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

end of the road

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Most rational people wouldn't be calling the guys in the video with the pedophile the "undesirables" in the situation.

i'd reccan they would. you see funnily enough, you can dislike a number of types of people.

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Most rational people wouldn't be doing mental gymnastics to paint anyone as the victim but the potential innocent child. oh what about the pedophiles rights,his family, his friends oooh nooo .

his family are victims.
they are victims of having to deal with the fallout of his act, and then on top of that having to deal with abuse from creetens.

SterlingArcher wrote: »

He didn't think about his family, his friends,.... But everyone else should..... Riggggghttt.

yes, if they have any bit of bringing up in them at all.
do you believe that because he didn't think of his family and friends, it's okay for others to abuse them?

wonderfullife

Rekop dog wrote: »

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.

Troubling? I said if the underage person tells an adult they are depressed there are reasons to continue THAT conversation. How is that troubling?

If a 15-year-old neighbour of yours texts you saying he/she's depressed and isolated you're telling me you just block him/her? Fine if that's the way you want to live your life but I find that completely shocking.

For me personally, I would reply. I would give him/her the phone number of the samaritans, Pieta House and elsewhere instantly. I would tell them whatever problems they're facing are not insurmountable and advise them not to make any decisions they couldn't unmake. I would advise them to speak to their parents or a trusted relative. I would then consider, against their wishes if necessary, informing their parents for their own safety.

If it's not a neighbour, and a random 18-year-old you messaged on a dating site, who then revealed herself to be younger and depressed, I would hope to God there's less people like you in this country and more people who actually give a sh1t regardless of their age.

That's literally all I said. My example was purely isolated circumstances where continuing the conversation would be the correct thing to do. If a guy messages what he believes is an adult woman on an adult dating site, there are very limited reasons to continue the conversation if she reveals she's actually younger - but that would be one reason.

Most people exit stage left upon being informed she is not the age she pretends to be.

Ethically the practice of using adult dating sites for these fake 'honey trap' profiles is 100% wrong. It's targeting men who are seeking to chat to adults.

The use of POF by the paedophile hunting groups is even worse because POF is one of the websites that has age restrictions in place. If a girl sets her profile age at the minimum (18) on POF, the oldest person who can message her is 27. POF have a +9 years age restriction on messaging 18-year-olds and +/- 14-year restriction otherwise (e.g. a 36-year-old is not allowed to message a 52-year-old).

I've a serious problem with these groups targeting horny men in their late teens, early 20's who message an 18-year-old and for whatever reason continue chatting when she says she's 15. It has the power to destroy their life when ethically there isn't even that much of a big deal in my mind with a 19-year-old messaging a 15-year-old.

Why not target actual paedophiles? According to google there are 5 men between the ages of 19 and 27 who have been convicted of "grooming" after they messaged what they initially believed to be an 18-year-old and they continued the conversation when she said she was 15.

I can't believe people are supporting this tactic. It's not catching paedophiles.

wakka12

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

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.

I think the exact opposite.What they're doing isn't that bad but I think their heart is completely in the wrong place. I strongly believe these vigilantes are not good people, you can almost hear the excitement in their voices throughout the video. Most teenagers are more mature than them. police should be doing it as they're not biased and they take the crime for what it is and punish accordingly , not all this social media bs and humiliating the paedo guy.

Send him to jail forever for all I care, but nobody deserves to have their lives torn down around them in such a humiliating manner, on international news, on social media, in front of their family and friends. I think even a paedophile doesn't deserve that, honestly

Rekop dog

wonderfullife wrote: »

Troubling? I said if the underage person tells an adult they are depressed there are reasons to continue THAT conversation. How is that troubling?

If a 15-year-old neighbour of yours texts you saying he/she's depressed and isolated you're telling me you just block him/her? Fine if that's the way you want to live your life but I find that completely shocking.

For me personally, I would reply. I would give him/her the phone number of the samaritans, Pieta House and elsewhere instantly. I would tell them whatever problems they're facing are not insurmountable and advise them not to make any decisions they couldn't unmake. I would advise them to speak to their parents or a trusted relative. I would then consider, against their wishes if necessary, informing their parents for their own safety.

