RTE "paedophile" exposed (Read Admin note post #1)

gozunda · 22-11-2017 02:36AM

end of the road wrote: »

already provided in the thread. plenty of it.

I and others have been asking for referenced facts for many assertions made on this thread for quite a long time.

The fact that you can't or won't provide in this instance is telling.

BorneTobyWilde · 22-11-2017 02:57AM

It is purely a law he broke or is it more than this. Had it been a 16 year old he was meeting all would be hunky dorky, or would it?
Still cheating on his wife.

Route1 · 22-11-2017 04:05AM

I'm not sure about the ethics of nonce entrapment.

JenovaProject · 22-11-2017 04:06AM

Route1 wrote: »

I'm not sure about the ethics of nonce entrapment.

I'm not sure about the ethics of nonces

Route1 · 22-11-2017 04:39AM

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.

gozunda · 22-11-2017 04:45AM

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.

The two are not necessarily linked at all.
The exact causes of pedophilia have not been conclusively established however some studies of pedophilia have correlated it with various neurological abnormalities and psychological pathologies.

Paedophilelia is not so much an mental illness (such as depression) as it is a psychiatric disorder. I feel no more sorry for them than I do for psychopaths.

JenovaProject · 22-11-2017 05:05AM

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.

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 · 22-11-2017 05:12AM

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.

Will this do?

d41acd27aebc836c58f38dee72ca17ea--star-trek-enterprise-college-life.jpg

JenovaProject · 22-11-2017 05:14AM

gozunda wrote: »

Will this do?

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.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-11-2017 09:07AM

Depends on whether you believe a someone is born a pedophile or becomes a pedophile later in life through if eexperiences. The problem is that, until people start sitting down and dealing with this one, children, as a group, are not going to be any safer.

Yeah, the vigilantes caught a pedophile, but at the end of the day, it's only one pedophile. At best, their actions may work to discourage others from grooming online, but I'd hardly call that problem solved: there's still dangerous people on the prowl.

Ulysses Gaze · 22-11-2017 09:45AM

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.

or my favourite

pxdf9i5cmoavkz · 22-11-2017 10:49AM

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.

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.

....... · 22-11-2017 10:54AM

This post has been deleted.

Mongfinder General · 22-11-2017 10:58AM

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.

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.

gctest50 · 22-11-2017 11:06AM

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

Some just wake up one morning and decide to groom a child because they want the power, to control, to direct

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.

Suicide is a solution for paedos

- no "shame" in it if they do it before they act on weird thoughts they have

suicide_circus · 22-11-2017 11:07AM

Must be a ****ty existence to be attracted to kids.

jace_da_face · 22-11-2017 11:22AM

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?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-11-2017 11:31AM

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

I think you'll find that self-preservation instinct will kick in long before a suicide attempt begins practical. It's a biologicial.

That said, pedophiles can seek help: simply go to their GP and ask for a psychological referral. As long as they haven't commited a crime (or tell the doctor about it if they have) then the doctor will usually ensure secrecy (not sure how legally binding a Hioppocratic Oath actually is: not very would be my guess).

In Germany, even if the pedophile has committed a crime, the doctor is under no obligation to report it: the idea being that the pedophile in question will open up more and enhance the chances of treatment working.

gozunda · 22-11-2017 11:32AM

....... 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.

Complete and utter Billox. Paedophilia is a recognised pyschriatic disorder as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Paedophilelia is a lot more than just some "intrusive thoughts" or some harmless hobby engaged by some lonely bored individuals as some posters here would lead us to believe.

Don't you dare refer to the pyschriatic disorder of paedopbillia as "sexual orientation"! That perverted idea has been regularly promulgated by pro-paedophilelia groups and is a truly sickening and vile piece of gross misrepresentation.

Sexual orientation cannot by definition include an individuals behaviour who fantasizes or has urges on forcing their attentions on to others - in this case prepubescent children. Pedophilic acts cause harm to children which paedophiles deliberatly and illegally target.

I really cannot believe what is being written on this thread. :mad:

gozunda · 22-11-2017 11:49AM

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?

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.

....... · 22-11-2017 11:56AM

This post has been deleted.

jace_da_face · 22-11-2017 12:23PM

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.

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?'

22-11-2017 12:23PM

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.

''these vigilante groups, these vigilante groups''. And you accuse me of being stubborn? I'm talking solely about the Creavan case. It's the only one I've talked about. Again, in this case, with this group;

It was well researched. It was non violent. It was legal. The police were called. There was no suggestion of an adult to adult meet. There was a planned 55 year old/13 year old hotel meet. They had evidence of same to hand. It was handed over.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 22-11-2017 12:29PM

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?'

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.

22-11-2017 12:33PM

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

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.

jace_da_face · 22-11-2017 12:39PM

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.

I'm pretty sure they've got him on something too. Other similar cases have led to prosecutions so I think there is very little doubt in this regard. That’s not in question. But i am questioning how this could be deemed illegal.? Is the intent to commit a crime on a fictitious person a valid argument?

22-11-2017 12:40PM

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.

If it were mob justice, they would've stuffed him in the back of a Ford transit, with no video rolling and the perpetrator would've been left for dead in a remote location. None of that happened. There was no violence here and the tramp was handed over to the police,unhurt, with evidence.

weldoninhio · 22-11-2017 12:42PM

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.

Some of the replies and viewpoints on here are quite sickening. Not in an, I can't believe you disagree with me way, but in a deeply disturbing way.

22-11-2017 12:50PM

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.

I'd rather that than be related to a sexual predator of children. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't anyone?

Chrongen · 22-11-2017 12:54PM

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.

Can't wait to read your dissertation for your doctoral thesis at the Oxford School of Neurology.

RTE "paedophile" exposed (Read Admin note post #1)

Comments