While these guys just think it's a good way to blackmail people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...d-over-5551699
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...d-over-5551699
Paedo hunters - should the police be working more closely with vigilantes?
5 of 6
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Well I agree with everything you say, to be honest.
The reason I started the thread was because of these comments:-
That rank and file officers are (apparently) although I don't know if true or not, increasingly working with these groups. Also, because of the comments of this Vera Baird. Lastly because courts are apparently accepting their evidence - and that in no way negates all the extra work that the police have to do, once the suspect has been identified.
As I say, I do have grave doubts about these people, but at the same time wonder if they can be in any way guided by the police (I know you mentioned special constables earlier, but I'm not sure they'd go for that, as they do appear to be one trick ponies).
It might prevent them from making mistakes, or help at least. Only a suggestion, since they are not doing anything illegal, and look set to continue regardless.”
“Well I agree with everything you say, to be honest.
The reason I started the thread was because of these comments:-
That rank and file officers are (apparently) although I don't know if true or not, increasingly working with these groups. Also, because of the comments of this Vera Baird. Lastly because courts are apparently accepting their evidence - and that in no way negates all the extra work that the police have to do, once the suspect has been identified.
As I say, I do have grave doubts about these people, but at the same time wonder if they can be in any way guided by the police (I know you mentioned special constables earlier, but I'm not sure they'd go for that, as they do appear to be one trick ponies).
It might prevent them from making mistakes, or help at least. Only a suggestion, since they are not doing anything illegal, and look set to continue regardless.”
When it says rank and file are working with them, it will mean in the context I said earlier. These "hunters" will be classed as witnesses, and be treated as such. The Police will make a full enquiry, and a decision will be made as to prosecution. That is very different to "working with them".
I'm sure there will be some incidents where individual Officers will be happy with the help given, but there will be more where they wont, and they certainly wont want these groups spreading, and targeting people without any interest in fair procedure.
As I said, where does it stop? Do we encourage groups to tackle other crimes in this way? It would lead to an almighty mess.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“While these guys just think it's a good way to blackmail people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...d-over-5551699”
“While these guys just think it's a good way to blackmail people.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...d-over-5551699”
This type of action is wide open to that kind of abuse, and I can see more of that happening. I'm sure this report is not a one off.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“Perhaps I do. The link between these paedo-hunting groups and extreme right organisations is one that is well established.”
“Perhaps I do. The link between these paedo-hunting groups and extreme right organisations is one that is well established.”
Except you dont
Originally Posted by Deep Purple:
“When it says rank and file are working with them, it will mean in the context I said earlier. These "hunters" will be classed as witnesses, and be treated as such. The Police will make a full enquiry, and a decision will be made as to prosecution. That is very different to "working with them".
I'm sure there will be some incidents where individual Officers will be happy with the help given, but there will be more where they wont, and they certainly wont want these groups spreading, and targeting people without any interest in fair procedure.
As I said, where does it stop? Do we encourage groups to tackle other crimes in this way? It would lead to an almighty mess.”
“When it says rank and file are working with them, it will mean in the context I said earlier. These "hunters" will be classed as witnesses, and be treated as such. The Police will make a full enquiry, and a decision will be made as to prosecution. That is very different to "working with them".
I'm sure there will be some incidents where individual Officers will be happy with the help given, but there will be more where they wont, and they certainly wont want these groups spreading, and targeting people without any interest in fair procedure.
As I said, where does it stop? Do we encourage groups to tackle other crimes in this way? It would lead to an almighty mess.”
Don't know. Although there are few crimes which emote people as much as child sexual abuse. I can't envisage, for example, bands of vigilantes looking for income tax evaders.
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Don't know. Although there are few crimes which emote people as much as child sexual abuse. I can't envisage, for example, bands of vigilantes looking for income tax evaders.”
“Don't know. Although there are few crimes which emote people as much as child sexual abuse. I can't envisage, for example, bands of vigilantes looking for income tax evaders.”
The more emotive; the bigger the necessity for due process of law.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“The more emotive; the bigger the necessity for due process of law.”
“The more emotive; the bigger the necessity for due process of law.”
Which is why these loose cannons might be better to be embraced by the law, rather than them continuing to act, unrecognised, in a completely autonomous fashion. Could help the police, avoid suspects getting away and avoid potential tragedies.
