nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Dr Brown

Has anyone heard of this guy before?

<SNIP> link removed

Admin note - as this story is breaking late at night, please do not name the individual or link to the video. We will revisit this decision early tomorrow. Discussion in the story is of course permitted as long as there are no comments as to identity.

UPDATE 20-Nov, 11:40 am - The person in question has been charged in the UK & publicly named.

dudara

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

end of the road

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

No. One isn't just like the other. It's comments like this that has people wondering how far your sympathies extend.

only to the hardon supporters of these groups, who can't understand the reality that disagreeing with these groups, does not mean you condone paedophilia.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Because to liken one to the other is to completely misunderstand the depth of harm posed by those 'hunting for children'.

it's really not. both behaviours are disturbing to me. that is it. it is clear that people hunting for children are far worse, but that doesn't negate that pretending to be a child is also disturbing behaviour.

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

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.

you are the one stating i think they are the same. i think they are all dangerous individuals, i never stated which were or weren't more dangerous, as again, i stated already my feelings for the individual concerned and what should happen to him. so, therefore you are making up things to suit your agenda.

weldoninhio

Strazdas wrote: »

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.

And how many convicted nonces would have their convictions quashed? Would that make you happy??

nozzferrahhtoo

gozunda wrote: »

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

I have sympathy for many of them actually, especially the ones who suffer from a condition brought on them by nothing more than an accident of birth or circumstance.

I think some people fear that sympathy is exclusive, and if you feel it then it pushes all other emotions you could have about their crime out of the way somehow. It certainly does not however. My judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy I feel for the perpetrator.

The Christians have a "hate the sin not the sinner" concept. At least in theory if not always in practice.

Some people who think "Free Will" might more illusory than we think have a similar idea.

There are forms of justice that are not merely predicated on society getting retribution, and forms of looking at the criminal that do not preclude sympathy to exist in parallel with the proper execution of justice and the protection of society.

There is an interesting article on that kind of thinking here.

keith_sixteen

gozunda wrote: »

Do you actually have a point or something?

There are subtleties here you seem unable to grasp.

gozunda wrote: »

Look if you're looking for some form of daft argument - look somewhere else..and take the sidekick with you.

No daft arguments or sidekicks here. I'll stick around I think. You're welcome to aswell

Hannibal_Smith

end of the road wrote: »

only to the hardon supporters of these groups, who can't understand the reality that disagreeing with these groups, does not mean you condone paedophilia.

it's really not. both behaviours are disturbing to me. that is it. it is clear that people hunting for children are far worse, but that doesn't negate that pretending to be a child is also disturbing behaviour.

you are the one stating i think they are the same. i think they are all dangerous individuals, i never stated which were or weren't more dangerous, as again, i stated already my feelings for the individual concerned and what should happen to him. so, therefore you are making up things to suit your agenda.

And you assume the people who support what they did are hardened supporters of these groups. You have been just as involved in digging trenches for both sides.

You used the words 'Just like', not me. You said one was just like the other. I have made up nothing. You said it about 5 posts above mine.

How you can liken one to the other is beyond me. Surely the intention behind each act sets them world's apart? One was to catch a paedophile, one was to attract a 13 year old.

screamer

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have sympathy for many of them actually, especially the ones who suffer from a condition brought on them by nothing more than an accident of birth or circumstance.

I think some people fear that sympathy is exclusive, and if you feel it then it pushes all other emotions you could have about their crime out of the way somehow. It certainly does not however. My judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy I feel for the perpetrator.

The Christians have a "hate the sin not the sinner" concept. At least in theory if not always in practice.

Some people who think "Free Will" might more illusory than we think have a similar idea.

There are forms of justice that are not merely predicated on society getting retribution, and forms of looking at the criminal that do not preclude sympathy to exist in parallel with the proper execution of justice and the protection of society.

There is an interesting article on that kind of thinking here.

Oh here we go... they're born that way so that makes it ok? As the apex preditor many of us have the ability to kill other things including other humans, but we don't because it's wrong and those who do are punished. It's called civilised society and those don't comply with the rules of that society have no place in it.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

random people pretending to be children isn't normal behaviour, just like hunting for children isn't normal behaviour.

Don't you try to equate them. The latter one is among the most vile things any human can do.
The first one would be weird if it wasn't for the purpose of exposing the first one.

Amalgam

screamer wrote: »

Oh here we go... they're born that way so that makes it ok?

Research needs to be undertaken, but given the hysteria, researchers are being attacked for any link to paedophilia.

