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

I bet Facebook could create, or perhaps have already created an algorithm to flag likely sex offenders. They could also work with police so high risk offenders could be monitored in some way.

Of course, this creates all sorts of privacy issues. It's definitely possible however...the data trail we leave is incredible. I wonder if people who are in favor of the vigilantes would be in favor of something like this?

Anastasia_

gozunda wrote: »

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.

Thank you - first time poster, long time lurker though.

I'm not sure how the video could be labelled as anything other than a humiliating punishment. If it were as they claimed simply to make sure there was no assault, then record it, no need to live stream it. If he (or anyone else who is caught in these videos) were found innocent, he has a defamation case on foot of that video, a defamatory statement identifying him that has been published. And as he is not guilty before the courts, I don't see how it is anything other than a punishment.

Re citizens arrest, I'm not sure there was one here either but if he had run there would have been, take a look at their previous videos where they make them. But in general, if they simply used the decoy and passed the evidence over to the police I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them - but it's just so obvious and such uncomfortable watching seeing the kick they get out of it. If they were really purely there for the good of the community, I'm not sure why they would have the added legal uncertainty regarding citizens arrest and livestreaming and why they wouldn't just leave the police at it with their procedures which are presumed lawful.

Again, I completely agree with you in that I do not condone his actions. If he is found guilty then yes he is completely in the wrong. But that in itself does not condone the actions of the group.

20Cent wrote: »

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

Have you actually thought about that? Do you actually believe that and do you expect others to accept it as your excuse for live streaming a confrontation?

It has to be live because as some other poster tried to bullsh1t: you can't tamper with livestreamed footage. If only live streamed footage is reliable then why is CCTV footage used in court?

Are you having an absolute laugh?

What is wrong with ordinary non-streamed footage to prove you have a record or the confrontation? I know what you're going to say "the perp could accuse them of tampering with the footage to remove the assault"

So they are video editing experts now as well. Able to erase a fracas from the middle of a video seamlessly so that it all looks like the same group and perp just standing there until the police arrive.

You're an absolute parody, you know that?

Oh and the "simples"? Nice touch.

end of the road

gozunda wrote: »

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 ...

so-called anti-predator groups as a whole are part of the discussion. they are relevant to this case given that a so-called anti-predator group were involved. you cannot argue against what Chrongen has written.

mistersifter wrote: »

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.

I've no idea - I'm not going tell them what they should do. Are you?

mistersifter wrote: »

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.

I see some people who evidently arrived at the conclusion of months of work and are possibly on an adrenalin high. Tbh it's difficult to say. The police were called and he was arrested and charged. I'm happy that he was taken into custody. I'm not happy he is out on bail.

mistersifter wrote: »

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.

Again it's not constructive to get into Whataboutery imo. Those stats were given in response to a specific post. They are what they are.

mistersifter wrote: »

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.

Not sure about 'defending' one way or another but there is a lot of dodgy commentary that appears to at best gloss over the seriousness of paedophillia and appears to ignore the victims in all of this - children.

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.

You've criticized the tactics of the vigilantes, Anastasia. Prepare for the cavalcade of abuse from being called vile and disgusting to being a paedo-sympathiser.

end of the road wrote: »

so-called anti-predator groups as a whole are part of the discussion. they are relevant to this case given that a so-called anti-predator group were involved. you cannot argue against what Chrongen has written.

Maybe you're and your little friends discussion but not mine and not others on this thread. Why the constant derailment I wonder? And oh boy yes I can :pac:

Oh and can you provide those references as I have asked for previously and which you keep ignoring - thanks

Anastasia_

Chrongen wrote: »

You've criticized the tactics of the vigilantes, Anastasia. Prepare for the cavalcade of abuse from being called vile and disgusting to being a paedo-sympathiser.

Don't worry Chrongen - I'm on my second gin and tonic so well prepared for it.

Anastasia_ wrote: »

Don't worry Chrongen - I'm on my second gin and tonic so well prepared for it.

A drunk first time poster - what more could we add to the discussion :rolleyes:

gozunda wrote: »

Not sure about 'defending' one way or another but there is a lot of dodgy commentary that appears to at best gloss over the seriousness of paedophillia and appears to ignore the victims in all of this - children.

How can you go on about "whataboutery" and then say "what about the children"?

I think everyone agrees that paedos are bad.

That does not, nor should not preclude a commentary on who these vigilantes are, what their methods are or what negatives they bring as an entity by themselves.

It does not mean that a terrible thing like paedophilia is being glossed over.

I watched the video in full and was very open minded. I had some serious credibility for them in the opening exchanges and thought, man these guys are great.

The rest of the video tells me I should have serious reservations about these guys. I certainly would not like to see them gaining an increasing role in society after being buoyed by this success.

Fair play to them for catching the guy.

Imagine if a recording was released of a cop taunting someone like that. There would be uproar.

Anastasia_ wrote: »

Thank you - first time poster, long time lurker though.

I'm not sure how the video could be labelled as anything other than a humiliating punishment. If it were as they claimed simply to make sure there was no assault, then record it, no need to live stream it. If he (or anyone else who is caught in these videos) were found innocent, he has a defamation case on foot of that video, a defamatory statement identifying him that has been published. And as he is not guilty before the courts, I don't see how it is anything other than a punishment.