If it's not a neighbour, and a random 18-year-old you messaged on a dating site, who then revealed herself to be younger and depressed, I would hope to God there's less people like you in this country and more people who actually give a sh1t regardless of their age.

That's literally all I said. My example was purely isolated circumstances where continuing the conversation would be the correct thing to do.

No it's doesn't sit right with me, and it's a weird hypothetical. An older person is usually messaging an 18 year old on a dating site for one thing, it's borderline predatory imo but obviously legal. To then add the aspect of the 18 year old coming out and telling him she's actually 15 but having difficulties, it's so far from the strangers place to continue messaging this child offering her advice and help when he was previously pursuing her sexually. If you can't see that I worry for you.

Dev84

People here saying his family are getting abuse. I havent seen it anyway. Nobody has been able to reference it either.

gozunda

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Most rational people wouldn't be calling the guys in the video with the pedophile the "undesirables" in the situation.

Most rational people wouldn't be doing mental gymnastics to paint anyone as the victim but the potential innocent child.oh what about the pedophiles rights,his family, his friends oooh nooo .

He didn't think about his family, his friends,.... But everyone else should..... Riggggghttt.

^^^ This ...

Chrongen

Omackeral wrote: »

Because these sickos get bail. Would you want this predator living next to your 12 year old daughter or that of your neighbours?

How does plastering footage all over the internet determine whether or not he gets bail? Earlier on you expressed some kind of concern that an innocent man might might be mistakenly identified in a live stream....now you just don't give a sh1t.

The exposure of them on a livestream doesn't have any effect on bail. What on earth are you on about?

[Deleted User]

wakka12 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite.What they're doing isn't that bad but I think their heart is completely in the wrong place. I strongly believe these vigilantes are not good people, you can almost hear the excitement in their voices throughout the video. Most teenagers are more mature than them. police should be doing it as they're not biased and they take the crime for what it is and punish accordingly , not all this social media bs and humiliating the paedo guy.

Send him to jail forever for all I care, but nobody deserves to have their lives torn down around them in such a humiliating manner, on international news, on social media, in front of their family and friends. I think even a paedophile doesn't deserve that, honestly

I found the bit where the guy quotes Home Alone "Merry Christmas You Filthy Animal" to be really f*cked up thing to say in this situation. What is he trying to do? Entertain people? It's bordering on reality TV and it's too serious a crime to be carrying on like that. It comes across like Judge Judy dealing with some small-time misdemeanor. There's something wrong with it, but it's very difficult to call it out when on this occasion the vigilantes have exposed a dangerous individual.

ohnonotgmail

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Most rational people wouldn't be calling the guys in the video with the pedophile the "undesirables" in the situation.

Most rational people wouldn't be doing mental gymnastics to paint anyone as the victim but the potential innocent child.oh what about the pedophiles rights,his family, his friends oooh nooo .

He didn't think about his family, his friends,.... But everyone else should..... Riggggghttt.

it is possible to think that the guy they caught is a scumbag but also that some of these paedophile hunter groups are populated by people who are not desirable elements of society. it is not one or the other.

wonderfullife

Rekop dog wrote: »

No it's doesn't sit right with me, and it's a weird hypothetical. An older person is usually messaging an 18 year old on a dating site for one thing, it's borderline predatory imo but obviously legal.

My example was purely related to POF and these groups using POF as a tactic. The oldest you can be to message an 18-year-old on POF is 27 due to their age restrictions. They delete all profiles of men older than 27 setting their age at younger.

You think a 22-year-old messaging an 18-year-old is predatory? Get a grip on reality. When I was 22 my girlfriend at the time was 19. Big swing.

But carry on trying to make insinuations and inferences due to your reading comprehension problems.

Banned.

buckwheat

wakka12 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite.What they're doing isn't that bad but I think their heart is completely in the wrong place. I strongly believe these vigilantes are not good people, you can almost hear the excitement in their voices throughout the video. Most teenagers are more mature than them. police should be doing it as they're not biased and they take the crime for what it is and punish accordingly , not all this social media bs and humiliating the paedo guy.

Send him to jail forever for all I care, but nobody deserves to have their lives torn down around them in such a humiliating manner, on international news, on social media, in front of their family and friends. I think even a paedophile doesn't deserve that, honestly

Oh yes they absolutely ****ing do. Sub human scum.