Interesting article, maybe I even heard it on RTE radio, that some paedophiles might indeed be born, 'that way'. A very high percentage of a certain kind of pederasty, (delusional emotional states regarding having a relationship with a child, not necessarily a sexual one) are born premature.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

but that doesn't negate that pretending to be a child is also disturbing behaviour.

The reason they're doing it though is to expose these would-be predators. It's the concept of a sting operation. Feds do it, they pose as hitmen. Cops pose as drug dealers or hookers. It's the same premise. You have to enter their world to get the jump on them. Yes you can argue (probably rightly fwiw) that they don't have the authority to do it but it's for a similar reason. Pushing the 'it's disturbing' point doesn't really register with me. Nor does the they're doing it for likes. Source on that or proof proof proof?

gozunda

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have sympathy for many of them actually, especially the ones who suffer from a condition brought on them by nothing more than an accident of birth or circumstance.

I think some people fear that sympathy is exclusive, and if you feel it then it pushes all other emotions you could have about their crime out of the way somehow. It certainly does not however. My judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy I feel for the perpetrator.

The Christians have a "hate the sin not the sinner" concept. At least in theory if not always in practice.

Some people who think "Free Will" might more illusory than we think have a similar idea.

There are forms of justice that are not merely predicated on society getting retribution, and forms of looking at the criminal that do not preclude sympathy to exist in parallel with the proper execution of justice and the protection of society.

There is an interesting article on that kind of thinking here.

It remains that have no sympathy for psychopaths or paedophiles no matter what their deviation. I would suggest you reserve your sympathy for their victims who these preps deliberatly abuse.

I wish to see them subject to the full rigour of the law.

If you are Christian thats your business however you must be something else if your "judgement of their crime is entirely untouched by any sympathy you feel for the perpetrator"...

[Deleted User]

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How you can liken one to the other is beyond me. Surely the intention behind each act sets them world's apart? One was to catch a paedophile, one was to attract a 13 year old.

Nah, it was for the likes. Dunno where the source on that is though...

gozunda

keith_sixteen wrote: »

There are subtleties here you seem unable to grasp.

You are as subtle as a brick.
You're the one who messed up asking the wrong question...

keith_sixteen wrote: »

No daft arguments or sidekicks here. I'll stick around I think. You're welcome to aswell

Another smartass reply eh? You're not very clever really :pac:

deco nate

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.

It's very easy to find out if anything is edited. No need for a live stream. 3 go pro's started 2 minutes before the confrontation.(even 1 will do, like I said, easy to know if edited) sd cards handed over right after the police arrested said pedo.
Will work no problem.
Some of these groups were working before YouTube or Facebook started live streaming.
It's all about likes /view count / donations/I'm a hero me.... Not a fan, look at the comments as the videos are running. The amount of people asking were do they live, give them a good hiding type posts.
That means it's tying up police time, having to have police keep an eye on the pedo so Muppets don't hurt said pedo, he has to go to court.

keith_sixteen

gozunda wrote: »

You're the one who messed up asking the wrong question...

Let me ask you this question. Do you honestly think this thread is simply about a paedophile?

gozunda wrote: »

Another smartass reply eh? You're not very clever really :pac:

And why do you feel it necessary to insult me?

deco nate

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......'

Nope, it's because once the police show up and arrest the pedo any video cannot be uploaded until the case is over. So they lose out on likes/views/ donations

end of the road

Omackeral wrote: »

The reason they're doing it though is to expose these would-be predators. It's the concept of a sting operation. Feds do it, they pose as hitmen. Cops pose as drug dealers or hookers. It's the same premise. You have to enter their world to get the jump on them. Yes you can argue (probably rightly fwiw) that they don't have the authority to do it but it's for a similar reason. Pushing the 'it's disturbing' point doesn't really register with me. Nor does the they're doing it for likes. Source on that or proof proof proof?

the police are paid to cary out these stings. therefore it's not disturbing behaviour, given that it is part of their job description and they are paid and obligated to do it. these groups are not the same as the police and what they do will never be the same as the police.

deco nate

gctest50 wrote: »

That post is why this is a brilliant idea :

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

*And not streaming live.

I'd agree with that..

gozunda

keith_sixteen wrote: »

Let me ask you this question. Do you honestly think this thread is simply about a paedophile?

Have you read the thread title or are you just making it up as you going along?

I see you are still looking for that argument...

keith_sixteen wrote: »

And why do you feel it necessary to insult me?

