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

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?

Well I have read in the past of cases whereby an adult has been apprehended for sending lewd material (naked photos of himself, masturbating, etc) to what he thought was an underage girl but was in fact a law enforcement officer operating as part of a counter-paedophile ring project. So I would assume that engaging with a decoy has some legal ramifications.

jace_da_face

Chrongen wrote: »

Well I have read in the past of cases whereby an adult has been apprehended for sending lewd material (naked photos of himself, masturbating, etc) to what he thought was an underage girl but was in fact a law enforcement officer operating as part of a counter-paedophile ring project. So I would assume that engaging with a decoy has some legal ramifications.

Yeah it’s a complex area I would say. So in that case what was he done for? Sending lewd material to an underage girl or to a law enforcement officer?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And therein lies the rub. The poster is of the mindset that if you don't stamp your feet in a tantrum of wailing and mouthfoaming incoherence when a disorder like paedophilia enters the conversation, but rather you engage in cool-headed, logical, emotion-free discourse, then you are a monster who thinks it's all fine and dandy for kids to be raped and for the rapists to be molly-coddled.

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

...then a body is found, a murder investigation begins and the vigilanties wind up in jail (still murder regardless of whether or not you think the guy is a pedophile - he's still unconvicted at that point) where they won't be operating sting operations be it a good thing or a bad thing.

Perfect illustration of why there wasn't mob justice.

jace_da_face wrote: »

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?

Intent is illegal - there was intent - therefore, it's illegal.

SnakePlissken

Strazdas wrote: »

They told him that they were 15 and this guy still went there....

if he is a paedo ....

Yeah, sounds like he's a paedo alright.

Omackeral wrote: »

''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.

You can't focus solely on this case when discussing the tactics of this group, which many have already done, because there have been, and will be very serious repercussions to their actions as has been pointed out. You ignore this because looking at the broader picture and the problem with precedents and unknown contingencies blows your argument right out of the water. That's why you focus solely on Creavan and this gang. You say their tactics are fine. If you say that then YOU have to consider other future cases that they may become involved in using the same ensnare, confront, record and livestream playbook.

And for the umpteenth time will you stop repeating over and over and over again what Creavan did or was supposed to have done. That is not in doubt. Can't you get that into your head?

The issue is with the livestreaming of a SUSPECTED predator. If it's too much for you to focus on peoples' issue with that and you'd rather just go back to being a broken record about "he did this! he did this" wah wah!" then don't bother responding.

mikeysmith

wardides wrote: »

Be great if they could arrest the bloke doing all the talking as well, the absolute head melt.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if there was paedophiles among the vigilantes themselves.

I recall the 2 young girls murdered in the UK

Bizarrely the police officer assigned to liase with the families was arrested for child porn himself

Murderers also returning to the crime scene while there's a blaze of publicity going on

Sometimes you don't have to look too far away

jace_da_face wrote: »

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?

Begs the question, do there have to be legitimate drugs at a staged drug deal / sting in order for it to be a legitimate crime.?

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.

If this discussion causes your blood pressure to rise so much despite people making valid and calm-headed points then I suggest for your own health that you probably take a break.

SnakePlissken

Strazdas wrote: »

gozunda wrote: »

The 'suicides' you refer to include all perps being caught and not just those outed by anti predator groups. It would be dishonest to suggest that those who commit suicide do it just because they were caught or by one particular group or method.

It would appear that sexual predators sometimes chose suicide as a way out rather than face the full consequences and the fallout of their actions.

And yes you continue beating the entire panoply of all anti predator groups using one particular individual. Well that's great - but it does not make for any argument which you can direct at everyone.

The suicides have a catastrophic effect on the family and friends of the suspect. What that scumbag Stinson was challenged on the suicide of the man he outed (a man who had a wife and young child), his reply was along the lines of "Nothing to do with me, guv". There you have it : no empathy, no remorse.

Just to be clear, this was a 41 year old who travelled across the country to rape a 12 year old, the evidence gathered by "the scumbag" as you so eloquently put it, was substantial enough for the police to have begun proceedings against this sick individual.... and yet you speak of empathy?

jace_da_face wrote: »

Yeah it’s a complex area I would say. So in that case what was he done for? Sending lewd material to an underage girl or to a law enforcement officer?