I've given an example of how one of them more or less told the police he didn't give a stuff about trials and convictions. He only cared about naming and shaming them. They are glory seeking narcissists. The police have nothing to gain from using them.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“I've given an example of how one of them more or less told the police he didn't give a stuff about trials and convictions. He only cared about naming and shaming them. They are glory seeking narcissists. The police have nothing to gain from using them.”
“I've given an example of how one of them more or less told the police he didn't give a stuff about trials and convictions. He only cared about naming and shaming them. They are glory seeking narcissists. The police have nothing to gain from using them.”
You've given one example and applied your personal interpretation of that one person's motivations, to all the rest. Which is singularly illogical. Indeed, if the argument were on the other foot, I'm sure you'd be the first to point that out.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“Do you know what? I could say the same about you! How do I know you haven't been up to all sorts.
Are you aware that when these guys get arrested; their computers are privy to a forensic check? And their whole lives are trawled through? You are saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's vomitous. You've turned the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' inside out and basically said, 'well we don't know if they've harmed a child or not'. Again, it's pretty loathesome.
There is no evidence that any of these people have prevented a child being harmed. I'm not 'evading' anything. It's rather you who is building up stupid straw men (fake scenarios) because the fact remains that there is nothing which shows this type of behaviour has prevented a single child being harmed. Nothing.
Given the damage these idiots have caused (suicide attempts, innocent people being targeted), it really is up to you to show there is a clear benefit. You can't.
Again. I've answered the question. My answer is no. I do not know how many times I need to say this. No.
And your repetitive orders to 'answer the question' are showing a bit of a bullying side to you (despite the fact that I have answered it - repeatedly). I can see now why you might be drawn to these inadequates.”
“Do you know what? I could say the same about you! How do I know you haven't been up to all sorts.
Are you aware that when these guys get arrested; their computers are privy to a forensic check? And their whole lives are trawled through? You are saying absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's vomitous. You've turned the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' inside out and basically said, 'well we don't know if they've harmed a child or not'. Again, it's pretty loathesome.
There is no evidence that any of these people have prevented a child being harmed. I'm not 'evading' anything. It's rather you who is building up stupid straw men (fake scenarios) because the fact remains that there is nothing which shows this type of behaviour has prevented a single child being harmed. Nothing.
Given the damage these idiots have caused (suicide attempts, innocent people being targeted), it really is up to you to show there is a clear benefit. You can't.
Again. I've answered the question. My answer is no. I do not know how many times I need to say this. No.
And your repetitive orders to 'answer the question' are showing a bit of a bullying side to you (despite the fact that I have answered it - repeatedly). I can see now why you might be drawn to these inadequates.”
Well nobody knows about anybody. But the very fact that they are showing an interest in young kids online, and pretending to be what they are not, kind of narrows the field - no?
Or don't you follow logical thought, as your arguments do come across as a highly emotional, rambling and angry, I have to say
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“You've given one example and applied your personal interpretation of that one person's motivations, to all the rest. Which is singularly illogical. Indeed, if the argument were on the other foot, I'm sure you'd be the first to point that out.”
“You've given one example and applied your personal interpretation of that one person's motivations, to all the rest. Which is singularly illogical. Indeed, if the argument were on the other foot, I'm sure you'd be the first to point that out.”
No. He said it himself. They were HIS words.
Out of the 'well known' ones, we have someone who has been convicted of arson and assault; a bully who cried to the police when he was exposed and who led to a man committing suicide; people who used their 'hunting' for blackmail purposes; one group which is extreme-right white nationalist and tends to only target Asian men; and one who said he doesn't care about convictions; he's only interesting in posting videos online to expose them which he sees as a bigger punishment.
So I'm sorry. I see no evidence why any police force would want to go near these idiots.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“No. He said it himself. They were HIS words.
Out of the 'well known' ones, we have someone who has been convicted of arson and assault; a bully who cried to the police when he was exposed and who led to a man committing suicide; people who used their 'hunting' for blackmail purposes; one group which is extreme-right white nationalist and tends to only target Asian men; and one who said he doesn't care about convictions; he's only interesting in posting videos online to expose them which he sees as a bigger punishment.
So I'm sorry. I see no evidence why any police force would want to go near these idiots.”
“No. He said it himself. They were HIS words.
Out of the 'well known' ones, we have someone who has been convicted of arson and assault; a bully who cried to the police when he was exposed and who led to a man committing suicide; people who used their 'hunting' for blackmail purposes; one group which is extreme-right white nationalist and tends to only target Asian men; and one who said he doesn't care about convictions; he's only interesting in posting videos online to expose them which he sees as a bigger punishment.
