FabSwingers.com forum: Paedophile hunters

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

A while ago i started a thread lauding Danny Catcher a hero that should be given a medal. Many of you disagreed on the grounds that he interfered with police investigations. Fair enough.

Now it transpires that there has been a four fold increase in the police's use of evidence gained from paedophile hunters in prosecuting these vile individuals.

Just saying. *smugface*

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Out of curiosity, has there been a rise in cases he's disrupted?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

OP do these vigilantes engage in entrapment ?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward."

And personally before I applaud the results they are contributing to I'd like to hear if the police have revised their previous stance that the paedophile hunters often jeopardised investigations

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"A while ago i started a thread lauding Danny Catcher a hero that should be given a medal. Many of you disagreed on the grounds that he interfered with police investigations. Fair enough.

Now it transpires that there has been a four fold increase in the police's use of evidence gained from paedophile hunters in prosecuting these vile individuals.

Just saying. *smugface* "
I have no really strong opinion on this matter but did you also see the bit where the paedo catchers often posted their footage online which ended up causing more problems. Also remember the case in Portsmouth where a vigilante gang went around to the house of a paediatrician!! as they were confused. This is a very complex situation and perhaps luring paedophiles out by putting temptation their way makes it worse maybe as they may not have the temptation otherwise. But for me leave the policing to the police

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

" The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward."

That's one way of looking at it but the simple fact that the police are increasingly turning to them for help suggests that they're doing a public service. We need more people like these.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

While I might applaud their motives, it is still unregulated entrapment - wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to "Name and Shame" on Fab, it's open to abuse.

They may have some initial success, but it just sets an example for others to follow, others who's moral intent might not be the same, others who might be more violent with less evidence -

I know what it's like to be beaten up in the street, just because some thug thought that I looked too gay and assumed that this gave him the right to attack me...

I know that these hunters in the news may mean well, but two wrongs don't make a right, and I can't support them...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"While I might applaud their motives, it is still unregulated entrapment - wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to "Name and Shame" on Fab, it's open to abuse.

They may have some initial success, but it just sets an example for others to follow, others who's moral intent might not be the same, others who might be more violent with less evidence -

I know what it's like to be beaten up in the street, just because some thug thought that I looked too gay and assumed that this gave him the right to attack me...

I know that these hunters in the news may mean well, but two wrongs don't make a right, and I can't support them...

A sensible, rational viewpoint

"
. I would question the motives of the vigilantes in the first place, are they failed cops, are they power hungry, do they need public adulation?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So two independent groups of vigilantes engage in a campaign of entrapment that results in them meeting each-other ....

Yep how smug would they feel them eh!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *hoenixAdAstraWoman
over a year ago

Hiding in the shadows

Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward.

That's one way of looking at it but the simple fact that the police are increasingly turning to them for help suggests that they're doing a public service. We need more people like these."

It may sound like semantics, but the police service isn't looking to them for assistance.

The individuals act totally independently then when they believe they've caught simeone they call the Police who turn up and are presented with evidence.

The collated evidence hasn't been subjected to any investigative powers legislation, any quality control and hasn't been sanitised in any way to protect innocent parties or victims.

They have been successful no doubt, but it concerns me greatly that we have what is tantamount to self appointed law men doing this.

What's the next stage in all of this?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought the report on the news that contained these figures included the quote from the police deriding the efforts of the so called paedo hunters for potentially endangering children and wanted to encourage them to stop. Not validating them.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I thought the report on the news that contained these figures included the quote from the police deriding the efforts of the so called paedo hunters for potentially endangering children and wanted to encourage them to stop. Not validating them."
Yes, I saw it that way too. Like with most things in life people take whatever bits suit their point to argue their case. When taking the whole news item into account there were a number of aspects that were pro and neg

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP do these vigilantes engage in entrapment ? "

I don't have a problem with entrapment, i don't care how they're caught as long as they are. The end justifies the means. A simple change in the law would see the police themselves allowed to use such tactics in these cases and an official recognition of these hunters would see them working more closely with the authorities resulting in their services being more eadily regulated.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward.

That's one way of looking at it but the simple fact that the police are increasingly turning to them for help suggests that they're doing a public service. We need more people like these."

Are re police really "turning to them"? Or are they just using evidence that is handed to them for (on occassions) an easy nick? Knowing how the police work I'm confident it's the latter

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OP do these vigilantes engage in entrapment ?

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've not read any reports or know a lot about this pedo catchers

But my take is I don't care who it it catching these pedos be it these folk or police, at least they are doing something about it.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"OP do these vigilantes engage in entrapment ?

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?"

Entrapment does not create criminal acts, if i see an open door i'm not going to burgle the house, if i see a lone woman at night i'm not going to attack her. This does not create paedophiles, they're out there already.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *izzy RascallMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

I heard a radio interview on this last night.

The hunters are turning to the police more and more (with evidence) rather than how you put it OP.

I'd like to hunt them with spears and axes myself and I'm glad their work is of some use but they should never ever put any case in jeopardy through their methods.

Can you really be smug in a virtual world?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *layfullsamMan
over a year ago

Solihull

"While I might applaud their motives, it is still unregulated entrapment - wrong for the same reason that it is wrong to "Name and Shame" on Fab, it's open to abuse.

They may have some initial success, but it just sets an example for others to follow, others who's moral intent might not be the same, others who might be more violent with less evidence -

I know what it's like to be beaten up in the street, just because some thug thought that I looked too gay and assumed that this gave him the right to attack me...

I know that these hunters in the news may mean well, but two wrongs don't make a right, and I can't support them...

A sensible, rational viewpoint

. I would question the motives of the vigilantes in the first place, are they failed cops, are they power hungry, do they need public adulation?"

Or maybe they just want to stop children's life's being ruined by sick bastards.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"OP do these vigilantes engage in entrapment ?

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?"

This has got a bit silly hasn't it?

Entrapment can lead to encouraging someone down a criminal path when they may never have taken that step past the point of no return.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done "

Independent investigators and paedo hunters have certainly been successful in assisting in the gathering of intelligence on abusers, but ONLY when they have acted in full cooperation with, and on the advice of, the Police and CID.

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very least, the fact that the vigilantes often have NO TRAINING in how to conduct investigations means that the evidence they obtain is INADMISSIBLE in court, or that their activities compromise official police investigations.