Of course it's **** for their families but that's on them, not the lads who catch them even if they are just trying to get social media fame.

They are taking real bona fide child molesters off the streets. I haven't a ****ing clue what their motives are and I'm not really bothered. 44% of convictions are now achieved using these kind of groups. That's up from 11% 5 years ago.

What is anyone here (myself included) doing about it?

20Cent

wonderfullife wrote: »

My example was purely related to POF and these groups using POF as a tactic. The oldest you can be to message an 18-year-old on POF is 27 due to their age restrictions. They delete all profiles of men older than 27 setting their age at younger.

You think a 22-year-old messaging an 18-year-old is predatory? Get a grip on reality. When I was 22 my girlfriend at the time was 19. Big swing.

But carry on trying to make insinuations and inferences due to your reading comprehension problems.

What is POF?

buckwheat

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it is possible to think that the guy they caught is a scumbag but also that some of these paedophile hunter groups are populated by people who are not desirable elements of society. it is not one or the other.

I'd say you're probably right but they are still exposing child molesters and having them arrested and charged. Very high success rate too. It's no different to Chris Hanson on "To Catch a Predator"

gozunda

20Cent wrote: »

What is POF?

Paedophiles On Facebook?

Rekop dog

wonderfullife wrote: »

My example was purely related to POF and these groups using POF as a tactic. The oldest you can be to message an 18-year-old on POF is 27 due to their age restrictions. They delete all profiles of men older than 27 setting their age at younger.

You think a 22-year-old messaging an 18-year-old is predatory? Get a grip on reality. When I was 22 my girlfriend at the time was 19. Big swing.

But carry on trying to make insinuations and inferences due to your reading comprehension problems.

If you had a 15 year old daughter and found messages on her phone from a 27 year old man who had been hitting on her previously but then consoling her mental state with the knowledge that she is actually a child you would not react "oh what a nice helpful man" you'd think it's wildly inappropriate of him.

There's no situation when continuing to talk to her after she reveals she's a child is the right option no matter how genuine your concern may be.

weldoninhio

wonderfullife wrote: »

Troubling? I said if the underage person tells an adult they are depressed there are reasons to continue THAT conversation. How is that troubling?

If a 15-year-old neighbour of yours texts you saying he/she's depressed and isolated you're telling me you just block him/her? Fine if that's the way you want to live your life but I find that completely shocking.

For me personally, I would reply. I would give him/her the phone number of the samaritans, Pieta House and elsewhere instantly. I would tell them whatever problems they're facing are not insurmountable and advise them not to make any decisions they couldn't unmake. I would advise them to speak to their parents or a trusted relative. I would then consider, against their wishes if necessary, informing their parents for their own safety.

If it's not a neighbour, and a random 18-year-old you messaged on a dating site, who then revealed herself to be younger and depressed, I would hope to God there's less people like you in this country and more people who actually give a sh1t regardless of their age.

That's literally all I said. My example was purely isolated circumstances where continuing the conversation would be the correct thing to do. If a guy messages what he believes is an adult woman on an adult dating site, there are very limited reasons to continue the conversation if she reveals she's actually younger - but that would be one reason.

Most people exit stage left upon being informed she is not the age she pretends to be.

Ethically the practice of using adult dating sites for these fake 'honey trap' profiles is 100% wrong. It's targeting men who are seeking to chat to adults.

The use of POF by the paedophile hunting groups is even worse because POF is one of the websites that has age restrictions in place. If a girl sets her profile age at the minimum (18) on POF, the oldest person who can message her is 27. POF have a +9 years age restriction on messaging 18-year-olds and +/- 14-year restriction otherwise (e.g. a 36-year-old is not allowed to message a 52-year-old).

I've a serious problem with these groups targeting horny men in their late teens, early 20's who message an 18-year-old and for whatever reason continue chatting when she says she's 15. It has the power to destroy their life when ethically there isn't even that much of a big deal in my mind with a 19-year-old messaging a 15-year-old.

Why not target actual paedophiles? According to google there are 5 men between the ages of 19 and 27 who have been convicted of "grooming" after they messaged what they initially believed to be an 18-year-old and they continued the conversation when she said she was 15.

I can't believe people are supporting this tactic. It's not catching paedophiles.

