I mentioned Rotherham as an example of how the sexual exploitation of working class girls is often systematically ignored by 'the system', and about how those girls who do speak out face being blamed for the actions of the men who prey on them (they must have led him on...it's their own fault for drinking/doing drugs...they act older than their age so it's okay to use them...etc).
With respect to online grooming...I am in my twenties, and was a young teenager on the internet less than a decade ago. I can tell you that every chat room I went into, every online profile I had, every social media space I used....everywhere I went online, older (much, much older) men would send me sexually explicit messages. It was an epidemic! Of course, my friends and I would ignore them and try and laugh it off, but the whole thing made us feel vulnerable and grossed out. This was before online grooming was really talked about in the media, so we didn't tell anyone, but if I had my time again I would have contacted the police. I can't imagine that the situation has changed that much.
I can well believe that there might be a large number of middle aged (or even younger) pervs and weirdos trying to make contact with underaged people online. But I suspect very little ever comes of it and that 99% of the time they are rebuffed unceremoniously. Even if there is interaction of some sort, I'm guessing that it very rarely ends in a meeting or a sexual encounter.
Which does raise the issue of exactly what that vigilante guy is up to. I'd be interested to know how many of those men he has exposed have ever actually abused someone in person. There's a difference between acting like a weirdo in an internet chat room and actually carrying out a sexual assault. Is he enticing internet pervs to do things they would never normally do?
What further unsettles me about these kind of vigilante groups is the easy opportunity to extort money from their targets. The men that we have seen be exposed have all been of low to moderate wealth. How many have we not seen who may have been pressured into handing over money?
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
What further unsettles me about these kind of vigilante groups is the easy opportunity to extort money from their targets. The men that we have seen exposed have all been of low to moderate wealth. How many have we not seen who may have been pressured into handing over money?
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
The very word "vigilante" should tell you all you need to know. They are rarely kind hearted or well intentioned people : they are usually horrible and nasty individuals with malice inside them who dress up their actions as being for the public good.
Are they the lowest though? I would say that men who rape over-the-age-of-consent women (be it either strangers or their own partners) are lower than men who agree to have consensual sex with 15-year-olds at the young adult's own request.
Tabloid brainwashing has made us lose our minds, to the point that we would cheer on and practically knight said rapist if he were to attack the latter man while both were in prison. Madness.
Okay, let's get this straight....sex with a teenager below the age of consent is called statutory rape. RAPE. And there are very good reasons for that.
Children beneath the age of 16 are not capable of giving consent. This has been decided by the law makers under the advice of child psychology professionals. If the child is too young to consent, regardless what he or she said or how they have acted, then they are are therefore incapable of giving informed and meaningful consent, at least with an adult. And if someone is incapable of of giving informed and meaningful consent, the consent cannot exist.
Sex without consent = rape.
I'm not going to get drawn into the whole argument of 'but it's not as bad as rape by knifepoint by a stranger in the bushes' that rape apologists come out with whenever statutory rape is discussed. The point is that statutory rape has been proven to be damaging and exploitative for the children/teenagers involved, and that is why the law stands as it does.
Okay, let's get this straight....sex with a teenager below the age of consent is called statutory rape. RAPE. And there are very good reasons for that.
Children beneath the age of 16 are not capable of giving consent. This has been decided by the law makers under the advice of child psychology professionals. If the child is too young to consent, regardless what he or she said, he or she is therefore incapable of giving informed, enthusiastic and meaningful consent, at least with an adult party. And if someone is incapable of of giving informed, enthusiastic and meaningful consent, the consent cannot exist.
Sex without consent = rape.
I'm not going to get drawn into the whole argument of 'but it's not as bad as rape by knifepoint by a stranger in the bushes' that rape apologists come out with whenever statutory rape is discussed. The point is that statutory rape has been proven to be damaging and exploitative for the children/teenagers involved, and that is why the law stands as it does.
No, "the law makers" couldn't give a damn about what the experts have to say. The law makers only care about their popularity and the hysteria that would be created in having an open discussion about these laws.
You only have to look at the article (which has a photograph of Jimmy Savile :roll eyes: ) to get a flavour of the nonsense that would be whipped up if any party tried to reduce the age of consent.