So I'm sorry. I see no evidence why any police force would want to go near these idiots.”
The answer is in preventing all the negative components you have mentioned, whilst harnessing the positive motivations of catching potential/actual, on line abusers.
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Well nobody knows about anybody. But the very fact that they are showing an interest in young kids online, and pretending to be what they are not, kind of narrows the field - no?
Or don't you follow logical thought, as your arguments do come across as a highly emotional, rambling and angry, I have to say”
“Well nobody knows about anybody. But the very fact that they are showing an interest in young kids online, and pretending to be what they are not, kind of narrows the field - no?
Or don't you follow logical thought, as your arguments do come across as a highly emotional, rambling and angry, I have to say”
Really? I'd say that's the way you are choosing to read my posts.
As for 'narrowing the field', it probably widens it rather because many of these discussions are started by the paedo-hunting groups themselves. In many cases, there's been no indication that a conversation would have happened without their involvement.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“Really? I'd say that's the way you are choosing to read my posts.
As for 'narrowing the field', it probably widens it rather because many of these discussions are started by the paedo-hunting groups themselves. In many cases, there's been no indication that a conversation would have happened without their involvement.”
“Really? I'd say that's the way you are choosing to read my posts.
As for 'narrowing the field', it probably widens it rather because many of these discussions are started by the paedo-hunting groups themselves. In many cases, there's been no indication that a conversation would have happened without their involvement.”
Not really, as you do come across as very angry and emotional. Not in every post, obviously, but quite a lot.
The entrapment issue is something else entirely. So no doubt you can reel off several cases of "hunters" prosecuted for entrapment. That still doesn't negate the fact that whoever is drawn in, still has paedophilic motivations - hard cold fact.
It should be also said that they normally pick chat rooms where you are supposed to be 18+ to be there and after a few chats they mention they're 14 or whatever. These people have to be the lowest hanging fruit possible if after all the publicity about such 'hunters' and their tactics they still fall for it. Perhaps I should resume my claim to be a Nigerian prince and need a bit of help to recover the few hundred million locked away 
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“It should be also said that they normally pick chat rooms where you are supposed to be 18+ to be there and after a few chats they mention they're 14 or whatever. These people have to be the lowest hanging fruit possible if after all the publicity about such 'hunters' and their tactics they still fall for it. Perhaps I should resume my claim to be a Nigerian prince and need a bit of help to recover the few hundred million locked away”
“It should be also said that they normally pick chat rooms where you are supposed to be 18+ to be there and after a few chats they mention they're 14 or whatever. These people have to be the lowest hanging fruit possible if after all the publicity about such 'hunters' and their tactics they still fall for it. Perhaps I should resume my claim to be a Nigerian prince and need a bit of help to recover the few hundred million locked away
”
...and give your London address as a disused petrol station in Hendon, as I discovered once on Google street view....
Originally Posted by blueblade:
“Which is why these loose cannons might be better to be embraced by the law, rather than them continuing to act, unrecognised, in a completely autonomous fashion. Could help the police, avoid suspects getting away and avoid potential tragedies.”
“Which is why these loose cannons might be better to be embraced by the law, rather than them continuing to act, unrecognised, in a completely autonomous fashion. Could help the police, avoid suspects getting away and avoid potential tragedies.”
They cant work with the law, because they are not regulated in any way, nor do they operate to any acceptable procedures.
They are no different to an individual grabbing someone outside Tesco they think has been shoplifting. They can catch the person, and call the police, who then begin a proper investigation, and treat the individuals as witnesses.
If they are interested in proper justice, what they should do is pass their information to the police to deal with, not go for the big confrontation.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“It should be also said that they normally pick chat rooms where you are supposed to be 18+ to be there and after a few chats they mention they're 14 or whatever. These people have to be the lowest hanging fruit possible if after all the publicity about such 'hunters' and their tactics they still fall for it. Perhaps I should resume my claim to be a Nigerian prince and need a bit of help to recover the few hundred million locked away”
“It should be also said that they normally pick chat rooms where you are supposed to be 18+ to be there and after a few chats they mention they're 14 or whatever. These people have to be the lowest hanging fruit possible if after all the publicity about such 'hunters' and their tactics they still fall for it. Perhaps I should resume my claim to be a Nigerian prince and need a bit of help to recover the few hundred million locked away
”
Yeah - and then they claim to be 15 which while below the age of consent is hardly indicative of paedophilic tendencies. Goodness, we used to have naked 16 year olds in the pages of tabloids until just a few years ago.
