Paedophile hunters

Am I the only one who has a real problem with the way the word paedophile is used?

In the title of this thread and throughout the thread it implies guilt. Guilt of being attracted to children, which in itself is in no way a crime. I'm not picking on the OP here or the individuals in the thread as this same trend can be seen everywhere.

I actually feel sorry for the inviduals who don't act on these urges as I wouldn't want to have all these desires i could never act on. I wouldn't even be able to speak to anyone about it as its such a loaded word. I'm not arguing that molesting children is ok before some moron takes offense with what i said and tries to strawman me but theres a huge difference between having urges and acting on them.

Completely agree. If someone acts on the urges they deserve everything coming to them, but I feel sorry for those who have to live with the desire.

It's technically a mental illness, in the same way some people are sexually attracted to inanimate objects.

Edit: aware that username checks out :p
 
Entrapment is illegal. Including "baiting nonces."

I don't know how many times it needs repeating.

A quick google would suggest otherwise. Not arguing just intrigued by entrapment. Do you have a link to the law stating it is illegal and a conviction cannot be brought due to entrapment.

We have a local case were the only evidence secured by the police was deemed to have been secured illegally on the basis of the application was that crucial evidence on which the prosecution wished to rely had been obtained as a result of serious prosecutorial misconduct and in fact the police had been made aware that the evidence they were seeking to use had been obtained illegally. However the case went ahead and the conviction was pretty much secured on this illegal evidence. The sentence was 10 years and so far appeals have been rejected. Not really relevant but intereting in that a conviction was secured with evidence presented by the police that was collected illegally.
 
Last edited:
So you read the 2 news paper reports posted confirming that Paedophile hunters put two guys away. But you don't believe them! Says it all really.


Is this actually how your brain works? You haven't answered his question, you've claimed to have given him a "spanking" (you haven't) and then you've continued to argue a point which is, quite frankly, beyond stupid. I don't expect you to understand, you've already lived up to your reputation in this thread so my expectations are already lower than Paris Hilton's knickers after a Mojito but I'm really trying to figure out how your mind works (or doesn't, whatever).

And no, you won't find an insult in my post no matter how hard you look so mommy & daddy aren't going to put the evil men on the internet away for you this time. You're on your own.

Also, random thought for the day:

The emptiest barrels always make the most noise.

Dunno why that popped in to my head.



I'm also of the opinion that these paedo hunters are all glory seeking idiots.
 
Watched a few videos from 'Stinson Hunter's, what a complete ****!

He loves rubbing his ego, rampant rubbing, then slaps them in the face with it. Banging on and on and on about his likes, followers, press coverage, convictions and goodness knows what.

These idiots need to get to the point a meeting is arranged, they have lots of evidence, then hand it over to professionals; the Police.

Catch 22 currently is that the Police don't have the resources, so these knobbers get to carry on, and as pointed out in previous posts; the family suffer (guilty of not) - as Stinson and the like love to plaster this online.
 
I want deuse, roar87 and anyone else who thinks any price is worth it, explicitly up to and including torture and murder, to stand behind that and tell Woden that the murder of his cousin was a cost worth paying for the possible chance that some people might be convicted of being talked into believing that a legal adult pretending to be a biological adult just under the age of legal adulthood is as mature as the legal adult they actually are and of acting on that belief.

I think you need to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If someone is doing anything other than handing over information to Police then they need to be prosecuted for any laws they're breaking. Murder and torture are illegal and carry hefty prison sentences. If I want to spend my evenings trying to catch out Paedophiles online and pass information onto Police to help with convictions then I should be allowed to do that, as long as I'm not breaking any laws. On the other hand If I arrange to meet someone who may or may not be a Paedophile and I beat him up or worse, then I have broken the law and I should be arrested. Blanket bans because some people did something wrong are bad.

Catch 22 currently is that the Police don't have the resources, so these knobbers get to carry on, and as pointed out in previous posts; the family suffer (guilty of not) - as Stinson and the like love to plaster this online.

