# Letzgo hunting paedos



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

I'd never heard of this stuff, seems well established - anyone come across this stuff before?

Vigilante paedophile hunters



> Sam, from the West Midlands, said he was beaten to the ground near his home after a prolific Nuneaton-based vigilante known as Stinson Hunter posted a video that appeared to show him travelling to meet an 11-year-old girl. Stinson Hunter's real name is Kieren Parsons, a 32-year-old who has been working on stings for almost four years with a small group of friends. He has previously told how he was partly inspired by the American TV programme To Catch a Predator, in which reporters pose as children to entrap child groomers.
> 
> Sam's story began when he was talking to a person on the dating site Badoo. After a while someone told him she was 11 and asked if it put him off. He said it did but he didn't mind chatting from time to time.
> 
> "I knew she wasn't an 11-year-old because she sounded so mature and when her picture was up I said to her that's a picture of a 17- or 18-year-old, I think I am being fooled here. She said no, I'm 11." Later they had an adult exchange in which she asked about sex. "I discussed slowly what happens," he said. "After, I said: 'I don't think you are 11.' An 11-year-old would not respond to me in this nature.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

there was some stuff in the news about it recently.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

there's a website pervertedjustice.com (or was) but i thought that was semi linked to the US police


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

'stinson hunter'

what sort of vigilante name is that?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

what if they did actually end up meeting a child?

oh sorry i misread the post


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2013)

Can't help wondering if people like this are genuinely interested in protecting children or are they looking for an excuse to legitimise their violent tendencies?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Can't help wondering if people like this are genuinely interested in protecting children or are they looking for an excuse to legitimise their violent tendencies?


They're not beating people up - they film the encounters (on-line) then pass it to the OB. They don't go beat them up. And you can have violent tendencies and hate paedos and want to protect children.

There are bigger questions at play here surely?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Can't help wondering if people like this are genuinely interested in protecting children or are they looking for an excuse to legitimise their violent tendencies?


 
No. 2 in the Big Book Of Cunts Tricks, that one.


----------



## coley (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> They're not beating people up - they film the encounters (on-line) then pass it to the OB. They don't go beat them up. And you can have violent tendencies and hate paedos and want to protect children.
> 
> There are bigger questions at play here surely?


Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them, I am just concerned that some people will have their lives totally ruined by ill informed vigilantes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, *if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them*, I am just concerned that some people will have their lives totally ruined by ill informed vigilantes.



Is the bolded true?


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them, I am just concerned that some people will have their lives totally ruined by ill informed vigilantes.


yeh. peados.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them, I am just concerned that some people will have their lives totally ruined by ill informed vigilantes.


 
And some other paedos will get away with it when they destroy all the evidence before the OB can get to them.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2013)

coley said:


> Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them, I am just concerned that some people will have their lives totally ruined by ill informed vigilantes.


Vigilantes mostly get the wrong person and the OB always get the right one and the courts deal with it in the right way


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Vigilantes mostly get the wrong person and the OB always get the right one and the courts deal with it in the right way


 
No, silly - the opposite is true, which will be obvious to anyone who has ever watched the documentary _Batman_.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

tremble nonces, before _Stinson Hunter_


----------



## keybored (Oct 25, 2013)

Stinson Hunter spent most of his time griefing on Minecraft and posting up Youtube clips of him abusing people for being single mums and such, then seemed to have a change of direction and decided he'd get more views going after peedos. The angry mob adore him.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 25, 2013)

Paedophiles are the new urban foxes.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

keybored said:


> Stinson Hunter spent most of his time griefing on Minecraft and posting up Youtube clips of him abusing people for being single mums and such, then seemed to have a change of direction and decided he'd get more views going after peedos. The angry mob adore him.


Have you any links to him doing that?


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2013)

There was a UK version of To Catch A Predator, a one-off.  A lot more expert talking heads (in a tabloid way) than the all-action US version. The latter can rattle through several nonces an ep. The UK version managed 2 or 3 I think.

It's a curious thing, one can hardly feel sorry for the twisted fucks on the receiving end of exposure. There seems to be a lot more of this kind of thing then anyone would sane would want to think about.

Abusers are well practiced liars, victims can struggle to give evidence, have their credibility questioned and it's often one word versus another. This creates a sense that "not enough is being done". The ongoing seeming cover-up of establishment child abuse won't help. For example, MI5 were in on the Cyril Smith case and few have battered an eyelid. Compare that to the Saville case. But JS was a CELEB and it was a chance to attack the BBC as well. It makes you wonder if the victims aren't being used again, as pawns to shift copy or play politics. I've always distrusted the sensationalism around the issue. There's not a small amount of sexualisation of children going on in the same media that gets so worked up about it. Sex is sold to kids all the time in fact.

Here's a really tough thing about the crime overall, and at the heart (I think) of much mental discomfort:
It's one crime above all others where we automatically believe the victim. Professionals pretty much have to.  Yet, "innocent till prove guilty" and all that.

So we understandably try and believe something happened at the same time as not believing it: Cognitive dissonance. Not to be too crude I hope, but I sometimes call it "Schrodingers Paedo"

As far as I am concerned, reducing abuse might not be as high up the priorities as it should be, compared to just saying how disgusting it all is, which it obviously is. Abusers who want to stop must be paranoid as fuck about who to talk to, so many professionals have a duty to pass on info.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 25, 2013)

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventy-paedophile-hunter-says-quit-6068327



> Stinson Hunter – who had no involvement in the operation that led to the man’s death – has hit out at “copycats”, dubbing their work “a complete shambles”.
> 
> He wrote on Facebook: “Myself and my team are going to be having discussions about whether to actually carry on doing this as it seems to have gotten way out of hand.
> 
> “I never expected or thought about the repercussions of starting this, by that I mean I never for a second thought people would copy it and turn it into a complete shambles.



Vigilante copycat shambles. What a surprise.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd , either you don't understand schrodingers cat or i don't.


----------



## keybored (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Have you any links to him doing that?


I can't find the one where he's attacking the young mum but this sort of thing, you can probably find more by looking through the channels.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventy-paedophile-hunter-says-quit-6068327
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante copycat shambles. What a surprise.


What happened?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> taffboy gwyrdd , either you don't understand schrodingers cat or i don't.


Don't open the box? God knows.

edIT: DOH!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

keybored said:


> I can't find the one where he's attacking the young mum but this sort of thing, you can probably find more by looking through the channels.



That's piss poor and gives a good indication of where these dicks are coming from - are you 100% sure on this knocking on single mothers thing?


----------



## keybored (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> That's piss poor and gives a good indication of where these dicks are coming from - are you 100% sure on this knocking on single mothers thing?


Absolutely sure. It looks like he's deleted all the griefing clips from his own channel and just has the "Nonce Hunter" stuff now.

Edit: Just to be clear, he wasn't posting up clips of him ranting at single mums or any group in particular. It's just when he was fucking around with this one woman on a computer game, he and his cronies belittled the fuck out of her at the time, and it was shitty.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

They are the modern day version of the illiterate NoW readers carrying flaming pitchforks.  Dangerous behaviour when this sort of thing should be left to the police, for all the failing the police have.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

keybored said:


> Absolutely sure. It looks like he's deleted all the griefing clips from his own channel and just has the "Nonce Hunter" stuff now.


Cheers.


----------



## weepiper (Oct 25, 2013)

keybored said:


> Absolutely sure. It looks like he's deleted all the griefing clips from his own channel and just has the "Nonce Hunter" stuff now.



He sounds like a lovely fellow.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> They are the modern day version of the illiterate NoW readers carrying flaming pitchforks.  Dangerous behaviour when this sort of thing should be left to the police, for all the failing the police have.



indeed.

i don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> They are the modern day version of the illiterate NoW readers carrying flaming pitchforks.  Dangerous behaviour when this sort of thing should be left to the police, for all the failing the police have.


This didn't happen. Why have you used an untruth to attack what you think is an untruth? What has literacy got to do with it? Think _very hard_ before defending that last post fbm.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> indeed.
> 
> i don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...


 
Quite.  It is also a massive slippery slope, heralding mob justice. 

I don't know much about this horrible bunch of peoples methods, but do they pretend to be a kid to entice the alleged paedophiles to meet them, and then film them when they do?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> This didn't happen. Why have you used an untruth to attack what you think is an untruth? What has literacy got to do with it? Think _very hard_ before defending that last post fbm.


 
I have no intention of thinking hard, very or otherwise, I'm afraid, as I'm not answerable to you.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

illiterate readers with flaming pitchforks?
how does any of that work then?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> I have no intention of thinking hard, very or otherwise, I'm afraid, as I'm not answerable to you.


You owe it to wider society then not to spread folk tales and construct folk devils.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

This is how folk devils scapegoats and plunder came to exist:



> I have no intention of thinking hard, very or otherwise


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> mob justice.


the mob, with a few historical exceptions, is the ultimate justice.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

but not the Mob, they are dodge


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> taffboy gwyrdd , either you don't understand schrodingers cat or i don't.



Maybe not. The cat is neither in the box or not in it till we know, isn't that how it works? It's both there and not there. Likewise, the accused is both guilty (because we believe the victim) and not guilty (because of our legal/justice tradition)

Does that explain or am I still rong somehow?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the mob, with a few historical exceptions, is the ultimate justice.


 
Yes, it's such a shame that the liberal establishment has turned the phrase 'angry mob' into some sort of insult.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You owe it to wider society then not to spread folk tales and construct folk devils.


 
Have you heard yourself?  I owe it to society etc.?  Thanks for today's morality lecture! 

It was a throwaway comment to compare the ridiculous behaviour following from the NoW coverage several years ago, with this unpleasant new group of people. I'd suggest, with all due respect, that you stop taking things so seriously and not waste time worrying about every little thing that others might say.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 25, 2013)

but these people aren't the mob, they're just a small group of idiots, nothing to do with illiterate people and pitchforks (what has literacy got to do with it)


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Have you heard yourself?  I owe it to society etc.?  Thanks for today's morality lecture!
> 
> It was a throwaway comment to compare the ridiculous behaviour following from the NoW coverage several years ago, with this unpleasant new group of people. I'd suggest, with all due respect, that you stop taking things so seriously and not waste time worrying about every little thing that others might say.


You made up something as throwaway comment and used literacy as another stick to beat people with. I hope i never get on the wrong side of you then 

What you said what factually inaccurate and brim full of social prejudice. You thought lies were ok to attack the NOTW. Take things more seriously.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yes, it's such a shame that the liberal establishment has turned the phrase 'angry mob' into some sort of insult.


i think the rebecca riots are my favourite piece of mob justice. angry, hairy, welsh men dressed as women.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> but these people aren't the mob, they're just a small group of idiots, nothing to do with illiterate people and pitchforks (what has literacy got to do with it)


and how do you set fire to a pitchfork?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Maybe not. The cat is neither in the box or not in it till we know, isn't that how it works? It's both there and not there. Likewise, the accused is both guilty (because we believe the victim) and not guilty (because of our legal/justice tradition)
> 
> Does that explain or am I still rong somehow?


The cat is in the box you dick. We know not if it lives. Why do you bother? It's not paul daniels.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 25, 2013)

here is a lady with a burning pitchfork, so its technically doable:


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Have you heard yourself?  I owe it to society etc.?  Thanks for today's morality lecture!
> 
> It was a throwaway comment to compare the ridiculous behaviour following from the NoW coverage several years ago, with this unpleasant new group of people. I'd suggest, with all due respect, that you stop taking things so seriously and not waste time worrying about every little thing that others might say.


you're in p&p now fbm.
shape up or ship out!


----------



## discokermit (Oct 25, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> here is a lady with a burning pitchfork, so its technically doable:


pixels.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You made up something as throwaway comment and used literacy as another stick to beat people with. I hope i never get on the wrong side of you then
> 
> What you said what factually inaccurate and brim full of social prejudice. You thought lies were ok to attack the NOTW. Take things more seriously.


 
Take things more seriously?  So that's me told!  I'm sorry, but I don't take instructions from you, so you really need to stop bossing people about.  If you don't like what I may have said, that is fine, we can agree to disagree.  But I certainly won't be told what to do by you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 25, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The cat is in the box you dick. We know not if it lives. Why do you bother? It's not paul daniels.



Ah ....that's it ta. The living / dead thing. Same principle applies, we hold that both possibilities exist.

Why do I bother? Because I think it's useful to point why this crime, more than many others (for reasons stated) creates conflicts within our mind even beyond the horrific nature of the crime itself.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Take things more seriously?  So that's me told!  I'm sorry, but I don't take instructions from you, so you really need to stop bossing people about.  If you don't like what I may have said, that is fine, we can agree to disagree.  But I certainly won't be told what to do by you.


Don't then


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 25, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you're in p&p now fbm.
> shape up or ship out!


 
So what?  And condescension is not a good trait.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2013)

discokermit said:


> angry, hairy, welsh men dressed as women.


 
There are clubs in Swansea that specialise in this sort of thing.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 26, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> So what?  And condescension is not a good trait.


it was a joke you miserable cunt.


----------



## keybored (Oct 26, 2013)

weepiper said:


> He sounds like a lovely fellow.





butchersapron said:


> That's piss poor and gives a good indication of where these dicks are coming from - are you 100% sure on this knocking on single mothers thing?



To be honest you don't even need to look that far back to see what he's about. The bullying streak is obvious if you watch any of the clips where he confronts alleged groomers. I wouldn't disagree with what he did if he just did it on the quiet and handed everything over to the police. Instead of this "_Look! Aren't these child abusers evil, eh? Aren't I brilliant doing this?_" thing.


----------



## bi0boy (Oct 26, 2013)

p&p reminds me of why I stopped going to our local indymedia meetings ten years ago.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> p&p reminds me of why I stopped going to our local indymedia meetings ten years ago.


Because you can't hack political arguments?


----------



## classicdish (Oct 26, 2013)

Paedophile hunter run over in sting that turned 'malicious' (June 23, 2013)

"Hunter ... suffered two broken ankles and head injuries during the incident"


----------



## keybored (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Paedophile hunter run over in sting that turned 'malicious' (June 23, 2013)
> 
> "Hunter ... suffered two broken ankles and head injuries during the incident"


I remember that. I remember laughing actually.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Oct 26, 2013)

classicdish said:


> Paedophile hunter run over in sting that turned 'malicious' (June 23, 2013)
> 
> "Hunter ... suffered two broken ankles and head injuries during the incident"


 
Can't say I have much sympathy.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

farmerbarleymow said:


> Can't say I have much sympathy.





> The town's most prominent video vigilante Stinson Hunter is now recovering following a seven-day stay in hospital after he was knocked down by one man he had arranged to meet while posing as an underage girl.



Suggests there are middle level cadre in the organsiation who can take up the slack.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2013)

coley said:


> Fine, and as long as they have concrete proof no problem, if you suspect a paedo the OB will deal with them...



If only. 

As it is, while the OB will listen to victim testimony, effectively they need a case with a significant chance of a prosecution at the end of it, to actually "deal with" a paedophile. Otherwise this stuff just gets logged, and nowt gets done.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Vigilantes mostly get the wrong person and the OB always get the right one and the courts deal with it in the right way



Sarcasm becomes you, my friend.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> tremble nonces, before _Stinson Hunter_



Take away the first syllable of his first name, and he's "son hunter".  Maybe he's trying to tell us something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Abusers are well practiced liars...



A great generalisation, but the reality is that it's *serial* abusers who tend to be practiced in deception, as opposed to "abusers" _per se_.



> ...victims can struggle to give evidence, have their credibility questioned and it's often one word versus another.



Better, more sensitive procedures have been introduced into courts, in terms of assisting vulnerable witnesses to testify.  Unfortunately, much of the procedure isn't yet statutory, but rather is in the judge's gift.



> This creates a sense that "not enough is being done".



I disagree.  What creates a sense that "not enough is being done" is almost always a media outlet, rather than court procedure.  Most of the scares thrown up by the media don't even reference court procedure, they just make an assumption that if a sex offender gets off, then "not enough is being done", entirely regardless of whether the law or justice is being served.



> The ongoing seeming cover-up of establishment child abuse won't help. For example, MI5 were in on the Cyril Smith case and few have battered an eyelid.



TBF, even those only mildly-informed about the parapolitical goings on of the British state won't bat an eyelid, because you'd *expect* the security services to have weighed up someone like Smith, to see whether he had any utility to them, and whether his perversion could be put to use (by the state or another state).



> Compare that to the Saville case. But JS was a CELEB and it was a chance to attack the BBC as well. It makes you wonder if the victims aren't being used again, as pawns to shift copy or play politics.



*Of course* victims are used as pawns in political machinations, just as they're used as pawns by media outlets.



> I've always distrusted the sensationalism around the issue. There's not a small amount of sexualisation of children going on in the same media that gets so worked up about it. Sex is sold to kids all the time in fact.



What's sold to children is what I'd call "adultification" - children are led to believe through (mostly tacit, but sometimes overt) media representations that it's necessary to achieve a facsimile of adulthood - in dress, in manner, in actions - and sexualisation is tied up with that.



> Here's a really tough thing about the crime overall, and at the heart (I think) of much mental discomfort:
> It's one crime above all others where we automatically believe the victim. Professionals pretty much have to.  Yet, "innocent till prove guilty" and all that.



Wrong, wrong, wrong.  It's not "one crime above all others where we automatically believe the victim".  In fact it's pretty well-proven that it's a crime where disbelief of the victim is the primary reaction, and where the perception of victims that they'll be disbelieved is strong.



> So we understandably try and believe something happened at the same time as not believing it: Cognitive dissonance. Not to be too crude I hope, but I sometimes call it "Schrodingers Paedo"
> 
> As far as I am concerned, reducing abuse might not be as high up the priorities as it should be, compared to just saying how disgusting it all is, which it obviously is. Abusers who want to stop must be paranoid as fuck about who to talk to, so many professionals have a duty to pass on info.



Inaccurate.  Some professionals have a legal duty to pass on information, but more have no legal duty, just a moral obligation and (sometimes) a workplace regulation that requires that they pass on concerns.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 26, 2013)

Belushi said:


> There are clubs in Swansea that specialise in this sort of thing.



I always wondered why friends from the Valleys referred to Swansea and Cardiff as Sodom and Gomorrah. Now I know!!!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 26, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> <snip>For example, MI5 were in on the Cyril Smith case and few have battered an eyelid.<snip>



A battered eyelid.


----------



## keybored (Oct 26, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> A battered eyelid.


The next big thing in Glaswegian take-aways.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 26, 2013)

This from the Daemon Hunter.org website:

"Daemon Hunter is a network of undercover operatives, IT and Social Networking professionals volunteering their own time to identity, collate evidence and confront paedophiles and sexual predators operating on Social Networks and Dating Websites. It is headed by the UK renowned Daemon Hunters, ex UK Special Forces personnel (SAS) and a seasoned professional in web publicity and internet exposure, and search engine placement."

SAS!!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

They're just trying to monetise their oddness.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Anyone up for a letzgohuntinghunterz and search engine placement project?


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Anyone up for a letzgohuntinghunterz and search engine placement project?



Surely there's better targets?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Surely there's better targets?


Name them.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Name them.



It was a question to you.  Don't you think there's better targets for your ire than people who try to 'out' child molesters?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> It was a question to you.  Don't you think there's better targets for your ire than people who try to 'out' child molesters?


Name them point misser.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Name them point misser.



Your points are too easy to miss, oh cryptic one.

Why not spell out what you're trying to say?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

You asked me a question and i give you an answer. Now you are doing this. Did i come to you and prod you in the chest demanding an answer. No. You're doing it to me and i responded. Respond back. Name names. Who are the better targets?


----------



## pogo 10 (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I'd never heard of this stuff, seems well established - anyone come across this stuff before?
> 
> Vigilante paedophile hunters


Why would you even talk to a 17 year old when youre 32. And she told him she was eleven.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You asked me a question and i give you an answer. Now you are doing this. Did i come to you and prod you in the chest demanding an answer. No. You're doing it to me and i responded. Respond back. Name names. Who are the better targets?



Sorry, I must be missing something; I can't see where you answered my question about there being better targets.

But let's not get into this shit.  Why don't you just make your point?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Sorry, I must be missing something; I can't see where you answered my question about there being better targets.
> 
> But let's not get into this shit.  Why don't you just make your point?


What the fuck is wrong with you? Read back your posts and mine. Show me the easier targets. And you missed the whole point about pathetic hunterz hunting hunterz. Jesus fucking christz.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What the fuck is wrong with you? Read back your posts and mine. Show me the easier targets. And you missed the whole point about pathetic hunterz hunting hunterz. Jesus fucking christz.



My point was about better targets, not easier ones.

What is the point I missed?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> My point was about better targets, not easier ones.
> 
> What is the point I missed?


Name them.

Oh jeus the christ.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Name them.
> 
> Oh jeus the christ.



I'll do you a deal; I'll name them after you make your point clearly/explain your point I have missed?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

My point was to laugh at the idea of private justice hunter with commercial placements. That's literally what i did by posting what i did. Now please, unravel your roll of tax avoidance shame or whatever you think hunterz should be up to you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> My point was to laugh at the idea of private justice hunter with commercial placements. That's literally what i did by posting what i did. Now please, unravel your roll of tax avoidance shame or whatever you think hunterz should be up to you.



Oh, I see.  Bit of an anti-climax, though.  I don't know why getting you to make your point clearly - especially such an anodyne one - should be so like pulling teeth.

Yeah, tax evaders are a better target for ire than those who expose paedophiles.  As are paedophiles.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Oh, I see.  Bit of an anti-climax, though.  I don't know why getting you to make your point clearly - especially such an anodyne one - should be so like pulling teeth.
> 
> Yeah, tax evaders are a better target for ire than those who expose paedophiles.  As are paedophiles.


I did make the point clearly. You needed me to take you round the houses. Your fault.

And your promise to name names? Name them here, now.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I did make the point clearly. You needed me to take you round the houses. Your fault.
> 
> And your promise to name names? Name them here, now.


 
You remind of the joke about the Essex girl complaining that everyone else is driving on the wrong side of the road. The fact that people find you cryptic always s their fault, never yours.

For names, check the website.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

you said:
			
		

> I'll do you a deal; I'll name them after you make your point clearly/explain your point I have missed?



Name them.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> You remind of the joke about the Essex girl complaining that everyone else is driving on the wrong side of the road. The fact that people find you cryptic always s their fault, never yours.
> 
> For names, check the website.


Great. Lovely little joke. Anarchist.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 26, 2013)

Hmm ... so a tax-avoiding CEO is lured to a rendezvous with an apparently hot-to-trot HMRC executive he met on an internet chat room specialising in tax avoidance, which turns out to be a bunch of guys in black balaclavas who beat him shot-filled lengths of garden hose before tarring and feathering him then calling the Guardian or the Independent to name and shame him?

There are many things to like about this plan ... but a few details in need of refinement still.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2013)

pogo 10 said:


> Why would you even talk to a 17 year old when youre 32.



Why did anyone here ever engage with frogwoman, Manda, Nemo, Emilie, dwen, Lord Camomile, red rose (and any number of others who at the time might have been south of majority) on the u75 boards or in the u75 chatroom?

Oh, that's right, because personality, intelligence, wit and rapport aren't just doled out at age 18. Plus talking is not necessarily the gateway to noncery.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Name them.


 
You're actually asking me to name someone more worthy of ire than someone who tries to expose paedophiles? Ok, here's one: Gary Glitter.

Now what?


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Great. Lovely little joke. Anarchist.


 
Point misser.


----------



## keybored (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Yeah, tax evaders are a better target for ire than those who expose paedophiles.  As are paedophiles.



Reading this thread though, and the related linked articles, do you really think these people have a primary motive of protecting kids?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> You're actually asking me to name someone more worthy of ire than someone who tries to expose paedophiles? Ok, here's one: Gary Glitter.
> 
> Now what?