Re citizens arrest, I'm not sure there was one here either but if he had run there would have been, take a look at their previous videos where they make them. But in general, if they simply used the decoy and passed the evidence over to the police I wouldn't have as much of a problem with them - but it's just so obvious and such uncomfortable watching seeing the kick they get out of it. If they were really purely there for the good of the community, I'm not sure why they would have the added legal uncertainty regarding citizens arrest and livestreaming and why they wouldn't just leave the police at it with their procedures which are presumed lawful.

Again, I completely agree with you in that I do not condone his actions. If he is found guilty then yes he is completely in the wrong. But that in itself does not condone the actions of the group.

You see thats your opinion (I presume) and well I disagree - at least let the courts convene and make a judgement before declaring what might or might not happen ok.

Anastasia_

gozunda wrote: »

You see thats your opinion (I presume) and well I disagree - at least let the courts convene and make a judgement before declaring what might or might not happen ok.

And if you have just arrived are here for the sake of an argument well ha ha ha that's very original....

I absolutely agree - let the courts decide.

keith_sixteen wrote: »

How can you go on about "whataboutery" and then say "what about the children"?

I think everyone agrees that paedos are bad.

That does not, nor should not preclude a commentary on who these vigilantes are, what their methods are or what negatives they bring as an entity by themselves.

It does not mean that a terrible thing like paedophilia is being glossed over.

I watched the video in full and was very open minded. I had some serious credibility for them in the opening exchanges and thought, man these guys are great.

The rest of the video tells me I should have serious reservations about these guys. I certainly would not like to see them gaining an increasing role in society after being buoyed by this success.

Fair play to them for catching the guy.

Imagine if a recording was released of a cop taunting someone like that. There would be uproar.

Why Children? Seriousley

Paedophillia is all about children .

I've said previousley that both the police and these groups would benefit from guidelines or some agreed framework. I'm sure they can figure it out themselves.

gozunda wrote: »

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 ...

You seem very quick to cast a wide net when it suits you but then ignore facts when they don't suit your agenda. Was this a one off case? Did this group just prepare for this one sting and have since disbanded. Because if not you are praising their tactics that has been used before (livestreaming) and will be used again.

And if you're only concentrating on this case and ONLY this case then you ought to desist from constantly using the term paedophilia. The decoy girl in this case was 13 but paedophilia refers to those attracted to pre-pubescents, the cut-off point of which has been determined as 13.

So you can't have it both ways.

[Deleted User]

gozunda wrote: »

Again it's not constructive to get into Whataboutery imo. Those stats were given in response to a specific post. They are what they are.

/QUOTE]

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out that percentages of convictions connected with untrained, unofficial groups do not capture some of the most important aspects of the debate. Asking EXACTLY how these groups go about their business is important, especially considering the harm that vigilante groups are capable of causing. The fact that what I said was speculative is exactly the point in a way i.e. we don't really know how these fellas operate because they are unofficial. The percentages quoted fail to address important details here.

I think its important to avoid the "blanket bombing" mentality along the lines of "if they are getting loads of people arrested, let them operate regardless about the wider implications of their methods". I think this is a dangerous way to think.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

oh absolutely, because it's not "good work" but "fishing for likes"

You're such a hypocrite. You thanked this post below;

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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

So is it good work or is it not? Also, you love banging this drum of ''they're pretending to be children online, it's not normal behaviour''. Hunting for kids online isn't exactly normal either so engaging in normal tactics won't quite cut it here. It's thinking outside the box. It's caught this Creaven creep. It's exposed this would-be predator. It's gonna put him behind bars. Good result in my book. Good work.

Chrongen wrote: »

You seem very quick to cast a wide net when it suits you but then ignore facts when they don't suit your agenda. Was this a one off case? Did this group just prepare for this one sting and have since disbanded. Because if not you are praising their tactics that has been used before (livestreaming) and will be used again.

And if you're only concentrating on this case and ONLY this case then you ought to desist from constantly using the term paedophilia. The decoy girl in this case was 13 but paedophilia refers to those attracted to pre-pubescents, the cut-off point of which has been determined as 13.
So you can't have it both ways.

Ah you're back. I have been discussing this case. Why what have you been discussing?

Just to clarify and for your information...

Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.

That includes children aged 13 btw.

Source:
"Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition".

Strazdas

mistersifter wrote: »

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out that percentages of convictions connected with untrained, unofficial groups do not capture some of the most important aspects of the debate. Asking EXACTLY how these groups go about their business is important, especially considering the harm that vigilante groups are capable of causing. The fact that what I said was speculative is exactly the point in a way i.e. we don't really know how these fellas operate because they are unofficial. The percentages quoted fail to address important details here.

I think its important to avoid the "blanket bombing" mentality along the lines of "if they are getting loads of people arrested, let them operate regardless about the wider implications of their methods". I think this is a dangerous way to think.

