is all stuff that the cops would be looking at anyway as they will be establishing that the phone had been used as part of the grooming.

thierry14

Iseedeadpixels wrote: »

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.

Is his page down?

I cant see it

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

Really? There could well be books in peoples homes, anatomy books for example, with pictures of penises, genitalia etc... I cant say Ive ever read a case where someone was charged for showing a child such an image. (obviously context would be different).

Im just interested to know the actual crime committed. We can all agree it sounds wrong - but I wonder what the crime is?

Anatomy text books?!! Really? You're equating that to a sicko sending a picture of his penis to a child. Man oh man.

Grooming a child is likely the charge

CeilingFly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Of course - but you are entitled to due process and that can take a lot longer than a court case.

If RTE simply fired him with proof of guilt or following due process he'd be entitled to redress.

Makes no difference, the law, whether tis the crimnal aspect or employment area, must be followed properly.

Also, can the vigilante group produce this "13 year old". He could simply say it was fantasy and that by the picture he knew she was older and ask for the person who he conversed with to be in court - that will be some guy / women in their 40's / 50's and case could fall.

It needs a lot more evidence for a court conviction - and that could be found on his computers / phone.

As I said earlier - someone close to me knows him and his family quite well. He's had affairs (all over 18) and his wife has forgiven him a few times. I also have a few stories from when he was young and it would sugest he always had a fetish of some sort.

I'm reckoning that due to the amount of coverage and mios-reporting by the tablid and sensationist media, he'll get off with at max a suspended sentence or even walk away due to the fact that the 13 year old didn't actually exist. (max term for this in UK is 2 years)

ohnonotgmail

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

this is the irish law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/8/enacted/en/html#sec8

A person who by means of information and communication technology sends sexually explicit material to a child shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

england has something similar

Strazdas

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.

A lot of these vigilantes have long criminal records themselves. it's not hard to imagine the British police would want absolutely nothing to do with them and hate the idea of these scumbags supposedly "working" alongside the cops.

Reati

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well why don't you just look it up then?

For example on the dick pic questions:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/6/enacted/en/html#sec6

A person who, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification or corrupting or depraving a child, intentionally causes a child—

(a) to watch another person engaging in sexual activity, or

(b) to look at an image of that person or another person engaging in sexual activity,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

Edit - for the questions related to the fact there is no child so how is there a crime:

7. (1) A person who—

(a) intentionally meets, or travels with the intention of meeting a child or makes arrangements with the intention of meeting a child or for a child to travel, whether or not from within the State, having communicated by any means with that child on at least one previous occasion, and

(b) does so for the purpose of doing anything that would constitute sexual exploitation of the child,

shall be guilty of an offence.

The bold lines are the key here. All that needs to be proven is intent.

seamus

spurious wrote: »

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?

That depends on why you realise that you didn't want to do it

Believe it or not, right up to the point before you see me, you could be charged with attempted murder. The bar for proof is quite high - someone simply gathering weapons, or saying they're going to kill you, isn't enough. But gathering the weapons and travelling to where I am would be enough to show that you intend on murdering me.

After that, it's all a matter of timing. If you see me, stay in hiding, but change your mind and go home, your intent is gone. If I confront you, and you get scared, then I have simply prevented you from carrying out the act, but the attempted murder charge; the intent to murder; didn't go away. If i hadn't stopp you, you would have gone through with it.

And that's the same metric being applied here - if this guy hadn't been "caught" in the act, he intended to go through with it.

The whole concept of intent is fascinating and fuzzy. Not too long ago a woman was up on a murder charge. She drove her car at her ex, but instead hit his father, killing him. Murder is still murder, even if you kill the wrong target.
However, her defence was that when she realised she had missed her ex and was about to hit someone else, that she tried to hit the brakes, but missed - i.e. in that split second, her intention to cause harm had dissipated. And if there is no intent, there is no murder.

Her defence was successful and the charge was downgraded to manslaughter.

Iseedeadpixels

thierry14 wrote: »

Is his page down?

I cant see it

Looks like it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Reati

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

haha I'll send you the bill so!

wakka12

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.

Im also completely against it but how do you catch an 'innocent' guy who has arranged a meeting with a person he believed to be 13??

.......

This post has been deleted.

Billy86

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Intent is key here, as is pretty much always the case in these. If you happen to be just out of the showed naked by the window and a kid playing football in their back yard sees you that's one thing... if you're sending pictures of your own penis (or other penises) to that child, that's a whole different kettle of fish.

pilly

CeilingFly wrote: »

Been hearing stories of issues he had when he was a teenager himself.

Back then he fancied much older women.

Would love to give the first hand stories - they are very funny, but can't

So glad you're finding some amusement from this situation. :mad:

seamus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In Ireland the crime is something along the lines of sending lewd, abusive, harrassing or malicious messages.

There may also be specific offences in relation to engaging a minor for the purposes of sex. Sending a picture could be considered a form of attempted seduction. Attempted seduction isn't a crime when you're adults, but may be one when one party is a child.

Church on Tuesday

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I watched the whole video and I just found the whole thing incredibly lurid.

The crime the man was about to commit is obviously sickening and then the way his interception was broadcast live for all to see was a bit jarring.

I commend vigilante groups for helping the authorities in catching paedophiles and I believe their heart in the right place, but it's all just a bit disturbing.

Rekop dog

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

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

This is one of the more troubling posts I've seen on the matter. You 100% shut it down when you find out they're underage, zero exceptions. The idea that you go from hitting on a supposed 18 year old(which is a bit creepy for an older guy to do in the first place imo) to taking on an almost caring role for an actual 15 year old after she admits she's that age is beyond weird.

CeilingFly

pilly wrote: »

So glad you're finding some amusement from this situation. :mad:

I found the stories of when he was young and in Garbally College quite amusing - fairly innocent and typical of a hormoned young teenager, but very funny all the same.

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

Surely the "scum" we should be most concerned in this instance with are paedophiles or is that now forgotten about?

we can have a problem with both. people are capible of caring about multiple issues.

gozunda wrote: »

The police most recent statement regarding these groups appears to counter your opinion in many regards.

it actually backs up his opinion. the police cannot say publically that they have no time for these groups, but it is well known that they don't have any time for these groups.

gctest50

end of the road wrote: »

….......

but it is well known that they don't have any time for these groups.

Have you any source for that information or is it just in your own head ?

pilly

gctest50 wrote: »

Have you any source for that information or is it just in your own head ?

EOTR doesn't do sources, just asks for them.

gctest50

you'd never know - just might this time

it's one of the few differences between a human and a bot

FrancieBrady

gctest50 wrote: »

Have you any source for that information or is it just in your own head ?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/uk-police-take-a-dim-view-of-controversial-vigilante-groups-1.3298543

gctest50

They may be working together soon

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-41203273

Police admit they may have to work with "paedophile hunters" after figures obtained by the BBC revealed a rise in their evidence being used in court.

Figures show 11% of court cases in 2014 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the crime of meeting a child after sexual grooming used vigilante evidence, rising to 44% in 2016