You want people to go hunting gary glitter? 




			
				you said:
			
		

> I'll do you a deal; I'll name them after you make your point clearly/explain your point I have missed?



Name them.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

keybored said:


> Reading this thread though, and the related linked articles, do you really think these people have a primary motive of protecting kids?


 
Probably not.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> You're actually asking me to name someone more worthy of ire than someone who tries to expose paedophiles? Ok, here's one: Gary Glitter.
> 
> Now what?


I'm asking you to do what you said that you would. Now do it.  You set conditions, i met them. Do it.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 26, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> angry, hairy, welsh men dressed as women


 


Belushi said:


> There are clubs in Swansea that specialise in this sort of thing.


 
Clearly I've missed out on those places!


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> You want people to go hunting gary glitter?
> 
> 
> 
> Name them.


 
No. I didn't propose hunting anyone. You did.

I was talking about targets for ire. Do you really want me to name some more? Where will that take us?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Athos said:


> Point misser.


Are you kidding? A sexist joke from an anarchist with a cleaner? Point missing. Let's do that after you, as you promised, name names.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

_Be angry at convicted paedos, that's what i meant  all along_.What a lack of political bottle athos, what school did you attend?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

I flipping hate gary glitter.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Are you kidding? A sexist joke from an anarchist with a cleaner? Point missing. Let's do that after you, as you promised, name names.


 
Two points: first, I don't have a cleaner (I did once, but accept it was a mistake - we haven't all been blessed with doctrinal purity since birth); secondly, I didn't tell a sexist joke, merely referenced it.

You want names of people worthy of ire? Ok: Cameron, Clegg, Milliband.

Now what?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

I don't want names at all you clown.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> _Be angry at convicted paedos, that's what i meant  all along_.What a lack of political bottle athos, what school did you attend?


 
So is the conviction the trigger for your anger? Or the paedophilia?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Oh jesus, i'm at least half drunk. Please tell me that you are hammered. It's the only thing that can save you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I don't want names at all you clown.


 
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the 11 posts in which you asked me to name names. My fault, no doubt.


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Oh jesus, i'm at least half drunk. Please tell me that you are hammered. It's the only thing that can save you.


 
Hammered. But the question remains.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

What question? You made a fool of yourself now go.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2013)

I'm not entirely sure why most of the copycats, or at least the ones most publicised by the press, also sprung up in the same geographical area (my area). 

In any case the movements certainly ended up on the back foot after that suicide, even with some remaining unapologetic. And to make matters worse the internet aspect made it easy for some supporters to abuse relatives of the deceased. Apologies for the Daily Mail link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ters-Claire-Emma-Harris-criticising-them.html


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> What question? You made a fool of yourself now go.


 
The question of whether the trigger for your anger is the conviction, or the paedophilia?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I flipping hate gary glitter.


Do you wanna be in his gang his gang?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

elbows said:


> I'm not entirely sure why most of the copycats, or at least the ones most publicised by the press, also sprung up in the same geographical area (my area).


And, by the same token, nowhere else


----------



## keybored (Oct 26, 2013)

Why is "innocent till proven guilty" reversed in the minds of so many people when it comes to these crimes?


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you wanna be in his gang his gang?


 Hes the Paedo, hes the Paedo.......


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Do you wanna be in his gang his gang?


No thank you.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 27, 2013)

Lots of attempts at point scoring on this thread. No great shock for the board as a whole, but this time it's essentially on the back of child abuse. Some people might want to have a look at what they've become.


----------



## keybored (Oct 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Lots of attempts at point scoring on this thread. No great shock for the board as a whole, but this time it's essentially on the back of child abuse. Some people might want to have a look at what they've become.


Delicious ironing.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 27, 2013)

keybored said:


> Delicious ironing.



one post citing something doesn't equate with the several it cites, or joining in with the pedant sniping. If it did then even fewer would would ever cite stuff for fear of being seen as part of the general morass. But reading the recent stuff a morass is what it is in any case. WTF has this place become?


----------



## keybored (Oct 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> one post citing something doesn't equate with the several it cites, or joining in with the pedant sniping. If it did then even fewer would would ever cite stuff for fear of being seen as part of the general morass. But reading the recent stuff a morass is what it is in any case. WTF has this place become?


Clearly a place where people use child abuse as a springboard to some moral high ground. It's disgusting.


----------



## Red Storm (Oct 27, 2013)

What worries me is that what's to stop them branding anyone a peado? 

Anyone they have a problem with maybe cos of some silly youtube style argument.

Can fuck your life up. 

These look like a bunch of internet dickheads.


----------



## pogo 10 (Oct 27, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Why did anyone here ever engage with frogwoman, Manda, Nemo, Emilie, dwen, Lord Camomile, red rose (and any number of others who at the time might have been south of majority) on the u75 boards or in the u75 chatroom?
> 
> Oh, that's right, because personality, intelligence, wit and rapport aren't just doled out at age 18. Plus talking is not necessarily the gateway to noncery.


Yes, i agree there. But its a different matter talking about sex. Pervert.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Lots of attempts at point scoring on this thread. No great shock for the board as a whole, but this time it's essentially on the back of child abuse. Some people might want to have a look at what they've become.


Name them. Identify the riding on the back of child abuse. Justify your smear.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Name them. Identify the riding on the back of child abuse. Justify your smear.



I think he means you and me.  But, it's nonsense, so I ignored it.

Though, looking back (sober) our spat was a pretty unedifying spectacle.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that you, as an anarchist, got so hot-under-the-collar at the thought of individuals reclaiming some of the responsibility for protecting children from the state.  Yes, they're knobs, and I don't support what they do, but they're nowhere near the top of the list of things that need addressing.

Plus it irritates me when you don't make your points clearly.  But you're not there to accommodate me I guess.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think he means you and me.  But, it's nonsense, so I ignored it.
> 
> Though, looking back (sober) our spat was a pretty unedifying spectacle.
> 
> ...


I wasn't making that point. Any point that i made about them was criticising the privatised/profit driven/celebrity based/state dependent nature of what they are doing in order to highlight the gap between this rubbish and civil society taking back the function of policing itself from the state. Don't confuse this with the autonomous actions of a self confident engaged community identifying and acting on its own interests.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I wasn't making that point. Any point that i made about them was criticising the privatised/profit driven/celebrity based/state dependent nature of what they are doing in order to highlight the gap between this rubbish and civil society taking back the function of policing itself from the state. Don't confuse this with the autonomous actions of a self confident engaged community identifying and acting on its own interests.



Perhaps unsurprisingly, you've made it much more clearly in that one post than you did in all of last night's.  And I don't disagree with you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2013)

Athos said:


> Surely there's better targets?



Depends whether you find this sort of vigilantism acceptable, surely?

Personally, I don't.  I find the idea of self-appointed servants of justice ensnaring/entrapping people repulsive.
Also, just to inject some reality, most non-contact (in other words, chatroom perverts) paedophiles (>90%) never commit a contact offence, so these self-elected nemeses are targeting almost entirely the wrong group.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 27, 2013)

Athos said:


> Oh, I see.  Bit of an anti-climax, though.  I don't know why getting you to make your point clearly - especially such an anodyne one - should be so like pulling teeth.
> 
> Yeah, tax evaders are a better target for ire than those who expose paedophiles.  As are paedophiles.



Pre-supposing that the "paedophile" being exposed has ever been a contact offender.


----------



## Fuchs66 (Oct 27, 2013)

Red Storm said:


> What worries me is that what's to stop them branding anyone a peado?
> 
> Anyone they have a problem with maybe cos of some silly youtube style argument.
> 
> ...


Exactly my thoughts, the accusation of being a paedophile has gained so much power that it has become an easy and effective weapon to use online. I can see a lot of shit coming from these idiots and a lot of people being hurt until they finally get shut down.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Depends whether you find this sort of vigilantism acceptable, surely?
> 
> Personally, I don't.  I find the idea of self-appointed servants of justice ensnaring/entrapping people repulsive.
> Also, just to inject some reality, most non-contact (in other words, chatroom perverts) paedophiles (>90%) never commit a contact offence, so these self-elected nemeses are targeting almost entirely the wrong group.


 
As I said, I don't support what they're doing. But there's lots of other things that bother me more.

Also, a lot of the people they target are more than merely chatroom perverts; they're those who arrange to meet with kids.  And let's not pretend that men who are travelling to have sex with children aren't a legitimate target. (Albeit I acknowledge the possibility for innocents to be wrongly accused.)

Also, I have little sympathy for the entrapment argument. Not least of all because the logical extension of it would be to exculpate child molesters who've been 'encouraged' by their victims, and, thereby blame those victims.


----------



## Athos (Oct 27, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pre-supposing that the "paedophile" being exposed has ever been a contact offender.


 
You're right. Sloppy language on my part.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> indeed.
> 
> i don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...



I'd perhaps liken them as witch hunters who would hunt potential 'Witches' down from village to village and then tie them to a chair dunk them for ten minutes underwater and if they didn't drown they were witches... Self serving cunts basically. Witch hunting still goes on today in countries where superstition still stakes fear into the heart of communities.


----------



## Athos (Oct 28, 2013)

Batboy said:


> I'd perhaps liken them as witch hunters who would hunt potential 'Witches' down from village to village and then tie them to a chair dunk them for ten minutes underwater and if they didn't drown they were witches... Self serving cunts basically. Witch hunting still goes on today in countries where superstition still stakes fear into the heart of communities.


 
Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 28, 2013)

Witches do exist.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Oct 28, 2013)

Athos said:


> Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.



Or in the article linked to in the first post, men who went to meet someone they thought was 18 (possibly slightly creepy for a middle aged bloke, but legal) then was told they were 15, tried to bugger off, and got chased by the lynch mob



> Peter thought he was meeting an 18-year-old, and insists he is not a paedophile or child groomer. Only when he was waiting in the cafe did a text come through saying "she" was 15 and that he immediately got up and left.


----------



## discokermit (Oct 28, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Witches do exist.


can they fly on broomsticks?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2013)

discokermit said:


> can they fly on broomsticks?


 
No, they just a little over-excited.


----------



## Athos (Oct 28, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Or in the article linked to in the first post, men who went to meet someone they thought was 18 (possibly slightly creepy for a middle aged bloke, but legal) then was told they were 15, tried to bugger off, and got chased by the lynch mob


 
According to the bloke.

If that's true, then it's wrong. But it doesn't make what I said any less true i.e. that they have identified a number of men who hoped to meet children for sex.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 28, 2013)

8ball said:


> No, they just a little over-excited.


Hysterical even.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.


Witches did exist and still do now. 
It's built around superstition. It was religious zealots who wanted to wipe them out. Check your facts.


----------



## FNG (Oct 29, 2013)

Puddy_Tat said:
			
		

> don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...
> .



In the russian version of this which targets gay men attempting to meet other gay men over the age of consent through online dating services are called "Occupy Pedophilia" and "Occupy Gerontophilia" respectively.

 Trigger warning NSFW images  http://paper-bird.net/2013/08/11/truths-behind-the-gay-torture-images-from-russia/


----------



## Smyz (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> According to the bloke.
> 
> If that's true, then it's wrong. But it doesn't make what I said any less true i.e. that they have identified a number of men who hoped to meet children for sex.


...and forewarned them that the police would be visiting by posting the videos online. 

Slow hand clap.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Smyz said:


> ...and forewarned them that the police would be visiting by posting the videos online.
> 
> Slow hand clap.


Chances are they wouldn't even be on the police radar but for the hunters.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Witches did exist and still do now.
> It's built around superstition. It was religious zealots who wanted to wipe them out. Check your facts.


 
There are not (and never have been) women who commune with the devil; there are men who seek sex with children.

And to link a dislike of paedophilia to religious zealotry is to liken religious freedom to sexual abuse.


----------



## seventh bullet (Oct 29, 2013)

FNG said:


> In the russian version of this which targets gay men attempting to meet other gay men over the age of consent through online dating services are called "Occupy Pedophilia" and "Occupy Gerontophilia" respectively.
> 
> Trigger warning NSFW images  http://paper-bird.net/2013/08/11/truths-behind-the-gay-torture-images-from-russia/



Tesak is a rich boy bully and scumbag.

That blog post repeats the anti-working class rubbish about the Gwent paediatrician.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahimi-murdered-vigilante-lee-2651168

The story is awful enough without 'Colin' appearing to justify it in the comments.  "I don't blame the people that burnt him alive 
There only trying to protect there family's".


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2013)

Paulie said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahimi-murdered-vigilante-lee-2651168
> 
> The story is awful enough without 'Colin' appearing to justify it in the comments.  "I don't blame the people that burnt him alive
> There only trying to protect there family's".



Poor bloke, having to live near scum like that.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> *There are not (and never have been) women who commune with the devil*; there are men who seek sex with children.
> 
> And to link a dislike of paedophilia to religious zealotry is to liken religious freedom to sexual abuse.



Yeah but you didn't say "women who commune with the devil don't exist", you said "witches don't exist". Entirely different things.

And for some reason you seem to have at least a degree of support for a grown man who's given himself the name "Stinson Hunter". Have a word with yourself.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah but you didn't say "women who commune with the devil don't exist", you said "witches don't exist". Entirely different things.
> 
> And for some reason you seem to have at least a degree of support for a grown man who's given himself the name "Stinson Hunter". Have a word with yourself.


 
I talked about witches in the context that they were introduced to the thread i.e. historical witch hunts. Either you didn't understand that, or you deliberately de-contextualised the comment in order to score a cheap point. Well done.

And I've made it clear more than once that I don't support the hunters' methods.

But I'm reluctant to condemn them, for a number of reasons. First, I have some sympathy for their aim of protecting vulnerable children; secondly, I understand their frustration at the lack of effective action by the police and courts; and, thirdly, because I don't rush to write off those who look to do something for themselves, rather than rely on the state.


----------



## Gingerman (Oct 29, 2013)

Paulie said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bijan-ebrahimi-murdered-vigilante-lee-2651168
> 
> The story is awful enough without 'Colin' appearing to justify it in the comments.  "I don't blame the people that burnt him alive
> There only trying to protect there family's".


Colin sounds like a right fuckwit


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2013)

One of the most stupid comments i've seen anywhere on any subject - you need to read the whole thing to appreciate just how profoundly stupid his comment was - leaping from "I feel for anyone who is wrongly accused" to then justifying the murder of someone who is wrongly accused. 

There is a wider point to be made here about the poisonous atmosphere _produced _by the current approach of almost total secrecy and specialists deciding in a top-down community-involvement free manner that provides these idiots with the context and cover to do these things. This poor bloke was a victim of those decisions (and others of course).


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 29, 2013)

You know there are times when the death penalty seems justified


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There is a wider point to be made here about the poisonous atmosphere _produced _by the current approach of almost total secrecy and specialists deciding in a top-down community-involvement free manner that provides these idiots with the context and cover to do these things. This poor bloke was a victim of those decisions (and others of course).



I don't understand what the above sentence means; esp. "top-down community-involvement free manner".  Simple explanations much appreciated.  And no I'm not taking the piss.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> There are not (and never have been) women who commune with the devil; there are men who seek sex with children.
> 
> And to link a dislike of paedophilia to religious zealotry is to liken religious freedom to sexual abuse.



Er dont talk bollocks... i didnt say that did I?  I didn't say there were women who commune with the devil, you did.
There are and were witches. African witch doctors, Shaman etc still exist today. Some witches today classify themselves as white witches
Witchcraft is not mythical there were and still are people who practice witchcraft, it was Christianity that hunted them.

Some nutters seeking to use at times dubious peado entrapment methods as have been highlighted on this thread are conducting their own 'witch hunt'. They may well have their 'successes' but as has been highlighted some pretty nasty entrapment of what are innocent people, it is not the way to do it , is it? Entrapment is shit and dangerous what ever the ultimate goal.

*Witch-hunt*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Witch hunt" and "Witch trial" redirect here. For , see Witch hunt (disambiguation) and Witch trial (disambiguation).





Burning of three witches in Baden, Switzerland (1585), by Johann Jakob Wick.
A *witch-hunt* is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic,[1] or mass hysteria.[2] Before 1750 it was legally sanctioned and involving official*witchcraft trials*. The classical period of witchhunts in Europe and North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1480 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of theReformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 40,000 to 60,000 executions.[3]

The last executions of people convicted as witches in Europe took place in the 18th century. In the Kingdom of Great Britain, witchcraft ceased to be an act punishable by law with the Witchcraft Act of 1735. In Germany, sorcery remained punishable by law into the late 18th century. Contemporary witch-hunts have been reported from Sub-Saharan Africa, India and Papua New Guinea. Official legislation against witchcraft is still found in Saudi Arabia and Cameroon. The term "witch-hunt" since the 1930s has also been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies). This usage is especially associated with the Second Red Scare of the 1950s, with the McCarthyist persecution of suspected communists in the United States.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Er dont talk bollocks... i didnt say that did I?  I didn't say there were women who commune with the devil, you did.
> There are and were witches. African witch doctors, Shaman etc still exist today. Some witches today classify themselves as white witches
> Witchcraft is not mythical there were and still are people who practice witchcraft, it was Christianity that hunted them just as thy did with pagans.
> 
> ...


 
What point are you trying (and failing) to make? The religious freedom to practice witchcraft is somehow analogous to the freedom to have sex with children?


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> What point are you trying (and failing) to make? The religious freedom to practice witchcraft is somehow analogous to the freedom to have sex with children?



The point I am making is that these particular peadophile hunters are clearly self promoting do-gooder vigilantes using dubious means of entrapment just as the religious zealots did with 'Witches', it's a pretty connection clear really, don't be a dumbass.

I don't necessarily agree with witchcraft, I certainly don't agree with sex with children and I equally don't agree with entrapment under any circumstances. You picked a bun fight not me!

I


----------



## FNG (Oct 29, 2013)

seventh bullet said:


> Tesak is a rich boy bully and scumbag.
> 
> That blog post repeats the anti-working class rubbish about the Gwent paediatrician.



not really there is no mention of the class of the readership of the News of the World or speculation about the class of the people who daubbed the Gwent paediatricians house with paint thus depriving the working class children of gwent of the services of a child specialist and causing unnecessary disruption to their care.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> The point I am making is that these particular peadophile hunters are clearly self promoting do-gooder vigilantes using dubious means of entrapment just as the religious zealots did with 'Witches', it's a pretty connection clear really, don't be a dumbass.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with witchcraft, I certainly don't agree with sex with children and I equally don't agree with entrapment under any circumstances. You picked a bun fight not me!
> 
> I


 
I never picked a fight.

I said from the outset that I don't agree with their tactics.

But your witch analogy doesn't hold up. The practice of witchcraft is an expression of religious freedom; noncing isn't. And, as far as I know, entrapment wasn't a favoured technique of witch-hunters.

And I'm not inclined to feel too sorry for those who are entrapped. If a child encouraged you to meet them for sex, would you? It's a trap that only a certain kind of person would fall into.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> I never picked a fight.
> 
> I said from the outset that I don't agree with their tactics.
> 
> ...



Wrong on three counts:

1) Entrapment at any level is wrong, it's what it can lead to (Colin Stag anyone?)

2) My 'analogy' was nothing to do with the freedom of the practising of witchcraft v that of child sex. Read my posts I can't be arsed to explain again.

3) 'witches were often 'trapped' by hunters who first accused them of the sin and then used dubious methods to get confessions from them. 

Whatever way you want to paint it the common link is 'vigilantism'. There I was arsed, hopefully that was clearer!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 29, 2013)

FNG said:


> not really there is no mention of the class of the readership of the News of the World or speculation about the class of the people who daubbed the Gwent paediatricians house with paint thus depriving the working class children of gwent of the services of a child specialist and causing unnecessary disruption to their care.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm



That story's been distorted a fair bit over the years.



http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/8897



> _ Ten years on it is time the strange tale of the paediatrician confused with a paedophile was finally put to bed, says Brendan O'Neill, who reported on the orginal story for the BBC  _





> Ten years ago this month, persons unknown – probably teenage scallies, according to local police – daubed the word 'Paedo' on the home of a paediatrician in Gwent in south Wales.
> 
> They could never have known that their daft antics would become one of the most hotly discussed, frequently revisited, distorted and mythologised crimes of modern times.
> 
> ...


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Wrong on three counts:
> 
> 1) Entrapment at any level is wrong, it's what it can lead to (Colin Stag anyone?)
> 
> ...



You're stretching the definition of entrapment to fit your tortured analogy with witch-hunters.

And I'm interested in your absolutist stance to what you call entrapment. Posing as children online to out paedophiles is something the police do too.

Furthermore, vigilantism isn't the common link; 'witches' were often persecuted (and executed) under the auspices of the law e.g. Witchcraft Act 1542.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> 3) 'witches were often 'trapped' by hunters who first accused them of the sin and then used dubious methods to get confessions from them.
> 
> Whatever way you want to paint it the common link is 'vigilantism'. There I was arsed, hopefully that was clearer!



[/quote]


Witches were generally hunted under the guidebook of Malleus Malificarum which outlined the 'dubious methods' in detail. I.E outright torture

Nobody is following a Malleus Malifanonceum and torturing confessions out of nonces


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> That story's been distorted a fair bit over the years.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/8897




If you compare the above article and its mention of hysteria you will also see the parallel with the wiki article I posted highlighting the historical _'mass hysteria'_ and _'moral panic'_ over witches. 

I abhor entrapment and vigilantism as much as I abhor peadophiles, they all hurt people.

The Sun pursued Colin Stag for years convinced he was Rachel Nickels rapist and murderer, they were vigilantes with huge power. I was amazed Stag was never murdered himself. The Stag story is another parallel with the peadophile hunters as they both used 'honey trap' methods. Wholly wrong.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Witches were generally hunted under the guidebook of Malleus Malificarum which outlined the 'dubious methods' in detail. I.E outright torture

Nobody is following a Malleus Malifanonceum and torturing confessions out of nonces[/quote]

The common link is vigilantism. Whatever the methods.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Can I watch the football now?


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> The common link is vigilantism. Whatever the methods.



No, it isn't.  As I've explained, the persecution of witches was often within the law, and enforced by the 'proper' bodies, not by vigilantes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2013)

not untill you establish how religiously sanctioned and socially accepted persecution of hedge witches and cunning men relates to people getting the vigilante game on about child abusers


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> No, it isn't.  As I've explained, the persecution of witches was often within the law, and enforced by the 'proper' bodies, not by vigilantes.



With all due respect you're being a bit of a dick. "Witch hunt" - It's a figure of speech. Meanwhile your making excuses for some glory-hunting bully boys. Still, at least they're glory hunting bully boys who are doing their glory hunting and bullying independently of the state.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> With all due respect you're being a bit of a dick. "Witch hunt" - It's a figure of speech. Meanwhile your making excuses for some glory-hunting bully boys. Still, at least they're glory hunting bully boys who are doing their glory hunting and bullying independently of the state.



Batboy isn't using it in the idiomatic sense, though.  He's talking about the persecution of witches.

And I'm not excusing what they do; I've said I don't agree with their methods a number of times.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> Batboy isn't using it in the idiomatic sense, though.  He's talking about the persecution of witches.
> 
> *And I'm not excusing what they do;* I've said I don't agree with their methods a number of times.





> Chances are they wouldn't even be on the police radar but for the hunters.



You are a little bit.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> You are a little bit.



You got me!


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> No, it isn't.  As I've explained, the persecution of witches was often within the law, and enforced by the 'proper' bodies, not by vigilantes.



Oh FFS , can you imagine what the law and proper bodies werelike 500 years ago? They were all fucking vigilantes! Dixon of Dock Green was 450 years later.

Have a fucking bun back I don't want it, Im fat enough as it is!


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Oh FFS , can you imagine what the law and proper bodies werelike 500 years ago? They were all fucking vigilantes! Dixon of Dock Green was 450 years later.
> 
> Have a fucking bun back I don't want it, Im fat enough as it is!



Ok.

Enjoy the football.