This is to act as a deterrent to people looking to abuse children. They probably don't consider the fact that their entire family will disown them.
 
Watched a few videos from 'Stinson Hunter's, what a complete ****!

These idiots need to get to the point a meeting is arranged, they have lots of evidence, then hand it over to professionals; the Police.

Local case last week. Womens 14 year old daughter chatting online to a 19 year old, mother sees messages which were highly sexual on the mans behalf and takes over at the point the defendant was making arrangements for a meeting. Mother does not confront the guy just takes a photograph from a far to prove he turned up. Hands chat logs and photos to police and is berated by one officer who threatens her with arrest, for what I do not know. Luckily a conviction was secured for grooming but the sentance was a pathetic 180 hours commuinity service on the basis that a child was never at risk and there was no evidence to suggest the defendant was attracted to kids.
 
Am I the only one who has a real problem with the way the word paedophile is used?

In the title of this thread and throughout the thread it implies guilt. Guilt of being attracted to children, which in itself is in no way a crime. I'm not picking on the OP here or the individuals in the thread as this same trend can be seen everywhere.

I actually feel sorry for the inviduals who don't act on these urges as I wouldn't want to have all these desires i could never act on. I wouldn't even be able to speak to anyone about it as its such a loaded word. I'm not arguing that molesting children is ok before some moron takes offense with what i said and tries to strawman me but theres a huge difference between having urges and acting on them.

To be honest I started the thread more to discuss the minefield of vigilantism with something as socially toxic as paedophillia / under age child grooming / nonces / call it what you will, rather than about the intricate difficulties of what might amount to a though crime.

I agree though, it must be pretty terrible for *some* of them, to have those sorts of desires and not be able to act on them,

But I feel as though whilst you have the perhaps less dangerous, confused upset individual with some naughty desires combined with some illegal pictures in c:/new folder/new folder/new folder/work, there are some very very nasty offenders out there too, (Ian Watkins, anyone from 1970, etc) and so without sugar coating the issue, I think the language used is pretty fair, when you take everything into account
 
When do we get the "Drug Dealer Hunters" ? :confused:

Or is there a reason why people don't go and "out" the dealers? ;)
 
Totally agree with this. People with this mental illness should seek a doctor/police and tell them they have these bad cravings and need help.

While i was working in a mental health hospital, one of the patients had voluntarily committed themselves because of their urges towards young teenagers.
They had never offended to my current knowledge at the time, but they had removed themselves from the chance of offending and was probably under treatment/therapy for it.

And for anyone saying it is not a mental illness. Some of these sickos have confessed that they remember being attracted to children when they themselves were children, but they never changed with their age range. Sounds like a very deranged and disturbing developmental condition maybe?
 
I think you need to deal with issues on a case by case basis. If someone is doing anything other than handing over information to Police then they need to be prosecuted for any laws they're breaking. Murder and torture are illegal and carry hefty prison sentences. If I want to spend my evenings trying to catch out Paedophiles online and pass information onto Police to help with convictions then I should be allowed to do that, as long as I'm not breaking any laws. On the other hand If I arrange to meet someone who may or may not be a Paedophile and I beat him up or worse, then I have broken the law and I should be arrested. Blanket bans because some people did something wrong are bad.

That would be fair, but it's also impossible. You don't get one without the other with vigilantism.

Vetted volunteers working under police supervision would be a better approach in my opinion. That would remove the witch-hunting vigilantes, provide opportunity for useful training and greatly reduce the chance of a police investigation being ruined by witch-hunters eager for fame and/or violence.

There's also the issue that none of these people are targeting paedophiles. I think that deserves emphasis. At most they might be targeting ephebophiles, sometimes.
 
holy thread resurrection!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-50324952

Pretty scary stuff, although I was wondering when something like this was going to happen.

