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

Chrongen · 22-11-2017 5:23pm

KKkitty wrote: »

They live stream it because the accused can't say they were hit or whatever. Obviously to be a decoy takes some doing with what they're seeing but I'm sure they're a bit desensitised by it all.

The stream doesn't have to be live to protect against this. A simple recording will do without it being streamed live.

Chrongen · 22-11-2017 5:27pm

KKkitty wrote: »

You can't edit a live stream though. The accused could say they were assaulted and the fact that it was live streamed will show they weren't.

If they were afraid he would falsely accuse them of assault then wouldn't NO recording at all solve that problem and it would all come down to one person's word against the others?

SnakePlissken · 22-11-2017 5:33pm

Strazdas wrote: »

SnakePlissken wrote: »

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?

Online grooming does not carry the death penalty to the best of my knowledge.

If I was a vigilante and I caused a man to commit to suicide, I would be absolutely wracked with guilt and self doubt in the aftermath, no matter what he was accused of.....it would be the most human of reactions. These chavvy creeps with their criminal records pretending to be "concerned citizens" is utterly laughable.

It is most certainly not "a most human of reactions" to mourn the death of a grown man who set out that day to rape a 12 year old child.

You keep introducing the word chav into your argument at every given opportunity, strange that you have such empathy for peadophiles, yet none for those from disadvantaged communities don't you think?

Flippyfloppy · 22-11-2017 5:40pm

Chrongen wrote: »

If they were afraid he would falsely accuse them of assault then wouldn't NO recording at all solve that problem and it would all come down to one person's word against the others?

Surely the reasoning behind the live stream is to spare the public from the frustrating news articles that state; 'the sex offender, that cannot be named for legal reasons......'

gozunda · 22-11-2017 5:48pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Surely the reasoning behind the live stream is to spare the public from the frustrating news articles that state; 'the sex offender, that cannot be named for legal reasons......'

Careful now you may be accused of twisting things to misconstrue them....

That aside the police would never use videotaping because of course it would suffice to have only their word against the word of any suspect or detainee and vice versa ... :rolleyes:

end of the road · 22-11-2017 5:49pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Surely the reasoning behind the live stream is to spare the public from the frustrating news articles that state; 'the sex offender, that cannot be named for legal reasons......'

there is a reason for people not being named for legal reasons.
if these encounters are being streamed to get around that then it should be an automatic contempt of court.

Strazdas · 22-11-2017 5:52pm

SnakePlissken wrote: »

It is most certainly not "a most human of reactions" to mourn the death of a grown man who set out that day to rape a 12 year old child.

You keep introducing the word chav into your argument at every given opportunity, strange that you have such empathy for peadophiles, yet none for those from disadvantaged communities don't you think?

The majority of people from disadvantaged areas are decent people. You have a much smaller subset who are criminals and vigilantes (I would make no distinction between the latter two groupings and frequently there is no actual distinction).

20Cent · 22-11-2017 5:53pm

Chrongen wrote: »

If they were afraid he would falsely accuse them of assault then wouldn't NO recording at all solve that problem and it would all come down to one person's word against the others?

What's the problem with recording live? Think that some random guy will be walking along and they think he's the pedo and they confront him? They would have been swapping messages even photos. When meeting someone you could get them to describe what they are wearing.

gctest50 · 22-11-2017 5:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

.........

if these encounters are being streamed to get around that then it should be an automatic contempt of court.

They stream them so the likes of Creavan can't say they were attacked

end of the road · 22-11-2017 5:57pm

gctest50 wrote: »

They stream them so the likes of Creavan can't say they were attacked

i don't really care what their excuse is tbh. there is a reason for the law not allowing the naming of people for legal reasons. streaming these confrontations will get around that and the courts have to clamp down hard on that.

Strazdas · 22-11-2017 5:57pm

20Cent wrote: »

What's the problem with recording live? Think that some random guy will be walking along and they think he's the pedo and they confront him? They would have been swapping messages even photos. When meeting someone you could get them to describe what they are wearing.

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This has already happened several times, men who had been on 18+ adult dating websites and ended up somehow being confronted by our scumbag friends.

gozunda · 22-11-2017 5:58pm

end of the road wrote: »

there is a reason for people not being named for legal reasons.
if these encounters are being streamed to get around that then it should be an automatic contempt of court.

As far as I aware contempt only arrises after a formal charge has been made so no livestreaming would not come under that.

The group in question appears to be quite legally savy and has presented evidence which helped secure previous convictions. They probably know what they were doing.

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 5:58pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This has already happened several times, men who had been on 18+ adult dating websites and ended up somehow being confronted by our scumbag friends.

The civil action would be fun.

Chrongen · 22-11-2017 6:00pm

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Surely the reasoning behind the live stream is to spare the public from the frustrating news articles that state; 'the sex offender, that cannot be named for legal reasons......'

More made up nonsense.

If a person is a convicted sex offender then they CAN be named unless you are trying to say that a newspaper reporter can call anyone they want a sex offender.

20Cent · 22-11-2017 6:00pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This has already happened several times, men who had been on 18+ adult dating websites and ended up somehow being confronted by our scumbag friends.

Precautions could be taken to avoid that. They have photos of the person remember. Not rocket science.

gctest50 · 22-11-2017 6:02pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This has already happened several times, men who had been on 18+ adult dating websites and ended up somehow being confronted by our scumbag friends.

Our friends who say they're 13 and these paedos you speak of continued the conversation - usually saying " no way you're 13"

gozunda · 22-11-2017 6:03pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This has already happened several times, men who had been on 18+ adult dating websites and ended up somehow being confronted by our scumbag friends.