You've gone beyond a straw man there and almost have a straw football team. What has your imaginary depressed 15yo got to do with the nonce that was caught in Leeds, or the pervs that want to meet kids for sex??Why are you deflecting from the thread title and subject matter??

weldoninhio

wakka12 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite.What they're doing isn't that bad but I think their heart is completely in the wrong place. I strongly believe these vigilantes are not good people, you can almost hear the excitement in their voices throughout the video. Most teenagers are more mature than them. police should be doing it as they're not biased and they take the crime for what it is and punish accordingly , not all this social media bs and humiliating the paedo guy.

Send him to jail forever for all I care, but nobody deserves to have their lives torn down around them in such a humiliating manner, on international news, on social media, in front of their family and friends. I think even a paedophile doesn't deserve that, honestly

Awwww, the poor paedo guy

weldoninhio

Chrongen wrote: »

How does plastering footage all over the internet determine whether or not he gets bail? Earlier on you expressed some kind of concern that an innocent man might might be mistakenly identified in a live stream....now you just don't give a sh1t.

The exposure of them on a livestream doesn't have any effect on bail. What on earth are you on about?

It doesn't, but using the RTE guy as an example, if the group concerned had just gone to the police and handed over their evidence, i'd imagine that he would have gotten the same bail conditions as he has now and gone under the radar.

So he could quite literally move in next you you and your young family, without you ever having a clue that he was a nonce. You can be guaranteed that he won't fly under the radar now.

Strazdas

weldoninhio wrote: »

Awwww, the poor paedo guy

What about his family, relatives and friends.....do they not matter a jot as long as the scumbags get "justice"? 'Collateral damage' is it?

weldoninhio

Strazdas wrote: »

What about his family, relatives and friends.....do they not matter a jot as long as the scumbags get "justice"? 'Collateral damage' is it?

What damage? Embarrassment?? If someone in my family was a nonce i'd take the embarrassment and be thankful they were caught.

Strazdas

weldoninhio wrote: »

What damage? Embarrassment?? If someone in my family was a nonce i'd take the embarrassment and be thankful they were caught.

There have been several suicides associated with this phenomenon (which hasn't dissuaded the vigilantes in the slightest from continuing with their 'activities'). The idea that these lowlifes are trying to help society is laughable.

I mentioned that well known vigilante guy Stinson Hunter further up. His own family members have completed disowned him, so disgusted with him are they and it was one of them who informed the press about his criminal past.

Outlaw Pete

Nobody should be publicly named as having committed any crime which they have not been found guilty of.

If someone goes on the run and are considered a danger to the public, fair enough, but otherwise everyone deserves to have their day in court.

20Cent

Strazdas wrote: »

What about his family, relatives and friends.....do they not matter a jot as long as the scumbags get "justice"? 'Collateral damage' is it?

Keeping these things quiet to avoid embarrassment didn't serve this country well in the past.

Church on Tuesday

wakka12 wrote: »

I think the exact opposite.What they're doing isn't that bad but I think their heart is completely in the wrong place. I strongly believe these vigilantes are not good people, you can almost hear the excitement in their voices throughout the video. Most teenagers are more mature than them. police should be doing it as they're not biased and they take the crime for what it is and punish accordingly , not all this social media bs and humiliating the paedo guy.

Send him to jail forever for all I care, but nobody deserves to have their lives torn down around them in such a humiliating manner, on international news, on social media, in front of their family and friends. I think even a paedophile doesn't deserve that, honestly

Maybe they are parents themselves and are just scared that one day it could be their child being duped into meeting with a 55-year-old man?

I reckon that's understandable, hence their modus operandi for doing this kind of thing. And the man in question is a paedophile. I don't really care if his life is ruined.

Like I said, personally I find it lurid, but at the same time, I'm not a parent so I don't really know how I would react in a situation if I found out my child was being groomed.

And another thing I don't like is this attitude that just because these people seem a bit 'rough' that there all completely dodge or something, bit offensive I think.

Chrongen

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

watched the full video earlier on, the little weasel trying to talk his way out of it after being shown the pics he sent of his penis.

This group of people do amazing work, giving up their free time and having to spend days and sometimes months looking at the pics and reading the filth these perverts want to talk about.