I'm amazed the UK justice system and police are indulging these vigilante groups. All it would take would be two or three judges to rule the 'evidence' was inadmissible (due to it being often gathered and followed through on under extremely dubious and questionable circumstances) and our vigilante friends would be out of a job overnight.

gozunda wrote: »

You see thats your opinion (I presume) and well I disagree - at least let the courts convene and make a judgement before declaring what might or might not happen ok.

And if you have just arrived are here for the sake of an argument well ha ha ha that's very original....

How mature.

gozunda wrote: »

Why Children? Seriousley

Paedophillia is all about children .

I am aware of that. As I said, the fact that they are going after paedos is commendable. But does not mean that they are immune from criticism.

gozunda wrote: »

I've said previousley that both the police and these groups would benefit from guidelines or some agreed framework. I'm sure they can figure it out themselves.

LOL, I would trust them to tie their own shoelaces...much less sit down with the police in a constructive manner. They ain't interested. Not enough likes to be had, innit?

mistersifter wrote: »

gozunda wrote: »

Again it's not constructive to get into Whataboutery imo. Those stats were given in response to a specific post. They are what they are.

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out that percentages of convictions connected with untrained, unofficial groups do not capture some of the most important aspects of the debate. Asking EXACTLY how these groups go about their business is important, especially considering the harm that vigilante groups are capable of causing. The fact that what I said was speculative is exactly the point in a way i.e. we don't really know how these fellas operate because they are unofficial. The percentages quoted fail to address important details here.

I think its important to avoid the "blanket bombing" mentality along the lines of "if they are getting loads of people arrested, let them operate regardless about the wider implications of their methods". I think this is a dangerous way to think.

Not my argument mate ...

If you wish to digress to some other debate / discussion - it's that away ---- ×

mada82

Any interesting discussion ruined by 2 or 3 posters trying to get the better of each other.

keith_sixteen wrote: »

I am aware of that. As I said, the fact that they are going after paedos is commendable. But does not mean that they are immune from criticism.

Then why ask me the question in the first place!

keith_sixteen wrote: »

LOL, I would trust them to tie their own shoelaces...much less sit down with the police in a constructive manner. They ain't interested. Not enough likes to be had, innit?

Well the police are considering it - still awaiting some proof of that spoof assertion from another poster tbh

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

You're such a hypocrite. You thanked this post below;

So is it good work or is it not? Also, you love banging this drum of ''they're pretending to be children online, it's not normal behaviour''. Hunting for kids online isn't exactly normal either so engaging in normal tactics won't quite cut it here. It's thinking outside the box. It's caught this Creaven creep. It's exposed this would-be predator. It's gonna put him behind bars. Good result in my book. Good work.

it's not thinking outside the box. the police engaging in the tactics they use works far better then groups full of undesirables fishing for likes on social media. random people pretending to be children isn't normal behaviour, just like hunting for children isn't normal behaviour. we actually don't know that the evidence this group got will put him behind bars, it might even insure he goes free.

Chrongen wrote: »

You've criticized the tactics of the vigilantes, Anastasia. Prepare for the cavalcade of abuse from being called vile and disgusting to being a paedo-sympathiser.

Anastasia - beware of the hyperbole ...

gozunda wrote: »

Then why ask me the question in the first place!

Well the police are considering it - still awaiting some proof of that spoof assertion from another poster tbh

You've misunderstood my question. Let me rephrase. You suggest that anyone who questions the motives of the vigilantes are glossing over the serious crimes of pedophilia.

Why do you throw out accusations of whataboutery and then engage in it yourself?

keith_sixteen wrote: »

You've misunderstood my question. Let me rephrase. You suggest that anyone who questions the motives of the vigilantes are glossing over the serious crimes of pedophilia.

Why do you throw out accusations of whataboutery and then engage in it yourself?

I don't think I did. You just repeated yourself. Paedophilia is about children - this thread is about a paedophile although some people seem to be in denial about that ..

To recap - I said:

gozunda wrote:

Not sure about 'defending' one way or another but there is a lot of dodgy commentary that appears to at best gloss over the seriousness of paedophillia and appears to ignore the victims in all of this - children.

You said:

keith_sixteen wrote:

How can you go on about "whataboutery" and then say "what about the children"?

I said:

Paedophillia is all about children

I did NOT mention vigilantes

gozunda wrote: »

this thread is about a paedophile

Not just any paedo tho. One you saw on YouTube.

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

it's not thinking outside the box. the police engaging in the tactics they use works far better then groups full of undesirables fishing for likes on social media. random people pretending to be children isn't normal behaviour, just like hunting for children isn't normal behaviour. we actually don't know that the evidence this group got will put him behind bars, it might even insure he goes free.

No. One isn't just like the other. It's comments like this that has people wondering how far your sympathies extend. Because to liken one to the other is to completely misunderstand the depth of harm posed by those 'hunting for children'.

Whether you agree or disagree with Vigilantes, hunting children on the internet so that you can engage them in some sort of sexual activity is far far worse. I am amazed, given how outspoken you are on another thread about what's right where children are concerned that you could think the vigilante group in this case are just like the person who is accused of sending d*ck pics to [what he thought was] a 13 year old and arranging to meet up with her.