But there is an interesting question here about the difference between vigilantes and the 'proper' bodies.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

I've missed two fucking goals now!


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

Batboy said:


> If you compare the above article and its mention of hysteria you will also see the parallel with the wiki article I posted highlighting the historical _'mass hysteria'_ and _'moral panic'_ over witches.
> 
> I abhor entrapment and vigilantism as much as I abhor peadophiles, they all hurt people.
> 
> The Sun pursued Colin Stag for years convinced he was Rachel Nickels rapist and murderer, they were vigilantes with huge power. I was amazed Stag was never murdered himself. The Stag story is another parallel with the peadophile hunters as they both used 'honey trap' methods. Wholly wrong.



To be anally correct, it was the Met who set up the very bizarre honeytrap.  The copper involved sued for and got £125,000 in 'damages' - Nickell's son only got £22,000 compo. Priorities,eh?


----------



## Batboy (Oct 29, 2013)

And spilt my beer....


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> Ok.
> 
> Enjoy the football.
> 
> But there is an interesting question here about the difference between vigilantes and the 'proper' bodies.



Vigilantes are just violent nutters with a twisted sense of social purpose?  Bit like Dexter.  Proper bodies have to find culprits AND the evidence to convict?


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Paulie said:


> Vigilantes are just violent nutters with a twisted sense of social purpose?  Bit like Dexter.  Proper bodies have to find culprits AND the evidence to convict?



I think think it's a bit more nuanced than that, to be honest.

Apart from anything else, these groups of hunters don't fit within your definition: first, they're not using violence; and, secondly, they ave, on occasion, provided evidence to secure a conviction.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think think it's a bit more nuanced than that, to be honest.
> 
> Apart from anything else, these groups of hunters don't fit within your definition: first, *they're not using violence*; and, secondly, they ave, on occasion, provided evidence to secure a conviction.



Putting footage of the "nonces" they've uncovered into the public domain via youtube more or less amounts to outsourcing the violence to whichever local hotheads see the vid and decide to act on it.


----------



## Paulie (Oct 29, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think think it's a bit more nuanced than that, to be honest.
> 
> Apart from anything else, these groups of hunters don't fit within your definition: first, they're not using violence; and, secondly, they ave, on occasion, provided evidence to secure a conviction.



I take your point.  Does evidence from a 'concerned citizen' carry any more or less weight with the CPS than from a copper?  Or is evidence just evidence?


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Putting footage of the "nonces" they've uncovered into the public domain via youtube more or less amounts to outsourcing the violence to whichever local hotheads see the vid and decide to act on it.


 
Yes, that is the aspect that sits least comfortably with me. Albeit, there's a limit to how much they can be held responsible for others' actions.


----------



## Athos (Oct 29, 2013)

Paulie said:


> I take your point.  Does evidence from a 'concerned citizen' carry any more or less weight with the CPS than from a copper?  Or is evidence just evidence?


 
I expect there'd be questions of admissibility if the private individual acted in a way that was a breach of the rules in place to protect defendants' rights to a fair trial, and which (in theory at least) the police ought to know better than to breach.


----------



## rioted (Oct 29, 2013)

Paulie said:


> I don't understand what the above sentence means; esp. "top-down community-involvement free manner".  Simple explanations much appreciated.  And no I'm not taking the piss.


Its an attempt to absolve any member of the working class for any responsibility for their actions. 





> the context and cover to do these things.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 30, 2013)

Paulie said:


> To be anally correct, it was the Met who set up the very bizarre honeytrap.  The copper involved sued for and got £125,000 in 'damages' - Nickell's son only got £22,000 compo. Priorities,eh?



Yep I know, it wasn't the Sun that did it. The case will always be remembered for Colin Stags police 'honey' entrapment and not the awful crime and legacy left for both Rachel's son, her family and his father. I can't even remember the name of the guy eventually convicted of the murder, says it all.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 30, 2013)

Athos said:


> I think think it's a bit more nuanced than that, to be honest.
> 
> Apart from anything else, these groups of hunters don't fit within your definition: first, they're not using violence; and, secondly, they ave, on occasion, provided evidence to secure a conviction.



Based on your postings, you think entrapment is ok? your saying it's wrong on one hand, but then sending out different messages on other posts.

I think this is one of those areas where it is black and white. Entrapment and vigilantism is simply wrong, full stop. Even if there are successful entrapments, it always goes wrong at some point. Violence will eventually erupt, miscarriages of justice will formulate and lynch mob mentality takes over, even if it's not at the source of the original vigilantes/hunters whatever you want to call these knobs.

Fucking nonce threads are the worse....


----------



## Batboy (Oct 30, 2013)

Athos said:


> And I'm interested in your absolutist stance to what you call entrapment. Posing as children online to out paedophiles is something the police do too.



Police creating a situation where a crime that could be argued would not otherwise have been committed, are on dodgy legal ground I think you will find. I do not agree with this police practice. 

And in any event it is wholly different to the vigilante nutters who run round filming their entrapment on their mobiles posting their rantings on line. They are misguided egotistical cunts.


----------



## Athos (Oct 30, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Based on your postings, you think entrapment is ok? your saying it's wrong on one hand, but then sending out different messages on other posts.
> 
> I think this is one of those areas where it is black and white. Entrapment and vigilantism is simply wrong, full stop. Even if there are successful entrapments, it always goes wrong at some point. Violence will eventually erupt, miscarriages of justice will formulate and lynch mob mentality takes over, even if it's not at the source of the original vigilantes/hunters whatever you want to call these knobs.
> 
> Fucking nonce threads are the worse....


 


Batboy said:


> Police creating a situation where a crime that could be argued would not otherwise have been committed, are on dodgy legal ground I think you will find. I do not agree with this police practice.
> 
> And in any event it is wholly different to the vigilante nutters who run round filming their entrapment on their mobiles posting their rantings on line. They are misguided egotistical cunts.


 
I don't think you've been clear about what entrapment is.

And the legal position is not as clear cut as your post suggests. After all, some of the hunters' evidence has been accepted by the courts.

As I've said, I am not comfortable with the online reveal.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2013)

Paulie said:


> I don't understand what the above sentence means; esp. "top-down community-involvement free manner".  Simple explanations much appreciated.  And no I'm not taking the piss.


Sure. The insistence by the authorities and experts (with their own interests) on total secrecy around issues like this helps create paranoia that breeds irrational and violent responses. In this case, the coppers didn't go around and make it clear that this bloke wasn't a paedo, they had no community networks through which they could credibly establish it even if they wanted to. All they did was satisfy themselves as the experts and authorities and left him to it, left him to the mercy of that aforementioned paranoia to which he then fell victim.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 30, 2013)

Batboy said:


> Based on your postings, you think entrapment is ok? your saying it's wrong on one hand, but then sending out different messages on other posts.
> 
> I think this is one of those areas where it is black and white. Entrapment and vigilantism is simply wrong, full stop. Even if there are successful entrapments, it always goes wrong at some point. Violence will eventually erupt, miscarriages of justice will formulate and lynch mob mentality takes over, even if it's not at the source of the original vigilantes/hunters whatever you want to call these knobs.
> 
> Fucking *nonce threads are the worse*....



Second worst. After those threads on which some posters see fit to benefit us with the wisdom of their inner Columbo. See the McCann thread/Tia Sharpe etc


----------



## discokermit (Oct 30, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Second worst. After those threads on which some posters see fit to benefit us with the wisdom of their inner Columbo. See the McCann thread/Tia Sharpe etc


and yet you can't stay off 'em.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 30, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and yet you can't stay off 'em.



I knew some wankshaft would say that. Yes, I could stay off them or I could benefit urban with my thoughts on them. It's up to me really. I'll say this though - If my presence on the McCann thread in any way disrupted it then that only serves to render the moral high ground fog on the tyne all mine all mine.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Oct 30, 2013)

discokermit said:


> can they fly on broomsticks?



Not since your dad sawed the handle off and used it for an arsewank.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 30, 2013)

Anyone else find the motivation of people that get involved in this a bit creepy?  Kind of makes me think of the kids at school who tried really hard to let everyone know they weren't gay by being as vocally homophobic as possible, only to show up in gay clubs years later.  I wonder what makes some of these people want to nose into this world?

(trusting that you're all smart enough to know that I'm definitely not intending to conflate homosexuality with paedophilia in this post).


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not since your dad sawed the handle off and used it for an arsewank.


Give it a rest Frances, that stuff on a thread about this (esp after the link to the russian stuff above) is well out of order.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 30, 2013)

Athos said:


> I don't think you've been clear about what entrapment is.
> 
> And the legal position is not as clear cut as your post suggests. After all, some of the hunters' evidence has been accepted by the courts.
> 
> As I've said, I am not comfortable with the online reveal.



Well that's the whole point, entrapment per se is messy and not clear cut legally and therefore dangerous, especially when undertaken by what are essentially vigilantes having a wankfest over their 'heroic' deeds to society. Deeds that despite your comments you have actually partly applauded and justified because some kiddy fiddling nonces have been caught.

You don't seem to fully see the real bigger picture of the danger involved in such entrapment, they may well help secure some convictions, but it is dangerous if that is at the cost of some innocent person taking their own life, which _will happen_ (brings to mind the teenage boy who was persuaded to take his clothes off and perform a sex act on a webcam thinking it was some girl only to be blackmailed with exposure by some shit arse cunt crooks, he then killed himself, tragic) the principle is related, if you secure some convictions with such tragedies in the background then it's almost hollow. 

You need to put aside the emotive subject of peadophiles in order to get a better perspective of what entrapment and vigilante behaviour can lead to. We have a due legal process for a reason despite some of its flaws and entrapment and vigilantism is a rocky road littered with tragedy and injustice 

For what it's worth the general legal consensus on entrapment is that if you encourage someone to commit a crime that they would otherwise not commit then you are on shaky ground and equally if you obtain confession by an entrapment of temptation then there is the chance that it will fail to stand up in court, as has been seen.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2013)

I've said more than a few times that I don't support those methods. Yet you accuse me of applauding them!

What with that and you asserting speculation as fact, relying on non-sequiturs, and presuming to tell me what the 'legal consensus' is (inaccurately, as it happens), I'm not sure that we can take things much further.

A shame, because there's the kernel of a really interesting discussion around the respective roles of the state, society and individuals in protecting children and policing (with a small 'p'). And it's a debate far more nuanced than your position will admit.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 31, 2013)

I've said you are 'partly' applauding and justifying them. You are, read your own posts.


I feel a pantomime moment coming on.....


----------



## Batboy (Oct 31, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Second worst. After those threads on which some posters see fit to benefit us with the wisdom of their inner Columbo. See the McCann thread/Tia Sharpe etc



Indeed. The insight and evidence people have by their keyboard is startling. The Daily Express has built a business empire on the back of them


----------



## Batboy (Oct 31, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Anyone else find the motivation of people that get involved in this a bit creepy?  Kind of makes me think of the kids at school who tried really hard to let everyone know they weren't gay by being as vocally homophobic as possible, only to show up in gay clubs years later.  I wonder what makes some of these people want to nose into this world?
> 
> (trusting that you're all smart enough to know that I'm definitely not intending to conflate homosexuality with paedophilia in this post).



The motivation behind these vigilante actions can either be sinister or end up that way. Its littered with male ego and desire to be seen as masterful and heroic. A power trip to impress others especially women. Or in short urban speak 'wankcunts'.

Most kids at school who might be gay are probably having a shit time figuring it all out especially considering the shocking amount of homophobia in school playgrounds. So if some are being overly vocal it may be understandable, whilst I see how you've made the connection, I don't think it's creepy or connected to this thread.


----------



## Batboy (Oct 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> and yet you can't stay off 'em.



Well we can all be accused of that. There is an almost morbid fascination with certain media obsessed stories, the recent nonce case of the corrie 'star' Kevin was a prime example of a number of people giving their 'expert' judgement, yet they are not privy to facts or evidence. So it winds me up too, I will step on a thread to try to tell people they are talking tosh, as they are nowhere near having access to hard facts or evidence.

 I fucking hate it when people either slow down to look at the crash on the other side of the motorway or get their metaphoric knitting needles out to watch the hanging of someone. That was the analogy I used on Kevin mechanic thingybob thread. The McCann thread would be the same. It's gossip porn.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2013)

Batboy said:


> I've said you are 'partly' applauding and justifying them. You are, read your own posts.
> 
> 
> I feel a pantomime moment coming on.....


 
Oh no you don't!


----------



## FNG (Nov 1, 2013)

> 'Stupid kids in Gwent do something stupid.' Unpleasant for Ms Cloete, undoubtedly, but a tiny crime in the scheme of things.



Typical plod attitude to investigating crime on estates there,round here if they can't be arsed to investigate a crime it's either probably kids or probably travellers then case solved and thanks for the tea.


----------



## Ultimate (Nov 3, 2013)

Let's get all this straight, if I've understood this rather garbled debate correctly.

Identifying someone you think might be sexually abusing children, setting up a false honey trap for them (i.e. not a real child) and then reporting it to the police is one thing. The police can then decide whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. If they can be relied on to act professionally - evidently, sometimes they can't.

But that is completely different from shouting from the rooftops that someone is a paedophile on the basis of a rumour. Or beating them up.

The witch hunt analogy that's been discussed here (though the accuracy of those stories from a long time ago is questionable) is appropriate in that in both sets of cases, completely innocent people have been persecuted by a hysterical mob for whom all reason and common sense has gone out of the window. I don't know what psychologists would say about this kind of behaviour, but it seems there's a certain kind of person who, when part of a like-minded crowd, can be whipped up into a frenzy and become murderous. William Golding illustrates this in Lord of the Flies. I suspect paranoia comes into it somewhere. According to what I've read, those women accused of being witches were just a bit unusual in some way, like the murdered man in the Mirror story.

The press are partly to blame for all this, due to the frenzy they've whipped up over the last ten years or so, which has encouraged people who are a bit paranoid to see paedophiles everywhere.

But there's a positive side to that as well, in that the subject of child sexual abuse is now out in the open and people are a bit clearer about what a paedophile is. Thirty years ago the average person couldn't tell the difference between a gay man and a paedophile who targeted boys: both were called 'homosexuals'. We keep hearing, as with the Jimmy Savile case, that in the past, children who complained about sexual abuse were usually called liars. It's quite tragic that all those people, long since grown up, had to wait until he was dead before they felt able to come forward. I've met lots of people who were sexually abused as children (by family members and not strangers), and some have never recovered from it.

So the pendulum has swung from one extreme - making it a taboo subject - to the other, encouraging people to see paedophiles everywhere. People need to calm down, use a bit of common sense and listen to reason, for the pendulum to swing to the middle, where it should always have been.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 3, 2013)

They should be disciplined and persuaded to come back from their iniquity. Its a simple choice. Obey and live happily. Disobey and be killed. Much of the anger against them is hypocritical because the victims are ruined in youth and are set on a path. 

Just some thoughts take it however you like.


----------



## Ultimate (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm a bit confused here. Who are you talking about? Who's 'they'?


----------



## Humberto (Nov 4, 2013)

Ultimate said:


> I'm a bit confused here. Who are you talking about? Who's 'they'?


 
Paedophiles obviouslly


----------



## Ultimate (Nov 4, 2013)

OK, but to me your comment is very jumbled up. In fact, I can't make head or tail of it. Someone else might understand what you mean.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 4, 2013)

Ok What is YOUR post all about in as few words a possible?


----------



## Ultimate (Nov 4, 2013)

OK, so you want to be a prat. Anything else you say I'll just ignore.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 4, 2013)

Sorry but I think you are a bit touchy. Perhaps you should choose either I'm going to have discussion or I will go to bed.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2013)

i watched a documentary last night about a group of serial killers in australia who apparently began as vigilantes trying to rid the neighbourhood of paedos but quickly went on to targetting people because they were gay, or disabled, or because they just felt like it



its a really interesting documentary, well worth a watch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowtown_murders


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> i watched a documentary last night about a group of serial killers in australia who apparently began as vigilantes trying to rid the neighbourhood of paedos but quickly went on to targetting people because they were gay, or disabled, or because they just felt like it
> 
> 
> 
> its a really interesting documentary, well worth a watch



One of them was a cousin of dylans. John Bunting. This is who Snowtown was about.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 4, 2013)

shit, didn't know that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 4, 2013)

Humberto said:


> They should be disciplined and persuaded to come back from their iniquity.




"Iniquity"? Calling contact sex offending against children "iniquity" is moralistic bollocks.  Persuade people to become rehabilitated from the criminal acts, by all means, but don't introduce morality into the equation. It's unnecessary.



> Its a simple choice. Obey and live happily. Disobey and be killed. Much of the anger against them is hypocritical because the victims are ruined in youth and are set on a path.



Your understanding of the psychology of sex offenders and their victims is what is known in sociological circles as "piss-poor".



> Just some thoughts take it however you like.



I wouldn't call them thoughts, more the re-selling of tropes that the tabloids have been pumping out for decades.


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> shit, didn't know that.


If you haven't seen it yet, the film BA linked to is definitely worth watching.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 4, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Iniquity"? Calling contact sex offending against children "iniquity" is moralistic bollocks.  Persuade people to become rehabilitated from the criminal acts, by all means, but don't introduce morality into the equation. It's unnecessary.
> 
> Your understanding of the psychology of sex offenders and their victims is what is known in sociological circles as "piss-poor".
> 
> I wouldn't call them thoughts, more the re-selling of tropes that the tabloids have been pumping out for decades.



I take your point but I don't think it is 'moralistic bollocks'. I too class it as 'criminal behaviour' first and foremost but introducing 'morality' into the question seems appropriate if not unnavoidable to me. If they commit a crime they should be punished. If they do it again that should be the end of their opportunities to offend again.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Nov 4, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> quickly went on to targetting people because they were gay, or disabled, or because they just felt like it


Hmm, I wonder if this is also why the police force end up behaving like cunts - soon as you put yourself in a position like that, then you find you just can't help it? A bit like that famous prison experiment proves? Hmm.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not since your dad sawed the handle off and used it for an arsewank.



I strongly recommend that you give this sort of stuff a rest ...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Nov 4, 2013)

That was days ago. Your strong recommendation's a bit redundant TBH.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> That was days ago. Your strong recommendation's a bit redundant TBH.


Still, worth pointing out again.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Humberto said:


> I take your point but I don't think it is 'moralistic bollocks'. I too class it as 'criminal behaviour' first and foremost but introducing 'morality' into the question seems appropriate if not unnavoidable to me. If they commit a crime they should be punished. If they do it again that should be the end of their opportunities to offend again.



The state already uses (mostly Judaeo-Christian) morality to inform its' attempts at "justice". It's an approach that hasn't servedthe mass of people very well for at least a thousand years.  It has led to quite a few spectacular injustices, though.  Morality has been used to justify everything from transportation for minor offences to acts of judicial murder.
Personally, I'm in favour of punishing to fit the crime, a system in which your fantasies about executing paedos for being paedos can't be fulfilled. Me, I'd prefer to fuck up the paedo's life, and make their punishment last a little longer than the walk to the noose.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> Hmm, I wonder if this is also why the police force end up behaving like cunts - soon as you put yourself in a position like that, then you find you just can't help it? A bit like that famous prison experiment proves? Hmm.



Stanford didn't prove that people just can't help it, but it did prove that in pressured circumstances, people will do things outside of their normal behaviour - it showed that almost everyone has the potential to be an oppressor if the circumstances are right.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Nov 5, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Stanford didn't prove that people just can't help it, but it did prove that in pressured circumstances, people will do things outside of their normal behaviour - it showed that almost everyone has the potential to be an oppressor if the circumstances are right.


So I guess these Letsgo types are really egging each other on? Wonder if they get competitive?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 5, 2013)

pinkmonkey said:


> So I guess these Letsgo types are really egging each other on?



From the little I've read up on vigilantism, that certainly seems to be the usual dynamic - generally one or two "alpha" personalities encouraging the subordinate personalities.  That, of course, often leads to approval seeking by the subordinate personalities, and can have the effect of causing escalation in how far the vigilantes are willing to go.



> Wonder if they get competitive?



It's likely, because the dynamic is based on a hierarchy, and people will compete to establish/retain their place in it.


----------



## FNG (Nov 6, 2013)

http://spectrumhr.org/?p=1615

"cleavers" and his followers are certainly trying to outdo each other when it comes to new ways to humilliate their victims


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 29, 2013)

This case was mentioned earlier in the thread.

The killer has just received a life sentence.



> A disabled man wrongly accused of being a paedophile was murdered and his body torched in a drunken vigilante attack just days after his killer warned police that he would take the law into his own hands, it emerged today.
> 
> Lee James, a father of three young girls, repeatedly stamped on the head of Iranian Bijan Ebrahimi then dragged his dead body one hundred yards and set it alight after an escalating witch-hunt against the innocent man that had seen him branded a "paedo" by a mob outside his front door.
> 
> The victim filmed his killer storming his house three days before he was killed when James warned that he was going to "f*ck him up" - but it was Mr Ebrahimi who was arrested when police were called to sort out the dispute on a Bristol estate.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-was-wrongly-outed-as-paedophile-8969034.html


----------



## likesfish (Nov 29, 2013)

Remember sitting in a pub talking with some tosser who wanted to set up a vigilante organisation turned out he'd done time   Well on one it level sounds attractive rapidily degenerates into macho bullshit and hooliganism that gets people hurt or killed. The "hero" in the above article "would do anything for his kids" apart from stop hitting their mother
 A lot of powerless angry blokes about looking for an excuse


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Still, worth pointing out again.



Me and you, yokelchops, me and you.


----------



## bamalama (Dec 3, 2013)

yokelchops


----------



## thriller (Dec 3, 2013)

FNG said:


> http://spectrumhr.org/?p=1615
> 
> "cleavers" and his followers are certainly trying to outdo each other when it comes to new ways to humilliate their victims



 fucking cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Me and you, yokelchops, me and you.


Try not to paint yourself into a corner frances. You wouldn't want to end up as some sort of performing monkey now would you?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 3, 2013)

thriller said:


> fucking cunts.





> assaulted with watermelon



I shouldn't laugh but...


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 3, 2013)

FNG said:


> http://spectrumhr.org/?p=1615
> 
> "cleavers" and his followers are certainly trying to outdo each other when it comes to new ways to humilliate their victims



Absolutely no reason whatsoever why these cunts shouldn't be dealt with by flamethrower. 

Sickening.


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 3, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely no reason whatsoever why these cunts shouldn't be dealt with by flamethrower.
> 
> Sickening.



I get that you're angry, but flamethrowers? Seriously?

It does no good to talk like this. They should be dealt with without stooping to their level, or lower in the case of flamethrowers - one of the nastiest weapons invented recently.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 3, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> I get that you're angry, but flamethrowers? Seriously?



Yes, flamethrowers. But only after every bone in their bodies have been smashed with bats and the broken limbs shat on and dipped in acid.

Angry doesn't even come close. 



> It does no good to talk like this. They should be dealt with without stooping to their level, or lower in the case of flamethrowers - one of the nastiest weapons invented recently.



Fuckem.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 3, 2013)

discokermit said:


> the mob, with a few historical exceptions, is the ultimate justice.


 

I'm not so keen on the mob.

http://www.americanlynching.com/images/28482.jpg




> Self-styled vigilantes attacked the home of a hospital paediatrician after apparently confusing her professional title with the word "paedophile", it emerged yesterday.
> Dr Yvette Cloete, a specialist registrar in paediatric medicine at the Royal Gwent hospital in Newport, was forced to flee her house after vandals daubed it with graffiti in the middle of the night.
> The word "paedo" was written across the front porch and door of the house she shared with her brother in the village of St Brides, south Wales.
> Dr Cloete, 42, confirmed she had left the property after the "distressing" attack. "For the time being I have moved out of the area because when something like this happens you just cannot feel safe in your own home.