At the other end of the scale, the 'anything is permissible' approach leads to the vigilante or paedo hunter themselves being prosecuted for harassment, trespass, invasion of privacy, entrapment, or any number of other offences.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *a72Man
over a year ago

london

There was or still is a group of peado hunters on a very well known social site that set up these peados online and video the capture by them then arrest by the police of the peado and then put it on the media site and follow up with the case after. I would like to see a couple of government approved and licensed groups do this not self appointed law men. It's for me a great thing but done very wrong at the moment.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *unandbuckCouple
over a year ago

Sheffield

It seems to have been successful, but is riddled with problems. I'd support some form of this same activity being conducted in a more regulated way. The Police could employ / engage civilians on an ad-hoc basis to do it, and ensure it followed a method that was safe, legal and had a good chance of a conviction without legal pitfalls.

Or, get our priorities right, and employ a few hundred people doing it full time.

MrB

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals."

Are the Police and CID two separate entities?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals.

Are the Police and CID two separate entities? "

In broad terms they ate both law enforcement but theit roles are very different and in many respects they work independently of each other

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals."

You mean innocent individuals who frequent child porn sites and chat rooms with the intention of grooming? Obviously there has to be some regulation and the making public of their findings should not be condoned, any evidence should be passed straight to the authorities for them to deal with.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't have a problem with entrapment, i don't care how they're caught as long as they are. The end justifies the means.

Based on your comment, it's probably a damn good job that you're not a member of the Police Force or CID...

It is true that there is no 'entrapment defence' under British law: the fact that the accused was 'entrapped' does not prove that they would have otherwise had no intent of committing the crime.

However, if the 'entrapper' can be demonstrated to have actively ENCOURAGED the accused to commit the crime concerned - for example, badgering or pestering them with offers of drugs or stolen goods - this can result in evidence being rendered inadmissible, and the case being thrown out of court.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals.

Are the Police and CID two separate entities?

In broad terms they ate both law enforcement but theit roles are very different and in many respects they work independently of each other"

How do you know this?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 19/09/17 09:51:06]

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Indeed... the entrapment involves simply making umpteen fake profiles of young girls and boys, and sit back and wait for people to approach them.

They don't pretend to be of age either, they tell the dirty bastards that they're 12 or 13 etc.... and if they still go through with it, they have done so with their own free will.

This kind of entrapment is perfectly fine in my book, I can't see how this could impact on anyone that is innocent

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals.

Are the Police and CID two separate entities?

In broad terms they ate both law enforcement but theit roles are very different and in many respects they work independently of each other

How do you know this? "

Because I understand how a police force is structured on a local and regional basis. And no I'm not a police officer

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You mean innocent individuals who frequent child porn sites and chat rooms with the intention of grooming?"

Where I actually say that people who frequent child porn sites and chat rooms with the intention of grooming are innocent individuals?

NOWHERE

I simply made the observation that vigilante groups - because they often have NO TRAINING in either intelligence-gathering or the principles of the legal system - may, IN A WORST-CASE SCENARIO, target innocent parties.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

"Personally, I think anything that helps lock up these animals is a good thing.

No matter how it's done

By contrast, vigilante groups who operate on the principle that ANYTHING is permissible if it means catching a paedo often end up causing yet more problems for our justice system.

At the very worst, as highlighted above, the vigilates' lack of training and uncontrolled methods lead to the targeting of innocent individuals.

Are the Police and CID two separate entities?

In broad terms they ate both law enforcement but theit roles are very different and in many respects they work independently of each other

How do you know this?

Because I understand how a police force is structured on a local and regional basis. And no I'm not a police officer"

Sorry I'm being mischievous. My girlfriend is a DC and it's not separate at all. Only real difference is the seriousness and complexity of the offences. Same powers same shitty cars and same shitty buildings. Oh and Northface jackets.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This kind of entrapment is perfectly fine in my book, I can't see how this could impact on anyone that is innocent "

That kind of entrapment is, if recent cases are anything to go by, in line with current British legislation and law enforcement regulations.

HOWEVER, the key point is "if they still go through with it, they have done so with their own free will."

If the defence attorney can prove AT ANY POINT that the entrapper ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED the target to meet them, and thus instigated the offence, then the case against the accused may well collapse.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"You mean innocent individuals who frequent child porn sites and chat rooms with the intention of grooming?

Where I actually say that people who frequent child porn sites and chat rooms with the intention of grooming are innocent individuals?

NOWHERE

I agree, nowhere. Yet this post is about paedophiles, i don't see how people who actively seek to manipulate and abuse children can be described as innocent, their mere act of visiting a child porn site to me suggests their guilt.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?"

Having watched a programme with the police catching child abusers, they were pretending to be young girls on the net. I think the police already do this now.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

It's dodgy ground and should be left to people

like CEOP but the resources are simply not there.

It may give the Paedos something extra to think about when they try this online. But when it falls apart at court or innocent people suffer such as the paediatrician in Liverpool then it's not a great idea.

Some of the To Catch a Predator videos are comedy gold on YouTube until you realise what the intentions these oddballs have.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?

Having watched a programme with the police catching child abusers, they were pretending to be young girls on the net. I think the police already do this now."

I also saw a programme on the vigilantes and it was uncomfortable viewing. Not because of the people being caught but the vigilantes themselves.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"A while ago i started a thread lauding Danny Catcher a hero that should be given a medal. Many of you disagreed on the grounds that he interfered with police investigations. Fair enough.

Now it transpires that there has been a four fold increase in the police's use of evidence gained from paedophile hunters in prosecuting these vile individuals.

Just saying. *smugface* "

To be fair, the article does say the police would rather they didn't do it still

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/18/police-forces-might-work-vigilante-paedophile-hunters/

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I agree, nowhere. Yet this post is about paedophiles, I don't see how people who actively seek to manipulate and abuse children can be described as innocent"

I DID NOT describe 'people who actively seek to manipulate and abuse children' as 'innocent.'

I was referring to several documented cases where otherwise successful paedo hunters have screwed up:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police

In the first case mentioned: "Staffordshire police reviewed the evidence and concluded there was NO CASE for any prosecution."

In the second case: "DI Chris Hanson of the West Midlands Police Public Prosecution Unit said rest the video sting had been thoroughly investigated by specialist child abuse investigation officers who also made their own extensive inquiries and found NO EVIDENCE of any sexual offences."

Since there is NO EVIDENCE of any criminal activity, then both these men are, in the eyes of the law, INNOCENT.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *-ChelmoMan
over a year ago

Chelmsford/Edmonton

The thing is that even if the collected sufficient evidence to hand over to the police, and it goes to court, how much time do paedophiles actually serve in prison?