I can't remember. I'll have to try and find that out.

mikeysmith wrote: »

The paedophile being the lowest rung of society can have dirt flung at him by everyone including dodgy types

The offending pedophile is for sure! But I am always quick to point out that there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with merely BEING a pedophile.

For every such pedophile who actually moves on a child, I always wonder how many pedophiles..... who never have and never would..... there are too.

My emotional feeling to the data and studies, which are far from complete, makes me suspect the answer is "Surprisingly many". But we may never know.

gozunda wrote: »

If anything it's going to make paedophiles think twice about trying this sh!t elsewhere

For some it will, but for others it will just make them more cautious. Someone before your post pointed out, for example, that one person caught by such a sting group was messaging the "girl" saying he was afraid of just such a group. But it did not stop him.

I also remember watching some BBC/C4 Documentary following some officers of a squad working in Child Porn etc.

They approached one guy in the recording to arrest him for downloading porn and amazingly his most evident emotional response was relief. A kind of "Finally you have caught me, now you can help me stop" reaction. He was waiting for that day, almost hoping for it.

So I suspect a lot of people know they are doing wrong (even hate themselves for it), know they could be caught, know that these police and vigilante groups exist..... but simply can not stop themselves anyway.

And I sometimes wonder if, at their lowest points, such people think "I need help" and then find they do not even know how or where to find it. After all if you have not yet offended as a pedophile, and you know the hatred people have for even non-offending pedophiles........ who would YOU turn to and out yourself and say "help me"?

JenovaProject wrote: »

Cant belive some of the crap posted tonight,these "vigilantes" are saving young girls lives from being ruined and theyre doing it all within the law.

I fully sympathize with what you are saying here. I saw some obvious pedophilia going on in chat rooms and other websites back in the old "MIRC" and "USENET" days and I went to the police to talk about it a few times. Especially because sometimes it was really easy to identify the culprits. On MIRC for example, back in the days of undernet and dalnet, you could not only spot what college a student was logged into MIRC with..... but the DNS version of their IP Address pretty much had the room and seat number of the PC in the computer lab on it. I could have left my home and walked over and talked to them myself at times.

Police did nothing. And I came up with all kinds of things they COULD try doing and asked them why they could not do them. Nothing seemed to be done.

The frustration and helplessness this results in.... I can well understand how it motivates people to form or join such a group. I have been more than tempted to do so myself. Then and now.

But at the same time the concerns for the BAD effects of such a group can not simply be hand waved away by our love of their overall intention. We have to consider the good WITH the bad..... and so do they themselves. Including what Strazdas brings up in the posts here.

Omackeral wrote: »

For example, Panda Poo posted that some children's games have an online function on them, I'd wager many people here didn't know that.

What is worse is that the parents might think they know that, and then be wrong. For example Niantic have two games Ingress and PokeMon Go. The former has a way players can message each other, the latter does not.

Recently a similar game to P-Go came out called Draconius Go. It also does not have a chat feature. But I have read they plan to implement one.

So imagine.... a parent might "vet" the game for such things..... determine them safe.... but a new feature added in a later version suddenly pops up and the parent may never check again.

What I say to parents is that a child picking up an internet enabled machine is going out into the world. They are sitting in the house, but they are out in the world. Each time your child ACTUALLY goes out in the world you never say "Oh they were fine last time, so no need to worry this time".

No we recognize the risks inherent in EACH time they go out. We should be doing the same with EACH time they pick up a machine.

JenovaProject wrote: »

So the best bit is how he was questioned...ok...whatever floats your boat. The best bit is seeing a paedo getting caught red handed.

There are people in this world who kill animals for food. And there are people who kill for sport. Often allowing the animal to be cornered, and escape, and be cornered again before finally getting the kill.

Some people enjoy that kind of thing. Clearly you (and I) do not.

Someone actually ENJOYED bits like "Do you want us to let you go?" "Yes!" "Well we will not!"? That is just toying with your kill for sadist pleasure. Nothing else by people who claim to be there with a purpose. Are they after justice, or sadistic pleasure at the kill? They claim the former, I shudder at the ones who demonstrate the latter.