 
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society










> A vigilante mob burned down a gipsy camp after an Italian teenager allegedly claimed she had been raped by two Romany men – only to confess later that she had invented the entire story.
> 
> The 16-year-old reportedly made up the account to conceal the fact that she had lost her virginity to her *Italian* boyfriend, but the lie unleashed a chain of events that she could not have foreseen.
> She went to the police near her home on the outskirts of Turin late last week to report that she had been raped.
> ...


 









> Guilt haunts the community where an Iranian eccentric falsely accused of being a paedophile was beaten and burned to death
> 
> In a few short months, the area of Brislington has gone from a quiet, nondescript suburb of east Bristol to one of the most notorious neighbourhoods in the country.
> It is here that on a sweltering summer night in July, a disabled Iranian man, Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, was attacked, set on fire, and left to burn to death in a front garden.
> ...


 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...mour-led-a-mob-to-murder-an-innocent-man.html


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely no reason whatsoever why these cunts shouldn't be dealt with by flamethrower.
> 
> Sickening.



Out of interest, which "cunts" are you referring to here, the cunts who are alleged to be paedophiles, or the cunts who have taken it upon themselves to attack people based on those allegations?

Or are you just lashing out wildly and more or less randomly at any supposed cunts who come into view?


----------



## Fez909 (Dec 3, 2013)

andysays said:


> Out of interest, which "cunts" are you referring to here, the cunts who are alleged to be paedophiles, or the cunts who have taken it upon themselves to attack people based on those allegations?
> 
> Or are you just lashing out wildly and more or less randomly at any supposed cunts who come into view?



The cunts humiliating the African kid in the video, I think.


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2013)

Fez909 said:


> The cunts humiliating the African kid in the video, I think.



OK, *those* cunts. That's what I get for not following the thread properly 

Still rather an extreme reaction...


----------



## bamalama (Dec 3, 2013)

You nasty piece of fuckin shit Johnny Canuck3.My kid's just seen that you fuckin creep...you keep pulling this cunts trick don't ye?Use a spoiler next time you fuckin prick...


----------



## discokermit (Dec 3, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm not so keen on the mob.


as i said, historical exceptions.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 3, 2013)

discokermit said:


> as i said, historical exceptions.


 The disabled Iranian was killed this year.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 3, 2013)

andysays said:


> OK, *those* cunts. That's what I get for not following the thread properly
> 
> Still rather an extreme reaction...



Yes it was. Sorry, the video got to me.


----------



## Bakunin (Dec 3, 2013)

Looking at the thread title I'm getting this mental image and soundtrack:









Is this wrong?


----------



## andysays (Dec 3, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Yes it was. Sorry, the video got to me.



Apology accepted, and please accept mine for jumping in without properly understanding the context


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 3, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Looking at the thread title I'm getting this mental image and soundtrack:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Not at all.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 3, 2013)

bamalama said:


> You nasty piece of fuckin shit Johnny Canuck3.My kid's just seen that you fuckin creep...you keep pulling this cunts trick don't ye?Use a spoiler next time you fuckin prick...


 

I'm sorry.

I changed the image to a link.

I hope that on top of everything else, your son or daughter didn't have to witness your fit of enraged cursing.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 4, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Try not to paint yourself into a corner frances. You wouldn't want to end up as some sort of performing monkey now would you?



Yeah now you say that - And who in their right mind would want to be a performing monkey? I reckon though, even wearing red monkey kex with a stitched-on pocket and and arse bit for the tail, I could still have it. Me and you, yokelchops, me and you.


----------



## bamalama (Dec 4, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'm sorry.
> 
> I changed the image to a link.
> 
> I hope that on top of everything else, your son or daughter didn't have to witness your fit of enraged cursing.


My wee girl wasn't in the front room when i posted at 12.52 pm (your picture was posted at 12.30),her mother had taken her out,and my words were written down not spoken.Ye can't even apologise without bein a disingenuous point scorin prick...pathetic


----------



## Humberto (Dec 4, 2013)

You browse U75 with a kid in the room? Thats your own lookout.


----------



## bamalama (Dec 4, 2013)

Humberto said:


> You browse U75 with a kid in the room? Thats your own lookout.


At 12.52 in the afternoon i don't expect people to be postin full sized photos of lynchings to score crass points on u75,especially when the spoiler function is available...you see anyone else pullin this crap apart from canuck,who's done it before by the way.
Is it a regular thing here?I've only come across it once before,by guess who,in a now deleted thread.There's a spoiler function and imo postin those types of pictures,with no warning, to score shock value points and make snide insinuations in a discussion like this thread is a cunts trick...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 4, 2013)

bamalama said:


> My wee girl wasn't in the front room when i posted at 12.52 pm (your picture was posted at 12.30),her mother had taken her out,and my words were written down not spoken.Ye can't even apologise without bein a disingenuous point scorin prick...pathetic


 
I wasn't trying to score any points. It occurred to me that my thoughtless posting of that photo had led to even more unfortunate occurrences.

Once again: I'm sorry.


----------



## FNG (Dec 4, 2013)

Bakunin said:


> Looking at the thread title I'm getting this Is this wrong?


Me too although on reflection it also scans to the "lets go fucking mental" tune the black lace one is infinately more bleak.

Like a boot stamping on a human face forever ...to the tune  of black lace


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 4, 2013)

discokermit said:
			
		

> and how do you set fire to a pitchfork?



Ask Satan.


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2014)

Stinson back in the local news, albeit for an incident that happened before this thread started.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/man-charged-dangerous-driving-after-6596639



> A man has been charged with dangerous driving after a Coventry “paedophile hunter” broke both his ankles in a collision with a car.
> 
> Self-styled pervert catcher Stinson Hunter, aged 32, had travelled to Nuneaton as part of a sting operation when he was hurt.
> 
> ...


----------



## elbows (Jan 28, 2014)

I haven't been keeping up with exactly how many convictions have resulted from Stinson Hunters activities but having just spent a few minutes looking, there have been some in recent months:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/retired-lecturer-jailed-after-arranging-6297428



> A retired university lecturer has been jailed for sexually grooming a ‘schoolgirl’ – who turned out to be a vigilante paedophile hunter.
> 
> Maurice Ingram, 67, had arranged to meet ‘15-year-old Jodie’ after exchanging explicit messages with someone on the internet.
> 
> ...



http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u..._supply_teacher_from_Accrington_found_guilty/



> A TEACHER caught in a ‘paedophile’ sting trying to meet what he believed was a schoolgirl for sex will be jailed in the New Year.
> 
> David Simpson, 49, was yesterday found guilty of attempting to meet a girl under 16, intending to commit a relevant offence, between February 22 and 27, by a Burnley Crown Court jury, after a five-day trial.





> The court had heard Simpson had not been communicating with an under-aged girl at all, but a woman in her 20s.
> 
> Lisa Chard had acted as a decoy to help a man named Stinson Hunter set up a fictitious profile in the name of Lisa Rogers on the free adult dating site Plenty of Fish.
> 
> ...



Extra fuckwit points for that one:



> The day before the meeting, Simpson, terrified of getting caught, had, said Miss Johnston ‘pretty foolishly’ rung the police, said he had been talking to a woman called Lisa Rogers on the internet and asked if she was an under cover police officer.
> 
> Simpson claimed in court he ‘knew’ he had been conversing with an adult and rang the police because he wanted to know what kind of ‘game they were playing’.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 29, 2014)

Humberto said:


> You browse U75 with a kid in the room? Thats your own lookout.



It's u75 not beastiality.com


----------



## Humberto (Jan 29, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> It's u75 not beastiality.com



Doesn't arse me. But if they are old enough to read they are bound to read abuse. Its everyday. It amuses me but it might be innapropriate for children.

Dunno why that was quoted  after about three months.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 29, 2014)

Humberto said:


> Doesn't arse me. But if they are old enough to read they are bound to read abuse. Its everyday. It amuses me but it might be innapropriate for children.
> 
> Dunno why that was quoted  after about three months.



Coz the thread sank into obscurity for a bit then re appearred in the hit parade after a period of about, say, three months? Maybe. Just   guess like.


----------



## Humberto (Jan 29, 2014)

Ok. Bit spooky like. No worries.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 29, 2014)

Bakunin said:


> Looking at the thread title I'm getting this mental image and soundtrack:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Me too, but I just didn't want to be the only one to say so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

It's meant to - it's supposed to be sung to the same tune as _let's go fucking mental._


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Whilst paedos are scum, I don't condone vigilante justice.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> Whilst paedos are scum, I don't condone vigilante justice.


 
i thought there was no such thing as right and wrong?


----------



## ca-nami (Jan 29, 2014)

Of course there is.  And?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2014)

Or scum.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> Of course there is.  And?


 
cunning.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 29, 2014)

ca-nami said:


> yes, good and bad don't exist. and?


 
very cunning.  now i don't know what you really think.


----------



## elbows (Jan 29, 2014)

Oh now Stinson has announced that he's been making a documentary with Channel 4 since last June.

http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stin...-documentary/story-20521659-detail/story.html


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Oh now Stinson has announced that he's been making a documentary with Channel 4 since last June.
> 
> http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stin...-documentary/story-20521659-detail/story.html



And that should clear up any lingering doubts as to his motives:

" Speaking in the film about the news, he said: “'I’m so excited to be able to finally tell you all that since June last year we’ve been filming for a Channel 4 film.  It covers from my humble beginnings as a child 32 years ago right up until the point we’re at now and the future.”'

I just bet he is "excited."  What a complete and utter scumbag.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 30, 2014)

He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up 

But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight  Somebody might suspect it was a set up.

Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?


----------



## existentialist (Jan 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up
> 
> But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight  Somebody might suspect it was a set up.
> 
> Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?


We have a legal system for banging up wronguns, though: if it isn't working, then that's what needs to be done, not freebooters riding on the back of popular prejudice. The legal system is at least theoretically accountable - who gets to carry the can when Mister Paedo Hunter gets it wrong and a life is wrecked? 

Even if we have a long way to go, we should be aspiring to having a legal system that is just, and seen to be so: entrapping people in the way this guy is doing risks encouraging sympathy for the people he's going after. 

And I find myself wondering what his motivation for all this is, too...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 30, 2014)

likesfish said:
			
		

> He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up



I think the arguments against are centred around the possibility of their actions interfering with any police investigations into their targets and the fact that entrapment is a pretty direct route to getting anything they do unearth thrown straight out of court.

They also publish the videos of their hapless prey thus ruining their lives whilst circumventing the entire judicial process.

On the plus side it sounds a great disincentive for people planning a bit of online grooming.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

Stinson Hunter is clearly a self aggrandizing wanker though


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 30, 2014)

It's something I considered doing once. I started building a database of names of sex offenders from the local paper. Or did I just think about doing it? Either way I got bored after a few days in typical fashion and moved onto another fantasy. In my defence I was about 11 at the time.


----------



## elbows (Jan 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I think the arguments against are centred around the possibility of their actions interfering with any police investigations into their targets and the fact that entrapment is a pretty direct route to getting anything they do unearth thrown straight out of court.



Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

likesfish said:


> He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up
> 
> But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight  Somebody might suspect it was a set up.
> 
> Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?


So the publicly declared set-up stinks of being a set-up does it? Ever thought of setting up a private detective agency?

I wonder which production company this is.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.



It surprised me too, and I also find it concerning.

From the info in those reports, it appears that two people have been found guilty, jailed (and presumably put on the sex offenders register) solely for an on-line conversation with a women falsely claiming to be underage, and then being foolish enough to attempt to meet them. 

There's absolutely no suggestion that the two were known sex offenders, or that the search of their computers which no doubt happened when they were arrested found anything of concern, or anything else to demonstrate their supposed paedophile tendencies.

The fact that these entrapment activities appear to be conducted in order to make a TV programme just makes the whole thing even more surprising and concerning - if I was one of these two men, or their lawyer, I'd be looking to appeal the conviction - it seems the "evidence" is utterly tainted.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 30, 2014)

elbows said:


> Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.


I suspect that, a lot of the time, faced with the entrapment evidence, a lot of the accused simply fold and plead guilty.

But justice isn't about what happens "a lot of the time" - it really only takes one person to have been mistakenly identified or misindentified, and the whole principle of law is undermined. Perhaps these vigilantes have been lucky so far.

I'm still hugely suspicious of the motives of someone who dedicates the time and effort to pursuing a specific group of people in this way: how do we know that their motivation isn't itself suspect in some way?


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> It surprised me too, and I also find it concerning.
> 
> From the info in those reports, it appears that two people have been found guilty, jailed (and presumably put on the sex offenders register) solely for an on-line conversation with a women falsely claiming to be underage, and then being foolish enough to attempt to meet them.
> 
> There's absolutely no suggestion that the two were known sex offenders, or that the search of their computers which no doubt happened when they were arrested found anything of concern, or anything else to demonstrate their supposed paedophile tendencies.



I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Are you trying to make a joke?

I'd say that attempting to meet what they thought was an underage girl for sexual purposes was plenty of evidence to "demonstrate their supposed [_sic_] paedophile tendencies."

It's also illegal.

Personally, my problem isn't with the law, it's with vigilantes.  I consider them as bad as their targets.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Are you trying to make a joke?
> 
> I'd say that attempting to meet what they thought was an underage girl for sexual purposes was plenty of evidence to "demonstrate their supposed [_sic_] paedophile tendencies."
> 
> ...



No, I'm not trying to make a joke, I'm making a serious point.

There was no real underage girl, there was no sexual activity. 

Having paedophile tendencies is not so far, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence.

I'm suggesting that the fact that these convictions were obtained solely on the evidence of a "sting" operation, one which wasn't targeted at specific known or suspected sex offenders was seems to have been a general "trawling" operation, and in which a TV production company was involved, is rather concerning.

You're not obliged to agree, you're even welcome to come up with a coherent argument against what I've said, but please don't suggest (especially with your record...) that I'm joking.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> No, I'm not trying to make a joke, I'm making a serious point.
> 
> There was no real underage girl, there was no sexual activity.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  I agree about how pernicious this operation is.

But if someone attempts to meet an underage girl for sex, they're attempting to commit a crime, which is itself a crime in the eyes of the law.  And also in mine.


----------



## laptop (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder which production company this is.





> AMOS Pictures and the chance to work with BAFTA winner Dan Reed
> 
> Read more: http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stinson-Hunter-star-Channel-4-documentary/story-20521659-detail/story.html



Should be working, not looked at their other output...


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Fair enough.  I agree about how pernicious this operation is.
> 
> But if someone attempts to meet an underage girl for sex, they're attempting to commit a crime, which is itself a crime in the eyes of the law.  And also in mine.



But there is, in at least one of the cases, some doubt as to whether the person was really attempting to meet an underage girl for sex - he claimed that he knew she wasn't really underage but was pretending, and that he wanted to go along with the pretence. 

I'm not saying for sure that he's telling the truth, but it's not a simple as saying that making the arrangement and meeting up proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was genuinely attempting to commit a crime.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> Should be working, not looked at their other output...


Cheers,guess i should have read the article!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> But there is, in at least one of the cases, some doubt as to whether the person was really attempting to meet an underage girl for sex - he claimed that he knew she wasn't really underage but was pretending, and that he wanted to go along with the pretence.
> 
> I'm not saying for sure that he's telling the truth, but it's not a simple as saying that making the arrangement and meeting up proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was genuinely attempting to commit a crime.


I haven't looked at the case - but him saying that alone does not constitute 'some doubt'. It requires a bit more than that.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I haven't looked at the case - but him saying that alone does not constitute 'some doubt'. It requires a bit more than that.



Well, I think it does, though whether it's *enough* doubt is another question.

What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Well, I think it does, though whether it's *enough* doubt is another question.
> 
> What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?


I didn't post the post that you're quoting in this post. There's some doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Well, I think it does, though whether it's *enough* doubt is another question.
> 
> What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?


Supporting evidence (even if contentious) rather than bald assertion. Telling someone that you were going to catch a paedophile catcher and recording this before doing so.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

the other thing is who gave Stimpson Hunter a mandate to go on his not-at-all-self-interested peado hunting activities. No one.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Supporting evidence (even if contentious) rather than bald assertion. Telling someone that you were going to catch a paedophile catcher and recording this before doing so.



I think we're talking slightly at crossed purposes. I agree with your point that had the "paedo-hunters" eg gone to the police beforehand it would strengthen the prosecution case.

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed


----------



## existentialist (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the other thing is who gave Stimpson Hunter a mandate to go on his not-at-all-self-interested peado hunting activities. No one.


I guess that's at the root of my uneasiness. The likes of Stimpson Hunter would probably argue that their mandate comes from the disgust of society at the activities of child sex abusers - a disgust that is largely fuelled by hysterical and unbalanced news reporting about the subject, which the actions of these vigilantes feeds into.

I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I think that, if this problem is to be dealt with effectively - which includes whatever it takes to _prevent_ these people from committing such acts, rather than catching them in the act - the emotional temperature needs to be lowered. It is pretty evident that, for a lot of child sex abusers, this is a compulsion they have, not a choice they make. That doesn't in any way excuse what they do, but is ramping up the furore around it really the best way to address the problem?

I am also concerned that, by creating situations in which child sex abusers can - with some justification - claim to be persecuted, we're not pushing them further into the shadows, and creating potential situations where their activities might well become more dangerous (not to mention persuading ourselves that in Doing Something About it via entrapment and vigilantes, we're more likely to miss the far larger problem of abuse by people other than strangers to the potential victims).

And, in any event, is the public humiliation and shaming of people who may well be under a compulsion to sexually abuse children really the best way to protect those children, or the best way for society to express the offence it feels towards such people? I'm not sure it is.


----------



## laptop (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed



Indeed: if it went before a jury, they would be told that they could convict only if they were "certain, so that you are sure" that he believed her to be underage.

The doubt is on the other foot, as it were.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 30, 2014)

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed


May they should join the swp?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think we're talking slightly at crossed purposes. I agree with your point that had the "paedo-hunters" eg gone to the police beforehand it would strengthen the prosecution case.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed


Yes, there's creating a doubt as above and there's saying that any defence at all no matter how feeble from the accused (and we're not even talking about being in court yet) at all constitutes 'some doubt' which is how your first post reads to me. It doesn't.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

laptop said:


> Indeed: if it went before a jury, they would be told that they could convict only if they were "certain, so that you are sure" that he believed her to be underage.
> 
> The doubt is on the other foot, as it were.



Except they apparently weren't.

Now I've gone back and re-read the story, it appears there's even more doubt

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u..._supply_teacher_from_Accrington_found_guilty/



> The day before the meeting, Simpson*, terrified of getting caught, had, said Miss Johnston ‘pretty foolishly’ rung the police, said he had been talking to a woman called Lisa Rogers on the internet and asked if she was an under cover police officer.
> 
> Simpson claimed in court he ‘knew’ he had been conversing with an adult and rang the police because he wanted to know what kind of ‘game they were playing’.



So the paedo-hunters didn't consult the police, but their target did.

I'm looking forward to seeing this Life of "Stinson" doc when it's finally aired...

*for clarification, Stinson is the paedo-hunter general, Simpson is one of his targets


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, there's creating a doubt as above and there's saying that any defence at all no matter how feeble from the accused (and we're not even talking about being in court yet) at all constitutes 'some doubt' which is how your first post reads to me. It doesn't.



It's been to court - he's been found guilty. See link in my previous post

ETA: and I'm glad you're not a judge, BTW. You can't simply dismiss any defence as "feeble", you actually have to demonstrate it to be so, beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> It's been to court - he's been found guilty. See link in my previous post


I know! Obviously didn't create enough doubt did he! My point was not about that case, but about the idea that the accused offering a feeble defence in any case creates 'some doubt' - it doesn't. A defence supported by evidence of actions, previous actions, history, etc creates doubt. A bloke saying _nah, you ain't got me_ doesn't.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I know! Obviously didn't create enough doubt did he! My point was not about that case, but about the idea that the accused offering a feeble defence in any case creates 'some doubt' - it doesn't. A defence supported by evidence of actions, previous actions, history, etc creates doubt. A bloke saying _nah, you ain't got me_ doesn't.



Got to go out for a bit - I'll return to this later


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Got to go out for a bit - I'll return to this later


Wouldn't bother really - not that relevant to the thread.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 30, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I guess that's at the root of my uneasiness. The likes of Stimpson Hunter would probably argue that their mandate comes from the disgust of society at the activities of child sex abusers - a disgust that is largely fuelled by hysterical and unbalanced news reporting about the subject, which the actions of these vigilantes feeds into.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I think that, if this problem is to be dealt with effectively - which includes whatever it takes to _prevent_ these people from committing such acts, rather than catching them in the act - the emotional temperature needs to be lowered. It is pretty evident that, for a lot of child sex abusers, this is a compulsion they have, not a choice they make. That doesn't in any way excuse what they do, but is ramping up the furore around it really the best way to address the problem?
> 
> ...



stinson hunter isn't even collaring proper child sex rings, people traffickers or darknet loving child-porn sharers. He's overdosed on 'to catch a predator' re-runs.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> But there is, in at least one of the cases, some doubt as to whether the person was really attempting to meet an underage girl for sex - *he claimed that he knew she wasn't really underage but was pretending, and that he wanted to go along with the pretence.* *
> 
> I'm not saying for sure that he's telling the truth, but it's not a simple as saying that making the arrangement and meeting up proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was genuinely attempting to commit a crime.



http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/snared-pervert-who-planned-abuse-5693949



> Beverley, of Abbotsleigh Avenue,  can now be unmasked after he was convicted of child sex offences, including storing and distributing vile images of child abuse, and jailed for six years.



*This depraved creature tried a similar trick. It didn't work.



> Depraved Neil Beverley believed he was exchanging internet messages with a man who would introduce him to the boy he could abuse.
> 
> But unbeknown to Beverley he was writing directly to a police officer monitoring and recording his every word.
> 
> A meeting was arranged at Debdale Park, Gorton, and the M.E.N. was there as stunned Beverley, 48, was met by two undercover police officers and arrested. Beverley, from Wythenshawe,  even sent a text message to his ‘contact’ when he arrived, saying: ‘I’m here’.


......





> Beverley – who worked as a credit controller and has no previous convictions – *bizarrely claimed he was carrying out research and had intended to ‘trap’ a paedophile then contact police.*


...





> The court heard he used a chatroom to exchange messages with a police officer posing as a man who would organise a meeting with a boy, who police called ‘Chris’.
> 
> The meeting at the car park of the McDonald’s restaurant at Debdale Park took place in March last year.
> 
> An examination of Beverley’s computer after his arrest revealed another attempt to meet a child for abuse, although it is understood no meeting took place, the court heard.


....




> The court heard Beverley, who sobbed uncontrollably and rocked  throughout the hearing,  continue to maintain his innocence. He shouted ‘I did not do it’ as he left the dock in handcuffs


.

In his twisted mind, the fact that there never was any boy for him to abuse and it was all a police set up probably does make him innocent. AFAIC though, this operation potentially prevented children from being abused by this man in the future and hopefully gave this man access to whatever treatment he might need.

This sort of thing is defo best left to the polis though, and not to glory hunting weirdos like Stinson Hunter.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 30, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> stinson hunter isn't even collaring proper child sex rings, people traffickers or darknet loving child-porn sharers. He's overdosed on 'to catch a predator' re-runs.



Predictably enough, quite a few targets kill themselves before it gets to court too.

If you ask me, Stinson and his ilk are actually stimulating the desires they claim to be repressing.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 30, 2014)

While zero sympathy for stinsons targets probably isnt a a hobby that should be encouraged its going to end really really badly sooner rather than later. Theres a reason Police get training and have rules and we have a justice system rather than mob rule.
 Channel 4 encouraging this loon someobody should have mentioned ethics, even that wanker kyle has some professionals in the back ground to attempt to mitigate the carnage he causes.
  Much as going out leon or taxi driver appeals monstering some sad git in a motel carpark really isnt on


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Wouldn't bother really - not that relevant to the thread.