The sad reality is that when you hear about the conviction rate of paedophiles, they don't serve much time and get banned from using internet connected devices, which whenever it reaches headlines in the news is mostly ignored and they carry on committing the same offences again and again without much punishment.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?

Having watched a programme with the police catching child abusers, they were pretending to be young girls on the net. I think the police already do this now.

I also saw a programme on the vigilantes and it was uncomfortable viewing. Not because of the people being caught but the vigilantes themselves. "

Yes I've watched one and felt the same. There appeared to be a lot of mental health issues, particularly a need for validation

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I agree, nowhere. Yet this post is about paedophiles, I don't see how people who actively seek to manipulate and abuse children can be described as innocent

I DID NOT describe 'people who actively seek to manipulate and abuse children' as 'innocent.'

I was referring to several documented cases where otherwise successful paedo hunters have screwed up:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police

In the first case mentioned: "Staffordshire police reviewed the evidence and concluded there was NO CASE for any prosecution."

Since there is NO EVIDENCE of any criminal activity, then both these men are, in the eyes of the law, INNOCENT."

I apologise for that. I was not aware of these cases.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

You don't have a problem with entrapment? Is that purely in relation to paedophiles or for all crimes?

Having watched a programme with the police catching child abusers, they were pretending to be young girls on the net. I think the police already do this now.

I also saw a programme on the vigilantes and it was uncomfortable viewing. Not because of the people being caught but the vigilantes themselves.

Yes I've watched one and felt the same. There appeared to be a lot of mental health issues, particularly a need for validation "

I don't know about the mental issues, but the way they acted and how they dealt with things made me turn the programme off.

I think leave it to the Police myself

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

There's been some interesting points raised and i take them on board. However, my OP statement regarding the four fold increase in the police's use of such evidence does suggest that it is of value to them in prosecutions.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The thing is that even if the collected sufficient evidence to hand over to the police, and it goes to court, how much time do paedophiles actually serve in prison?"

Exactly.

A lot of these Paedo Hunters proudly boast of a '100% Conviction Rate' in relation to their stings, thereby making themselves seem more effective than the Police...

However, unless we go through the trial records of every person they caught, we have no way of knowing of what crimes these people were actually convicted, or whether they spent any time in prison.

As I said before, although there is no 'entrapment defence' under British Law, any irregularities in an operation conducted by a 'paedo hunter' can enable the defence team to argue for a lighter sentence than that which would have been otherwise passed.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If they are getting the kind of results the police take months to achieve then surely it's got to be a positive.

I'd prefer if the police were using them that they would stop posting the stuff of fb and put all their evidence through the courts.

But it won't stop unless the mental diseases is cured

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There's been some interesting points raised and i take them on board. However, my OP statement regarding the four fold increase in the police's use of such evidence does suggest that it is of value to them in prosecutions."

The use of evidence doesn't necessarily mean it led to a prosecution. It's simply an accusation. It's information until it's been vetted and deemed to be intelligence at best.

The sad part is, is the fact that the group's have time to sit down and focus on one offence without interruption until they get a result. The Police don't get that luxury and are governed by some times restrictive procedures.

No-one suggests individuals being caught is a bad idea. The bad idea is unregulated people becoming self appointed law representatives.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Ok I can only leave this on if you don't talk about your own experiences on the thread

Thanks

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No-one suggests individuals being caught is a bad idea. The bad idea is unregulated people becoming self appointed law representatives."

Hence the principle QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES? (Who will police the police?)

I am also reminded of Blackstone's Formulation, which serves as a cornerstone of our justice system:

"All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the Law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer."

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We have to be very careful with all this.

The law needs to be stronger to deal with child sexual offences and the police need greater funding to protect the most vunerable in society.

I have seen on Face Book vigilante sting operations where a young and naive potential paedophile was lured in by a "young girl" (appearing to be 14) who promised to fulfill his every desire. The guy was in the wrong, there is no doubt. However, a clever serial paedophile won't get caught by such a deliberate trap.

Vigilante groups appear to hit soft targets. Those who aren't savvy enough to operate under the radar.

All paedophiles are dangerous, we all agree. However an amateur sleuth stumbling across a clumsy attempt at grooming may have an impact on other investigations.

Some things are best left to the professionals.

Once caught though, castration as a minimum for anyone committing sexual offences against children.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I have seen on Face Book vigilante sting operations where a young and naive potential paedophile was lured in by a "young girl" (appearing to be 14) who promised to fulfill his every desire."

THIS is precisely where amateur paedo hunters risk finding themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

The key issue is:

Did the entrapper simply set up the profile and wait for the target to approach them for sex?

Did the entrapper send a message to the target in which he promised to, in your example, 'fulfill his every desire'?

If it was the latter, THAT could lead to the entrapper being charged with actively SOLICITING the target to commit a criminal offence.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I have seen on Face Book vigilante sting operations where a young and naive potential paedophile was lured in by a "young girl" (appearing to be 14) who promised to fulfill his every desire.

THIS is precisely where amateur paedo hunters risk finding themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

The key issue is:

Did the entrapper simply set up the profile and wait for the target to approach them for sex?

Did the entrapper send a message to the target in which he promised to, in your example, 'fulfill his every desire'?

If it was the latter, THAT could lead to the entrapper being charged with actively SOLICITING the target to commit a criminal offence.

This is a good point and shows where closer cooperation between the police and the hunters would be beneficial. If this was a position that was officially recognised, that people could volunteer for, they could then receive proper training in the legal process and be regulated. Also that any evidence gathered would only be handed over to the authorities.

Perhaps people would find this more acceptable.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is a good point and shows where closer cooperation between the police and the hunters would be beneficial. If this was a position that was officially recognised, that people could volunteer for, they could then receive proper training in the legal process and be regulated. Also that any evidence gathered would only be handed over to the authorities.

Perhaps people would find this more acceptable."

This is a statement issued that was issued by Kent Police in APRIL 2017 following the arrest of two Paedo-Hunters who overstepped the mark:

"We have created specialist Paedophile Online Investigation and Child Sexual Exploitation teams who work to identify online criminality on a daily basis, sometimes using covert as well as overt techniques, and often in close partnership with other safeguarding organisations.

Evidence-gathering is a very specialist job and can take considerable time and skill to ensure it is of sufficient quality to bring a high risk offender to justice.

I would therefore urge anyone who believes they have information or evidence of online grooming, or knows that a suspect is planning to meet a potential victim, to contact Kent Police at the earliest opportunity so that police officers can deal with these meetings and capture the best possible evidence.

