Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…3839414344

Comments

  • Options
    #1202
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    It's good work being done by the wrong people.

    Why are they 'wrong'...?


  • Options
    #1203
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,411 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1204
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.


    i'm concerned about both, being capible of being concerned about multiple issues at the same time, just like most people.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1205
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    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.

    "more concerned" would mean that one was more important than the other.


  • Options
    #1206
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    oh absolutely, because it's not "good work" but "fishing for likes" .

    You see thats your opinion - it's been repeated for the nth time but doesn't really stand up to any scrutiny.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1207
    Strazdas
    Registered Users Posts: 18,281 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #1208
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    Nah I disagree - you seem to be more concerned with the perpetrators vs the anti predator groups than the potential victims tbh.


  • Options
    #1209
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    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.

    Agree.
    That's not what the threads about though.


  • Options
    #1210
    mistersifter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    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".

    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.


  • Options
    #1211
    Hammer89
    Registered Users Posts: 3,003 ✭✭✭Hammer89


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1212
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #1213
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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".

    means nothing as the police are only "looking" at "potentially"

    even then it's only to sort of be seen to tolerate these groups. as we know, they actually have no time for them.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Nah I disagree - you seem to be more concerned with the perpetrators vs the anti predator groups than the potential victims tbh.

    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.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Tbh some regulation of such groups will benefit both the police and those groups.

    it really won't benefit the police. it won't benefit the public. no regulation needed, just get rid of the groups.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1214
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    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.

    Didn't we in Ireland do something like a reserve garda force of untrained civilians or something some years ago? Never heard how that went in the end. Would this be 100% different really?

    I can think of ways they could be useful. A lot of resources are required to find the target for the police. They wait around for someone to take the bait or the honey trap. And many people who do take it likely back off before the police can take it too seriously.

    So I could imagine a beneficial situation where the police were using such groups as resources on the "front line" and when a criminal target reaches a certain level of engagement with them, the officers step in and take over.

    I can not yet imagine the finer details of how that would work, but as a GENERAL idea I can certainly sense potential there. I would certainly feel better about joining or forming such a group if we had a relationship with the relevant Garda Task Force where at a certain point we could do a hand over.


  • Options
    #1215
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    Would you have sympathy for a psychopath? I certainly wouldn't- similarly I don't have any sympathy for paedophiles ...


  • Options
    #1216
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,411 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    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.

    He first made contact last July and continued sending pics and messages until this month, he had lots of time to think about what he was doing and could have stopped at any time if he wanted to.

    In fact any normal person in their 50's would never have sent a friend request to someone who is 13.

    He has nobody to blame but himself for the loss of friends, job and family.


  • Options
    #1217
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    means nothing as the police are only "looking" at "potentially"

    Yes but it does rebute your previous statement.
    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.

    Says you? With 44% of convictions relying on their evidence - I would imagine the police are delighted to see so many nonces under lock and key.
    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.

    But one does not equate necessarily with the other. Your belief that the negation of that statement means that those who don't do likes condone paedophiles is truly bizarre made even more so by your triple negative statement ...

    If you can show that that this is what these groups are all about - then please do so. Link to a study or relevant statistics that proves it so. Otherwise stop rabbiting. It's getting tiresome.


  • Options
    #1218
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    gctest50 wrote: »
    They stream them so the likes of Creavan can't say they were attacked

    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.


  • Options
    #1219
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    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.

    They want evidence that an attack didn't take place.
    Simples.


  • Options
    #1220
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    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.


    Have you found the profile of the decoy in this case?


  • Options
    #1221
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    20Cent wrote: »
    They want evidence that an attack didn't take place.
    Simples.

    alternatively, they are fishing for facebook likes. simples.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1222
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    end of the road wrote: »
    alternatively, they are fishing for facebook likes. simples.

    Please provide reference or relevant statistics that show your assertion to be true. Have asked previously. Still waiting....