Roger_007 wrote: »

What is the significance of the RTE connection in the title of this thread? Are RTÉ employees to be treated differently from anyone else? It looks like an attempt to implicate RTE as an organisation in whatever was going on.

I doubt that is the intention at all actually. I think the intention of the OP is likely to be the fact that the RTE has a close place in all our lives. It comes into the homes of the average person sometimes daily.

And somehow it makes it more real to us when someone from an organization we know well commits a crime of this nature, then some nobody in some corner of dublin working in a company that we know nothing about.

It does not mean the crime itself IS any more shocking for it's links to an RTE employee, but it can just make it more real and more shocking to some.

For example which hits you more emotionally? A random shooting somewhere in Dublin, or a random shooting in an area you pass through all the time? when it is closer to home, it hits harder. And I suspect that was the only intention of the OP mentioning it.

gozunda

....... wrote: »

Yes, homosexuality used to be defined as such also. When we dont understand things we label them as mental disorders.

Not this sh!te again ...

Paedophillia is understood very well. It remains correctly a Pyschriatic Disorder. To suggest that behaviour which is characterised by the sexual predation of children is an orientation is the same as sexual activity between consenting adults is simply vile and perverse.

....... wrote: »

There are many paedophiles out there who never act on their feelings because they know it is wrong*. It doesnt mean they dont experience the feelings though. Same way many people repress their sexuality through choosing a celibate life.

Where are the figures to support your assertion*? I would wager that like the current guy - many many such individuals are active paedophiles but have not been caught or convicted. These monsters walk amongst us.

....... wrote: »

Ill dare to say whatever I like, you are not King of the Internet to dictate what someone says. I suggest you need to do quite a bit of calming down.

Post vile and frankly disgusting comments and you can expect that call from lots more than just me. :mad:

....... wrote: »

Of course it can, perhaps you just dont understand what sexual orientation is.

A straight priest is still a straight priest while never indulging in any straight sexual activity.

I think you are probably so disgusted by pedophilia that you are not capable of having any rational discourse on it.

A sexual orientation describes attraction and activity amongst consenting adults.

It is not so those with a recognised pyschriatic disorder pushing their agenda to abuse children.

Psychiatric diagnosis does not recognize paedophilelia as a sexual orientation. It is of note that this agenda is the reserve of pro-paedophilia groups.

And yes I am disgusted by the actions and behaviour of paedophiles. The majority of people are.

I would suggest you get help.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

...then a body is found, a murder investigation begins and the vigilanties wind up in jail (still murder regardless of whether or not you think the guy is a pedophile - he's still unconvicted at that point) where they won't be operating sting operations be it a good thing or a bad thing.

Perfect illustration of why there wasn't mob justice.

Left for dead doesn't mean dead. It's a phrase.

gozunda

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?'

Because it can - there is documented evidence of intent. Don't believe me? - go talk to a solicitor.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Chrongen wrote: »

And for the umpteenth time will you stop repeating over and over and over again what Creavan did or was supposed to have done. That is not in doubt. Can't you get that into your head?

The issue is with the livestreaming of a SUSPECTED predator. If it's too much for you to focus on peoples' issue with that and you'd rather just go back to being a broken record about "he did this! he did this" wah wah!" then don't bother responding.

I will keep repeating what he did actually because it's relevant to this case, don't think people should lose sight of that, it's the most important factor. I can keep focusing on this case solely if I so choose to because it's relevant to this case. Here's a hint, look at the tread title. As for your ''don't bother responding'' remark, stick me on ignore if you don't like what I have to say, easy. And the ''wah wah'' comment? Please, it's you and your ilk with the crying of how a would-be predator was caught.

Omackeral wrote: »

Left for dead doesn't mean dead. It's a phrase.

Splitting hairs a bit?

So, GBH and/or attempted murder then.

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

There was no mob violence in this case but there is in many other cases and that's what people have the problem with. You want to throw the concept of due process out the window. If you do that you end up with mob justice. It's as simple as that.

Here's an example of a mob descending on a guy at the Bluewater Shopping Centre:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/paedophile-hunters-arrested-police-officers-begin-crackdown/

One of your upstanding vigilantes was also booked for possession of cannabis with intent to distribute.