We do have significant concerns about people taking the law into their own hands and the methods they use, and in some cases acting outside of the law, and would strongly advise against getting involved in, or setting up activities to entrap those suspected of intending to commit offences."

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Perhaps people would find this more acceptable.

This is a statement issued that was issued by Kent Police in APRIL 2017 following the arrest of two Paedo-Hunters who overstepped the mark:

Evidence-gathering is a very specialist job and can take considerable time and skill to ensure it is of sufficient quality to bring a high risk offender to justice.

I wonder if by covert they mean using the same methods as the hunters? That would be good and a little ironic.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wonder if by covert they mean using the same methods as the hunters? That would be good and a little ironic."

Not reall that ironic, because you're overlooking a key difference.

The officers of the Uniformed Division and CID know how to engage in covert intelligence-gathering and surveillance of paedos and sex offenders WITHOUT compromising the admissibility of evidence or jeopardising the chances of a conviction.

Paedo hunters, on the other hand, have LITTLE OR NO understanding of how to conduct intelligent-gathering operations or mount 'honey trap' operations without engaging in activities which might lead to a case being dropped.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I wonder if by covert they mean using the same methods as the hunters? That would be good and a little ironic.

Not reall that ironic, because you're overlooking a key difference.

Hunters as we're referring to them aren't subject to RIPPA or any other investigatory powers act do they don't necessarily compromise anything by their method.

It's down to the prosecuting agent to determine what's admissible and what's not.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Although those perverts should be taken off the streets I do still feel uneasy about entrapment.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Hunters as we're referring to them aren't subject to RIPPA or any other investigatory powers act do they don't necessarily compromise anything by their method."

It's true that a judge recently ruled that Hunters such as Dark Justice do not need to be made subject to controls:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/08/judge-rules-paedophile-hunters-can-continue-posing-as-children-online

However, that doesn't mean that their activities don't cause significant problems for the Police:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/apr/24/paedophile-hunters-jeopardising-police-work-child-protection

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Throw pedos into a meat grinder! Entrap them, lure them, employ the most chicanerous methods and subterfuge to seize them and utterly destroy their lives and put them in the greatest danger possible. Expose them, pray they jump off a bridge and save us money.

No mercy for child predators.

No refuge.

No protection.

No forgiveness

No fucks given

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm happy they are getting caught. Entrapment no dramas with that, the police should be allowed to use the same method.

One thing that slightly concerns me is, mistaken identity, whilst the police sometimes get the wrong person they are accountable to the PPC, whereas vigilantie groups have no such regulation for innocent people to complain too.

That said if they are found guilty string 'em up.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Throw pedos into a meat grinder! Entrap them, lure them, employ the most chicanerous methods and subterfuge to seize them and utterly destroy their lives and put them in the greatest danger possible. Expose them, pray they jump off a bridge and save us money."

And in doing so, we would at one stroke DEMOLISH the principles on which the British Judicial System is founded.

Namely:

The Presumption of Innocence and The Right to a Fair Trial

When I see comments like this, I am reminded of Sir Thomas More's speech in 'A Man for All Seasons'

What would you do? Cut a great road through the Law to get after the Devil? And when the last Law had been cut down and the Devil turned to face you? Where would you hide for protection, the Laws of England being flat? Do you really think you could stand firm in the wind that would blow then? NO. I WOULD GIVE THE DEVIL BENEFIT OF LAW FOR MY OWN SAFETY'S SAKE.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And in doing so, we would at one stroke DEMOLISH the principles on which the British Judicial System is founded.

Namely:

The Presumption of Innocence and The Right to a Fair Trial

When I see comments like this, I am reminded of Sir Thomas More's speech in 'A Man for All Seasons'

Who said anything about denying anyone a trial?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

" The police haven't utilised their services.

They act independently, governed by no legislation or code of ethics.

Undoubtedly they have achieved success, though one could argue that's down to the fact they have no code to follow and can do as they please to get results.

Personally I'd rather see sufficient funding to have accountable people conduct investigations.

If they wrongly accuse someone and ruin their lives they are answerable to no-one.

It's an indictment of the times if we believe vigilantes are the way forward.

That's one way of looking at it but the simple fact that the police are increasingly turning to them for help suggests that they're doing a public service. We need more people like these."

They operate outside the law to get results, the same law that prevents the police doing this. Any usable evidence is greatly received if it can be used successfully.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's reports such as this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478285/Innocent-man-burned-death-vigilante-neighbours-mistook-paedophile.html

that makes me think that vigilante groups should leave things to the police, whilst a number may try to put a serious case together they run the risk of inspiring many others that want to deal out a different type of justice.

Ginger

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Who said anything about denying anyone a trial? "

YOU DID when you stated that you would "Entrap them, lure them, employ the most chicanerous methods and subterfuge to seize them and utterly destroy their lives and put them in the greatest danger possible, expose them [and] pray that they jump off a bridge."

Such rhetoric relies upon DISPENSING with such principles as the right to fail trial and the presumption of innocence...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We also have a duty as parents to protect our children. Not simply by entrapping the perpetrators of child sex crimes. But by limiting our children's possible exposure to these people.

There are millions of parents out there who have absolutely no idea who their child is chatting to online, on their phone or on their laptops.

Plenty of options, putting child safe website surfing software on PCs.Limiting internet usage. Installing spy software and key loggers.

This ain't wrong in any way.

We as parents have a duty of care. It's too late when it happens. Too easy to blame the bad guys when you could have done more to protect them.

Fact is that most kids are more computer savvy than their parents. A sad fact of this technological age.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Who said anything about denying anyone a trial?

Such rhetoric relies upon DISPENSING with such principles as the right to fail trial and the presumption of innocence..."

Can you say a bit more? I'm waiting to see where anything about denying a trial is mentioned. Mentioned are methods of finding and catching them, and punishing them by destroying their lives. Why are you assuming that this excludes fair trial? I merely pray that they'll take the initiative to jump off a bridge before they go to trial. You're not standing upon anything here. Please support your claim that I don't support fair trials for everyone!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh and I'd like to add... cut their balls off before tossing them into the meat grinder.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *adbadbad321Man
over a year ago

oldham

Football hooligans aren't all football fans. Hunters may not all be hunting for the right reasons.

Pretty easy for a hunter to say "I shopped him to the cops coz I thought he was a pedophile Mr Judge"

Gives rise to many a situation where an idiot takes the law into their own hands and hides behind the curtain of a just and noteworthy cause.

Entrapment is illegally. It's pretty simple though. Just as a drugs sting would have ringers that set up a meet for the deal to be done, the same should be done for pedophiles. A network of ghosts put their to act as a minor online, (think chat bots!!) (or undercover adults infultrating rings) to get the nutters out of general society. Round them all up as a operation - not to wait for vigilantes to act.