Elvis started his relationship with Priscilla when she was 14. I believe Mandy Smith was 13 when Bill Wyman started his relationship with her. They clearly groomed these young and very impressionable girls. One wonders why they are still idolised these days.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“They clearly groomed these young and very impressionable girls. One wonders why they are still idolised these days.”
“They clearly groomed these young and very impressionable girls. One wonders why they are still idolised these days.”
Because many people have a tendency in private to overlook inconvenient or unpleasant truths about people they know and like or love, whatever their public stance. It will always be so as it seems to be an innate part of human nature - though most people have some kind of limits, of course.
Sadly it's not uncommon for abusers' partners to choose to ignore their personal abuse or even that of their children, whom they are supposed to be protecting. That partly explains why the vast majority of child abuse is thought to occur in the home and these wannabe crime fighters will never even scratch the surface of that. As others have said, they'll only ever catch low hanging fruit and rarely - perhaps never - the serial abusers who probably do the vast bulk and nastiest of it.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“Yeah - and then they claim to be 15 which while below the age of consent is hardly indicative of paedophilic tendencies. Goodness, we used to have naked 16 year olds in the pages of tabloids until just a few years ago.
Elvis started his relationship with Priscilla when she was 14. I believe Mandy Smith was 13 when Bill Wyman started his relationship with her. They clearly groomed these young and very impressionable girls. One wonders why they are still idolised these days.”
“Yeah - and then they claim to be 15 which while below the age of consent is hardly indicative of paedophilic tendencies. Goodness, we used to have naked 16 year olds in the pages of tabloids until just a few years ago.
Elvis started his relationship with Priscilla when she was 14. I believe Mandy Smith was 13 when Bill Wyman started his relationship with her. They clearly groomed these young and very impressionable girls. One wonders why they are still idolised these days.”
A non sexual relationship. Elvis then flew home and they never met again for 2 years during that time he was dating Anita Wood.
Originally Posted by jackol:
“A non sexual relationship. Elvis then flew home and they never met again for 2 years during that time he was dating Anita Wood.”
“A non sexual relationship. Elvis then flew home and they never met again for 2 years during that time he was dating Anita Wood.”
What do you mean by 'non sexual'? He groomed her. Clearly!
It's simply not true. It was sexual from the start.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nal-girls.html
"Most famously there was his future wife, Priscilla Beaulieu, who was just 14 - ten years his junior - when they met in September 1959. Although sexual from the start, their relationship was portrayed as a sweet and innocent triumph of love across the age divide. In fact, it was just one of Presley's many unsettling liaisons with minors in the years following his rise to fame."
And she wasn't the only one.
At some point some people are either too talented or generating too much money for it to matter, Charlie Chaplin had an unhealthy interest in teenage girls, but it doesn't really matter to enjoy his films.
I was stunned when Roman Polanski won the best director Oscar, but I guess that proves my point.
I was stunned when Roman Polanski won the best director Oscar, but I guess that proves my point.
Originally Posted by JCR:
“At some point some people are either too talented or generating too much money for it to matter, Charlie Chaplin had an unhealthy interest in teenage girls, but it doesn't really matter to enjoy his films.
I was stunned when Roman Polanski won the best director Oscar, but I guess that proves my point.”
“At some point some people are either too talented or generating too much money for it to matter, Charlie Chaplin had an unhealthy interest in teenage girls, but it doesn't really matter to enjoy his films.
I was stunned when Roman Polanski won the best director Oscar, but I guess that proves my point.”
People can get very cross when you reveal certain proclivities of Gandhi. As if someone can't have any kind of fault.
Originally Posted by anais32:
“People can get very cross when you reveal certain proclivities of Gandhi. As if someone can't have any kind of fault.”
“People can get very cross when you reveal certain proclivities of Gandhi. As if someone can't have any kind of fault.”
Same as the virgin Mary was only 14-15 when Jesus was born.
Originally Posted by Maxatoria:
“Same as the virgin Mary was only 14-15 when Jesus was born.”
“Same as the virgin Mary was only 14-15 when Jesus was born.”
However, 2000 years ago, it was normal. So was every other first time mother.
5 of 6