So are you really saying that you are happy to have violent drug dealers enforcing the law as opposed to the police?

Chrongen wrote: »

If this discussion causes your blood pressure to rise so much despite people making valid and calm-headed points then I suggest for your own health that you probably take a break.

When someone says that a 13 year old asking an adult to meet for sex is a difference maker and/or entrapment, yeah I'm gonna comment on that. If you think it makes a jot of a difference, then you're a sick puppy in my view.

My health is fine btw, apart from a bit of a head cold. Bring me some Lemsip if you're over 18 please. Ta lovey x

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Splitting hairs a bit?

So, GBH and/or attempted murder then.

No it's not splitting hairs. My point was if this group were a true vigilante group intent on mob justice, they'd have balaclaved themselves up, taken this guy off to a remote location and given him a hiding. They didn't do any of that. That's all.

Also I don't think the above scenario is right either.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dr Brown wrote: »

That statement makes no sense what soever its akin to saying that the majority of alcoholics do not have a drink problem.

By definition if someone sexual abuses a child they are a paedophile.

No, that is not the right "definition" at all. Pedophilia refers to who you are ATTRACTED to.

If a homosexual man spends his life hiding his homosexuality from others by having sex with women.... he is still a homosexual. He may be having heterosexual sex, but he himself is a homosexual. And vice versa, if I as a straight man consented to sex with another man.... I might be having homosexual sex, but I myself would not be homosexual.

The definition is about where your attractions lie, not your actions.

Being sexually attracted to children, and engaging in sexual activity with children CAN be the same thing.... but often they are not.

One similar question, similar to what "wonderfullife" posted about crimes of opportunity, is whether you are attracted to a person who IS underage, or attracted to them BECAUSE they are underage.

An over simplification of the issue, sure, but still the KIND of thinking that needs to be done on these matters.

gozunda

Chrongen wrote: »

And therein lies the rub. The poster is of the mindset that if you don't stamp your feet in a tantrum of wailing and mouthfoaming incoherence when a disorder like paedophilia enters the conversation, but rather you engage in cool-headed, logical, emotion-free discourse, then you are a monster who thinks it's all fine and dandy for kids to be raped and for the rapists to be molly-coddled.

Just you wind your thick neck back there boyo.
Attempting to rationalise a psychiatic disorder and glossing over the impacts of paedophile behaviour is to put it simply vile and disgusting. Some of the comments on here deserve every bit of reproach and negativity they recieve. I will reserve logical, emotion-free discourse for those not posting frankly disturbing posts.

Pretending something is ok does not make it so.

Omackeral wrote: »

No it's not splitting hairs. My point was if this group were a true vigilante group intent on mob justice, they'd have balaclaved themselves up, taken this guy off to a remote location and given him a hiding. They didn't do any of that. That's all.

Also I don't think the above scenario is right either.

Ah, ok - I misunderstood then. I think the term vigilante applies anyway, regardless of whether the group engages in mob justice and punishment or not.

Chrongen wrote: »

There was no mob violence in this case but there is in many other cases and that's what people have the problem with. You want to throw the concept of due process out the window. If you do that you end up with mob justice. It's as simple as that.

One of your upstanding vigilantes was also booked for possession of cannabis with intent to distribute.

So are you really saying that you are happy to have violent drug dealers enforcing the law as opposed to the police?

For the last time (Jesus you accuse me of repeating myself but is it any wonder) IM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY OTHER CASE EXCEPT THE ONE IN THE THREAD TITLE.

I never said this group were upstanding members of society either, check back over my posts where I explicitly say that. What I did say is ; This group didn't enforce the law in this case. They didn't use violence in this case. They gave evidence to the police. In. This. Case. Also they're not my vigilantes.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah, ok - I misunderstood then. I think the term vigilante applies anyway, regardless of whether the group engages in mob justice and punishment or not.

I'd go along with that. Not technically vigilantes in the sense they're not actually enforcing the law but they're most definaitely more than a just a neighbourhood watch scheme. I don't really have a problem with the term being used to describe the group here fwiw.