Professor Moriarty wrote: » It's good work being done by the wrong people.
end of the road wrote: » 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. 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.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Well personally I'm more concerned about a pervert making contact with someone they think is a child so I suppose we'll agree to disagree on that one.
end of the road wrote: » i'm concerned about both, being capible of being concerned about multiple issues at the same time, just like most people.
end of the road wrote: » oh absolutely, because it's not "good work" but "fishing for likes" .
end of the road wrote: » 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.
end of the road wrote: » 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.
20Cent wrote: » You reckon they are confronting people on normal dates? Adults meeting up? Why would they do that? Is there any instances of this happening?
Strazdas wrote: » I'm saying that if a man goes on an adult dating site like Plenty of Fish looking to meet an adult woman, gets talking to some male weirdo who has put up a photo of a woman over the age of 18, there's not a chance he could be charged with 'child grooming' offences : it's irrelevant what was said in the conversation with the weirdo or if they arranged a meet up.....he went on an adult website to meet a woman. Any judge would laugh such a case out of court.
gozunda wrote: » According to the UK police working with such groups is "something we're going to have to potentially have to look at, yes".
mistersifter wrote: » This vigilante group is self-appointed, untrained and unregulated in the way that an official law enforcement body is. If the police in the UK seriously think that they are the future of law enforcement I'm glad I don't live there.
gozunda wrote: » You see thats your opinion - it's been repeated for the nth time but doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny. Well neither is being a paedophile tbh. Setting up a child's profile to catch paedophiles out is better than those scum abusing a real child. Well again that your opinion. According to the UK police working with such groups is "something we're going to have to potentially have to look at, yes".
gozunda wrote: » Nah I disagree - you seem to be more concerned with the perpetrators vs the anti predator groups than the potential victims tbh.
gozunda wrote: » Tbh some regulation of such groups will benefit both the police and those groups.
Hammer89 wrote: » I'm really conflicted about this guy. Part of me does feel sorry for him, the way he was exposed. I mean, paedophile or not, he's a human being and I personally don't like seeing anybody subjected to such profound shame and embarrassment. Then again, you think about the 13-year-old girl (if there was one) and the fact that he was obviously willing to ruin the life of an innocent for the sake of an orgasm, which is essentially what it is. That's the part which keeps me from feeling too sorry for him.
end of the road wrote: » means nothing as the police are only "looking" at "potentially"
end of the road wrote: » even then it's only to sort of be seen to tolerate these groups. as we know, they actually have no time for them.
end of the road wrote: » that's because you can't separate the idea that disagreeing with fishing for facebook likes doesn't equal condoning paedophilia. that's your problem but your statement isn't accurate.
gctest50 wrote: » They stream them so the likes of Creavan can't say they were attacked
Chrongen wrote: » That has to be one of the lamest and pathetic excuses I've heard in a long time. It really is an insult. If you don't stream or even record then there is no evidence of whether an attack took place or not. You couldn't make this stuff up.
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.
20Cent wrote: » They want evidence that an attack didn't take place. Simples.
end of the road wrote: » alternatively, they are fishing for facebook likes. simples.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Didn't we in Ireland do something like a reserve garda force of untrained civilians or something some years ago? ................ I can not yet imagine the finer details of how that would work, but as a GENERAL idea I can certainly sense potential there..........
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.
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.
gozunda wrote: » Now where did the police quote indicate that such groups are "the future of law enforcement"? Really? Tbh some regulation of such groups will benefit both the police and those groups. Of interest figures show 11% of court cases in 2014 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for the crime of meeting a child after sexual grooming used vigilante evidence, rising to 44% in 2016.
Anastasia_ wrote: » This whole thread has irked me so much. Firstly, NO ONE is condoning his actions. If he was in fact planning on doing what the group claim, then of course he is best off in jail. But, he is innocent until proven guilty before the courts and he has a right to a fair trial. Not a trial by social media. The vigilante group took it way too far. If he was in fact to be found innocent or even get off on a technicality, they could be drawing a whole load of trouble on themselves live streaming it. Also, they claim not to be vigilantes as they don't use any form of punishment, but that's exactly what this was. Live streaming it was punishment in the form of humiliation, and no one should be subjected to any form of punishment before being proven guilty before the courts. Adding to that was the way he was spoken to, do they think the police react like that during arrests? Another question is in regard to their citizens arrests. Under UK law (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) a citizen can only perform an arrest when it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it. Surely it is arguable that this group should have handed the evidence over to police to allow them to perform the arrest? Again, I'm not condoning his actions, merely voicing an opinion on these vigilante groups. Edit to add: He was allegedly talking to 3 of their decoys. If this was legit and he had added all three by some wild coincidence, it was pretty likely he had added police decoys too. Let the police do their jobs.
Police admit they have been torn over whether to embrace or reject the morally fraught method that may secure useful evidence but also risks the destruction of vital evidence and the safety of children if genuine paedophiles are discovered before the police can intervene. Advertisement There have been convictions. James Stone, 23, was jailed for child sex abuse after a girl's mother approached Letzgo Hunting worried about what he had done to her daughter. Nottinghamshire police, however, said the sting played no role in the conviction. Maurice Ingram, 66, pleaded guilty to a charge of attempted sexual grooming following a sting by Stinson Hunter in which he posed as 15-year-old girl and they arranged to meet at a park.Police say some hunters have exposed people whose potential child grooming behaviour was previously unknown, but that in the majority of cases examined the targets do not reflect any sexual interest in children. Stinson Hunter has even admitted as much."Guys that I catch generally aren't paedophiles," he told supporters in an online broadcast in August. "A massive percent of them are guys that have been lonely and someone has paid them attention and they've jumped on it."
Chrongen wrote: » When you allow these thugs to live stream a confrontation with a POSSIBLE paedophile you open up the high probability that he will have encounters with a braying mob whether he even gets charged let alone convicted at all. A rumour was spread about this old pensioner and look what these bastards did to him:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2984781/paedophile-vigilante-gang-jailed/ These are the people you think are doing "good work":https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police from the article: Somebody on here even had the gall to suggest that the use of this kind of evidence helped increase convictions by 44%
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/77d671660e2e6b61b0b12d65bfcaaaa9.svg)