What further unsettles me about these kind of vigilante groups is the easy opportunity to extort money from their targets. The men that we have seen be exposed have all been of low to moderate wealth. How many have we not seen who may have been pressured into handing over money?
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
Honestly, what unsettles you more? The hypothetical crime of extortion (which has not happened) or the real crime that these men commit when they send sexually explicit messages to underage children?
I do sort of agree with this. If a 15 year old is on a sex site looking for a hook up with an older guy then it would the them doing the pursuing. They certainly can't be described as an angel. So I'm not sure why the adult then can be arrested for grooming. The only thing the adult is guilty of in my opinion is stupidity for not walking away when they discover that person is a minor. So on that front I have no sympathy for any of the guys caught. They knew it was wrong but didn't stop themselves.
I watched this show last night and posted on here a couple of times but until I read your post I had actually forgot that when I was 14/15 (about 13 years ago) I went online in chat rooms back when they were really popular and new and chatted to older guys and on cam too with nudity involved both sides . I often pursued older men because I was attracted to guys older than myself, I was not pushed into it, nor did I ever feel scared or threatened and also did not think of any consequence that I was engaging (or at least engaging them) in illegal acts. But on the flip side? If I was ever in a chat room and someone told me they were anything less than 16, I'd block them there and then but not before telling them to stay away before they get into really big trouble.
What further unsettles me about these kind of vigilante groups is the easy opportunity to extort money from their targets. The men that we have seen be exposed have all been of low to moderate wealth. How many have we not seen who may have been pressured into handing over money?
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
All you highlight and many more issues you have not is why his behaviour is stupidly dangerous.
The guy is a idiot who in his desperate attempts to appease himself for his own crimes and questionable behaviour puts the spotlight on others .
Classic behaviour , psychologists wet dream . Police need to step in and put a end to this Drug damaged danger .
I agree there is to an extent, but the paedophiles he's targeting don't seem to be resorting to violence. I he did this sort of thing with drug dealers he'd likely find himself fed to pigs. Entrapping paedos is safe; they creepy perverse individuals looking for attention with minors.
Or maybe he is a young man who has been failed by the 'system' all if his young life. He's clearly had some experience of child abuse and/or sexual exploitation himself. From what was revealed on the program, I would infer that he has been failed by social services, the care system, the police...and yet, in spite of his rocky (and admittedly criminal) past, he still feels an overwhelming sense of obligation to protect other vulnerable kids. He's out there trying his best to make a difference. It might not be glamorous, but it is justice.
Maybe, does that excusing him being an arsonist? Do excuses like this justify others criminality; paedophiles for example? It's often noted the abusers were once abused themselves.
People need to learn what a paedophile is before using the word, So many incorrect uses of it, Even in the press
Exactly. There is a big difference between attraction to young pre-pubescent children and an attraction to a 15-year-old. One is a perversion and the other (regardless of the legalities or moralities) is a natural evolutionary inclination. That is, it is natural to be attracted to those who offer the best physical chance of being able to procreate.
One cannot simply reverse hundreds-of-thousands-of-years of evolution with a mere century or two of Mary Whitehouse hysteria.
Honestly, what unsettles you more? The hypothetical crime of extortion (which has not happened) or the real crime that these men commit when they send sexually explicit messages to underage children?
It isn't a competition. I can consider both unsettling.
Not surprised in the slightest. I noticed that the "paedophile hunter" on last night's show was also using Grindr to upset the lives of lonely gay men, many of whom may not have even been out as gay.
What further unsettles me about these kind of vigilante groups is the easy opportunity to extort money from their targets. The men that we have seen be exposed have all been of low to moderate wealth. How many have we not seen who may have been pressured into handing over money?
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
There was a video I watched a year or two back, which I believe was this same guy, had met with a target in a hotel room. He then proceeded to humiliate him and lay out terms whereby Hunter would make use of the room to ensnare others in exchange for not publish the video online, which he did anyway.
Isn't Stinson Hunter committing any offences here though? I thought impersonating a minor online is illegal?
There was an ex-police officer talking head on the program who said Hunter was working within the parameters of the law. There most be a fine line though.
People need to learn what a paedophile is before using the word, So many incorrect uses of it, Even in the press
True isn't it hebephilia for attraction to 11-15 year olds...still its an attraction to children. Not young adults as one poster keeps saying. Young people maybe but you're not where near an adult at 15...
No matter how much a 15 year old 'pursues' someone, the adult should always say no. As adults we're always able to say no.
There was an ex-police officer talking head on the program who said Hunter was working within the parameters of the law. There most be a fine line though.
It's only a matter of time before it all goes horribly wrong IMO. It could end up with one of the men he names and shames being killed by a gang of vigilantes or even with an attack on himself.
There was something a while back about a 15 year old (i think but defo under age) using some guy with learning problems to buy her stuff and then she'd 'give it up' for him just enough so he'd keep buying her **** and whatever until her jealous friend shopped her.
There was something a while back about a 15 year old (i think but defo under age) using some guy with learning problems to buy her stuff and then she'd 'give it up' for him just enough so he'd keep buying her **** and whatever until her jealous friend shopped her.
This is a case of a Vulnerable adult it's different.
There was something a while back about a 15 year old (i think but defo under age) using some guy with learning problems to buy her stuff and then she'd 'give it up' for him just enough so he'd keep buying her **** and whatever until her jealous friend shopped her.
A 15 year old lacks the knowledge, experience and emotional maturity to understand and/or accept the consequences of their actions in the same way that an adult can. That is why they are treated differently in the criminal courts. That is also why the age of consent exits.
The 15 year old in your example would not have been able to fully comprehend what her actions entailed, and that fact does not change regardless of whether the adult had learning disabilities or not. She is still - legally and morally - incapable of being a sexual predator towards an adult, which is what I assume that you are trying to imply.
So many mixed feelings and I still don't know where I stand. I think the PH does need help. I think he is doing this to exorcise some demons. I also believe he in motivated to protect the kids.
I am pretty sure it isn't entrapment and that is why he doesn't make the first move.
It is dangerous stuff but I think the world is a better place for him doing it than not. I think it would be better if there was some way that the police could train him and have a bit more control.
I do not hold him responsible for the suicide at all. The responsibility for that is on the man himself.
A 15 year old lacks the knowledge, experience and emotional maturity to understand and/or accept the consequences of their actions in the same way that an adult can. That is why they are treated differently in the criminal courts. That is also why the age of consent exits.
The 15 year old in your example would not have been able to fully comprehend what her actions entailed, and that fact does not change regardless of whether the adult had learning disabilities or not. She is still - legally and morally - incapable of being a sexual predator towards an adult, which is what I assume that you are trying to imply.
it could be an interesting case should something appear in courts where a person under the legal age of consent used their power over someone who was over the age of consent to basically blackmail them in a sexual manner especially if the person over the age was shall we say not all there and would we expect the usual hang the paedo high and i'll send the government the £1 for the 9mm to pop in his skull etc
Comments
I can well believe that there might be a large number of middle aged (or even younger) pervs and weirdos trying to make contact with underaged people online. But I suspect very little ever comes of it and that 99% of the time they are rebuffed unceremoniously. Even if there is interaction of some sort, I'm guessing that it very rarely ends in a meeting or a sexual encounter.
Which does raise the issue of exactly what that vigilante guy is up to. I'd be interested to know how many of those men he has exposed have ever actually abused someone in person. There's a difference between acting like a weirdo in an internet chat room and actually carrying out a sexual assault. Is he enticing internet pervs to do things they would never normally do?
The video that you commented on was about what the guy wanted a 14 year old to do to him.
I never changed anything.
I wouldn't put it past any of these vigilantes (most of whom are already convicted criminals of some sort) to try and extort money if one of the targeted men rolled up in an Aston Martin and a nice suit.
The very word "vigilante" should tell you all you need to know. They are rarely kind hearted or well intentioned people : they are usually horrible and nasty individuals with malice inside them who dress up their actions as being for the public good.
Okay, let's get this straight....sex with a teenager below the age of consent is called statutory rape. RAPE. And there are very good reasons for that.
Children beneath the age of 16 are not capable of giving consent. This has been decided by the law makers under the advice of child psychology professionals. If the child is too young to consent, regardless what he or she said or how they have acted, then they are are therefore incapable of giving informed and meaningful consent, at least with an adult. And if someone is incapable of of giving informed and meaningful consent, the consent cannot exist.
Sex without consent = rape.
I'm not going to get drawn into the whole argument of 'but it's not as bad as rape by knifepoint by a stranger in the bushes' that rape apologists come out with whenever statutory rape is discussed. The point is that statutory rape has been proven to be damaging and exploitative for the children/teenagers involved, and that is why the law stands as it does.
No, "the law makers" couldn't give a damn about what the experts have to say. The law makers only care about their popularity and the hysteria that would be created in having an open discussion about these laws.
You only have to look at the article (which has a photograph of Jimmy Savile :roll eyes: ) to get a flavour of the nonsense that would be whipped up if any party tried to reduce the age of consent.
Honestly, what unsettles you more? The hypothetical crime of extortion (which has not happened) or the real crime that these men commit when they send sexually explicit messages to underage children?
I watched this show last night and posted on here a couple of times but until I read your post I had actually forgot that when I was 14/15 (about 13 years ago) I went online in chat rooms back when they were really popular and new and chatted to older guys and on cam too with nudity involved both sides
http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Men-used-gay-website-Grindr-ensnare-paedophiles/story-22882963-detail/story.html
I hope he remains available for work whilst being a vigilante and the money he begs online for is declared to the DWP as unearned income !!!!!!!
I agree there is to an extent, but the paedophiles he's targeting don't seem to be resorting to violence. I he did this sort of thing with drug dealers he'd likely find himself fed to pigs. Entrapping paedos is safe; they creepy perverse individuals looking for attention with minors.
Maybe, does that excusing him being an arsonist? Do excuses like this justify others criminality; paedophiles for example? It's often noted the abusers were once abused themselves.
Exactly. There is a big difference between attraction to young pre-pubescent children and an attraction to a 15-year-old. One is a perversion and the other (regardless of the legalities or moralities) is a natural evolutionary inclination. That is, it is natural to be attracted to those who offer the best physical chance of being able to procreate.
One cannot simply reverse hundreds-of-thousands-of-years of evolution with a mere century or two of Mary Whitehouse hysteria.
It isn't a competition. I can consider both unsettling.
Not surprised in the slightest. I noticed that the "paedophile hunter" on last night's show was also using Grindr to upset the lives of lonely gay men, many of whom may not have even been out as gay.
There was a video I watched a year or two back, which I believe was this same guy, had met with a target in a hotel room. He then proceeded to humiliate him and lay out terms whereby Hunter would make use of the room to ensnare others in exchange for not publish the video online, which he did anyway.
There was an ex-police officer talking head on the program who said Hunter was working within the parameters of the law. There most be a fine line though.
True isn't it hebephilia for attraction to 11-15 year olds...still its an attraction to children. Not young adults as one poster keeps saying. Young people maybe but you're not where near an adult at 15...
No matter how much a 15 year old 'pursues' someone, the adult should always say no. As adults we're always able to say no.
No child is ever guilty of leading on an adult.
Yes woman over 18 who looked younger.
It's only a matter of time before it all goes horribly wrong IMO. It could end up with one of the men he names and shames being killed by a gang of vigilantes or even with an attack on himself.
There was something a while back about a 15 year old (i think but defo under age) using some guy with learning problems to buy her stuff and then she'd 'give it up' for him just enough so he'd keep buying her **** and whatever until her jealous friend shopped her.
This is a case of a Vulnerable adult it's different.
A 15 year old lacks the knowledge, experience and emotional maturity to understand and/or accept the consequences of their actions in the same way that an adult can. That is why they are treated differently in the criminal courts. That is also why the age of consent exits.
The 15 year old in your example would not have been able to fully comprehend what her actions entailed, and that fact does not change regardless of whether the adult had learning disabilities or not. She is still - legally and morally - incapable of being a sexual predator towards an adult, which is what I assume that you are trying to imply.
I am pretty sure it isn't entrapment and that is why he doesn't make the first move.
It is dangerous stuff but I think the world is a better place for him doing it than not. I think it would be better if there was some way that the police could train him and have a bit more control.
I do not hold him responsible for the suicide at all. The responsibility for that is on the man himself.
it could be an interesting case should something appear in courts where a person under the legal age of consent used their power over someone who was over the age of consent to basically blackmail them in a sexual manner especially if the person over the age was shall we say not all there and would we expect the usual hang the paedo high and i'll send the government the £1 for the 9mm to pop in his skull etc