Hardly. These guys pose as young teenage girls. Generally adolescent but under 16 and they converse with older men and hope to get a "bite". They generally have to deal with maybe a few lewd comments at worst.

A acquaintance of mine's brother works in the police vice unit. He has to actually watch child pornography for clues, track paedophile and trafficker rings, deal with the aftermath of raids of preteen prostitute dens and liaise with international police agencies. He has to undergo frequent psychological evaluations to monitor his mental health.

Goat of Lochmarne Castle

That group are (probably?) doing society a good service but seriously, the ringleader comes across as an unhinged lunatic. His behavior in the video is very unstable, almost manic - not someone I'd be comfortable with having responsibility for enforcing the law.

Jim Bob Scratcher

Strazdas wrote: »

There have been several suicides associated with this phenomenon (which hasn't dissuaded the vigilantes in the slightest from continuing with their 'activities'). The idea that these lowlifes are trying to help society is laughable.

I mentioned that well known vigilante guy Stinson Hunter further up. His own family members have completed disowned him, so disgusted with him are they and it was one of them who informed the press about his criminal past.

Just had a gander at his wiki page there, apparently he served 10 years in prison for arson on a school causing 250,000 pounds worth of damage. He seems a proper little thug...

wakka12

weldoninhio wrote: »

Awwww, the poor paedo guy

You know, people have rights even if they committed a crime. If you go down that road then you get guantanamo bay, to bring it to extremes
He should be punished for the crime. That is it.
No social media humiliation, it is unnecessary no matter what you say, and it is purely for the entertainment/self congratulation of the 'paedophile hunters'.
As Ive said before, the police are a lot better at this.
If paedophile hunters cared only about catching paedophiles, they would simply send the text message evidence straight to the police saying a guy was planning to meet a 13 year old girl here at this time. And they'd respond to that
If they left it at that, then Id say they're doing a great job.
But the whole social media streaming immature 'we got you paedo animal!' thing is completely unprofessional and verging on farcical

end of the road

buckwheat wrote: »

I'd say you're probably right but they are still exposing child molesters and having them arrested and charged. Very high success rate too. It's no different to Chris Hanson on "To Catch a Predator"

a very high success rate "allegedly" . chances are in a lot of these cases the police have other evidence to go on and that is what is allowing for conviction.

weldoninhio wrote: »

You've gone beyond a straw man there and almost have a straw football team. What has your imaginary depressed 15yo got to do with the nonce that was caught in Leeds, or the pervs that want to meet kids for sex??Why are you deflecting from the thread title and subject matter??

because it's an important angle in terms of talking about so called "paedo hunter" or "child protection enforcer" groups. wonderful f is stating that some of these groups are targeting adult sites and pretending to be children on an adult site.
while young people who are under the age for a website will often give the exact age they need to be to access the website (facebook being a prime example) the fact that adults are pretending to be children and then targeting what is an actual adult site is absolutely concerning. you then have a case where somebody could be on a grooming charge dispite the fictional case given, where upon hearing that the 18 year old is actually 15 and admits they are depressed, the adult simply gave that child the number of the relevant support services, thinking they were simply doing the right thing. so essentialy, a criminal has been made, for doing some good, thinking they were doing the right thing.
as i said, these groups are a danger to society, and eventually the law makers will realise this and deal with it. i suspect it will have to get very serious before it happens, but happen it will.

weldoninhio wrote: »

It doesn't, but using the RTE guy as an example, if the group concerned had just gone to the police and handed over their evidence, i'd imagine that he would have gotten the same bail conditions as he has now and gone under the radar.

So he could quite literally move in next you you and your young family, without you ever having a clue that he was a nonce. You can be guaranteed that he won't fly under the radar now.

oh but that's where you may be wrong. he may go completely out of sight, should he not be locked up. other like minded people will learn to be more careful, meaning it will be harder to catch them. so, these groups have caused more problems for the police in doing their job.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe you and end of the road (he thanked your post, quelle surprise) wouldn't mind a man who's happy to groom kids living next to your children but I'd certainly be grateful to know about the predator next door. He hasn't been convicted yet but he's admitted he was willing to meet 13 year olds in a hotel room. We wouldn't know a thing about it if it weren't for the publicity. He'd be on bail walking among normal decent people.