|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Oct 1, 2014 22:16:17 GMT
Anyone just watch this on channel 4? Fair play to the guy for what he does but do you agree with him making everything public online? I agree that these scumbags should be brought to public attention but if he made a mistake it could ruin an innocent persons life. I think once he's got all the evidence it should be given to the police to deal with.
Also what was shocking was that most the sick bastards that were found guilty only got suspended sentences, not much of a deterrent at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 22:19:41 GMT
Didn't watch it , couldn't to be honest , but no vigilante should be taking the law into his own hands. That's we have the police.
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Oct 1, 2014 22:42:56 GMT
Stated watching, but couldn't stand it. Due Process & all...
|
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Oct 1, 2014 23:02:11 GMT
Only problem I had with it was that there and then they didn't shoot their bollocks off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 23:17:20 GMT
Whilst a small part of me buys the 'wider/collateral damage' argument, my over-riding feeling is that the guy is doing some good.
At the very least it should open debate.
And yes, there might be a 'right way' to be dealing with the problem, but tonight's exercise has shown that the problem is out there, it's rife, and the people involved will go to great lengths to get what they want.
If the Police can invest in 'honey traps' to catch burglars, and bait cars etc, they should be funded to run a small operation like this, moving it from town to town and snaring some of these pure filth. Remember that this is probably the worst kind of criminal activity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 8:46:59 GMT
Whilst a small part of me buys the 'wider/collateral damage' argument, my over-riding feeling is that the guy is doing some good. At the very least it should open debate. And yes, there might be a 'right way' to be dealing with the problem, but tonight's exercise has shown that the problem is out there, it's rife, and the people involved will go to great lengths to get what they want. If the Police can invest in 'honey traps' to catch burglars, and bait cars etc, they should be funded to run a small operation like this, moving it from town to town and snaring some of these pure filth. Remember that this is probably the worst kind of criminal activity. and coincidentally, at the same time on telly as this was on there was a programme on one of the other freeview channels called "Inside: The Predator task force" which was about a team in the American police that do just this; they create honey traps for pervs and round them up and catch them. very very easily done with only a handful of people. 2 women to pose as young girls in chatrooms and then about 3 policemen to wait at the meeting place and nab them when they approach their decoy. job done with a small team and relatively little expense. |
|
|
|
Post by santy on Oct 2, 2014 9:00:39 GMT
Ultimately a lot of cases will fall to pieces on the basis of entrapment. The 10 convictions he claims to have gotten aren't directly down to his activities - or even largely down to his activities.
For me there are questions about a bloke that has arson and woman beating in his past being the moral arbiter for our society. He enjoys spending his time online pretending to be a 12/13 year old girl (there are some serious questions regarding this - to Catch a Predator had to use vetted, specialised people who were operating within very strict parameters which even then was not approved in all states in the US) and ensnaring the lowest level peadophiles who in most cases probably wouldn't have acted on those 'impulses' or whatever you wish to class them as, the majority are probably just relatively sad/lonely people who've jumped on some attention. He doesn't catch anyone who is seriously into it, doesn't catch anyone who has actually harmed children or will continue to do so. He just manages to cash in on the 'peadophiles everywhere' notion.
He doesn't mention stories like the one where he accused a bloke of coming to meet an 11 year old and uploading it all online, only for the actual police investigation to turn out the bloke had insisted online "there's no way you're 11" and Stinson had asked him to come down to clear his name before then twisting it. From what I read I highly doubt his work was the deal-breaker in any of those 10 convictions mind so I'd assume his actual success rate is below 10% out of the 60 or so reveals he has made.