Just shows though that's it appears to be a tactic that has worked ..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Who said anything about denying anyone a trial?

Such rhetoric relies upon DISPENSING with such principles as the right to fail trial and the presumption of innocence..."

So once guilty that's ok then

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

Perhaps if we funded the police sufficiently, there wouldn't be any need fot internet vigilantes.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

""Can you say a bit more? I'm waiting to see where anything about denying a trial is mentioned. Mentioned are methods of finding and catching them, and punishing them by destroying their lives. Why are you assuming that this excludes fair trial?"

BECAUSE the methods which you suggest would be regarded by Police and the Crown Prosecution Service as prejudicing a fair trial.

You speak of allowing the Police to "employ the most chicanerous methods and subterfuge to seize them," but there are strict guidelines concerning the admissibility of evidence in order to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.

If we give the Police Carte Blanche to use ANY AND ALL METHODS to catch predators, that opens the door to defence teams being able to demonstrate that their operations violated the suspect's right to presumption of innocence.

Furthermore, "punishing them by destroying their lives" - taken to its logical extreme - opens the door to the accused being able to launch a legal case of their own on the grounds of having been subjected to "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't trust the motives of the people doing this.

For me this work should only be done by strictly vetted people and within very strict guidelines. Anything else is asking for trouble.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Let's just make lynch mobs legal. Once the "evidence" has been plastered all over social media, they can go round to the home of said "guilty" person, scare his unsuspecting, unaware wife, daub graffiti all over the house and pour petrol and dog poo through the letterbox.

Not that her life hasn't been ruined enough already.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Let's just make lynch mobs legal. Once the "evidence" has been plastered all over social media, they can go round to the home of said "guilty" person, scare his unsuspecting, unaware wife, daub graffiti all over the house and pour petrol and dog poo through the letterbox.

Not that her life hasn't been ruined enough already. "

Unfortunately, the price to pay for living in a DEMOCRACY is that lynch mobs are rendered illegal, and that the dispensation of justice is entrusted to the official legal system.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That's unfortunate?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

Not that her life hasn't been ruined enough already. "

Yes exactly, anyone can say any shit about anyone.

And the "I've got nothing to hide" cliché doesn't count if someone has decided to smear you.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Not that her life hasn't been ruined enough already.

Unfortunately, the price to pay for living in a DEMOCRACY is that lynch mobs are rendered illegal, and that the dispensation of justice is entrusted to the official legal system.

I suppose we could just dispense with our legal system. (which I admit at times can be thwarted using the best legal help, or other more devious means) But it is the only legal system we have & a least gives most the chance of a fair trial.

Perhaps we could just bring back the ducking stool. If they drown they are innocent. If they don't, then they are obviously a witch, so should be burned at the stake

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

What vigilante 'lovers' forget is that whether someone is guilty or not s a matter for our courts.

And crying wolf not only smears the accused for life but their families will be ruined too.

It may seem hard to believe, but even in this day and age, an innocent wife, child, parent etc. can be treated as guilty by association. Even if they had NO knowledge.

Be careful what you wish for and all that

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

At those conviction rates I say fund 50 times as many.

We could clear the streets of the scum once and and for all.

Oh and stop pandering to them.

25 years to life for the lot

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

BECAUSE the methods which you suggest would be regarded by Police and the Crown Prosecution Service as prejudicing a fair trial.

You're simply not thinking far enough. In my ideal utopian world where pedophiles are thrown into meat grinders, the courts would allow police to use entrapment to catch them. They would not be able to use entrapment as a defence. They would also not be able to appeal any "inhumane or degrading treatment" such as cutting off of their balls. Stay with me here.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The Salem Witch trials springs to mind here.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

""You're simply not thinking far enough. In my ideal utopian world where pedophiles are thrown into meat grinders, the courts would allow police to use entrapment to catch them. They would not be able to use entrapment as a defence. They would also not be able to appeal any "inhumane or degrading treatment" such as cutting off of their balls. Stay with me here. "

Err...

The Courts ALREADY allow the Police to use entrapment operations; they are just subject to certain controls...

The 'Entrapment Defence' DOES NOT EXIST under British Law; however, the person carrying out the entrapment CANNOT actively solicit someone to break the law.

However, the ban on 'inhuman and degrading punishment' is necessary to protect citizens against abuse by the authorities - specifically torture.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Oh and stop pandering to them"

Care to clarify that fearmongering rhetoric?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As someone who works with rehabilitation of sexual offenders and the police, probation and jigsaw teams, vigilantes do not help. They don't. Fact.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He does a good job

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He does a good job "

Bullshit

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

BECAUSE the methods which you suggest would be regarded by Police and the Crown Prosecution Service as prejudicing a fair trial.

You're simply not thinking far enough. In my ideal utopian world where paedophiles are thrown into meat grinders, the courts would allow police to use entrapment to catch them. They would not be able to use entrapment as a defence. They would also not be able to appeal any "inhumane or degrading treatment" such as cutting off of their balls. Stay with me here. "

thinking the cutting off of 'balls' would stop a paedophile thinking the same thoughts is like trying to understand why someone might like sniffing panties to get sexually aroused. Bearing in mind there are female sexual predators. Just imagining the fred west scanario.... does anyone think cutting off his balls or cutting off her clit would have solved them being horrific killers?

no..why?

because the human mind is capable of surpassing what 'animal' instincts are there........lobbying for death etc makes no sense, especially when it concerns in most cases these peoples are trusted family members/friends...and I believe that is a fact. Online cyber world has maybe made it easier for groups to target vulnerable people....but we have to measure everything up properly...and I dont believe paedophile hunters ever really worry about making a mistake...they are too driven by the hung drawn n quartered mindset. something I never wish to see grow.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess it gives the football hooligans something to do Monday to Friday.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *layfullsamMan
over a year ago

Solihull

I've no problem with entrapment and would quite happily use bait cars and houses to catch thieves as well, does my head on when I read do gooders saying if the house wouldn't have been left unlocked little Johnny wouldn't have been able to steal a hard working persons often personal items.

I'm old school and if it's not yours f..king leave it alone

If one offender is put away by vigilantes and that prevents one or more child having the most horrific of childhoods that's all good with me.