Well, it may or may not be "that relevant to the thread", but if I'd been on the jury for that trial, given all the evidence contained in the report, and in the absence of other evidence which may or may not have come up in the trial but doesn't appear in the report, I would have struggled to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Had you also been on the jury, you would have needed to do rather more to convince me than simply say that his defence is feeble.

And if I were a defence solicitor who discovered only now that the whole thing had apparently been staged as part of a C4 documentary, I'd be looking into the possibility of appealing the conviction.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Well, it may or may not be "that relevant to the thread", but if I'd been on the jury for that trial, given all the evidence contained in the report, and in the absence of other evidence which may or may not have come up in the trial but doesn't appear in the report, I would have struggled to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Had you also been on the jury, you would have needed to do rather more to convince me than simply say that his defence is feeble.
> 
> And if I were a defence solicitor who discovered only now that the whole thing had apparently been staged as part of a C4 documentary, I'd be looking into the possibility of appealing the conviction.


You fucking what?  Two things. You've again confused my general point for the specific and secondly made sure that you look stupid given that you are not privy to all the evidence contained in the report or any other evidence in this case so have no fucking business suggesting what you would have done as a jury member.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/snared-pervert-who-planned-abuse-5693949
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, it certainly may be simply a concocted attempt at a defence.

I agree that this stuff is best left to the police, and that hopefully the people in these various cases will now get whatever treatment they need.

It would be even better if they could get such treatment without having to be convicted of such offences, but as existentialist has already argued, the sort of moral panic which we've seen does nothing to make such treatment more accessable. It may also, in my opinion, lead to unsafe convictions in some cases

Edited to correct the inadvertant suggestion that existentialist said anything about unsafe convictions. Thanks to butchersapron for bringing this to my attention


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

andysays said:


> Fair enough, it certainly may be simply a concocted attempt at a defence.
> 
> I agree that this stuff is best left to the police, and that hopefully the people in these various cases will now get whatever treatment they need.
> 
> It would be even better if they could get such treatment without having to be convicted of such offences, but as existentialist has already argued, the sort of moral panic which may lead to unsafe convictions does nothing to make such treatment more accessable.


I don't think he mentioned unsafe convictions. Why post that in association with your 'some doubt' posts earlier?


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> You fucking what?  Two things. You've again confused my general point for the specific and secondly made sure that you look stupid given that you are not privy to all the evidence contained in the report or any other evidence in this case so have no fucking business suggesting what you would have done as a jury member.



There seems to be quite a lot of confusion in our attempts to communicate with each other, not just my not understanding your general point, but also your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet and this one



butchersapron said:


> I didn't post the post that you're quoting in this post. There's some doubt.



which seems to me, in my confusion, to be a direct contradiction of the record of the posts which are still there for everyone to read.

Just as well we're not likely to find ourselves in the same jury room anytime soon.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

Sometimes, you just have to ...wait.


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he mentioned unsafe convictions. Why post that in association with your 'some doubt' posts earlier?



You're right; he didn't. That is genuinely confusing, so I'll go back and edit it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

What about this bit:



> but also your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet



it's patently untrue. How many did you have?


----------



## andysays (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What about this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> it's patently untrue. *How many did you have?*



Oh dear, I know you can do better than this.

If you, rightly, don't like it when this sort of shit is thrown at you, maybe try to avoid it yourself


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2014)

I don't know what you're on about here. I said that i knew the case has been to trial and resulted in a conviction -  you translate to "your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet". Then this other stuff. It literally ignores all the previous conversation.


----------



## elbows (Jan 30, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder which production company this is.



From the article I linked to:



> Despite being asked to feature in numerous documentaries in the past and refusing, Hunter said that it was an offer from AMOS Pictures and the chance to work with BAFTA winner Dan Reed that changed his mind.



I've barely watched this sort of TV for a decade so I am ignorant as the the quality of prior Dan Reed work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> It surprised me too, and I also find it concerning.
> 
> From the info in those reports, it appears that two people have been found guilty, jailed (and presumably put on the sex offenders register) solely for an on-line conversation with a women falsely claiming to be underage, and then being foolish enough to attempt to meet them.
> 
> ...



Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself.  Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark *has* to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're *done*.
Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions _per se_.  They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not really sure what your point is here.  Are you trying to make a joke?
> 
> I'd say that attempting to meet what they thought was an underage girl for sexual purposes was plenty of evidence to "demonstrate their supposed [_sic_] paedophile tendencies."
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, the UK law is still a bit murky on "for sexual purposes", as it's taken as read that the contact is for such purposes, rather than needing to be provable (which may be a commonsense assumption, but is still just that - an assumption).


----------



## existentialist (Jan 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
> Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself.  Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark *has* to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're *done*.
> Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions _per se_.  They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
> Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.


_Outsourced_ managerialist criminal justice systems, if the likes of Stinson Hunter et al get much of a free run at it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2014)

existentialist said:


> I guess that's at the root of my uneasiness. The likes of Stimpson Hunter would probably argue that their mandate comes from the disgust of society at the activities of child sex abusers - a disgust that is largely fuelled by hysterical and unbalanced news reporting about the subject, which the actions of these vigilantes feeds into.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I think that, if this problem is to be dealt with effectively - which includes whatever it takes to _prevent_ these people from committing such acts, rather than catching them in the act - the emotional temperature needs to be lowered. It is pretty evident that, for a lot of child sex abusers, this is a compulsion they have, not a choice they make. That doesn't in any way excuse what they do, but is ramping up the furore around it really the best way to address the problem?
> 
> ...



Just thought I'd mention that a majority (around 70% in England and Wales) of males arrested for non-contact sex offences (internet grooming, mostly) had no previous record of sex offences, at least as far as 2001 (which is the last Home Office bulletin I have on the subject.
Now, given that the majority of contact sex offenders have at least one conviction for a sex offence under their belt while still a juvenile, it makes me wonder whether rather than tapping into a vein of paedophiles _per se_, that non-contact offence legislation has tapped into a previously undiscovered seam of people who, pre-internet, merely fantasised, and didn't go beyond fantasy because they were socialised enough to have "real world" relationships part of the time. The advent of mass-computer ownership and internet use may have been the key factor in their offending.

Hmm, something else to research.


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
> Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself.  Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark *has* to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're *done*.
> Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions _per se_.  They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
> Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.



Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess in that case my surprise and concern should be directed at the way the law has been framed, rather than the fact that particular prosecutions have been successful, because that strikes me as allowing and encouraging entrapment in a way which doesn't (as far as I know) happen in relation to other offences.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for clarifying that.
> 
> I guess in that case my surprise and concern should be directed at the way the law has been framed, rather than the fact that particular prosecutions have been successful, because that strikes me as allowing and encouraging entrapment in a way which doesn't (as far as I know) happen in relation to other offences.



The law was designed so that entrapment (in the legal sense) couldn't happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that *what amounts to entrapment* can't take place.


----------



## Athos (Jan 31, 2014)

I'm not sure this is entrapment.  It's not a case of the defendants being persuaded to commit crimes that they otherwise wouldn't commit.  It'd be different if the 'hunters' were approaching people and offering to meet them for sex, but, if the Stinson Hunter's website is to be believed, that's now how they operate:



> We never approach the people we catch first, we set up a profile and wait for people to contact us, upon receiving the first message we immediately inform the person that we are underage and it is then up to them if they wish to continue talking, we don’t engage in sexually explicit chat nor do we encourage it or send indecent images, we simply keep the chat (on our part) neutral. The people we meet normally always suggest meeting the ‘child’.


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The law was designed so that entrapment (in the legal sense) couldn't happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that *what amounts to entrapment* can't take place.



Maybe I should have written "allowing what I personally (and obviously I'm not a lawyer, or even have sufficient knowledge of what the actual legal position is) consider to be amounting to entrapment?"

Out of interest, how does the situation compare with making arrangements to buy drugs on line, where those drugs don't actually exist, or other similar situations?


----------



## andysays (Jan 31, 2014)

Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales



> Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether.
> 
> Some examples of entrapment are as follows:-
> 
> ...



So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.


----------



## Athos (Jan 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> Maybe I should have written "allowing what I personally (and obviously I'm not a lawyer, or even have sufficient knowledge of what the actual legal position is) consider to be amounting to entrapment?"
> 
> Out of interest, how does the situation compare with making arrangements to buy drugs on line, where those drugs don't actually exist, or other similar situations?



Test purchases of drugs are fairly uncontentious, and not ordinarily considered by the courts to amount to entrapment.  The leading case on the definition of entrapment in English law is Loosley.  It's worth reading the judgement:  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm  Essentially the key is the difference between luring/inciting a crime and presenting a potential offender with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.  To my mind the conduct of the 'hunters' falls within the latter category.


----------



## Athos (Jan 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales
> 
> 
> 
> So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.



Historically, the focus has been on the fact that the state has acted unfairly (rather than upon ny diminution of the accused's culpability), and all the public policy reasons for preventing the state from acting in that way.  But I'd be surprised if the hunter's conduct would be exempted from the question of entrapment merely because they are not the police.  I think that the reason it's not entrapment are the same reasons that it wouldn't be entrapment if the police were doing the same thing (as, indeed, they do).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales
> 
> 
> 
> So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.



Hence why the OB always get their honeytrappers to make clear they're "underage" - gives the putative "perp" a way to easily get off the hook, and if they don't take it, they're making their intentions very clear (as far as the OB are concerned) by continuing to stay in contact.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 31, 2014)

Just read through the thread. In English law there is not a per-se objection to entrapment as is often believed. Case law covers situations such as the police setting up pawn brokers who buy stolen goods from burglars in order to "entrap" the burglars. This has been deemed acceptable. If the bogus pawn broker were encouraging the burglars to go out and rob then section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may kick in. The general assumption in English (rather than US) law is that ALL evidence is admissible. If investigators have acted inappropriately that should be dealt with by way of either civil claims (i.e tort of privacy etc) or by professional disciplinary action. However,  obviously if otherwise innocent people are being persuaded to commit crimes by the popo section 78 of PACE can be used by a judge to kick the case to touch.

I always find it strange that people assume that this kind of thing should be left to the police. A strong motivator for police action is when the general public start acting. The state needs to assert its monopoly of power and then starts to step in. I would love to see some private prosecutions of paedo scum start as a further motivation of further police action. Don't forget that  Snowden revelations suggest that a concerted state intervention would bring shed loads of paedo's to the Courts.It just hasn't been treated as a priority.


----------



## rubyblue89 (Feb 1, 2014)

"Stinson Hunter has even admitted as much."Guys that I catch generally aren't paedophiles," he told supporters in an online broadcast in August."


----------



## elbows (Feb 6, 2014)

This news doesn't surprise me as I made the mistake some days ago of trying to read his twitter feed, and lasted just long enough to spot him mentioning that he had received correspondence from the police that wasn't exactly positive.



> NUNEATON'S pervert catcher Stinson Hunter has reacted to criticism from the police,
> 
> In a joint statement issued online, Warwickshire Police and West Mercia Police have said that they do 'not condone' the actions of the Nuneaton-born self-styled pervert catcher.
> 
> ...



http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stin...tory-20566198-detail/story.html#ixzz2saKIwG9k

Lots more stuff in the full story, including the police statement.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2014)

The Stinson Hunter documentary is on channel 4 tonight at 10pm. They are promoting it fairly heavily. I don't think I'll be watching it but thought I should mention it on this thread anyway.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2014)

elbows said:


> The Stinson Hunter documentary is on channel 4 tonight at 10pm. They are promoting it fairly heavily. I don't think I'll be watching it but thought I should mention it on this thread anyway.


Ta. Production company don't seem especially exploitative from what i can tell. Although i do note the bumpf for one of their people says: _Tom specializes in tricky access to uncharted worlds. He spent a year living with the leader of the EDL and a band of Islamic extremists for Proud and Prejudiced. _Er...no he didn't.


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2014)

Indeed:



> Stinson himself only saw the documentary last night, during a special viewing in London.
> 
> But he told the News yesterday morning that previews of the film, which was 18 months in the making, have calmed many of the nerves he has had about it.
> 
> ...





> "People are actually getting the message, it is not focussing on me, they are not focussing on my past as a junkie prisoner, they are focusing on the problem that I wanted to highlight, and have done from day one," he told the News.
> 
> "It is not about me being a vigilante, it is about focussing on the problem and the lack of action from the police. Police forces get millions of pounds to tackle this kind of crime, yet I can do it for £20 a week and get more results. I can't express how happy I am with the reaction so far, I am not going to lie, I am relieved because for the past 18 months it has all be on me, I have had to back up everything I have said and done, and now all of the work I have done has been validated."



http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stin...portant-year/story-23020901-detail/story.html


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 1, 2014)

Cheers for the headz up. I'll give it a watch.

Looking forward to learning why they chose Letzgo rather than Pedo4U or HuntersRus. 

I'm not necessarily against what the state deems to be vigilantism, but not too keen when it offers less safeguards than the state itself offers. A lot of it appears to be entrapment which is actually illegal in this country for state servants.


----------



## kenny g (Oct 1, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A lot of it appears to be entrapment which is actually illegal in this country for state servants.


 By which law is entrapment illegal?


----------



## elbows (Oct 1, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Looking forward to learning why they chose Letzgo rather than Pedo4U or HuntersRus.



I've not been keeping track of any possible twists over time, but last I heard Stinson Hunter is nothing to do with Letzgo Hunting, and in fact they were rivals. And unless they changed their mind or someone else took on the group name, Letzgo Hunting shut itself down after getting heat for someone killing themselves.

The spat is mentioned in this article from about a year ago:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/paedophile-hunters-war-over-identity-6142934



> Paedophile hunters based in neighbouring Midland towns are at war after the leader of one group accused his rival of threatening to reveal his identity online.
> 
> Scumm Buster, who ran Hinckley based Letzgo Hunting, has stepped down – and blames rival paedophile hunter Stinson Hunter for him leaving the group claiming that Stinson Hunter threatened to out him on the internet.
> 
> ...



In any case the choice of the documentary producers was likely more to do with Stinson being a willing participant, plus not hiding his identity to the extent that many do, e.g. his real name was published a good while ago.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 1, 2014)

Fucking hell


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Oct 1, 2014)

Like watching a Shane Meadows film almost.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Oct 1, 2014)

kenny g said:


> By which law is entrapment illegal?


HTH

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#United_Kingdom

Not illegal but potentially a valid defence.


----------



## Lorca (Oct 1, 2014)

how distressing this program is. i used to live in camp hill - that guy was lucky the police came when they did. proper rough area that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 1, 2014)

kenny g said:


> By which law is entrapment illegal?


Fuck knows. Seems a grey area. But there are precedents. 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 1, 2014)

elbows said:


> I've not been keeping track of any possible twists over time, but last I heard Stinson Hunter is nothing to do with Letzgo Hunting, and in fact they were rivals. And unless they changed their mind or someone else took on the group name, Letzgo Hunting shut itself down after getting heat for someone killing themselves.
> 
> The spat is mentioned in this article from about a year ago:
> 
> ...


I was referring to the thread title not realising they weren't one and the same.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 1, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck knows. Seems a grey area. But there are precedents.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/26/ukcrime.drugsandalcohol



You could certainly fill some private prisons up if you let law enforcement take part in instigating crimes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 1, 2014)

I think I used the wrong term. Inadmissible rather than illegal.

You can make an illegal move in Chess and you won't do time for it. I didn't realise in criminality it just means something you can be prosecuted for.


----------



## The Pale King (Oct 1, 2014)

Quite a good article here on entrapment:

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/the-law-regarding-entrapment/55972.fullarticle

...key points may be:

"The leading case on entrapment is _R v Loosely_ [2001] UKHL 53. The case was concerned with the actions of undercover police officers carrying out test purchase operations. Lord Nicholls identified that a useful guide when considering whether the conduct of the police amounted to inciting or instigating crime was to ascertain whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. If the police conduct preceding the commission of the offence was no more than might have been expected by others in the circumstances this would not constitute entrapment. If, however, it went beyond this an abuse of process by the state may well be established.
(...)
It appears perverse that, while the law protects against the state causing citizens to commit illegal acts, it does not protect against private parties doing the same thing, where often the participation of the private ‘entrapper’ goes beyond that which would be deemed appropriate by law enforcement officers. Many newspapers stings involve an expensive and targeted campaign on one individual, based on limited or no intelligence, where the inducement is persistent and the primary incentive is to sell newspapers, not to prevent crime."


----------



## treelover (Oct 1, 2014)

God, that was a disturbing programme on many levels, glad I live a sheltered life


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

What was most shocking was the apparent  flagrancy of some of the nonces.

I thought it was a good programme, though.  It gave a bit of an insight into 'Stinson Hunter', and made me more inclined to think that he's motivated by his own demons (i.e. the abuse to which he alluded), than by egotism (though I'm sure he enjoys the fame).  Whilst I suspect that it's not ideal for people with an emotional investment to investigate crimes, at least he's doing something, and getting concrete results - the 10 men he's had banged up might have met with other kids, but for Stinson's intervention.  And he was obviously a bright bloke, who understands the need to operate within the law to secure admissible evidence.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 2, 2014)

Guys trying to do good not sure he should be applauded but if your online looking for vulnerable kids I think it's better you run into this bloke than some vulnerable kid.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Whilst I suspect that it's not ideal for people with an emotional investment to investigate crimes, at least he's doing something, and getting concrete results - the 10 men he's had banged up might have met with other kids, but for Stinson's intervention.



Just to be pedantic, 10 people haven't been banged up. As stated at the end, most appeared to have been given suspended sentences or community orders.

I 'm guessing but I imagine this means they're first time offenders. I expect the depression/mental health defence is used a lot of the time in court for such cases. I do wonder how often the opportunity to meet actually comes about by using web forums and whether these men would actually act on their thoughts if such an opportunity were not presented. Also I wonder how many have to sign the SO register and whether support is offered to ensure they don't re-offend or if the consequences of their first court appearance are expected to be a sufficient deterrent.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

Meanwhile....an app is available that will protect kids from....well everything really.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...leforcefield-app-blocks-texts-bullies-7867097


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

Chip Barm said:


> Just to be pedantic, 10 people haven't been banged up. As stated at the end, most appeared to have been given suspended sentences or community orders.
> 
> I 'm guessing but I imagine this means they're first time offenders. I expect the depression/mental health defence is used a lot of the time in court for such cases. I do wonder how often the opportunity to meet actually comes about by using web forums and whether these men would actually act on their thoughts if such an opportunity were not presented. Also I wonder how many have to sign the SO register and whether support is offered to ensure they don't re-offend or if the consequences of their first court appearance are expected to be a sufficient deterrent.



Ok, 10 people convicted - the point remains the same, though.

The fact is that they pursued what they thought were children, going as far as to try to meet them for sex.  And, whilst I agree that real kids (as opposed to Stinson's decoys) might be less inclined to agree to meet, depending on how many kids these men attempt to groom online, there's a fair chance that they'd get to meet someone eventually

I think they would be entered onto the register, and that, at the very least they would be offered help.

Overall, I have very little sympathy for the men Stinson catches, and some admiration for his dedication and ingenuity.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 2, 2014)

A vigilante posing as a child and entrapping a copper posing as a child would make for an interesting case.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 2, 2014)

I never knew there was such fierce rivalry among nonce hunters


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

He's had a former police officer I believe.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2014)

Whats the documentary called?

I wanna watch it on catch up tomorrow?


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

It's called The Paedophile Hunter


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I never knew there was such fierce rivalry among nonce hunters



All seem to be in the midlands too.


----------



## killer b (Oct 2, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I never knew there was such fierce rivalry among nonce hunters


 there's some darkly comic material there for someone.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2014)

killer b said:


> there's some darkly comic material there for someone.


 
Brass eye special number 2.


----------



## Part 2 (Oct 2, 2014)

He has a kickstarter...£15k collected so far to bring you more 'groundbreaking journalism'.

Someone has actually paid for this:

* Pledge £1,000 or more *
Stinson will have your company name (Company brand & size permitting) tattooed on his leg. The tattoo will be a reasonable size and on his lower leg so will be visible. This pledge also includes all previous rewards.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 2, 2014)

A whip round and registration of Lacey Lolita Ltd?


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 2, 2014)

The documentary did seem quite favourable to Stinson.  His motivation wasn't what I was suspecting, though there was a bit of ego going on (but driven by a need to feel valued rather than be 'top dog') and they seemed to be behaving responsibly, at least on camera.  The guys he caught all seemed a bit creepy and also a bit pathetic.

This sort of thing has to be a significant deterrent to nonces, though I suspect this programme might give them a heads-up on the trapper's methodology.

A potential stitch-up/evil prank that could be engineered would be to flirt with someone on a regular dating site pretending to be a 19yr old women or whatever, soliciting cock videos and so on, then use this info from an innocent party to respond to the nonce hunters, then arrange a date with the dating site dude at the 'capture house' at the time agreed by the hunters.  Wouldn't stand up in court because of phone records etc., but could put an innocent person on Facebook for a while before it was sorted out.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Oct 2, 2014)

One of the men used the excuse when confronted that he did not believe the girl he was about to meet was 12 due to all their previous communication online being on an 18+ website.
CPS decided not to prosecute. Beggars belief as all the evidence suggested otherwise.


----------



## Betsy (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> *Overall, I have very little sympathy for the men Stinson catches,* and some admiration for his dedication and ingenuity.


 I have none whatsoever..ugh! I felt for Stinson at the end when he broke down and cried. He sounds as if he could be giving evidence of child abuse in children's homes to the police. Hope he does!


----------



## sim667 (Oct 2, 2014)

If he lures in a gang I can see it being a bit of a sticky ending for him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 2, 2014)

mystic pyjamas said:


> One of the men used the excuse when confronted that he did not believe the girl he was about to meet was 12 due to all their previous communication online being on an 18+ website.
> CPS decided not to prosecute. Beggars belief as all the evidence suggested otherwise.



I thought he was the one after the 11 year autistic one?

He came up with that story pretty much the moment he was confronted and he stuck to it. All the other creeps pled guilty.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Oct 2, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I thought he was the one after the 11 year autistic one?
> 
> He came up with that story pretty much the moment he was confronted and he stuck to it. All the other creeps pled guilty.


Malice a forethought ?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 2, 2014)

mystic pyjamas said:


> Malice a forethought ?



I think possibly the evidence gathered wouldn't stand up to a full on Crown Court going over, but if the nonces indicate at the magistrate's pre-hearing that they'll go guilty then the CPS will run with it. Pure speculation on my part though.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 2, 2014)

Why so many nonces? 

Only because they were nonced before?  

If not, is part of it just natural?


----------



## elbows (Oct 2, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Why so many nonces?
> 
> Only because they were nonced before?
> 
> If not, is part of it just natural?



Natural is a loaded term in so many ways. Especially when it comes to cases which get within some kind of reasonably close proximity to the age of consent, since the legal age clearly varies per country. That makes it obvious that we are talking about what a particular society ends up deeming permissible at a point in time, which overlaps with but is not the same as most ideas about what something being 'natural' is. Many tedious circles can be gone round during discussions within this domain, so I tend to applaud those who want to focus more on the aspects of power, i.e. unequal power dynamics between people, and the opportunistic and systematic ways this stuff is exploited, rather than exactly what age people can be having sex at without it being 'unnatural'.

As for so many, there are so many millions of people in this country that even if I hear about thousands of sex offenders, I don't end up with shocking percentage or ratio statistics which boggle my mind about how many of these fiends exist.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A vigilante posing as a child and entrapping a copper posing as a child would make for an interesting case.



Well children aren't really the target.
Unless the idea that some Japanese school girls came up spreads here lure some business man to a park with promises and meet him mob handed and armed and March him to the nearest atm


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Oct 2, 2014)

I have no idea as to the morality of hunting criminals and exposing them, too many issues to contemplate, but I kept thinking throughout the programme that this paedo-hunter has probably stopped at least a few children from being attacked, so that's a good thing in my book.