Not to mention the bloke quite openly believes if something happened a long time ago its irrelevant and should no longer be held against you. Rolf will be pleased to know he has a supporter out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by StokieMatt on Oct 2, 2014 10:15:26 GMT
If the police use it to investigate them and get hold of their PCs surely they have grounds to prosecute after all that shit they have been saying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Clem Fandango on Oct 2, 2014 11:09:20 GMT
Anyone just watch this on channel 4? Fair play to the guy for what he does but do you agree with him making everything public online? I agree that these scumbags should be brought to public attention but if he made a mistake it could ruin an innocent persons life. I think once he's got all the evidence it should be given to the police to deal with. Also what was shocking was that most the sick bastards that were found guilty only got suspended sentences, not much of a deterrent at all. This. I worked for the Police a number of years ago and I remember reading about a case somewhere in Yorkshire where a couple of young girls wrongly accused an elderly gent of being a paedophile now the story had gotten out to the general public and the guy was targeted by vandalism and abuse in the street. This went on for some time and despite the police handing out flyers stating that the guy was innocent the abuse continued to the point where he committed suicide. Not saying this applicable here but that story made a huge impression on me because once tarred with this brush you won't shake it. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 11:15:18 GMT
If the police use it to investigate them and get hold of their PCs surely they have grounds to prosecute after all that shit they have been saying? but....as has been pointed out above (and i onyl caught 10 mins or so so only saw him confront one bloke), some of the "victims" are people who are on websites for over 18s only where the "pervert" insisted that there was no way they were really so young etc. in the first place. in other words the "pervert" genuinely thought he would be meeting someone of legal age. if people are going to use this kind of vigilante entrapment then they need to do it properly whereas this bloke lied and led people on to convince them that meeting up would be fine and wouldn't be contravening any laws whatsoever then revealed his true purpose AFTER meeting them. if a real girl implies she's 18 and wants to meet up and then you meet them and find out they ARE underage and do nothing with them because of it does that make you a disgraceful perv? or does it just mean that you've been set up by someone that's been lying to you and is a convicted criminal in his own right in order for him to film a sensationalist documentary that seemed to focus far more on his own ego and his self belief that's he some kind of real life Batman than it did on highlighting real and dangerous predators? |
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Oct 2, 2014 11:59:15 GMT
Has he been to Parliament?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 12:10:40 GMT
Isn't entrapment just a convenient loophole to try and exploit though? People don't seriously believe that either a) they overlooked the child's age or b) 'probably wouldn't have gone ahead with their plan'.
Police use entrapment already, I don't see what the difference is?
As far as the guy concerned, he's served his time for own his past misdemeanours. I suspect that he's driven by his own childhood experiences.
The only thing that you could question here is whether his methods are 100% morally correct. Given the subject matter though, morals went out of the window once these cretins tapped-up a child.
There will be do-gooders, liberals, and excuse-makers/apologists on one side of the fence, and vigilantes, haters, on the other, simple fact is, these people are getting caught with their fingers in the jar, whether the situation's been staged or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 12:46:59 GMT
Isn't entrapment just a convenient loophole to try and exploit though? People don't seriously believe that either a) they overlooked the child's age or b) 'probably wouldn't have gone ahead with their plan'. Police use entrapment already, I don't see what the difference is? As far as the guy concerned, he's served his time for own his past misdemeanours. I suspect that he's driven by his own childhood experiences. The only thing that you could question here is whether his methods are 100% morally correct. Given the subject matter though, morals went out of the window once these cretins tapped-up a child. There will be do-gooders, liberals, and excuse-makers/apologists on one side of the fence, and vigilantes, haters, on the other, simple fact is, these people are getting caught with their fingers in the jar, whether the situation's been staged or not. if he was on a chatroom for young kids then fine, he's absolutely right to do that but to go onto ADULT websites and chatrooms where you HAVE to say you're over 18 and say you are over 18 to people chatting to you (which he did) then that's a different matter. as i said, i only saw a few minutes and in that period of time i heard him say that doing that makes no difference as the people should know he's not really 18 and is actually pretending to be an 11 year old and that "everyone knows who i am" etc. etc. what should have been a hard hitting documentary about predators that are out there seemed to me (in that limited timeframe) to be more about himself, his own ego and setting up people who were chatting in ADULT chatrooms. i also don't agree that entrapment is just a convenient loophole.....i wouldn't go and chat up some 18 year old in a pub but if an 18 year old came onto me on a chatroom