Re your smartass replies :rolleyes:

keith_sixteen wrote:

There are subtleties here you seem unable to grasp

deco nate

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.

How many TV shows have streamed live about a pedo? How many TV shows have been broadcast catching a pedo before a trial in the EU?
Links?

keith_sixteen

gozunda wrote: »

Have you read the thread title or are you just making it up as you going along?

I have indeed read it. Have you? Let's read it together.

It says RTE "paedophile" exposed.

The word paedophile is enclosed in inverted commas indicating that, for now, he is an alleged paedo.

Now while I have no doubt he is guilty as sin, that's a fact.

The thread title also contains the word 'exposed'. Lets not overlook that. How was he exposed exactly? By whom? What were their methods? Are those methods appropriate and will they hold up in court? If not, why not? Are these groups doing more harm than good? I don't claim to have all the answers, but this group should certainly be scrutinised.

If this thread was simply about a proven paedo it would read as follows:

"Look, here is a paedo, aren't paedos terrible?"

"Yes, paedos are terrible"

End of thread.

gozunda

deco nate wrote: »

How many TV shows have streamed live about a pedo? How many TV shows have been broadcast catching a pedo before a trial in the EU?
Links?

In the above reply to Anastasia where does it say that the shows were about 'pedos' (sic). The reference was to the prevelence of livestreaming. But you already know that...

Added to blocked list.

gozunda

keith_sixteen wrote: »

I have indeed read it. Have you? Let's read it together.
It says RTE "paedophile" exposed.
The word paedophile is enclosed in inverted commas indicating that, for now, he is an alleged paedo. Now while I have no doubt he is guilty as sin, that's a fact. The thread title also contains the word 'exposed'. Lets not overlook that. How was he exposed exactly? By whom? What were their methods? Are those methods appropriate and will they hold up in court? If not, why not? Are these groups doing more harm than good? I don't claim to have all the answers, but this group should certainly be scrutinised.
If this thread was simply about a proven paedo it would read as follows:"Look, here is a paedo, aren't paedos terrible?"
"Yes, paedos are terrible"End of thread.

Would you like to pop that in an envelope put a stamp on it and post it to the OP?

Keith get a life...

CeilingFly

86 pages of comments about someone who chatted to a "virtual" teenager.

I don't think there has been anywhere near the same discussion on an murderer or rapist on the history of boards.

I'm not condoning his actions, but maybe a bit of perspective?

Whilst he had a few extramarital flings with younger women, he has no history of the age group he is accused of - maybe he was pushing boundaries, maybe he saw it as a goal or whatever, but people want more punishment for him than they want for a mass murderer!

I just don't understand the tabloid mentality of that.

weldoninhio

deco nate wrote: »

Nope, it's because once the police show up and arrest the pedo any video cannot be uploaded until the case is over. So they lose out on likes/views/ donations

It is to get the nonces face out there. As seen with this case, the pervert got bail. He’s back amongst the general public. Now everyone knows what the pervert looks like.

deco nate

gozunda wrote: »

In the above reply to Anastasia where does it say that the shows were about 'pedos' (sic). The reference was to the prevelence of livestreaming. But you already know that...

The point stands, it cannot be shown before the court case has been concluded... But you already know that, don't you? Look back at you're own post

weldoninhio

deco nate wrote: »

How many TV shows have streamed live about a pedo? How many TV shows have been broadcast catching a pedo before a trial in the EU?
Links?

What’s the difference between broadcasting a nonce pervert and a rogue builder?? Why is it ok to humiliate one but not the other??

deco nate

weldoninhio wrote: »

It is to get the nonces face out there. As seen with this case, the pervert got bail. He’s back amongst the general public. Now everyone knows what the pervert looks like.

Ahh sure you are right, **** trial by jury. Let's just do trial by media for every ****ing case, yea.

keith_sixteen

gozunda wrote: »

Would you like to pop that in an envelope put a stamp on it and post it to the OP?

Keith get a life...

Nice. Nothing constructive to say so back to the insults.

You've over a hundred posts in this thread so maybe have a look at your own life situation before getting too worried about others.

gozunda

deco nate wrote: »

The point stands, it cannot be shown before the court case has been concluded... But you already know that, don't you? Look back at you're own post

The court case hasn't started....

weldoninhio

deco nate wrote: »

Ahh sure you are right, **** trial by jury. Let's just do trial by media for every ****ing case, yea.

He hasn’t had his trial yet. That’ll come, but at least Joe Public is aware of this beast now. Thanks to the concerned citizens that exposed him.