Going through some of the facebook accounts for these 'vigilantes' make my toes curl, the majority of them seem like a bunch of swineherds from down the pub, where the only clear intent seems to be to go and knock someone around, to feel good.

I feel terrible for the couple, must have been appalling to have a bunch of ranting, gormless cretins turn up to no doubt ruin their lives, with phones, facebook and live streaming. I hope they have their day in court.
 
holy thread resurrection!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-50324952

Pretty scary stuff, although I was wondering when something like this was going to happen.

Going through some of the facebook accounts for these 'vigilantes' make my toes curl, the majority of them seem like a bunch of swineherds from down the pub, where the only clear intent seems to be to go and knock someone around, to feel good.

I feel terrible for the couple, must have been appalling to have a bunch of ranting, gormless cretins turn up to no doubt ruin their lives, with phones, facebook and live streaming. I hope they have their day in court.

Is it not a case of these vigilantes are pedophiles(or some kind of sex offender) in the making themselves. The guy that was murdered in prison recently was killed by a sex offender no less.

To me it's so obvious that these people see a reflection of themselves and some kind of tribal instinct leads them to attack them.

Crimes start of with a thought or idea often following a traumatic event or series of events when younger. The crimes multiple till you reach the level of blood sucking vampire.

I always find it hard to blame anyone for their actions whatever they're doing, it's largely the media and "system" that creates these people in the first place. I doubt they can be cured without divine intervention though.
 
Exactly how did this vigilante mob convince the police to arrest two men they turned up out of the blue to harrass.

Mob word actually good enough to get someone arrested then?
 
Arresting two innocent blokes on the word of a few knuckle dragging knobheads? That's some good policing going on there. Hope they sue, and take everyone involved to the ******* cleaners.

GZg43KS.jpg
 
*Probably* better that the Police did arrest the couple, if only for their own safety. Better that than a mob handing out "justice".

Any credibility Yorkshire Child Protectors may have had was lost the moment they live streamed it. Collecting evidence and presenting it to the Police and CPS is fair enough, but that just showed they're in it for the glory. Did they not twig when Tommy Robinson got banged up that live streaming anything that could prejudice a trial is a stupid thing to do.
 
"403 people were prosecuted in 2018 for attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming"

"252 of those cases involved evidence gathered by paedophile hunting groups"

"The number of cases involving paedophile hunter evidence had more than tripled in the space of two years - rising from 57 in 2016 to 179 in 2018"
"The proportion of cases involving this evidence had also grown, from less than 25% of cases in 2016 to more than 60% of cases in 2018."

Well done people. Keep the good work up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50302912
 
"403 people were prosecuted in 2018 for attempting to meet a child following sexual grooming"

"252 of those cases involved evidence gathered by paedophile hunting groups"

"The number of cases involving paedophile hunter evidence had more than tripled in the space of two years - rising from 57 in 2016 to 179 in 2018"
"The proportion of cases involving this evidence had also grown, from less than 25% of cases in 2016 to more than 60% of cases in 2018."

Well done people. Keep the good work up.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50302912

What.

Yet when I read the link for context I find that the context is them getting accused of being irresponsible thugs by the police.

"When these groups say that they are acting in the interests of children, largely they are acting in their own interests, their self-aggrandisement and their desire to exercise force against so-called perpetrators of child abuse," Mr Vajzovic said.

"They don't put in measures to safeguard children, they don't put in measures to identify other offenders who may be connected to the people they are targeting. They're more interested in putting a video online of them carrying out a sting."

That's pretty brutal language from an assistant chief constable.
 
What.

Yet when I read the link for context I find that the context is them getting accused of being irresponsible thugs by the police.



That's pretty brutal language from an assistant chief constable.

And yet they used the evidence from the groups.
He is just trying to save face because the police are doing a crap job of things.
 
They don't put in measures to safeguard children

There are never children involved in what the hunting groups are doing, they're posing as children themselves. There are no children to safeguard, but clearing pedo's off the street does future safeguard real children.
 
Back
Top Bottom