  • Options
    #1223
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    end of the road wrote: »
    alternatively, they are fishing for facebook likes. simples.

    That post is why this is a brilliant idea :




    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..........



    A group of Reserve Gardai doing what the vigilante groups are doing now would eliminate all the paedo defenders whining :


    * Can't be accused of doing it for the Facebook likes
    * Not vigilante/criminal etc
    * Hand it over to Gardai for the meetups


  • Options
    #1224
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    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.

    I didn't deny what he did. Never. Not once. I was merely ridiculing the notion that this gang (as the original poster suggested) had to endure unspeakable lewdness. Spare me the hyperbole. They must all be in therapy and having nightmares because he sent a picture of his penis.


  • Options
    #1225
    markc2951
    Registered Users Posts: 189 ✭✭markc2951


    He had 2 profiles under 2 names,one obviously being his real one and other one full of under age girls..I seen the clip where he was confronted and arrested..the police also seized a good few items there amd then and put them in evidence bags,still havent2heard what they were tho


  • Options
    #1226
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    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 don't have the manpower or resources to prevent ALL crimes, not just guys stalking/grooming kids. Consequently it should be left to vigilantes?

    If you really think that ensnaring would-be paedophile should be entrusted to civilian volunteers then should there be some training and protocol introduced? Or can they just do what they like?


  • Options
    #1227
    Anastasia_
    Registered Users Posts: 132 ✭✭Anastasia_


    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.


  • Options
    #1228
    mistersifter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭mistersifter


    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.

    If police are considering working with vigilantes in the future, what kind of precedent would it set for enforcing the law in general? If there were some state body other than the cops doing the work of locating possible pedophiles using social media, then fine, but this isn't the case here.

    As we see from the video, vigilantes operate in a way that is driven by their personal emotions and have a self-indulgent approach that has no place in policing as far as I'm concerned. I want to see/hear about the police calmly and matter-of-factly subjecting this fella to the full extent of the law and putting him away for good. I dont want reality tv made out of it.

    The stats you mention don't change my mind. They just highlight flaws in policing that need to be fixed, but not through the employment of vigilante groups. Did the vigilantes cause any harm to innocent people during their "investigations" over the years quoted? They might have. Vigilante groups have harmed innocent people in the past.

    Nobody here is defending pedophiles. Supporting the vigilantes is easy on this occasion because they seem to have exposed a criminal. But it's also very short-sighted to support them. There's a wider issue here about the way in which society is policed.


  • Options
    #1229
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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.

    Welcome to Boards - first time Poster? Well done on reading the entire thread so far. I don't see the video as punishment - it is what it is.

    Afaik there was no citizen arrest - he didn't run - why - who knows maybe embarrassment or he knew he was well caught and his game was up.

    Plenty of TV programmes use investigation and unmasking of people. It's not new. It's not a trial by media. He will get his day in court with the evidence gathered.

    If the perp was concerned for his reputation then he would never have persued travelling to the UK to meet up with an underage girl with the purpose of spending a night in a hotel with her and after he had sent her photographs of his willy

    I don't feel sorry for psychopaths and I certainly don't feel sorry for paedophiles who act out their fantasies or urges

    I do hope that he is convicted and serves prison time based on what he has been convicted of.

    There is no indication that he was on either the Irish or UK police watch list. Shows how devious these feckers can be imo.


  • Options
    #1230
    Chrongen
    Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    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".


    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:
    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."


    Somebody on here even had the gall to suggest that the use of this kind of evidence helped increase convictions by 44%


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1231
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    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%


    There you go again. No one is talking about "other groups" or using outliers. Can you stay on track just once?

    But as you brought it up - yes according to to the figures which 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. It's not 'suggested - it's official figures detailed by the BBC.

    Bak to here and now and this thread - We are discussing this case - this paedophile - this anti - predator group - this livestream

    Stop soapboxing - you're running around in circles now ...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement