Options

The Paedophile Hunter CH4 Wed 1st Oct 10pm

1235718

Comments

  • Options
    tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    They knew their victims were underage, yet they still continued. That makes them paedos - end of. Just why are you making excuses for them, I wonder?
    The problem is profiling. Assuming someone is a potential criminal until proven innocent because of certain characteristics. I don't want to live in a country which assumes all long term single men are potential child abusers and should be treated in the court of public opinion as such.

    Nor do I want to live in a country which promotes vigilantism, the reintroduction of the death penalty, mob justice or the punishment by death of relatives of someone whom commits an offence (all advocated on Twitter tonight). I'd much rather Stinson was able to help the Police, the Police and CEOP are adequately funded and due process (including presumed innocent until proven guilty) ruled the day.

    One of the things that may well happen due to tonights programme will be copycatism - people wishing to emulate Stinson, his methods and his fame in their part of the country.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 270
    Forum Member
    jonm01 wrote: »
    I'm not really sure these guys are all pedos, rather they are very sad, lonely, socially awkward people who never get any female attention whatsoever so when someone does show an interest in them they can't help themselves. There's no doubt they were all a bit odd.

    being sad n lonely is NO excuse for talking to underage girls.. telling them you want to preform sex acts on them and actually going out of your way to travel to what yu believe is their home. If u want someone to "show an interest" speak to people your own age and have a normal convo not "I want to lick u" & whatever else was said by those "men"
  • Options
    idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Eurostar wrote: »
    Exactly. Even arriving at the house and entering it, doesn't really prove anything. He could lose his nerve or change his mind (you often hear that story about men who visit prostitutes, meet her and then "make their excuses and leave" because they've changed their mind and decided not to go through with it)

    The convictions, if we are to assume they were derived from the evidence gathered, would seem to suggest you are wrong. It is the intent that is the offence. If you exchange explicit communication with a a person you believe is under-age and then arrange to meet them for sex, the intent is clear, and the attempt is the offence.
  • Options
    D_PeugeotD_Peugeot Posts: 781
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The "you don't know how much it means to me to be believed over a teacher" sums a large part of this up.

    However, if it helps get these people off of the streets...

    I am alarmed so many got off with this though - the guy who agreed he liked a good sucking off got 12 months and the guy who didn't care got 3 years - otherwise they all got suspended sentences, which is a bit worrying.

    Perhaps there were other mitigated factors in regards to the guy who got 3 years. Maybe other incidents.
  • Options
    redcherryredcherry Posts: 12,333
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    The paedophile that killed himself did so because he couldn't live with the world knowing the depravity of his true nature. All Stinson did, in his own words, was "hold a mirror up" to that behaviour, which is true, now everybody knows. Stinson didn't cause that person's death, it was he himself and the series of events he willingly engaged in.

    I agree. That person made his own choice to plan to meet a young girl.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 275
    Forum Member
    They knew their victims were underage, yet they still continued. That makes them paedos - end of. Just why are you making excuses for them, I wonder?

    No, not all of the men that he targeted were paedophiles. Some men believed that they were meeting 15-year-olds, which is illegal but not paedophilia.
  • Options
    rupert_pupkinrupert_pupkin Posts: 3,975
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    The convictions, if we are to assume they were derived from the evidence gathered, would seem to suggest you are wrong. It is the intent that is the offence. If you exchange explicit communication with a a person you believe is under-age and then arrange to meet them for sex, the intent is clear, and that is the offence.

    This

    I wonder if these people were also defending the guy who told an 'underage girl' that he was going to chop her up and eat her, took a selfie holding an axe, and traveled to meet her. Maybe he was going to get nervous and back out :blush:
  • Options
    Sylvester2007Sylvester2007 Posts: 4,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think he was on This Morning, today.

    May try and catch it on ITV Player as it's an interesting choice of programme to appear on, especially with his potty mouth and it being live (assuming he was there live and it wasn't a recorded interview)
  • Options
    Sylvester2007Sylvester2007 Posts: 4,066
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    D_Peugeot wrote: »
    Perhaps there were other mitigated factors in regards to the guy who got 3 years. Maybe other incidents.

    I'm more concerned the others missed out on a stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure.
  • Options
    FrankieFixerFrankieFixer Posts: 11,530
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He did his time and seems to be rehabilitated. This guy could have done the same but he took the cowards way out

    He burned down a school. This isn't the type of guy we need to mete out justice.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 275
    Forum Member
    His kickstarter has raised about £5,000 in 25 minutes.

    Ah, yes. One of the real motives of this loser. Easy money to be made from the tabloid-loving pitchfork brigade. You don't need any money to do what he does. A pure conman.
  • Options
    PedroPedro Posts: 9,911
    Forum Member
    As long as people realise that if he and the internet had been around 50 years ago he would probably have been doing this sort of thing to homosexuals and bragging about it to anyone who cared to listen.
  • Options
    TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,417
    Forum Member
    Eurostar wrote: »
    I have to say I feel very uncomfortable with the whole concept. Entrapment is no way to conduct law and order in any society.

    Would people feel comfortable seeing someone looking for an ecstasy tablet or some hash being named and shamed on national television in the exact same manner by a fake "drug dealer"?

    There was a time when Channel 4 used to fund many creative and original British films and used to produce the Equinox science documentaries that were the equal of anything that the BBC made - but no more.
  • Options
    China GirlChina Girl Posts: 2,755
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Her child is a lot safer now it isn't living with a paedophile. I thought she would be relieved

    Absolutely agree with this post, it's exactly what I was thinking.

    The thought of such a man being the father of my children would be horrendous.
  • Options
    tghe-retfordtghe-retford Posts: 26,449
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pedro wrote: »
    As long as people realise that if he and the internet had been around 50 years ago he would probably have been doing this sort of thing to homosexuals and bragging about it to anyone who cared to listen.
    In some places in the world, this happens today.
  • Options
    idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Pedro wrote: »
    As long as people realise that if he and the internet had been around 50 years ago he would probably have been doing this sort of thing to homosexuals and bragging about it to anyone who cared to listen.

    Remind us all again in 50 years when paedophilia and all the offences surrounding it are socially acceptable and legal, and they form a protected characteristic that nobody dare discriminate against.

    I jest.
  • Options
    playa1playa1 Posts: 1,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MissPGC wrote: »
    being sad n lonely is NO excuse for talking to underage girls.. telling them you want to preform sex acts on them and actually going out of your way to travel to what yu believe is their home. If u want someone to "show an interest" speak to people your own age and have a normal convo not "I want to lick u" & whatever else was said by those "men"

    They may just get carried away with it though. Especially if the 'hunters' are indulging them. I think some do actually need help and their lust for children stems from other issues.
    But they are hardly likely to seek help even it was offered and I suppose could actually do something worse for real.
  • Options
    rupert_pupkinrupert_pupkin Posts: 3,975
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Pedro wrote: »
    As long as people realise that if he and the internet had been around 50 years ago he would probably have been doing this sort of thing to homosexuals and bragging about it to anyone who cared to listen.

    More strange logic. I'm sure there were people 50 years ago who fought for gay rights, and for everybody to see that criminalising homosexuality was wrong. And it worked

    Are you saying that criminalising paedophiles and rape are wrong and that in 50 years it will be accepted in the mainstream community like homosexuality is now?
  • Options
    ubermanuberman Posts: 2,221
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There's a documentary on the Pick channel now called Inside: Predator Task Force, showing an American task force ensnaring sexual deviants.
  • Options
    SapphicGrrlSapphicGrrl Posts: 3,993
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The problem is profiling. Assuming someone is a potential criminal until proven innocent because of certain characteristics. I don't want to live in a country which assumes all long term single men are potential child abusers and should be treated in the court of public opinion as such.
    How many times do we have to say it? The offence is attempting to make sexual contact with a child. If a man tells a 12-year old he wants to have sex with her, that's not 'assuming someone is a potential criminal' - he already IS one!!

    I'm rather astonished at the number of people here who feel sorry for those poor old men who 'only' want a friendly chat with a nice little girl (or are trying to fudge around and blur the issue into other areas) - how about feeling sorry for their victims? OK, so today's victim is a fake one - tomorrow's victim may be only too real.
  • Options
    hackjohackjo Posts: 648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Shocking footage. How these men could go to such lengths to commit such a horrible offence - there are no words. I'm no prude but this turned my stomach.

    Having said that, I would like to see more research into paedophilia with a view to developing treatments that can remove these urges from offenders or potential offenders. Then the focus could be on catching them and helping them before they offend.
  • Options
    moviesmanmoviesman Posts: 369
    Forum Member
    Missed about 15 min of it but watched the rest. Thought the guy who was getting these dirty bastards the tattoo guy is doing a good job and to get a letter from the so called police just goes to show how corrupt they really are.There just playing at protecting folk.If anyone knows it me they didn't help me when I needed there ****ing help.All I got was insuffient evidence flung in my face and the so called Procurator Fiscal known about a Paeofile who abused me done nothing.The police are scum and these Judges are needing to be 6 feet under.British law is a farse.
  • Options
    MakinItHappenMakinItHappen Posts: 1,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Complete attention seeker.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf04bMCQJ9M

    Now doing live question and answers on youtube.
  • Options
    idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    How many times do we have to say it? The offence is attempting to make sexual contact with a child. If a man tells a 12-year old he wants to have sex with her, that's not 'assuming someone is a potential criminal' - he already IS one!!

    I'm rather astonished at the number of people here who feel sorry for those poor old men who 'only' want a friendly chat with a nice little girl (or are trying to fudge around and blur the issue into other areas) - how about feeling sorry for their victims? OK, so today's victim is a fake one - tomorrow's victim may be only too real.

    It's all very British isn't it? All of a sudden, because these awkward looking blokes are sheepishly (or not, some of them) stammering their excuses to a rough-looking, tattooed guy who has caught them hook, line and sinker, they're now the underdog and it's the proper thing to do to root for them. :D
  • Options
    playa1playa1 Posts: 1,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How many times do we have to say it? The offence is attempting to make sexual contact with a child. If a man tells a 12-year old he wants to have sex with her, that's not 'assuming someone is a potential criminal' - he already IS one!!

    I'm rather astonished at the number of people here who feel sorry for those poor old men who 'only' want a friendly chat with a nice little girl (or are trying to fudge around and blur the issue into other areas) - how about feeling sorry for their victims? OK, so today's victim is a fake one - tomorrow's victim may be only too real.

    Is it necessary to chase 'likes' and put it up on facebook though?
Sign In or Register to comment.