then i might actually end up chatting back. it's basically encouraging people to do things that otherwise they never would have dreamed of, that doesn't show who is or isn't a pervert at all, it merely shows that people can be tempted by things they would never proactively do if it's put right in front of them and that's just human nature (NB i'm talking about when he was on the adult chatrooms bit here, i'm not suggesting for a second that it's human nature to ever do or be tempted by anything when it involves children before people get the wrong idea!!)it's like that whole Tulisa drug scandal thing (chav that she is)....she wouldn't usually go out and sell drugs but if someone she trusts asks her if she knows someone who does sell it and she says yes then that doesn't make her a drug dealer at all. instead of tempting and encouraging people into doing things they never usually would they should be concentrating on those that DO actually harm others. otherwise it's just going after the wrong people for things they may do in the future (which is all a bit minority report for me and there is nothing to suggest these people would do anything in the future anyway unless it's basically fed to them on a plate). this is why entrapment is a problem as it's actively encouraging people to do things that could be completely out of character...they may snare some real offenders out there and that's great but they could also ruin people's lives who think they're actually meeting legal age girls in the first place. this is why when the police do carry out these kind of "Honey traps" they have trained people to do it abiding by strict rules and guidelines because otherwise the evidence cannot be used. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Oct 2, 2014 13:02:59 GMT
if he was on a chatroom for young kids then fine, he's absolutely right to do that but to go onto ADULT websites and chatrooms where you HAVE to say you're over 18 and say you are over 18 to people chatting to you (which he did) then that's a different matter. as i said, i only saw a few minutes and in that period of time i heard him say that doing that makes no difference as the people should know he's not really 18 and is actually pretending to be an 11 year old and that "everyone knows who i am" etc. etc. I watched most of it (Barring a couple of minutes after an ad-break) And from what I saw yes, he was on over 18 websites, but he repeatedly told them things like "I'm only 11", "Aren't I too young for you being only 11" etc... And the sick fuck replied with things like "This is dangerous for us both you know, because of your age", "I know it's wrong because of your age, but I find you so sexy" etc... Before then sending 'her' pictures of his cock, knocking one out, describing what he wanted do to her etc... You can't cop-out of all that shit by saying "Well it was an 18+ website". |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 13:04:39 GMT
Isn't entrapment just a convenient loophole to try and exploit though? People don't seriously believe that either a) they overlooked the child's age or b) 'probably wouldn't have gone ahead with their plan'. Police use entrapment already, I don't see what the difference is? As far as the guy concerned, he's served his time for own his past misdemeanours. I suspect that he's driven by his own childhood experiences. The only thing that you could question here is whether his methods are 100% morally correct. Given the subject matter though, morals went out of the window once these cretins tapped-up a child. There will be do-gooders, liberals, and excuse-makers/apologists on one side of the fence, and vigilantes, haters, on the other, simple fact is, these people are getting caught with their fingers in the jar, whether the situation's been staged or not. if he was on a chatroom for young kids then fine, he's absolutely right to do that but to go onto ADULT websites and chatrooms where you HAVE to say you're over 18 and say you are over 18 to people chatting to you (which he did) then that's a different matter. as i said, i only saw a few minutes and in that period of time i heard him say that doing that makes no difference as the people should know he's not really 18 and is actually pretending to be an 11 year old and that "everyone knows who i am" etc. etc. what should have been a hard hitting documentary about predators that are out there seemed to me (in that limited timeframe) to be more about himself, his own ego and setting up people who were chatting in ADULT chatrooms. i also don't agree that entrapment is just a convenient loophole.....i wouldn't go and chat up some 18 year old in a pub but if an 18 year old came onto me on a chatroom then i might actually end up chatting back. it's basically encouraging people to do things that otherwise they never would have dreamed of, that doesn't show who is or isn't a pervert at all, it merely shows that people can be tempted by things they would never proactively do if it's put right in front of them and that's just human nature (NB i'm talking about when he was on the adult chatrooms bit here, i'm not suggesting for a second that it's human nature to ever do or be tempted by anything when it involves children before people get the wrong idea!!)If you get chance, watch it right through, from what I witnessed, the fact that the 'girl' was 11,12,13, whatever, was made clear. Yes it was an 18+ site, but I think 'she' was pretty open about the fact that 'she' was U18 once chat started. I'm certain that the vast majority of men, having been told that the girl that they were conversing with was under-age, in some cases way under age, would politely 'run a mile' - and of course you wouldn't see those - however the programme concentrated on those that, having been told that the 'girl' was 11/12/13/14, preceded to then enter into further discussion, the content of which was abominable in some cases. They then took this further still. One of the blokes said that although he'd only travelled all the way from Oxfordshire for a 'scary film and a Chinese' with his 11 or 13-yr-old (can't recall) friend, if she had 'wanted it, she could have had it'. Nice. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 14:14:39 GMT