Or expand a professional police or create a new dependant unit so that evidence is taken correctly and can be used in court,

and make it fully or part self funding as a lot but I guess not all of these offenders have something of value that could be sold to go towards the cost.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The people are the police and the police are the people. We used to have a system of policing by consent in this country, but the people generally aren't interested until it affects them personally, and are happy to let the police get on with it. The police prefer that too, particularly with the increasing complexity of the law and rules surrounding investigation. Sadly, their resources are too few and they just end up 'fire brigading' whatever is topical..

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

BECAUSE the methods which you suggest would be regarded by Police and the Crown Prosecution Service as prejudicing a fair trial.

no..why?

The severing of balls is before they are thrown into the meat grinder. And you make an excellent point that women are predators too. Good spot! Cut their balls off too!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If one offender is put away by vigilantes and that prevents one or more child having the most horrific of childhoods that's all good with me.

Or expand a professional police or create a new dependant unit so that evidence is taken correctly and can be used in court"

To deal with your first point, it is a cornerstone of British justice that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer. THAT is why we entrust law enforcement to a trained, professional body of officers, rather than systems such as the 'Hue and Cry' and the 'Posse.'

While police DO occasionally make use of evidence supplied by 'hunters,' senior officers have issued REPEATED warnings concerning the dangers of engaging in such activity, and have likewise highlighted that the unregulated operations of 'hunters' can all too often place their own investigations in jeopardy.

To deal with your second point, police forces around the country ALREADY have specialist teams set up to deal with predators (Kent Police, for example, have set up a Paedophile Online Investigation and Child Sexual Exploitation Team.)

The Officers who comprise these teams are not only specifically trained to engage in operations to counter and catch child abusers, but they are trained to gather intelligence in a manner which accords with the guidelines laid down by the Courts...training which the 'hunters' often do not possess.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *homasP80Man
over a year ago

Linwood

Jimmy saville got off with it for YEARS.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

And where do we stand if a cornered paedophile takes out a knife, stabs and kills a hunter?

If these hunters have evidence, take it to the police, get them to consider it and ask them to do the arresting.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *onnie And Clyde9070Couple
over a year ago

Leeds

"Jimmy saville got off with it for YEARS.

He was protected by the establishment though. He knew a lot of things about a lot of people...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If one offender is put away by vigilantes and that prevents one or more child having the most horrific of childhoods that's all good with me.

Or expand a professional police or create a new dependant unit so that evidence is taken correctly and can be used in court

Meat grinder is the answer! Two or three years of prison is no punishment. If a pedo touches my child he's got the meat grinder to face when he gets out of prison. All pedos must be exposed and placed in extreme danger. No refuge, no protection, forgiveness, no fucks given. You destroy a child's life your life must be destroyed. Hopefully they'll do us a favour and leap from a high place.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

can you really be smug when there are famous cases like the one in portsmouth where a group of people attacked someone when they were stupid enough to confuse "Paedophile" for "paediatric"

the person was a childrens doctor and the beat him within an inch of his life......

so yeah... don't mind if you leave it in the hands of the pros.... if these people want to play "judge and jury" then i have no sympathy if it goes wrong, they are playing with peoples lives if they get it wrong!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"And where do we stand if a cornered paedophile takes out a knife, stabs and kills a hunter?

If these hunters have evidence, take it to the police, get them to consider it and ask them to do the arresting.

Then the pedo has a murder charge. Behead him! Bring back the guillotine!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"can you really be smug when there are famous cases like the one in portsmouth where a group of people attacked someone when they were stupid enough to confuse "Paedophile" for "paediatric"

the person was a childrens doctor and the beat him within an inch of his life......

These people have chats with people over many days and weeks where photos of their genitals are sent and very sexually explicit things are said to lure and groom minors. Focusing on cases where people "got it wrong" has zero to do with hunters.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

"can you really be smug when there are famous cases like the one in portsmouth where a group of people attacked someone when they were stupid enough to confuse "Paedophile" for "paediatric"

the person was a childrens doctor and the beat him within an inch of his life......

Because these hunters don't use social media do they?

These people need to be caught and dealt with properly. The Hunter's intentions may well be well placed , but things need to be done properly, otherwise we are on the road to anarchy. Today's exposing will soon turn into tomorrow's handing out justice.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"All pedos must be exposed and placed in extreme danger. No refuge, no protection, forgiveness, no fucks given. You destroy a child's life your life must be destroyed. Hopefully they'll do us a favour and leap from a high place. "

Got news for you...this is 2017, not 1217...

You can sit here all you like boasting about the retribution that you would visit upon these offenders if you had the opportunity...were you to do so, however, you would swiftly find yourself in a prison cell.

The price of living in a democratic state is that we, as private citizens, do not have the authority to appoint ourselves JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONERS, and decide what is the 'correct' punishment for a crime.

Likewise, the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading punishment is a necessary protection against abusive judicial practices, and a means by which it can be ensured that vengeance and bloodlust do not become substitutes for proper judicial procedure.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Oh and stop pandering to them

Care to clarify that fearmongering rhetoric?"
.

This notion that they can be rehabilitated!.

It's nonsense

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Focusing on cases where people "got it wrong" has zero to do with hunters. "

Except, of course, in those cases where celebrated Hunters DID get it wrong, and subsequent investigations by the Police found that there was NO EVIDENCE of any wrongdoing on the part of the people thus entrapped...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/25/vigilante-paedophile-hunters-online-police

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

it has everything to do with hunters.....

because they consequence of their actions do have consequences elsewhere...

if you want to argue that the police should bring them into the fold and train them properly on how not to contaminate evidence and to logged absolutely everything to the letter of the law..... thats is a discussion i think would be interesting (the digital detectives)

but whilst they operate in effect outside of the law, they have been known to hinder operations as much as help

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Oh and stop pandering to them

Care to clarify that fearmongering rhetoric?.

This notion that they can be rehabilitated!.

It's nonsense"

And thus we wave goodbye to yet ANOTHER pillar of our legal system.

I refer again to the speech given to Sir Thomas More in 'A Man for All Seasons'...

If you cut a road through the Law in an effort to capture the Devil, and when you have cornered him, he turns round to face you, WHERE, pray tell, are YOU going to hide, having cut down the Laws designed to protect you from him?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"can you really be smug when there are famous cases like the one in portsmouth where a group of people attacked someone when they were stupid enough to confuse "Paedophile" for "paediatric"

the person was a childrens doctor and the beat him within an inch of his life......

Sources please.

That original story was debunked years ago, it was turned from three kids scrawling graffiti on a paediatricians wall saying "no paedos" to a lynching that never actually happened.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Oh and stop pandering to them

Care to clarify that fearmongering rhetoric?.

This notion that they can be rehabilitated!.

