end of the road wrote: » already provided in the thread. plenty of it.
Route1 wrote: » I'm not sure about the ethics of nonce entrapment.
Route1 wrote: » I must say as morally reprehensible as taking advantage of a young child is. One must have a degree of sympathy for pedophiles, it is a mental illness, in many cases as result of someone who was abused in their youth. It must be an unfathomly terrible thing to be, I'm sure no pedophile wishing they were wired they way they are.
JenovaProject wrote: » If I could figure out how to summon Jean-Luc Picard for a gif I would. Instead ill feel sorry for young girls being groomed and raped by paedos and you feel sorry for the paedos.
gozunda wrote: » Will this do?
JenovaProject wrote: » Really wanted the moving one but it'll do...cheers. I just dont know what to think anymore with excuse after excuse for a paedophile.
Penny Howling Eggshell wrote: » I think what the poster is trying to say is that any person who intentionally harms children are vile and should be locked up and the key lost. Clear and cut on that. The point I believe that is trying to be made is that a person does not wake up one morning and suddenly decide that from this day forward they're going to groom a child for sex. To assume that is frankly moronic. It's a mental illness that develops over time and it is impossible to seek help due to the nature of it. What should a person do then? "Kill yourself" is not a solution.
Penny Howling Eggshell wrote: » The point I believe that is trying to be made is that a person does not wake up one morning and suddenly decide that from this day forward they're going to groom a child for sex. To assume that is frankly moronic. It's a mental illness that develops over time
Penny Howling Eggshell wrote: » and it is impossible to seek help due to the nature of it. What should a person do then? "Kill yourself" is not a solution.
gctest50 wrote: » Some just wake up one morning and decide to groom a child because they want the power, to control, to direct Suicide is a solution for paedos - no "shame" in it if they do it before they act on weird thoughts they have
....... wrote: » Its not impossible to seek help for intrusive thoughts so long as you have not acted upon them. But its highly unlikely that paedophilia is a mental illness - its more likely to be a sexual orientation which is a much more difficult kettle of fish to resolve.
jace_da_face wrote: » I think the debate about what this vigilante group is doing needs to examine whether any crime has actually occurred or not. If a vigilante group apprehends a burglar breaking and entering, well they've caught him in the act. The crime is obvious. What crime has occurred in Leeds? The grooming of a child? The intention to behave inappropriately with a child? What child? Doesn't exist. I just don't see how any prosecution could be legally sound on that basis. The intention to commit a crime and the taking of steps to carry it out is of coarse enough to be breaking the law. Gardai foil attempted assasinations on gang members and arrest the perpetrators for example. But this was an intention to assasinate a real existing person. A person who would have been killed otherwise. I have no sympathies for the people caught by this vigilante group. Obviously the character and intentions of these people is vile. But exactly what crime has occurred?
gozunda wrote: » I suggest you do some research - even its just reading the papers... The guy has been charged with attempting to meet a child under 16 following grooming and attempting to court or incite a girl aged 13 to 15 to engage in sexual activity.
Chrongen wrote: » Nobody is apologising for his behaviour or ANY paedophile or predator. Why do you keep insisting that they are? This gang might have had the goods on this guy but it's been pointed out to you time and again that there are many of these vigilante groups and they have tried to fit up guys who were attempting to meet up with what they thought were adult women. I can't understand why you so stubbornly choose to ignore that and the dangers this kind of amateur sting operation phenomenon has yielded and will yield in future.
jace_da_face wrote: » Yeah I know what the charges are I am just suggesting that this could be challenged. You could argue that as there is no child, ,how could the charges be valid?'
Omackeral wrote: » That wouldn't matter one god damn bit. If a 13 year old from the UK asked you to meet would you? Would that excuse it? Jesus.
wakka12 wrote: » It matters a great deal. As one scenario is entrapment and the other isn't
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Intent to commit a crime can sometimes be enough to bring charges. Also, considering he's been charged and has appeared in court, I'm pretty sure they've got him on something. Grooming at the very least.
kaymin wrote: » You don't feel there's a need to follow due process - so instead we should follow mob justice and head back to the dark ages.
Omackeral wrote: » That's just a sick f*king answer. The question was if a 13 year old asked you to meet, would you? I'm talking about how it makes zero difference if a child asks you to meet for sex or you ask them to meet. ''She wanted to'' isn't a defense. Children don't have a choice when it comes to sex. Vile.
Strazdas wrote: » I'd say many people in their own communities despise them and imagine being related to a self appointed "paedophile vigilante", the mind boggles.
Mongfinder General wrote: » Killing ones self is a solution. Any adult attracted to kids has a choice, to act or not to act. If they sexually molest a child they should be caged for life at least. The filthy ****in animals.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