so waht if they lads decked his misses or set summit on fire end of the day hes doin a dirty job that none else seem willing or abel to do including the Police! fuckin disgrace,Why are these cunts Pedoes? Dont fuckin care just shoot them,!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 14:28:59 GMT
The Drunken Communist & @frustratedbyweeds cheers for that. as i said i only saw bit so am aware my knowledge wasn't absolute so cheers for that info as in that case then i agree, the people had enough chance to run a mile or say no thanks but obviously didn't. the one thing that i was confused about though (and hopefully you may be able to make it clear) is that when they were following that bloke at the end (through what he said was a rough part of nuneaton) with cameras etc. some people drove past shouting "perv" at him through their car windows etc. How would they know why people were following him with cameras? it seemed to me like they were probably mates of the protagonist who he may have got to help him out to convince the pervs that indeed everyone does know him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 14:52:28 GMT
The Drunken Communist & @frustratedbyweeds cheers for that. as i said i only saw bit so am aware my knowledge wasn't absolute so cheers for that info as in that case then i agree, the people had enough chance to run a mile or say no thanks but obviously didn't. the one thing that i was confused about though (and hopefully you may be able to make it clear) is that when they were following that bloke at the end (through what he said was a rough part of nuneaton) with cameras etc. some people drove past shouting "perv" at him through their car windows etc. How would they know why people were following him with cameras? it seemed to me like they were probably mates of the protagonist who he may have got to help him out to convince the pervs that indeed everyone does know him. The impression that I got was that the 'estate' knew what he did, ie he was The Paedophile Hunter, so by definition if they are following a guy down the road with cameras, filming him, most people would probably put 2&2 together, that was the jist, and he was basically telling the 'perv' that he'd be better off standing and waiting for the Police to arrive, rather than creating a scene through the estate. Whether the people that drove past were planted there, maybe, for effect. As it happened the Police met them at a certain point during the walk, and carted the guy off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 14:55:42 GMT
The Drunken Communist & @frustratedbyweeds cheers for that. as i said i only saw bit so am aware my knowledge wasn't absolute so cheers for that info as in that case then i agree, the people had enough chance to run a mile or say no thanks but obviously didn't. the one thing that i was confused about though (and hopefully you may be able to make it clear) is that when they were following that bloke at the end (through what he said was a rough part of nuneaton) with cameras etc. some people drove past shouting "perv" at him through their car windows etc. How would they know why people were following him with cameras? it seemed to me like they were probably mates of the protagonist who he may have got to help him out to convince the pervs that indeed everyone does know him. The impression that I got was that the 'estate' knew what he did, ie he was The Paedophile Hunter, so by definition if they are following a guy down the road with cameras, filming him, most people would probably put 2&2 together, that was the jist, and he was basically telling the 'perv' that he'd be better off standing and waiting for the Police to arrive, rather than creating a scene through the estate. Whether the people that drove past were planted there, maybe, for effect. As it happened the Police met them at a certain point during the walk, and carted the guy off. yeah i came in when they were talking to him in the house just before he walked off so was interested to know if the whole people driving past was part of his MO and a usual tactic for him. if it is just mates he gets to do it then fair play i suppose, it would certainly work as a "convincer" cheers for the info chaps |
|
|
|
Post by adi on Oct 2, 2014 15:35:09 GMT
"But he has deprived a child (or children) of a paedo father"
I'd rather my kids weren't raised by a paedo!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 16:55:33 GMT
"But he has deprived a child (or children) of a paedo father" I'd rather my kids weren't raised by a paedo! who's kids are raised by peados mate? peados shudnt be aloud in the same post code as children! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 19:59:52 GMT
None of the people he actually tracks are real paedophiles. They are people just caught up in the moment.
'Real' paedophiles are too clever for his games and wouldn't be found anywhere near these websites.
|
|
|
|
Post by ersaurebot 1, 000, 000 views on Oct 2, 2014 22:16:43 GMT
I thought Stinson looked a lot different to how I imagined her
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2014 22:35:34 GMT
None of the people he actually tracks are real paedophiles. They are people just caught up in the moment. 'Real' paedophiles are too clever for his games and wouldn't be found anywhere near these websites. How would you categorise them then? One of them they snared on 4 separate occasions? I'm not saying you're wrong, btw. |
|