It's nonsense

And thus we wave goodbye to yet ANOTHER pillar of our legal system.

I refer again to the speech given to Sir Thomas More in 'A Man for All Seasons'...

Show me some evidence of any serious paedophile bring rehabilitated and I'll change my opinion

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"That original story was debunked years ago, it was turned from three kids scrawling graffiti on a paediatricians wall saying "no paedos" to a lynching that never actually happened.

While that story may well have been debunked, there are NUMEROUS cases cited by myself and others on this thread where innocent people were falsely accused of being paedophiles, and were subjected to 'mob justice.'

ANY private citizen can, as the Hunters do, gather EVIDENCE of the illegal activity of sexual predators, and present said evidence to the Police.

HOWEVER, we are NOT, as private citizens, granted the right to dispense 'mob justice.'

We DO NOT have any right to subject alleged paedophiles and their families to campaigns of harassment, sent them death threats, or subjected them to physical assault.

If we go down that line, then we end up with cases like Bijan Ibrahimi - BEATEN AND BURNED TO DEATH after being wrongly accused of being a paedophile. His neighbour is now serving a LIFE SENTENCE for his murder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483931/Lonely-misfit-Bijan-Ebrahimi-burned-death-Bristol-estate-vigilantes-wrongly-branded-paedophile.html

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

it has everything to do with hunters.....

because they consequence of their actions do have consequences elsewhere...

but whilst they operate in effect outside of the law, they have been known to hinder operations as much as help"

I would agree with some courses on how to not contaminate evidence or hinder operations. I've never known any hunters to carry out vigilante justice.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

If these hunters are serious about suppressing crime they would gather their evidence and give it privately to the police so that proper legal processes can be followed. Not meeting people and putting up videos on YouTube with the risk that may prejudice a trial.

It's quite clear that it's mainly about virtue signalling and ego for a lot of these people.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

"If these hunters are serious about suppressing crime they would gather their evidence and give it privately to the police so that proper legal processes can be followed. Not meeting people and putting up videos on YouTube with the risk that may prejudice a trial.

It's quite clear that it's mainly about virtue signalling and ego for a lot of these people. "

Exactly. What if these Hunters had gotten involved with one of the Newcastle grooming gang, and unwittingly blown two years of hard police work?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"That original story was debunked years ago, it was turned from three kids scrawling graffiti on a paediatricians wall saying "no paedos" to a lynching that never actually happened.

ANY private citizen can, as the Hunters do, gather EVIDENCE of the illegal activity of sexual predators, and present said evidence to the Police.

HOWEVER, we are NOT, as private citizens, granted the right to dispense 'mob justice.'

We DO NOT have any right to subject alleged paedophiles and their families to campaigns of harassment, sent them death threats, or subjected them to physical assault.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2483931/Lonely-misfit-Bijan-Ebrahimi-burned-death-Bristol-estate-vigilantes-wrongly-branded-paedophile.html"
.

Again your conflating multiple issues and rolling it into a narrative that suits your argument, no mob just two neighbours who'd been at each other for years, the killer was a warped idiot who murdered him for many reasons although yes, there was a rumour put around that he was paedophile but he didn't murder him for that reason alone.

Besides that your always saying you can't trust a word the daily mail writes and yet here you are claiming it's headline as gospel

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Show me some evidence of any serious paedophile bring rehabilitated and I'll change my opinion

You aren't getting it.

The point IS NOT 'can these paedophiles be rehabilitated'?

The point is that the various legal principles which you scorn as 'pandering' to the paedophiles are NECESSARY PROTECTIONS against the potential abuse of the judicial process by the government.

In order to protect ALL of our citizens from abusive judicial practices, we have to accord these protections to the most dangerous criminals.

So no, we SHOULDN'T fund 'fifty times as many hunters,' because then we create a situation where the task of law enforcement, rather than being in the hands of a properly trained and legally-constituted police force, is left once again to the private citizen.

The whole reason why the police force was founded in the first place was because the form of law enforcement represented by the 'hunters' was inefficient, poorly organised, and poorly regulated.

Admittedly, our current Police Force is far from perfect, but why should we advocate going back to the situation which existed two hundred years ago?

What we should do is enable 'hunters' to work in concert with the Police by recruiting them as auxiliary personnel, which would enable them to receive proper training in surveillance and intelligence-gathering. Furthermore, it would reduce the likelihood of said 'hunters' jeopardising operations already being conducted by the official police and other investigative bodies.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Again your conflating multiple issues and rolling it into a narrative that suits your argument, no mob just two neighbours who'd been at each other for years, the killer was a warped idiot who murdered him for many reasons although yes, there was a rumour put around that he was paedophile but he didn't murder him for that reason alone.

Besides that your always saying you can't trust a word the daily mail writes and yet here you are claiming it's headline as gospel"

It WASN'T just a case of "two neighbours who'd been at each other for years" NOR was it simply a case of a 'rumour' going round that he was a paedo.

Following Ebrahimi's murder, an investigation was launched by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and it was found that:

"Ebrahimi made 85 calls to the Police between 2007 and July 2013...in 73 of the calls, Ebrahimi reported allegations including racial abuse, criminal damage and threats to kill, but police failed to record a crime on at least 40 of those occasions."

"In the days before his death Ebrahimi called the police to say his neighbour Lee James had barged into his home and attacked him. Police did attend but arrested Ebrahimi, 44, rather than James. Neighbours, who wrongly believed he was a paedophile, cheered as he was led away."

"Although Ebrahimi was allowed home, he later called police to tell them a mob had gathered outside, pleading with them to send help. Hours later James murdered him."

"He had been forced to leave a previous address because neighbour wrongly believed him to be a paedophile and his home was set on fire."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/05/police-failure-protect-bijan-ebrahimi-murder-ipcc

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just go on YouTube there are so many videos of the stings that they do.

These sick fucks entrap themselves by chatting to the decoys and sending pictures after they have been told the age of the decoy and then still arrange meets that they willingly turn up to not forced.

And what training is needed to chat shit and screen capture the whole thing, all the evidence is there in black and white all time and date stamped.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Just go on YouTube there are so many videos of the stings that they do."

THIS is the problem. The YouTube channels and TV shows make it look EASY to ensnare paedos in entrapments and stings. They fail to show the legal ramifications brought about by the activities of 'hunters,' or cases where 'hunters' have jeopardised legitimate police work.

"What training is needed to chat shit and screen capture the whole thing?"

The kind of training to make sure that the decoy doesn't say or do anything which might constitute SOLICITATION TO COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE, and thereby jeopardise the chance of a conviction.