What if, what if...the possible permutations are endless. Your projection of an imaginary persons feelings are exquisitely detailed btw.

The group as far as I am aware had done their footwork before hand. Had identified their man and on the might in question confirmed they were dealing with that person.

If they did per chance make a genuine mistake- they could simply have turned off the camera...

Keyzer · 22-11-2017 6:03pm

Its like the Chris Barry phone show in here...

gozunda · 22-11-2017 6:10pm

Strazdas wrote: »

The majority of people from disadvantaged areas are decent people. You have a much smaller subset who are criminals and vigilantes (I would make no distinction between the latter two groupings and frequently there is no actual distinction).

So you keep repeating. I have previously asked for some backup or reference on your assertion regarding 'vigilante' and 'criminal' groups being identical. Still waiting .....

end of the road · 22-11-2017 6:10pm

gozunda wrote: »

What if, what if...the possible permutations are endless. Your projection of an imaginary persons feelings are exquisitely detailed btw.

The group as far as I am aware had done their footwork before hand. Had identified their man and on the might in question confirmed they were dealing with that person.

If they did per chance make a genuine mistake- they could simply have turned off the camera...

this is why it needs to be left to the legitimate professionals, the police. not to criminals and all sorts.

Omackeral · 22-11-2017 6:11pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What happens if they confront an innocent man while live streaming? The man would be utterly humiliated and have enormous reputational damage done to him, given that hundreds of thousands of people would watch the video.

This group had plenty of research on this chap before engaging him, as pointed out already.

gozunda wrote: »

The group in question appears to be quite legally savy and has presented evidence which helped secure previous convictions. They probably know what they were doing.

gozunda · 22-11-2017 6:13pm

Chrongen wrote: »

More made up nonsense.

If a person is a convicted sex offender then they CAN be named unless you are trying to say that a newspaper reporter can call anyone they want a sex offender.

No you are wrong. Quite often in cases of sexual abuse the offenders name is not released to protect the name of the victim. Obviousley in this case there was no actual child the group has no fears on that point.

gozunda · 22-11-2017 6:17pm

end of the road wrote: »

this is why it needs to be left to the legitimate professionals, the police. not to criminals and all sorts.

But that's not the point being made now is it ....
Who are these 'criminals' of which you speak? Do tell...

Strazdas · 22-11-2017 6:35pm

gctest50 wrote: »

Our friends who say they're 13 and these paedos you speak of continued the conversation - usually saying " no way you're 13"

What paedophile goes on a site like Plenty of Fish (a dating site for 18+ adult men and women) to arrange a meeting with a child? The profile and photo on the website of the vigilante "decoy" states that the person is aged over 18 and they also look over 18 in their photo.....this is where things become beyond farcical.

20Cent · 22-11-2017 6:39pm

Strazdas wrote: »

What paedophile goes on a site like Plenty of Fish (a dating site for 18+ adult men and women) to arrange a meeting with a child? The profile and photo on the website of the vigilante "decoy" states that the person is aged over 18 and they also look over 18 in their photo.....this is where things become beyond farcical.

You reckon they are confronting people on normal dates? Adults meeting up?
Why would they do that?
Is there any instances of this happening?

AllForIt · 22-11-2017 6:55pm

Chavs doin research :eek:

Galwayguy35 · 22-11-2017 7:03pm

Chrongen wrote: »

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.

In this case it was a female member of the team who was the person the dirty paedo was in contact with.

They set up a profile on FB, the nonce sends a friend request and is immediately told the person is a minor, in this case 13.

He sent pics of his penis and booked a hotel to have sex with a 13 year old, yes in reality he was talking to an adult but he didn't know this and it could have well been a child he was in contact with.

And yet we have people like you on this thread criticizing the good work these people do.

Professor Moriarty · 22-11-2017 7:13pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In this case it was a female member of the team who was the person the dirty paedo was in contact with.

They set up a profile on FB, the nonce sends a friend request and is immediately told the person is a minor, in this case 13.

He sent pics of his penis and booked a hotel to have sex with a 13 year old, yes in reality he was talking to an adult but he didn't know this and it could have well been a child he was in contact with.

And yet we have people like you on this thread criticizing the good work these people do.

It's good work being done by the wrong people.

Galwayguy35 · 22-11-2017 7:20pm

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's good work being done by the wrong people.

The cops over there haven't the resources or the manpower to monitor all these guys online, I'd imagine it's the same here in Ireland.

Like it or not if it wasn't for these people fellas like the subject of this thread would be able to operate under the radar.

end of the road · 22-11-2017 7:27pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In this case it was a female member of the team who was the person the dirty paedo was in contact with.

They set up a profile on FB, the nonce sends a friend request and is immediately told the person is a minor, in this case 13.

He sent pics of his penis and booked a hotel to have sex with a 13 year old, yes in reality he was talking to an adult but he didn't know this and it could have well been a child he was in contact with.

And yet we have people like you on this thread criticizing the good work these people do.

oh absolutely, because it's not "good work" but "fishing for likes" . there is a huge difference between a police officer doing this stuff as part of their job, and some randomer doing this off their own backs. i would certainly be concerned about some randomer pretending to be a child, that's not normal behaviour.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The cops over there haven't the resources or the manpower to monitor all these guys online, I'd imagine it's the same here in Ireland.

Like it or not if it wasn't for these people fellas like the subject of this thread would be able to operate under the radar.

the cops having resources or not wouldn't have any effect on this issue. this sort aren't doing this because the cops don't have the resources, that's just an excuse.

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

Comments