And maybe the whole subject needs an airing like this to bring in legislation to help the police bang-up more of these offenders.


----------



## elbows (Oct 2, 2014)

Obnoxiousness said:


> And maybe the whole subject needs an airing like this to bring in legislation to help the police bang-up more of these offenders.



Its far from clear to me that more legislation would be the big difference maker. Resources, and will/impetus are probably more useful on that front. On other fronts, there is stuff like how well the states justice system and support mechanisms treat victims. And the relationship and levels of trust that communities have with the police. And the difficulties of discovering crimes where the victim may have been deliberately chosen because their life to that point leaves them vulnerable in ways including how many people in the world they trust to confide in, and any previous dealings with the law etc not having left a positive impression of dealing with the state in their mind.

Add in all the cases where a victim may not consider themselves a victim, at least not at the time. And societies general unease about where the boundaries of someones private or family life stand, beyond which many might decide is not their business to do anything other than gossip and speculate about it sporadically over the years. And issues surrounding 'being a grass'. And the sort of direction small groups may very towards when a rumour flickers onto the radar, for example, of a work colleague with a rumoured predilection for teenagers. 'if it were my daughter, I'd sort him out, but its not my business and we don't have solid proof'.

Given the nature of many of these problems, its not hard to imagine that there could be many answers if communities of people managed their affairs in a manner quite different to the present system. As usual with radical alternatives, there are numerous ways it could go wrong and be used as a tool of one sort of abuse or another itself, and numerous forces that would be opposed to it and all the other changes to power etc that would be required to live in such communities.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Vigilantes are a thousand times more despicable than criminals.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Vigilantes are a thousand times more despicable than criminals.


What a ridiculous thing to say.  All vigilantes?  All criminals?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say.  All vigilantes?  All criminals?



Yep.

And with regard to this particular thread: Stinson Hunter does a thousand times more harm than the paedophiles he professes to loathe.

In fact I would have a hard time coming up with an individual whose moral depravity approaches his.  It is rendered the more contemptible for being dressed in moralistic garb.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Deck chairs now 60% off!!


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yep.
> 
> And with regard to this particular thread: Stinson Hunter does a thousand times more harm than the paedophiles he professes to loathe.
> 
> In fact I would have a hard time coming up with an individual whose moral depravity approaches his.  It is rendered the more contemptible for being dressed in moralistic garb.


Silly.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Silly.



Nope.

He is building his career on the misery of others.  He is exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit. What could be more despicable than that?

Furthermore, in the present deranged climate of opinion, there is no shortage of sickos who will imitate him.  It's already happening.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Deck chairs now 60% off!!



Does that offer come with complimentary popcorn?


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Nope.
> 
> He is building his career on the misery of others.  He is exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit. What could be more despicable than that?



You could accuse an oncologist of building a career on the misery others - meaningless.

What could be more despicable than 'outing' child sex offenders?  Rape and murder, say?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> Does that offer come with complimentary popcorn?



It comes with _20% discounted_ popcorn! 

You'll have the shirt off me back, you lot!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> What could be more despicable than 'outing' child sex offenders?



He doesn't out them, he creates them.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> It comes with _20% discounted_ popcorn!
> 
> You'll have the shirt off me back, you lot!



I'm going to need something portable so I can watch what he's up to on at least one more thread as well.

Have you got something like a deck chair with wheels, and some popcorn that comes in a container with an easily removable lid so I don't spill it? I realise there may be an extra charge for these features.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He doesn't out them, he creates them.



What makes you think the men that approached Stinson  online thinking he was a child wouldn't approach other children for sex?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> I'm going to need something portable so I can watch what he's up to on at least one more thread as well.
> 
> Have you got something like a deck chair with wheels, and some popcorn that comes in a container with an easily removable lid so I don't spill it? I realise there may be an extra charge for these features.



That's it - you're barred, son.  No relaxing cloth-based reclining structures or corny comestibles for you til you learn to respect your elders.


----------



## elbows (Oct 2, 2014)

Some music to go with the popcorn.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> What makes you think the men that approached Stinson  online thinking he was a child wouldn't approach other children for sex?



He puts temptation in the way of people he knows to be vulnerable.

Hmm.... who else does that?

But anyway, that's not what I mean.  What I mean is that he fosters a climate of sexualized sadism.  He makes people feel that their sadistic impulses are acceptable--possibly even virtuous.

I honestly can't think of a worse crime than that.

Just read the responses to his Facebook threads or his Website.  If they don't scare you, you're dead.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He doesn't out them, he creates them.


On Minecraft, or in Photoshop?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 2, 2014)

If I got him the wool...


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He puts temptation in the way of people he knows to be vulnerable.
> 
> Hmm.... who else does that?



Trolls?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> On Minecraft, or in Photoshop?



On television.  Much more effective.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> That's it - you're barred, son.  No relaxing cloth-based reclining structures or corny comestibles for you til you learn to respect your elders.



OK, I'll provide my own seating and nutrition resources. Some people will stop at nothing to commodify even the most basic pleasures


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I honestly can't think of a worse crime than that.



I simply don't believe that you can think of no worse crime than what Stinson does.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Trolls?



Very good.

But let me ask you some serious questions.  You strike me as a fairly reasonable person.  What do you make of the responses Stinson Hunter evokes in people?  Does he not legitimize their darkest, most authoritarian and unabashedly sadistic impulses?  Does he not do this for his own profit?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Trolls?



On this I think Phil might have a point tbf.  It looks to me like there is some definite 'egging on' happening.  These guys make a choice, certainly, but there is a kind of persuasion happening that might mean at least some of the people they catch might be people who would have reined themselves in in a real situation.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> ...He is building his career on the misery of others.  He is exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit. What could be more despicable than that?...



What about attempting to build your reputation as an iconoclastic internet warrior on the back of someone you declare to be building his career on the misery of others, exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit? That certainly seems pretty cuntish, if not despicable.

Seriously phil, do you really think you're adding anything worthwhile to this discussion in comparison, for instance, to elbows' thoughtful and nuanced post immediately before you burst in?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> I simply don't believe that you can think of no worse crime than what Stinson does.



Well then I shall explain my position to you.

It is not so much _what _he does that I find repugnant (although I do find it extremely repugnant).  It is more _why _he does it.  He evinces an unthinking self-righteousness that, in my experience, is the exclusive preserve of the truly evil.  And his naked hunger for fame and glory is beneath contempt.

But worst of all are the _consequences _of his behavior: what his behavior causes others to think and do.  He personifies everything that is brutal and degraded in modern Western society.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Very good.
> 
> But let me ask you some serious questions.  You strike me as a fairly reasonable person.  What do you make of the responses Stinson Hunter evokes in people?  Does he not legitimize their darkest, most authoritarian and unabashedly sadistic impulses?  Does he not do this for his own profit?



I think some of the comments are deeply disturbing.  But then so is some of the behaviour I see from people at football, or after they've had a drink - I don't blame the FA or brewers, though.  I get the impression that he's motivated by something other than profit.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> What about attempting to build your reputation as an iconoclastic internet warrior on the back of someone you declare to be building his career on the misery of others, exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit? That certainly seems pretty cuntish, if not despicable.
> 
> Seriously phil, do you really think you're adding anything worthwhile to this discussion in comparison, for instance, to elbows' thoughtful and nuanced post immediately before you burst in?



Stop grovelling you creep.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Stop grovelling you creep.



Another thoughtful answer.

Who am I supposed to be grovelling to or for? Certainly not you...


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> What about attempting to build your reputation as an iconoclastic internet warrior on the back of someone you declare to be building his career on the misery of others, exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit? That certainly seems pretty cuntish, if not despicable.



Phil is basically shooting the shit on a site where he is a known controversialist.  Apples and oranges seems too mild an expression to use when comparing that to someone who ruins people's lives (regardless of whether that is justifiable or with good intentions).


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It is not so much _what _he does that I find repugnant (although I do find it extremely repugnant).  It is more _why _he does it.  He evinces an unthinking self-righteousness that, in my experience, is the exclusive preserve of the truly evil.  And his naked hunger for fame and glory is beneath contempt.



I didn't get that impression about his motivation from the programme.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> I think some of the comments are deeply disturbing.  But then so is some of the behaviour I see from people at football, or after they've had a drink - I don't blame the FA or brewers, though.  I get the impression that he's motivated by something other than profit.



So do I: psychosis.

What he does is different from the FA and the brewers.  The responses he evokes aren't a side-effect of what he does.  They are _the whole point _of what he does.  They are his _aim._


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 2, 2014)

As usual beyond the hyperbole Phil is right Stinson does create an exciting world of sexual violence and fear, this is frightening

He (Stinson not Phil) totally gets off on it


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> I didn't get that impression about his motivation from the programme.



Really?  You think he's motivated by... what... _altruism?_

FFS.  There are plenty of people working to stop child abuse in a non-self-aggrandizing fashion.  He ain't one of them.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> So do I: psychosis.
> 
> What he does is different from the FA and the brewers.  The responses he evokes aren't a side-effect of what he does.  They are _the whole point _of what he does.  They are his _aim._



How do you know what motivates him, Phil?  It appeared to that what moved him the most was the conviction of one of his targets, not the comments on social media about his work.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> As usual beyond the hyperbole Phil is right Stinson does create an exciting world of sexual violence and fear, this is frightening
> 
> He (Stinson not Phil) totally gets off on it



Yes indeedy.  He (Stinson not anyone else) is the real pervert here.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Really?  You think he's motivated by... what... _altruism?_
> 
> FFS.  There are plenty of people working to stop child abuse in a non-self-aggrandizing fashion.  He ain't one of them.



No, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I suspect he's motivated by past trauma.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> How do you know what motivates him, Phil?



Because he promotes himself like he was a brand of soap powder.  He wants to be famous, the poor sap.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> No, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I suspect he's motivated by past trauma.



Plenty of people suffer such trauma without feeling the need to set themselves up as Captain Noncebuster.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Phil is basically shooting the shit on a site where he is a known controversialist.  Apples and oranges seems too mild an expression to use when comparing that to someone who ruins people's lives (regardless of whether that is justifiable or with good intentions).



A known controversialist, troll, and preventer of anybody else having a halfway decent conversation, IMO.

Ironic that he's now throwing around words like psychosis, some might think his repeated behaviour here bears many of the signs of mental illness.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 2, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Why so many nonces?
> 
> Only because they were nonced before?
> 
> If not, is part of it just natural?



It's clearly part of the wider spectrum of human sexuality. Can't be much fun being wired that way I wouldn't have thought. Not in our society anyway.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Yes indeedy.  He (Stinson not anyone else) is the real pervert here.


I wouldn't say that.

I would say he is as big a pervert as those he goes after only he seems to get away with it. Which potently is more dangerous


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Because he promotes himself like he was a brand of soap powder.  He wants to be famous, the poor sap.



Rather a simplistic analysis.  It might be true that he enjoys the fame, but I didn't get the feeling that was his main driver.  And there are other reasons for publicity than to seek adulation e.g. for funding, as a deterrent for the sort of people he targets, to feel validated as he exorcises his own demons etc. etc.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> It's clearly part of the wider spectrum of human sexuality. Can't be much fun being wired that way I wouldn't have thought. Not in our society anyway.



The same kind of people who get their rocks off on hating nonces today would have been queerbashers in the 70s.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Plenty of people suffer such trauma without feeling the need to set themselves up as Captain Noncebuster.



And?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Rather a simplistic analysis.  It might be true that he enjoys the fame, but I didn't get the feeling that was his main driver.  And there are other reasons for publicity than to seek adulation e.g. for funding, as a deterrent for the sort of people he targets, to feel validated as he exorcises his own demons etc. etc.



Alright, I'll accept that he's mentally ill, and that his behavior is in part caused by his illness.  But to me that can't be an excuse--mainly because he's so blatantly exploiting the sicknesses of other people.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> And?



And therefore there must be other factors determining his behavior than his having experienced trauma.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The same kind of people who get their rocks off on hating nonces today would have been queerbashers in the 70s.



You think there's a moral equivalence between disliking gay people and disliking child sex offenders?


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> ...The responses he evokes aren't a side-effect of what he does.  They are _the whole point _of what he does.  They are his _aim._





What about what you do, phil, what's the point of that, what's your aim?

Anyway, this thread is fucked, at least for the time being, so I'll take my improvised deck chair and the remains of my popcorn elsewhere.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Alright, I'll accept that he's mentally ill, and that his behavior is in part caused by his illness.  But to me that can't be an excuse--mainly because he's so blatantly exploiting the sicknesses of other people.


I didn't say he's mentally ill.  You're being very dishonest.


phildwyer said:


> And therefore there must be other factors determining his behavior than his having experienced trauma.


No, it doesn't mean that, at all - there's a flaw in your logic.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> A known controversialist, troll, and preventer of anybody else having a halfway decent conversation, IMO.
> 
> Ironic that he's now throwing around words like psychosis, some might think his repeated behaviour here bears many of the signs of mental illness.



Maybe Phil is one of the barkingest people on this site, but I think he is correct if he is suggesting that those people SH eggs on into making little trips to his honey traps are not necessarily those who would make that trip given more realistic responses from real children, and that the resulting publicity could help the most dangerous to devise better ways of hiding themselves.

There are counter-arguments for sure, but I thought these things while watching the programme.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I wouldn't say that.
> 
> I would say he is as big a pervert as those he goes after only he seems to get away with it. Which potently is more dangerous



Indeed it is.

It's more dangerous because his perversion is socially acceptable.  He doesn't just "get away with it," he inspires legions of devoted followers.  And no doubt many of them will become imitators.

It really is amazing how much people will reveal about their darkest impulses once they are _certain _that it's socially acceptable to hate a group of people.


----------



## Combustible (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> No, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, I suspect he's motivated by past trauma.



While that was hinted at, it also looked a lot like he saw it as a means of redeeming himself for his past behaviour. And it is hard to see how he could be satisfy this without redeeming himself in the eyes of others, which meant promoting himself and plastering everything all over facebook. I don't think the self promotion was cynical but it is hard to see how he could have been happy simply keeping his mouth shut and handing over the evidence to the police, even if this would have been less harmful.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It really is amazing how much people will reveal about their darkest impulses once they are _certain _that it's socially acceptable to hate a group of people.



This bit I definitely agree with.  Sometimes not even a group, though.  Sometimes just a single person.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 2, 2014)

Combustible said:


> While that was hinted at, it also looked a lot like he saw it has a means of redeeming himself for his past behaviour.



Never saw the programme, but out of interest, what past behaviour is he trying to redeem himself for?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Maybe Phil is one of the barkingest people on this site, but I think he is correct if he is suggesting that those people SH eggs on into making little trips to his honey traps are not necessarily those who would make that trip given more realistic responses from real children, and that the resulting publicity could help the most dangerous to devise better ways of hiding themselves.
> 
> There are counter-arguments for sure, but I thought these things while watching the programme.



Richard Wilson, the only guy who basically told Stinson to fuck off, was not prosecuted.  He argued, successfully, that because the chatroom in which Stinson lurked was adults only, it was reasonable to assume that the "15 year-old" was an adult engaging in sexual fantasy.  Which in fact turned out to be true.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

andysays said:


> Anyway, this thread is fucked, at least for the time being, so I'll take my improvised deck chair and the remains of my popcorn elsewhere.



Improvised.  *Improvised?  
*
You just keep looking over your shoulder, son - I've got mates in your manor...


----------



## Combustible (Oct 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Never saw the programme, but out of interest, what past behaviour is he trying to redeem himself for?



He went to prison for arson when he was 17.

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/online-crime-fighter-stinson-hunter-6800023


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Never saw the programme, but out of interest, what past behaviour is he trying to redeem himself for?



I got the impression it was general fairly low level criminality.

Edit: ok, arson is a bit heavier than I expected, but then things can get out of control really easily


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Maybe Phil is one of the barkingest people on this site, but I think he is correct if he is suggesting that those people SH eggs on into making little trips to his honey traps are not necessarily those who would make that trip given more realistic responses from real children, and that the resulting publicity could help the most dangerous to devise better ways of hiding themselves.
> 
> There are counter-arguments for sure, but I thought these things while watching the programme.



If he were simply suggesting that then I'd actually agree with him, but he's not, he's being his normal deliberately controversial, iconoclastic trolling self, and TBH I just think he's a cunt who turns every thread he does this on to shit.

Thanks for the offer of a deck chair, but I won't be needing it, at least not on this thread - I really am out now.


----------



## andysays (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Improvised.  *Improvised?
> *
> You just keep looking over your shoulder, son - I've got mates in your manor...


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Richard Wilson, the only guy who basically told Stinson to fuck off, was not prosecuted.  He argued, successfully, that because the chatroom in which Stinson lurked was adults only, it was reasonable to assume that the "15 year-old" was an adult engaging in sexual fantasy.  Which in fact turned out to be true.



The others didn't say that.  And they didn't believe it; they thought they were meeting a kid for sex.  I have very little sympathy for them.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> The others didn't say that.  And they didn't believe it; they thought they were meeting a kid for sex.  I have very little sympathy for them.



I have none either.  I do wonder whether they would have done the same if they had run into a real child rather than an adult pushing their buttons, though.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I have none either.  I do wonder whether they would have done the same if they had run into a real child rather than an adult pushing their buttons, though.



"I thought she was a kid, but she was leading me on" is not a defence for which I have much time.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> The others didn't say that.



Actually they did.  Most of them said something like "I thought it was a wind-up."  But Stinson badgered them into incriminating themselves.



Athos said:


> I have very little sympathy for them.



It's pathetic that one has to go through the ritual of saying this, but neither do I.  I do pity many of them though, since they seem to be in the grip of a grotesque compusion.  I find Stinson's exploitation of their sickness infinitely worse than the sickness itself.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> "I thought she was a kid, but she was leading me on" is not a defence for which I have much time.



It's no defence whatsoever, and things are seriously fucked up before these conversations even start.  But SH is trying to convey a story where things are happening exactly as they would have done anyway, but when he is involved the story is turned on its head and the victim is cunningly the hero in disguise.

Calling bullshit on that is not defending child abuse.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I do pity many of them though, since they seem to be in the grip of a grotesque compusion.  I find Stinson's exploitation of their sickness infinitely worse than the sickness itself.



I think plenty of people in the 'legitimate' crime fighting industry could have motives that make us queasy too, being fair.  It's Kant vs Mills again on that count...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I have none either.  I do wonder whether they would have done the same if they had run into a real child rather than an adult pushing their buttons, though.



Some would, some wouldn't.

But Stinson doesn't care about that.  He's just happy to have found a group of dirty, despicable, filthy, disgusting, bestial, revolting people on whom he can exercise his sadism without sanction.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Actually they did.  Most of them said something like "I thought it was a wind-up."  But Stinson badgered them into incriminating themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> It's pathetic that one has to go through the ritual of saying this, but neither do I.  I do pity many of them though, since they seem to be in the grip of a grotesque compusion.  I find Stinson's exploitation of their sickness infinitely worse than the sickness itself.



I'm not sure that an attraction to kids is a sickness.  But what bothers me isn't the attraction but the attempt to meet kids to sexully abuse them.  I find that far worse than the desire to catch and 'out' those that do it.  So I guess it boils down to a fundamental disagreement between our moral values; we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure that an attraction to kids is a sickness.



Why couldn't it be considered a mental illness of sorts?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Some would, some wouldn't.
> 
> But Stinson doesn't care about that.  He's just happy to have found a group of dirty, despicable, filthy, disgusting, bestial, revolting people on whom he can exercise his sadism without sanction.



Yeah, I think that's true. 

I did get the impression that he was a wounded person who might drink his fill of inflicting pain given time, but time will tell.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Why couldn't it be considered a mental illness of sorts?



I don't know; I'm no expert in mental health.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> I don't know; I'm no expert in mental health.



Not wanting to come over all broVP here, but mental illness is always socially defined.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Combustible said:


> He went to prison for arson when he was 17.



For ten years.

Of course it is possible to spend the years from 17 to 27 in prison without having your personality warped.  But it's not common.

He's also subsequently been imprisoned for assault.  He also spent many years as a heroin addict.

His current behavior is entirely in line with his past.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Not wanting to come over all broVP here, but mental illness is always socially defined.



I don't doubt it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 2, 2014)

Combustible said:


> He went to prison for arson when he was 17.
> 
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/online-crime-fighter-stinson-hunter-6800023



I suppose there are worse ways for arsonists to try and redeem themselves. At least he didn't become leader of the Lib Dems.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Maybe Phil is one of the barkingest people on this site, but I think he is correct if he is suggesting that those people SH eggs on into making little trips to his honey traps are not necessarily those who would make that trip given more realistic responses from real children, and that the resulting publicity could help the most dangerous to devise better ways of hiding themselves.
> 
> There are counter-arguments for sure, but I thought these things while watching the programme.


I suspect he makes the grooming process run very smoothly for them, they'd have to work it much harder (presumably) with real life grooming. However I can't see they are people who would otherwise not make the trip when it came to the point of meeting the child - they are that person because _they do make the trip_.

There's lots to be said about Stinson and his ethics/motivations, but not much of that alters what the men were all about on the nights they were caught. [didn't see it tonight, but I've seen a couple of the clips]. I don't think what he does is something you can be easily in favour of and there will be victims of his stings who might have all kinds of mitigation or mental health issues. Same time, it's hard to deny he manages to out men who are at the very least _on the edge of_ actively abusing a child.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The same kind of people who get their rocks off on hating nonces today would have been queerbashers in the 70s.



Disgusting offensive shit


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Disgusting offensive shit



Care to explain?

Because it seems to me that most paedo-haters don't give a toss about children.  It's the _hating _part that they find exciting.  

And such people will hate anyone they're told it is socially acceptable to hate.  In the 70s it was homosexuals.  Today it is paedophiles.

Obviously that doesn't imply any moral equivalence between homosexuals and paedophiles.

Please tell me you're not stupid enough to think it does.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Same time, it's hard to deny he manages to out men who are at the very least _on the edge of_ actively abusing a child.



He pushes them over the edge.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He pushes them over the edge.


No.  He clears a path to the edge; they step over themselves.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> He clears a path to the edge



How nice of him.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> He pushes them over the edge.


Not in the sense of causing them to do the deed of course. But anyway, the point is only of relevance if these are people who never offended in the past and would never do so again.  Entrapment is a tricky issue, but at least pure maths suggests these are menwho were likely to offend again if the process ran smoothly.

anyway, what the fuck was your post that J Ed quoted above about?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> You think there's a moral equivalence between disliking gay people and disliking child sex offenders?



I've no idea how you could get there from what I said:



phildwyer said:


> The same kind of people who get their rocks off on hating nonces today would have been queerbashers in the 70s.



What I say here is true.  There is a type of person who gets a quasi-sexual kick from hatred.  Such people will hate anyone they're told it is alright to hate.  You can spot such people by the _faux _outrage, generously laced with obscenity, with which they respond to the prospect of the hated.

Those are the truly dangerous people.  And Stinson Hunter is the perfect example.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Care to explain?
> 
> Because it seems to me that most paedo-haters don't give a toss about children.  It's the _hating _part that they find exciting.
> 
> ...



It does imply it yes, I don't think it explicitly says it but if someone said what you said to me out of context that is what I would immediately take from it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It does imply it yes, I don't think it explicitly says it but if someone said what you said to me out of context that is what I would immediately take from it.



Context is important here.


----------



## J Ed (Oct 2, 2014)

Also is it so hard to imagine non-sexual motivations for getting paedophiles locked up?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> It does imply it yes, I don't think it explicitly says it but if someone said what you said to me out of context that is what I would immediately take from it.



But I wasn't saying it out of context.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

J Ed said:


> Also is it so hard to imagine non-sexual motivations for getting paedophiles locked up?