If the defence attorney can prove that the decoy actively ENCOURAGED the target to engage in illegal activity, that can cause the whole case to collapse.

Hence why the Police employ SPECIALIST OFFICERS to carry out surveillance and intelligence gathering on paedos, not gun-ho amateur vigilantes who think that all they need is a fake Facebook page and a smartphone...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Show me some evidence of any serious paedophile bring rehabilitated and I'll change my opinion

You aren't getting it.

The point IS NOT 'can these paedophiles be rehabilitated'?

The point is that the various legal principles which you scorn as 'pandering' to the paedophiles are NECESSARY PROTECTIONS against the potential abuse of the judicial process by the government.

In order to protect ALL of our citizens from abusive judicial practices, we have to accord these protections to the most dangerous criminals.

The whole reason why the police force was founded in the first place was because the form of law enforcement represented by the 'hunters' was inefficient, poorly organised, and poorly regulated.

Admittedly, our current Police Force is far from perfect, but why should we advocate going back to the situation which existed two hundred years ago?

No I never mentioned the legal requirements for conviction.

I said stop pandering to them!.

By that I meant there is very little if any evidence at all that any serious paedophiles can be rehabilitated, yet they get two or three years and then released to commit again and again and again.

Part of any sentence is punishment and part is rehabilitation, since the vast majority of the evidence shows this cannot happen I'd personally give them 25 years to life

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"There is very little if any evidence at all that any serious paedophiles can be rehabilitated, yet they get two or three years and then released to commit again and again and again.

Part of any sentence is punishment and part is rehabilitation, since the vast majority of the evidence shows this cannot happen I'd personally give them 25 years to life"

The debate over the appropriate sentencing of paedophiles, however, is a seperate issue to that being discussed in this thread.

This thread is focused on the issue of the proper employment of 'hunters' in an attempt to bring paedophiles to trial.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I got a message from someone who claimed they were 18 as their profile said.. Then they revealed they were actually 15 and had lied. Screenshotted it, told them I'm reporting them and blocked them (no, it wasn't on fab). Now, if someone continues to chat and send photos and try to set up a meet with someone who clearly days they're a minor, they should be exposed. They're doing it online in the public space so there is no right to privacy or protection.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *layfullsamMan
over a year ago

Solihull

"There is very little if any evidence at all that any serious paedophiles can be rehabilitated, yet they get two or three years and then released to commit again and again and again.

Part of any sentence is punishment and part is rehabilitation, since the vast majority of the evidence shows this cannot happen I'd personally give them 25 years to life

The debate over the appropriate sentencing of paedophiles, however, is a seperate issue to that being discussed in this thread.

This thread is focused on the issue of the proper employment of 'hunters' in an attempt to bring paedophiles to trial."

This thread isn't focused on anything, threads start and then fork of in other directions sometimes.

It's not North Korea

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Now, if someone continues to chat and send photos and try to set up a meet with someone who clearly days they're a minor, they should be exposed. They're doing it online in the public space so there is no right to privacy or protection."

NO.

The evidence of their criminal activity should be passed on to the police. You are NOT entitled to dispense 'mob justice' by posting their details online or outing them on social media.

If you 'expose' someone in the manner which you describe, you open YOURSELF up to charges of harassment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/paedophile-hunters-arrested-police-officers-begin-crackdown/

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

NO.

The evidence of their criminal activity should be passed on to the police. You are NOT entitled to dispense 'mob justice' by posting their details online or outing them on social media.

If you 'expose' someone in the manner which you describe, you open YOURSELF up to charges of harassment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/paedophile-hunters-arrested-police-officers-begin-crackdown/"

You sir have the patience of a saint

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *parkle......Woman
over a year ago

Staffordshire

"And where do we stand if a cornered paedophile takes out a knife, stabs and kills a hunter?

If these hunters have evidence, take it to the police, get them to consider it and ask them to do the arresting.

Then the pedo has a murder charge. Behead him! Bring back the guillotine! "

You mean being back hanging.

They used the guillotine in France

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You sir have the patience of a saint

No, I simply have an accurate understanding of how our legal system works, and the extent to which vigilantes - however well intentioned their actions may be - JEOPARDISE the operations conducted by the Police.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

"You sir have the patience of a saint

You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button."

I can't seen to work the italics or bold text options, so I use CAPS as the next-best option...

Sorry if that fundamentally impairs your ability to understand English...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *parkle......Woman
over a year ago

Staffordshire

"You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button.

I can't seen to work the italics or bold text options, so I use CAPS as the next-best option...

Sorry if that fundamentally impairs your ability to understand English..."

Stop DEFENDING the pedos

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button.

I can't seen to work the italics or bold text options, so I use CAPS as the next-best option...

Sorry if that fundamentally impairs your ability to understand English...

Stop DEFENDING the pedos "

He isn't. He's explaining why he believes vigilante "justice" isn't the way forward.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

It's a good sign of basic stupidity if you think arguing for the rule of law in criminal cases means you are defending criminals.

Only punishing people when they have been conducted in a court of law as opposed to the court of the month is a fundamental of civilised existence.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

Convicted not conducted

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"He isn't. He's explaining why he believes vigilante "justice" isn't the way forward."

HALLELUJAH!

At least someone on this thread is able to read my comments, thank you for the support...

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *inkyLondonpairCouple
over a year ago

London

And court of the mob!

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Posts have been removed. If you have a problem with abusive or spam messages report and allow admin to deal with it. If you have a problem with other site members block them and take a rest.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I agree this scum should be removed from the face of the planet. But these hunters are in fact creating the crime to entrap the scum. If they hadn't pretended to be a child and then agree to meet would they ever commit the crime? It's a difficult one. Also what if by entrapping one individual they actually interfere with a much bigger case the police may be working on, like a peadophile ring?

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

"You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button.

I can't seen to work the italics or bold text options, so I use CAPS as the next-best option...

Sorry if that fundamentally impairs your ability to understand English...

Stop DEFENDING the pedos "

Like it or loathe it, even Paedophiles have rights until convicted in a court of law.

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately

By *parkle......Woman
over a year ago

Staffordshire

"You also have a very accurate understanding of the Caps button.

I can't seen to work the italics or bold text options, so I use CAPS as the next-best option...

Sorry if that fundamentally impairs your ability to understand English...

Stop DEFENDING the pedos

He isn't. He's explaining why he believes vigilante "justice" isn't the way forward."

Thats his opinion

I think it's the way FORWARD

(thread closed by moderator)

Reply privately