No.  It is however completely impossible for me, or anyone else with a basic knowledge of human nature, to avoid concluding that Stinson Hunter is a sadist.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> How nice of him.



Maybe not.  But certainly not the epitome of evil you seek to portray.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I've no idea how you could get there from what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's no way to argue against these unsupported assertions, speculation and cod psychology, really.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> There's no way to argue against these unsupported assertions, speculations and cod psychology, really.



No, but I got the sense of something dark going on when watching this and I don't think it's just me and Phil.

Some people are only held back from doing really nasty shit by the fear of consequences.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I've no idea how you could get there from what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you deny that there are more morally sound reasons to hate paedophiles than there are to hate gay people?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Maybe not.  But certainly not the epitome of evil you seek to portray.



I must disagree.  He appeals to the kind of people who enjoy watching others get humiliated, having their lives destroyed, suffering.

It doesn't matter who those people are.  The desire to watch them suffer springs from the very darkest element of human nature.  Those who profit from such darkness do indeed epitomize evil.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> Some people are only held back from doing really nasty shit by the fear of consequences.



Yeah.  Some people are afraid to rape kids for fear of being caught.  No bad thing.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I must disagree.  He appeals to the kind of people who enjoy watching others get humiliated, having their lives destroyed, suffering.
> 
> It doesn't matter who those people are.  The desire to watch them suffer springs from the very darkest element of human nature.  Those who profit from such darkness do indeed epitomize evil.


That's one take on it; another is that the desire to see the guilty punished springs from a highly developed sense of justice - that aspect of human nature that sets us apart from the beasts.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Do you deny that there are more morally sound reasons to hate paedophiles than there are to hate gay people?



I wouldn't put it that way.  I'd put it this way:

I find nothing repugnant in any sexual activity conducted between consenting adults in private.  I do however find it morally repugnant for an adult to have sex with a child.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Yeah.  Some people are afraid to rape kids for fear of being caught.  No bad thing.



I agree.  That counts for a lot of crimes.  However, when you create a folk demon that you are allowed to hurt without sanction you open the door to a tsunami of shit.  Not least that some people will be able to point to any unfortunate misfit of their choosing, shout 'paedo' and do whatever the fuck they like to a soundtrack of cheering onlookers.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I wouldn't put it that way.  I'd put it this way:
> 
> I find nothing repugnant in any sexual activity conducted between consenting adults in private.  I do however find it morally repugnant for an adult to have sex with a child.



That wasn't what I asked, though.

Do you deny that there are more morally sound reasons to hate paedophiles than there are to hate gay people?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's one take on it; another is that the desire to see the guilty punished springs from a highly developed sense of justice - that aspect of human nature that sets us apart from the beasts.



The desire for the guilty to be punished springs from a sense of justice.

The desire to _see _the guilty punished is sadistic, perverted and repugnant.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> I agree.  That counts for a lot of crimes.  However, when you create a folk demon that you are allowed to hurt without sanction you open the door to a tsunami of shit.  Not least that some people will be able to point to any unfortunate misfit of their choosing, shout 'paedo' and do whatever the fuck they like to a soundtrack of cheering onlookers.



Nobody is allowed to hurt paedophiles without sanction, though.  And the Portsmouth Pediatrician scenario didn't/doesn't happen.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> That wasn't what I asked, though.
> 
> Do you deny that there are more morally sound reasons to hate paedophiles than there are to hate gay people?



I'm not sure why my previous answer didn't satisfy you.

When I said I wouldn't put it that way, I meant to suggest that your question demands considerable clarification before it can be answered properly.

For instance, by "paedophile," do you mean someone who finds children sexually attractive, or do you mean someone who has sex with children?


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The desire for the guilty to be punished springs from a sense of justice.
> 
> The desire to _see _the guilty punished is sadistic, perverted and repugnant.



Stinson brings them to justice; he's not an spectator.  Falls more within the former category than the latter.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Nobody is allowed to hurt paedophiles without sanction, though.



O rly?

http://www.sott.net/article/282247-...-abusing-his-son-and-beats-him-black-and-blue


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I'm not sure why my previous answer didn't satisfy you.
> 
> When I said I wouldn't put it that way, I meant to suggest that your question demands considerable clarification before it can be answered properly.
> 
> For instance, by "paedophile," do you mean someone who finds children sexually attractive, or do you mean someone who has sex with children?



Why not give me an answer for each interpretation?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Stinson brings them to justice; he's not an spectator.  Falls more within the former category than the latter.



Do-oh!

He's _worse _than a spectator.  He's the ticket-seller, the director and the main actor.

He exploits and encourages sadism for his personal profit.  That is literally as low as a human being can get.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Nobody is allowed to hurt paedophiles without sanction, though.  And the Portsmouth Pediatrician scenario didn't/doesn't happen.



Define 'hurt'.  It is legal to follow someone down the street in a group shouting 'paedo' and the police will do nothing.  And from which crevice of your arse did you pull that Portsmouth guff.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Do-oh!
> 
> He's _worse _than a spectator.  He's the ticket-seller, the director and the main actor.
> 
> He exploits and encourages sadism for his personal profit.  That is literally as low as a human being can get.




And round we go again.  back to you speculating on his motivation, which you cannot know.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Why not give me an answer for each interpretation?



My we're pernicketty today.

Alright.  Someone who is sexually attracted to children but does not act on it strikes me as morally admirable.

Someone who has sex with children strikes me as morally repugnant.

But as for "hate," I don't hate anybody.  Never have, never will.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

8ball said:


> It is legal to follow someone down the street in a group shouting 'paedo'...



It's not.  It's an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> And round we go again.  back to you speculating on his motivation, which you cannot know.



To be frank, his motivation is completely fucking obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience or knowledge of humanity.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> My we're pernicketty today.
> 
> Alright.  Someone who is sexually attracted to children but does not act on it strikes me as morally admirable.
> 
> ...



Hatred is a synonym for repugnance.  You're splitting hairs for the sake of controversialism.


----------



## Athos (Oct 2, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> To be frank, his motivation is completely fucking obvious to anyone with an ounce of experience or knowledge of humanity.



FACT.  End of.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> It's not.  It's an offence under the Public Order Act 1986.



Yeah, like that one is enforced rigorously and impartially...


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 2, 2014)

Athos said:


> Hatred is a synonym for repugnance.



No it isn't.

For instance, I might find a pool of pig's vomit repugnant without hating it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> Yeah, like that one is enforced rigorously and impartially...


You can roll your eyes as much as you like, mate, but you made an assertion that was totally and utterly wrong; you claimed it is legal, but it's not.  You're nearly as bad as Phil with this shifting position.  But I'm not sure why; he loves the role of cyber-iconoclast, but you seemed more sensible.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No it isn't.



Well, Collins Thesaurus and I agree that it does.  But if it helps your argument to ascribe your own special meaning to what are otherwise widely understood words, then be my guest.  But I think it signals that we're past the stage of any meaningful discussion.  Goodnight.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> You can roll your eyes as much as you like, mate, but you made an assertion that was totally and utterly wrong; you claimed it is legal, but it's not.  You're nearly as bad as Phil with this shifting position.  But I'm not sure why; he loves the role of cyber-iconoclast, but you seemed more sensible.



It's illegal in the same sense that we conduct illegal conversations all the time on this forum and in the same sense that all manner of acts are simultaneously legal and illegal, I'll grant that much.

How many of the people yelling 'paedo' at the guy walking down the road in that 'documentary' do you think were arrested?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Well, Collins Thesaurus and I agree that it does.  But if it helps your argument to ascribe your own special meaning to what are otherwise widely understood words, then be my guest.  But I think it signals that we're past the stage of any meaningful discussion.  Goodnight.



You don't find out the meaning of words from a Thesaurus.  For that you need a Dictionary.

Sleep tight.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> It's illegal in the same sense that we conduct illegal conversations all the time on this forum and in the same sense that all manner of acts are simultaneously legal and illegal, I'll grant that much.
> 
> How many of the people yelling 'paedo' at the guy walking down the road in that 'documentary' do you think were arrested?



None.  But that's not what you claimed, is it?!

Anyway, it's midnight, so I'll leave you and Phil to it, I think.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> You don't find out the meaning of words from a Thesaurus.  For that you need a Dictionary.
> 
> Sleep tight.



I didn't seek to define hatred; I said it was a synonym for repugnance.  You find synonyms in a thesaurus.

Now I really am going to bed!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> None.  But that's not what you claimed, is it?!.



Ooh - legal positivism much?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> Ooh - legal positivism much?



Oooh - trying to pass off an error as some sort of empiricism much?


----------



## bendeus (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Do-oh!
> 
> He's _worse _than a spectator.  He's the ticket-seller, the director and the main actor.
> 
> He exploits and encourages sadism for his personal profit.  That is literally as low as a human being can get.



*literally* lower than someone who fucks kids for kicks?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

bendeus said:


> *literally* lower than someone who fucks kids for kicks?



Not literally.  Morally.


----------



## bendeus (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not literally.  Morally.



Tell that to the kids, eh.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Not literally.  Morally.



What would literally mean? Proximity to sea level?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

bendeus said:


> Tell that to the kids, eh.



The victim is the person least capable of providing a moral evaluation of the crime.


----------



## bendeus (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The victim is the person least capable of providing a moral evaluation of the crime.



Well, that's ok, then


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> What would literally mean? Proximity to sea level?



It's like the old joke: "how low can you get..."


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Oooh - trying to pass off an error as some sort of empiricism much?



You think the law is words written on a page rather than the exercise of force?  Good luck with that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> You think the law is words written on a page rather than the exercise of force?  Good luck with that.



Oh, so when you said it was "legal", you meant 'legal' in a much broader sense?  Not the sense in which almost everyone understands that word, but in a sense that synthesises the jurisprudential and experiential nature of the exercise of state power, resulting in plainly unlawful acts falling within your definition of 'legal'.  It's you who needs the luck, I think!


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Oh, so when you said it was "legal", you meant 'legal' in a much broader sense?  Not the sense in which almost everyone understands that word, but in a sense that synthesises the jurisprudential and experiential nature of the exercise of state power, resulting in plainly unlawful acts falling within your definition of 'legal'.  It's you who needs the luck, I think!



Did your Thesaurus tell you that "going to bed" was a synonym for "staying up all night arguing on the internet?"


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Did your Thesaurus tell you that "going to bed" was a synonym for "staying up all night arguing on the internet?"



No, your mum told me that.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Oh, so when you said it was "legal", you meant 'legal' in a much broader sense!



No, you're right, I just couldn't be arsed to look up why it was simultaneously legal.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, you're right, I just couldn't be arsed to look up why it was simultaneously legal.



Ok.  Bit of a side-issue anyway.

Now I really must go to bed; the Mrs is querying the importance of having the last word on the internet.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Stinson Hunter continually told the guys his 'decoy' was 11, 12 , or whatever, no entrapment there at all.

phildwyer , did you prove god yet?


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

elbows said:


> Many tedious circles can be gone round during discussions within this domain, so I tend to applaud those who want to focus more on the aspects of power, i.e. unequal power dynamics between people, and the opportunistic and systematic ways this stuff is exploited, rather than exactly what age people can be having sex at without it being 'unnatural'.



This is quite interesting, can you point me to a society that doesn't have 'power dynamics'? If not, the case for this being a naturally occurring event seems to hold more credence.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Stinson Hunter continually told the guys his 'decoy' was 11, 12 , or whatever, no entrapment there at all



Whether it is entrapment is not predicated on the age of the 'victim'.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> Whether it is entrapment is not predicated on the age of the 'victim'.



How did he entrap the guys to come to his house? They all though they were coming to bone underage kids. Tough shit.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> How did he entrap the guys to come to his house? They all though they were coming to bone underage kids.



No they did not.  Did you actually watch the show?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Stinson Hunter continually told the guys his 'decoy' was 11, 12 , or whatever, no entrapment there at all.



Can you explain what their age has to do with the issue of entrapment?

Thought not.  You seem confuzzled.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

If the decoys were of consenting age it would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?

Or is that too much for you to grasp?


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No they did not.  Did you actually watch the show?



yes, I did. And yes they did. 
"I want to come and fuck you so bad" is what one of the guys texted to a supposed 11 year old girl before making an appointment to visit, do you think he wanted to help her clean the house if she had of been there?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> What makes you think the men that approached Stinson  online thinking he was a child wouldn't approach other children for sex?



Online or IRL?
There should be a distinction made between "internet groomers" and those who commit physical sexual offences against children, not least because as best we know (the whole "internet grooming" category being less than a decade old, we don't as yet have much longitudinal data) the majority of them don't appear to go on to offend physically (the majority also don't have records for crimes against children, either).


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Online or IRL?
> There should be a distinction made between "internet groomers" and those who commit physical sexual offences against children, not least because as best we know (the whole "internet grooming" category being less than a decade old, we don't as yet have much longitudinal data) the majority of them don't appear to go on to offend physically (the majority also don't have records for crimes against children, either).



As you say, the data is patchy.  So is the line between internet groomers and those who commit physical acts e.g. sending indecent pictures etc.  Plus there's the issue that grooming is an offence in itself, regardless of whether physical sexual contact is made.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> On Minecraft, or in Photoshop?



TBF there's been debate in criminology over the last few years with regard to whether the majority of internet grooming is predatory behaviour preparatory to sexual assault, or is inadequates acting out their sexual fantasies online and from a distance.  That means we need to ask ourselves whether the internet has created more of an opportunity for said inadequates to cop a wank-aid (harmful though being caught up in such a fantasy can and may be to the person "on the other end") than it has for aggressive paedophiles to score victims. 
So phil isn't right to say Hunter "creates" victims - he doesn't - what Hunter does is facilitate the committing of a particular crime ("internet grooming") in the belief that he's potentially preventing a more severe crime (child sexual assault).  While the tabloids agree with Hunter, current HO stats don't.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> As you say, the data is patchy.  So is the line between internet groomers and those who commit physical acts e.g. sending indecent pictures etc.  Plus there's the issue that grooming is an offence in itself, regardless of whether physical sexual contact is made.



Absolutely.  My real bugbear with the offence of internet grooming is that the criminal justice system has put quite a bit of funding into seeking out and prosecuting the offence, when the offence shows a minor rate of physical sexual assault resulting from it, quite possibly (based on prosecution rates) because the offence is an "easy nick" for the OB. Meanwhile, shit like Rotherham happens (not that I'm blaming Rotherham on police targeting internet grooming, but resource allocation is a tricky thing, and the key to increasing your slice of the pie is to get more boxes ticked on your annual "solved crimes" figures).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

andysays said:


> What about attempting to build your reputation as an iconoclastic internet warrior on the back of someone you declare to be building his career on the misery of others, exploiting vice and tragedy for his own benefit? That certainly seems pretty cuntish, if not despicable.
> 
> Seriously phil, do you really think you're adding anything worthwhile to this discussion in comparison, for instance, to elbows' thoughtful and nuanced post immediately before you burst in?




Andy, you're full of shit.
What are you talking about? "Attempting to build"? He's already built it!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> You think there's a moral equivalence between disliking gay people and disliking child sex offenders?



I don't think he's positing a moral equivalence, I think he's saying that there's a continuity of "acting out" behaviour with regard to queer-bashing and nonce-bashing, and that people who did the former 40-odd years ago are much the same as those who do the latter now in terms of motivation.
I agree with the former, but not the latter.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Absolutely.  My real bugbear with the offence of internet grooming is that the criminal justice system has put quite a bit of funding into seeking out and prosecuting the offence, when the offence shows a minor rate of physical sexual assault resulting from it, quite possibly (based on prosecution rates) because the offence is an "easy nick" for the OB. Meanwhile, shit like Rotherham happens (not that I'm blaming Rotherham on police targeting internet grooming, but resource allocation is a tricky thing, and the key to increasing your slice of the pie is to get more boxes ticked on your annual "solved crimes" figures).


OB should concentrate on the really serious stuff, and let Stinson mop up the groomers.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 3, 2014)

Johnny Vodka said:


> Why couldn't it be considered a mental illness of sorts?



It *is* considered "a mental illness of sorts", insofar as successful psychotherapeutic and psychological interventions have been shown to work in *some* cases.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't think he's positing a moral equivalence, I think he's saying that there's a continuity of "acting out" behaviour with regard to queer-bashing and nonce-bashing, and that people who did the former 40-odd years ago are much the same as those who do the latter now in terms of motivation.
> I agree with the former, but not the latter.


 Though what he said was a slight variation on the above:


> The same kind of people who get their rocks off on hating nonces today would have been queerbashers in the 70s.


He's suggesting that people who _hate_ nonces are the same as/equivalent to those who _physically attacked_ gay people.  Underneath the trolling, there's an interesting discussion to be had about our attitude to nonces and whether in our perhaps appropriate detestation we are also feeding something unsavoury in ourselves.  However Phil's intervention above is more a provacation than a way of having that discussion.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2014)

deliberately phrased so, yes- but see for example the jailhouse kudos some psycho can get for doing a prison napalm attack on baby p's killer, or any nonce. Hierarchy of contempt stuff, also legitimate targeting stuff. I'm not about to open a pub called 'free the paedos' or anything but the socially acceptable target thing is a point. Phils dressed it in the language of who-is-the-real-nazi but kernel.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> ...Phil's intervention above is more a provacation than a way of having that discussion.


 
It does seem to have provoked the discussion.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> deliberately phrased so, yes- but see for example the jailhouse kudos some psycho can get for doing a prison napalm attack on baby p's killer, or any nonce. Hierarchy of contempt stuff, also legitimate targeting stuff. I'm not about to open a pub called 'free the paedos' or anything but the socially acceptable target thing is a point. Phils dressed it in the language of who-is-the-real-nazi but kernel.


 Yeah, absolutely and that plays out at a societal level. Everyone from Stimson through to the daily mail draws on the 'most detested' model, while the police and social services leave poor and vulnerable kids open to industrial scale grooming.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> It does seem to have provoked the discussion.


 So, in my feeble attacks, I only make him stronger.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So, in my feeble attacks, I only make him stronger.




if you strike him down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if you strike him down he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine


Nazis, nonces and Starwars - the thread with everything.  _Hang on, what abou the Illuminati_?


----------



## andysays (Oct 3, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Andy, you're full of shit.
> What are you talking about? "Attempting to build"? He's already built it!



Thank you for correcting me, but not for bringing me back to this fucking thread


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 3, 2014)

I find it hard to see what crime is being committed by these honey traps. If you believe you're grooming a fourteen year old, but the person is actually twenty, what is the crime? 

If you're in a nightclub and pull a girl who says she's fifteen and have sex with her, can you be convicted of having sex with a minor even if it turned out she was eighteen? The crime lies in the belief?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I find it hard to see what crime is being committed by these honey traps. If you believe you're grooming a fourteen year old, but the person is actually twenty, what is the crime?
> 
> If you're in a nightclub and pull a girl who says she's fifteen and have sex with her, can you be convicted of having sex with a minor even if it turned out she was eighteen? The crime lies in the belief?


 
I *think* that's exactly how the law on 'grooming' works (though it doesn't translate to lots of other situations).


----------



## no-no (Oct 3, 2014)

These guys are blatantly seeking out underage girls for sex though. 

If and when your nightclub situation arises and if if it came before the courts then yes I guess logic would dictate that you would still be guilty.....of grooming I suppose but not of actually having sex with a minor as that hasn't happened. These blokes are charged with grooming not of actual underage sex. I don't think your example is a good comparison.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> If the decoys were of consenting age it would defeat the purpose wouldn't it?
> 
> Or is that too much for you to grasp?



The decoys _were _of consenting age.

Again I must ask: did you actually watch the show?


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I find it hard to see what crime is being committed by these honey traps.



A thought crime.  Orwell was off by 30 years.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If you're in a nightclub and pull a girl who says she's fifteen and have sex with her, can you be convicted of having sex with a minor even if it turned out she was eighteen?



Or what if you're with someone who you _know _to be of consenting age, and suddenly in the middle of sexing they start pretending that they're fifteen.  Do you have to stop?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Or what if you're with someone who you _know _to be of consenting age, and suddenly in the middle of sexing they start pretending that they're fifteen.  Do you have to stop?


 
It depends whether you believe them.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> It depends whether you believe them.



Does it?

The men caught by Stinson usually claimed at first that they didn't believe they were talking to minors.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Or what if you're with someone who you _know _to be of consenting age, and suddenly in the middle of sexing they start pretending that they're fifteen.  Do you have to stop?


 Yes, I think that kind of thing would make me stop.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The men caught by Stinson usually claimed they didn't believe they were talking to minors.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Yes, I think that kind of thing would make me stop.



But would you _have _to stop, legally?

It seems to me that you would.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But would you _have _to stop, legally?
> 
> It seems to me that you would.



Why?  What offence has been committed?

Knowing she's of consenting age is quite different from believing she's not, which is a key ingredient of the grooming offence i.e. s.15 Sexual Offences Act 2003:

15
Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.


[F1(1)
A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—



[F2(a)
A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—



(i)
A intentionally meets B,



(ii)
A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or



(iii)
B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,



(b)
A intends to do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will involve the commission by A of a relevant offence,]



(c)
B is under 16, and



(d)
A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.



(2)
In subsection (1)—



(a)
the reference to A having met or communicated with B is a reference to A having met B in any part of the world or having communicated with B by any means from, to or in any part of the world;



(b)
“relevant offence” means—



(i)
an offence under this Part,



(ii)
F3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



(iii)
anything done outside England and Wales F4. . . which is not an offence within sub-paragraph (i) F4. . . but would be an offence within sub-paragraph (i) if done in England and Wales.



(3)
F5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—



(a)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;



(b)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.]


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Knowing she's of consenting age is quite different from believing she's not, which is a key ingredient of the grooming offence i.e. s.15 Sexual Offences Act 2003



Hmm.  As I read what you've posted, the key point is that, in order to be convicted, the offender cannot reasonably have believed the victim was of consenting age (i.e. 3d above).

Is that right?

But if it is, surely a huge percentage of convictions must rest on confessions.  Otherwise why isn't "well she _looked _16" a valid defense?

That explains why Stinson gets the guys to incriminate themselves.  The only one who didn't, who stuck to his claim that he assumed he was speaking to an adult, was not charged. 

The law seems ambiguous to me.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Hmm.  As I read what you've posted, the key point is that, in order to be convicted, the offender cannot reasonably have believed the victim was of consenting age (i.e. 3d above).
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> ...



Obviously, a conviction is more likely in the face of a confession.  But we don't really know enough of the details of all of these cases to know why the prosecution against the one bloke was dropped.  Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would believe his story that he thought she was was over 16 despite her clearly telling him otherwise.

I'm no expert in the caselaw in this area, but I suspect that the requirement of reasonable belief introduces an objective element i.e. even if it a court is convinced that the defendant did believe the person he was traveling to meet was over 16, that belief would still have to be reasonable - hard to make out when the record of the conversation suggests otherwise, notwithstanding how old she might look in a profile picture.

Also, you'll notice that none of these cases could fulfill the requirement at s.15(1)(c), since the person Stinson's targets travel to meet are over 16 i.e. Stinson, albeit they don't realise that.  So they must have all been charges as attempted breaches of s.15.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Obviously, a conviction is more likely in the face of a confession.  But we don't really know enough of the details of all of these cases to know why the prosecution against the one bloke was dropped.  Personally, I'm surprised that anyone would believe his story that he thought she was was over 16 despite her clearly telling him otherwise.



I don't think anyone would believe it.  But that doesn't matter, legally speaking.  The question is: can it be proved that he committed an offense?  And without a confession, I don't see how it could.



Athos said:


> I'm no expert in the caselaw in this area, but I suspect that the requirement of reasonable belief introduces an objective element i.e. even if it a court is convinced that the defendant did believe the person he was traveling to meet was over 16, that belief would still have to be reasonable - hard to make out when the record of the conversation suggests otherwise, notwithstanding how old she might look in a profile picture.



The chatroom frequented by the decoys announced itself as for adults only.  That provides the grounds to claim that they reasonably believed their correspondent was an adult--even if it is implausible by the standards of common sense.

So as I see it, if these guys hadn't confessed, they wouldn't even have been charged.  A law that relies on confessions to get convictions is a stupid law.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The decoys _were _of consenting age.
> 
> Again I must ask: did you actually watch the show?



The decoys were girls and boys aged 11-15. Is that consenting to you? The guys were in their late 30s and 40s.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The chatroom frequented by the decoys announced itself as for adults only.



No, that was only one example, the guy said he used many other ways to see if pedophiles wanted to hook up with children.  

Despite the wibble you are having with law, what do you think this guy is doing that is so wrong? 

*Nonce attempts to have sexual contact with an underage child, nonce gets busted*. What is your problem with that simple fact?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> I don't think anyone would believe it.  But that doesn't matter, legally speaking.  The question is: can it be proved that he committed an offense?  And without a confession, I don't see how it could.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not how the law works; just being able to assert something doesn't afford the accused a defence.  They can claim what they like, but if the court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt then they'll be convicted.  In light of the implausibility of some of their claims, there can be no reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of a confession.  This law doesn't rely on confessions, at all; nor is is particularly stupid.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> No, that was only one example, the guy said he used many other ways to see if pedophiles wanted to hook up with children.
> 
> Despite the wibble you are having with law, what do you think this guy is doing that is so wrong?
> 
> *Nonce attempts to have sexual contact with an underage child, nonce gets busted*. What is your problem with that simple fact?



My problem isn't with that fact.  My problem is with trying to make a career out of it.  That is the act of a scumbag.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> The decoys were girls and boys aged 11-15. Is that consenting to you? The guys were in their late 30s and 40s.



I think the point he's making is that, as a matter of fact, the decoys were over 16, albeit that the targets didn't believe that to be the case.  And that's why they can only be guilty of the attempted offence, since the substantive one requires them to travel to meet an underage person (not merely someone they believed to be under age).


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> That's not how the law works; just being able to assert something doesn't afford the accused a defence.  They can claim what they like, but if the court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt then they'll be convicted.  In light of the implausibility of some of their claims, there can be no reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of a confession.  This law doesn't rely on confessions, at all; nor is is particularly stupid.



The only guy who didn't confess was not charged.

That's proof enough for me that the law relies on confessions.  Given what we know about how confessions can be secured, that makes it a stupid law.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> The decoys were girls and boys aged 11-15.



No, they were not.

For the third time I must ask: did you actually watch the program?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The only guy who didn't confess was not charged.
> 
> That's proof enough for me that the law relies on confessions.  Given what we know about how confessions can be secured, that makes it a stupid law.



If that's proof enough for you, then you're incredibly credulous.  You know next to nothing of the facts of that case; there might have been all sorts of reasons for the decision not to charge.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> I think the point he's making is that, as a matter of fact, the decoys were over 16, albeit that the targets didn't believe that to be the case.  And that's why they can only be guilty of the attempted offence, since the substantive one requires them to travel to meet an underage person (not merely someone they believed to be under age).



The police do the same thing and have loads of convictions, the pig from the pedosquad even talked about it on the documentary.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> No, they were not.
> 
> For the third time I must ask: did you actually watch the program?



The decoys were underage, in the eyes of the people wanting to abuse them.

And yes I did watch it, did you see the bit were the police detective said they do the same thing and have had numerous convictions?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> The police do the same thing and have loads of convictions, the pig from the pedosquad even talked about it on the documentary.



Nevertheless,he was right to say that the decoys were over 16 (and you were incorrect to say otherwise).


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Yes, did you see the bit were the police detective said they do the samething and have had numerous convictions?



Not for the substantive s.15 offence they don't; they can only get a conviction for attempt, too.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> If that's proof enough for you, then you're incredibly credulous.  You know next to nothing of the facts of that case; there might have been all sorts of reasons for the decision not to charge.



Pshaw.  If you watch the video on his website, it's obvious what's going on.  The guy in question was a Tory councillor, he obviously knows the law, and he tells Stinson where to go.  The others just stammer and stutter and are easily brought to incriminate themselves.

The really worrying prospect is that this seems to be a law that _needs _scum like Stinson to be enforceable.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Pshaw.  If you watch the video on his website, it's obvious what's going on.  The guy in question was a Tory councillor, he obviously knows the law, and he tells Stinson where to go.  The others just stammer and stutter and are easily brought to incriminate themselves.
> 
> The really worrying prospect is that this seems to be a law that _needs _scum like Stinson to be enforceable.



What proportion of convictions for attempted s.15 do you think rely upon Stinson and his ilk?


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Not for the substantive s.15 offence they don't; they can only get a conviction for attempt, too.



So why was the guy arrested the next day in the documentary?

I think it was the first or second guy featured. I think they said he got two years.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So why was the guy arrested the next day in the documentary?



For an attempted breach of s.15.  Like I said.  Christ.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Isn't that what Stinson does?

He is doing exactly the same thing as the police do, lure a pedophile and record the evidence.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> Isn't that what Stinson does?



YES!

What the fuck is so difficult to understand?


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

So, what are we arguing about?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So, what are we arguing about?



About your entirely incorrect claim that the decoys were not over 16.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So, what are we arguing about?



The meaning of life.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> What proportion of convictions for attempted s.15 do you think rely upon Stinson and his ilk?



Depends what you mean by "his ilk."   As I've said, I suspect that all of them depend on confessions, even if they are usually obtained by the police.

In fact, this is true of a huge number of crimes.  _Never talk to the cops _is the lesson.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> About your entirely incorrect claim that the decoys were not over 16.



In the eyes of the pedophiles they were not over 16, that is the same thing the police do as mentioned in the documentary.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> The meaning of life.



Are we going to try and prove god again.?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> In the eyes of the pedophiles they were not over 16, that is the same thing the police do as mentioned in the documentary.



Fucking hell!  Nobody is disputing that the police do the same, and nobody is disputing that it can result in convictions for attempted s.15.  All Dwyer was saying is that the decoys were over 16, which they were.  That is a matter of fact, and it remains true notwithstanding what the targets believed.  You claimed that the decoys were not over 16.  You were wrong.  That's all.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Depends what you mean by "his ilk."   As I've said, I suspect that all of them depend on confessions, even if they are usually obtained by the police.
> 
> In fact, this is true of a huge number of crimes.  _Never talk to the cops _is the lesson.



There's no reason for there to be a confession to secure a conviction for this offence.  I don't know why you keep claiming that there is.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

The decoys didn't even exist! They only existed in the minds of the people who wanted to believe they did exist. I only claimed that. The context of the documentary would make that clear, wouldn't it?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> The decoys didn't even exist! They only existed in the minds of the people who wanted to believe they did exist. I only claimed that.



Ahhhgggg!!

Stinson was the decoy; he existed.  The fact that he wasn't what he was pretending to be doesn't mean that he didn't exist.

Christ.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 3, 2014)

More specifically, a fictional character created by Stinson was the decoy.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 3, 2014)

I imagine the guy that got three years had previous, his sentence was way more than the others. I imagine the constabulary take a close look at computers/phones of the ones they nick too.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

8ball said:


> More specifically, a fictional character created by Stinson was the decoy.



The legislation doesn't mention decoys, though.  It talks about the person with whom the suspect has communicated; in this case that is Stinson.  He is over 16.  Neither of those facts is altered by the suspect's mistaken belief that he was communicating with an under-age girl.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> The legislation doesn't mention decoys, though.  It talks about the person with whom the suspect has communicated; in this case that is Stinson.  He is over 16.  Neither of those facts is altered by the suspect's mistaken belief that he was communicating with an under-age girl.



So why have the police managed to do the same thing with many convictions? The police officers replying to nonces aren't under 16.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So why have the police managed to do the same thing with many convictions? The police officers replying to nonces aren't under 16.



They don't get convictions for s.15 when they pose as kids; in those circumstances, they can only get convictions for attempt to breach s.15.  As I've said.  More than once.  If you still don't understand, then I don't know how to make it any simpler. Sorry.


----------



## Dandred (Oct 3, 2014)

What has a s.15 got to do with defending pedos?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> What has a s.15 got to do with defending pedos?



That's the offence Stinson focuses on.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Dandred said:


> So why have the police managed to do the same thing with many convictions?



Because people confess.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> There's no reason for there to be a confession to secure a conviction for this offence.  I don't know why you keep claiming that there is.



Because in the absence of a confession, the accused can say "she was in an adults only chatroom, so it was reasonable for me to assume she was an adult."

If I'm understanding the law correctly, a conviction requires proof that the defendent cannot reasonably have believed the victim to be above the age of consent.  How could that be proved without a confession?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Because in the absence of a confession, the accused can say "she was in an adults only chatroom, so it was reasonable for me to assume she was an adult."
> 
> If I'm understanding the law correctly, a conviction requires proof that the defendent cannot reasonably have believed the victim to be above the age of consent.  How could that be proved without a confession?



Like any other offence: from all of the evidence.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> Like any other offence: from all of the evidence.



But other offences are defined by what somebody has done.

This one is defined by what somebody _believed._

It's very hard--arguably impossible--to prove what someone is thinking.  Unless they tell you.


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But other offences are defined by what somebody has done.
> 
> This one is defined by what somebody _believed._
> 
> It's very hard--arguably impossible--to prove what someone is thinking.  Unless they tell you.



No. Very, very many crimes require a particular _mens rea_.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> No. Very, very many crimes require a particular _mens rea_.



But they also require a particular set of actions.  Right?  Can you think of an example that doesn't?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But they also require a particular set of actions.  Right?  Can you think of an example that doesn't?



So does s.15.  The action required is specified in the section (which I posted earlier).


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 3, 2014)

Athos said:


> So does s.15.  The action required is specified in the section (which I posted earlier).



But the actions in themselves cannot win a conviction.  They must be carried out with a particular belief in mind.

I know that's true of many crimes with regard to_ intention,_ but I can't think of another example where the defendant must believe a particular _fact _for a crime to have taken place.  Can you?

Let's say that somebody attempts to murder a fictional character--Batman for example.  They take a big knife, and they lurk down a dark alley.  The police find them and ask what they're doing.  They reply: "I'm trying to murder Batman."

Are they guilty of attempted murder?  Surely not.

Isn't it the same in this case?  The men were trying to meet a fictional character after all.  What's the difference?


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But the actions in themselves cannot win a conviction.  They must be carried out with a particular belief in mind.
> 
> I know that's true of many crimes with regard to_ intention,_ but I can't think of another example where the defendant must believe a particular _fact _for a crime to have taken place.  Can you?



For instance sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, section 19 Terrorism Act 2000, parts of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002...


----------



## Athos (Oct 3, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> But the actions in themselves cannot win a conviction.  They must be carried out with a particular belief in mind.
> 
> I know that's true of many crimes with regard to_ intention,_ but I can't think of another example where the defendant must believe a particular _fact _for a crime to have taken place.  Can you?
> 
> ...




From the CPS website:

_Attempting the Impossible

A person may fail to carry through the offence because it is not possible for her/him to do so. It is necessary to ascertain why the attempt has not succeeded in order to determine if s/he can still be prosecuted for attempting to commit an offence. There is a crucial distinction between what is factually impossible and what is legally impossible (see further Archbold 33-129). 

Even if it may not be possible to commit the full offence because the factual basis is not present, if the facts had been as the defendant believed them to be, s/he can be charged with attempting to commit the offence in question (see R v Shivpuri [1986] 2 All ER 334). 

The House of Lords in Shivpuri made it clear that the only kind of impossibility which is relevant to liability is true legal impossibility. Even if the facts were such as the accused believed them to be, then the defendant would still not be committing any offence, having made a mistake about what the law was. If the defendant for example, believed it was an offence to import snuff and does import it, s/he does not commit the offence of attempting to supply a controlled drug, as the importation of snuff is not a crime.
_
And, in this case, what he's attempting is to do is meet a child for sex; so, yes, can be done for attempt (but not the substantive offence, becasue the person with whom he communicated - the other required ingredient - was not a minor).


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2014)

Athos said:


> And, in this case, what he's attempting is to do is meet a child for sex; so, yes, can be done for attempt (but not the substantive offence, becasue the person with whom he communicated - the other required ingredient - was not a minor).



Again though, if he insists that he is attempting to meet an adult, it is very hard to refute him.  He is after all the person best-placed to know his own intentions.  

When they do this in the USA, they always ask the guys to bring condoms with them, because that proves that they intended to have sex.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 4, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> When they do this in the USA, they always ask the guys to bring condoms with them, because that proves that they intended to have sex.



I'm not sure whether you have condoms on your person at a given moment is a reliable gauge that you intend to have sex with whomever you are meeting at that moment.


----------



## Athos (Oct 4, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Again though, if he insists that he is attempting to meet an adult, it is very hard to refute him.  He is after all the person best-placed to know his own intentions.
> 
> When they do this in the USA, they always ask the guys to bring condoms with them, because that proves that they intended to have sex.



It's not at all difficult to infer intention from all the other evidence; that happens in respect of thousands of crimes.

We're just going round in circles, now.  You insist that a conviction is almost impossible without a confession; I refute that.  Let's agree to disagree.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 4, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure whether you have condoms on your person at a given moment is a reliable gauge that you intend to have sex with whomever you are meeting at that moment.


I had condoms in my pocket the one time I met Phil


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 4, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I had condoms in my pocket the one time I met Phil



I had a can of Mace in mine.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 4, 2014)

I had mace-scented condoms. Didn't half make my eyes water.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 5, 2014)

Belushi said:


> There are clubs in Swansea that specialise in this sort of thing.




*moves to swansea*


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 5, 2014)

i've given up on this thread on page 6 so my apologies if i've missed anything important but... stinson hunter then, man of the people or terrible dickhead?


----------



## Supine (Oct 5, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I had mace-scented condoms. Didn't half make my eyes water.



Your using them wrong


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 5, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> stinson hunter then, man of the people or terrible dickhead?



Both.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Both.



complicated


----------



## Greebo (Oct 6, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> complicated


Enny fule knoe that the meeja can't handle explaining "complicated" to the likes of us.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 6, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Enny fule knoe that the meeja can't handle explaining "complicated" to the likes of us.


I for one cannot wait until every news article comes with a Relationship Status


----------



## no-no (Oct 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> A thought crime.  Orwell was off by 30 years.



Sending pics of your dick to kids isn't a thought crime, neither is turning up at an address with booze,fags and a hard on. I understand it's a challenge for you to try to find a logical defence for them but you're failing.


----------



## phildwyer (Oct 6, 2014)

no-no said:


> Sending pics of your dick to kids isn't a thought crime



Who did that?

Mr. Nobody, that's who.


----------



## andysays (Oct 6, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Who did that?
> 
> Mr. Nobody, that's who.








I never knew that Roger Hargreaves was quite so edgy


----------



## jakethesnake (Oct 6, 2014)

andysays said:


> I never knew that Roger Hargreaves was quite so edgy


Mr Tickle was a wrong 'un too.


----------



## andysays (Oct 6, 2014)

jakethesnake said:


> Mr Tickle was a wrong 'un too.



And as for Mr Bump "accidently" bumping up against people. Need I say more?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 6, 2014)

What about Mr Popsy Purvy the DJ?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Oct 12, 2014)

i was told the other day that he had something to do with "the fash".  do any fash-watchers know anything about this?  i did some googling and it seems that most of the fash love him except some of them that think he's a race traitor because he doesn't publicly state that all brown men are paedophiles.  having watched the documentary now i am pretty impressed with his work


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2014)

> *Three police constables and a police community support officer will be charged over the treatment of a disabled man murdered by a vigilante who said he was a paedophile. *
> 
> Bijan Ebrahimi, 44, was beaten to death and his body set on fire by neighbour Lee James in Bristol on July 14 2013 after his neighbours wrongly believed the claims.
> ...
> ...



Soooo...

May it be about to be alleged that plod and pseudoplod were, directly or by inaction, complicit in the murder?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 5, 2014)

laptop said:


> Soooo...
> 
> May it be about to be alleged that plod and pseudoplod were, directly or by inaction, complicit in the murder?



Let's hope so. Surplus cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

laptop said:


> Soooo...
> 
> May it be about to be alleged that plod and pseudoplod were, directly or by inaction, complicit in the murder?


There was no pseudo-plod in the sense of the documentary here -  or even the people and type of operation. Or at least no suggestion of it. It should not have been tagged onto here.

God knows what gc _hopes_ it was.


----------



## laptop (Dec 5, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> no pseudo-plod in the sense of the documentary



 PCSOs not pseudoplod?



butchersapron said:


> It should not have been tagged onto here.



Is about paedo-hunting - and killing?



butchersapron said:


> God knows what gc _hopes_ it was.



Indeed...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 5, 2014)

laptop said:


> PCSOs not pseudoplod?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By pseudo-plod i thought you meant the paedo-hunters.

And no - it's about paedo hunters. Not pscos and their possible role in taking a part or covering up a killing. And this story deserves a bit more. I can see why you did it, bit can't agree.


----------



## elbows (Feb 22, 2015)

Another conviction secured:

http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Nune...s-conviction/story-26057902-detail/story.html


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 21, 2015)

Surplus cunts found guilty of misconduct.

Police who failed disabled murder victim found guilty


----------



## elbows (Dec 21, 2015)

goldenecitrone said:


> Surplus cunts found guilty of misconduct.
> 
> Police who failed disabled murder victim found guilty



Here are further depressing detail from that case, in an article from when the murderer was sentenced. It fills in a number of gaps including a possible reason why those rumours started about him. 

Life sentence for man who murdered disabled neighbour

I'm not bloody surprised some police got done over this.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 21, 2015)

Wtf! That's horrific and the murderers sound like racist scum.


----------



## BigMoaner (Dec 21, 2015)

agree with the idea of quietly going about the business of catching them. no anger. no rage. no hatred. just collecting the evidence quietly and handing it over to the old bill. everyone's a winner, including the nonce who needs halting in his tracks and getting some help inside. but the angry mob is the angry mob and their work will always have a fair amount of poison.

another good aspect of this "work" is that it must make the nonces paranoid about going hell for leather in noncery online, knowing there's other weirdos out there hunting them.

i'd like people who are violent to kids locked up for a long long time too. beating up 4 year olds, etc. equally as bad/damaging as noncery, surely. all this shit goes on behind firmly drawn curtains, always has and probably always will.

the other thing to consider is the more peados feel totally and utterly despised by society, the less likely they will be to seek help (although the reverse argument could work as well, i suppose) - i've always thought there should be far more routes for these people to walk into a GP, psych hospital with hands up and say "look, i'm a nonce, help me". but then that would require a conscience and many of them believe in what they do as normal, etc.


----------



## BigMoaner (Dec 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> My we're pernicketty today.
> 
> Alright.  Someone who is sexually attracted to children but does not act on it strikes me as morally admirable.
> 
> ...


hmmm, i hate someone who rapes a child, for sure. and it can only be rape. how long i feel that hatred and how much i let it bother me and how i act on it, is another matter. but the initial impulse is hatred, for sure. somethings need revulsion. like bombing innocent people, raping kids, etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 21, 2015)

phildwyer said:


> My we're pernicketty today.
> 
> Alright.  Someone who is sexually attracted to children but does not act on it strikes me as morally admirable.
> 
> ...


dk y you say that as you've prev claimed to hate eg the akp


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 22, 2015)

The murder was horrific & yet the murderer only got an 18yr tariff, other murderers get 25yrs or more. Was this murder was not considered as 'serious' as some others?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> The murder was horrific & yet the murderer only got an 18yr tariff, other murderers get 25yrs or more. Was this murder was not considered as 'serious' as some others?


Read the sentencing remarks for yourself:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con.../james-norley-sentencing-remarks-28112013.pdf


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 22, 2015)

So as he was bang to rights for the murder he could hardly deny it & no doubt he took the good advice from his brief that an expression of remorse would reduce his tariff? It appears to have been a horrific premeditated racist murder by an adult where the victim would have suffered terribly during his ordeal. I would have thought a min 25yrs?  Surely the murderer being convinced his victim was a paedo would not have caused the judge to be more lenient would it?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2015)

If a sentencing judge does not take into consideration all legally relevant mitigating factors, then the sentence could, and in all probability would, be reduced on appeal.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 22, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Read the sentencing remarks for yourself:
> 
> https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con.../james-norley-sentencing-remarks-28112013.pdf



Nothing in those notes about any racial motive that I can see.  Was that an omission at the point of trial given the background of the case?


----------



## Athos (Dec 22, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> So as he was bang to rights for the murder he could hardly deny it & no doubt he took the good advice from his brief that an expression of remorse would reduce his tariff? It appears to have been a horrific premeditated racist murder by an adult where the victim would have suffered terribly during his ordeal. I would have thought a min 25yrs?  Surely the murderer being convinced his victim was a paedo would not have caused the judge to be more lenient would it?



Did ou not read the sentencing remarks?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 22, 2015)




----------



## BigMoaner (Dec 22, 2015)

just watched the doc.

he was far more thoughtful, self-aware and morally complex than you'd have presumed from reading some of the posts about him on here.

that said - it is a cunt's trick to put them online. that will negatively affect dozens of innocent people. just fucking horrible thing to do. probably be less abusive if they beat them up.

that said, there's a moment of pure satisfaction in that gotcha moment. 49 year old masturbating vid to a 13 year old FFS. gotcha. that work is good. especially when he is polite, civil, non-angry with them when he catches them.

the programme highlighted what a good tactic that is too - if the old bill really set out a giant work force doing the same, i bet you the nonces would soon start fleeing the online world in their droves.

why oh why he plasters them all over the web i don't know. 

thought it was a good documentary.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 22, 2015)

Athos said:


> Did ou not read the sentencing remarks?


Yes I read the sentencing remarks, tariff of 18yrs because he admitted it & expressed remorse. It does not seem very long given the nature of the crime. he will be 42 when he gets out, lets hope he does not do it again.


----------



## Athos (Dec 22, 2015)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Yes I read the sentencing remarks, tariff of 18yrs because he admitted it & expressed remorse. It does not seem very long given the nature of the crime. he will be 42 when he gets out, lets hope he does not do it again.



My point was that I could not see how you could arrive at the parts highlighted in red (below), having read it.



SaskiaJayne said:


> Surely the murderer being convinced his victim was a paedo would not have caused the judge to be more lenient would it?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 22, 2015)

If the sentencing guidelines only allow the judge to give a murderer an 18yr tariff if he admits it & expresses remorse then presumably that's why he only got 18yrs? To me it comes across as a racially motivated hate crime that was not treated like one. The tariff seems short given the severity of the crime is all I was pointing out.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 9, 2016)

goldenecitrone said:


> Surplus cunts found guilty of misconduct.
> 
> Police who failed disabled murder victim found guilty



Police officers jailed over vigilante murder of disabled man



> Judge Neil Ford QC, the Recorder of Bristol, jailed Duffy for 10 months and Passmore to four months.



Doesn't seem enough to me considering the position of responsibility they were in.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 6, 2019)

Little piece in the Guardian today - i expect a longer piece incoming given the writing. Is open enough to suggest/quote what other pieces haven't -  that many/most people active are victims of abuse  - also talks about what looks like wider developing activity beyond the most visible - i.e " support to individuals disclosing historical abuse for the first time"


----------



## TopCat (Aug 6, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Little piece in the Guardian today - i expect a longer piece incoming given the writing. Is open enough to suggest/quote what other pieces haven't -  that many/most people active are victims of abuse  - also talks about what looks like wider developing activity beyond the most visible - i.e " support to individuals disclosing historical abuse for the first time"


I can understand the release and satisfaction in snaring paedo rapists. Would not do it though. Something a bit off with the vigilante YouTube brigade.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Aug 6, 2019)

Its like the Facebook witch hunts, sone folk get a kick out of it. I have to be super careful when adminning a community group as if anyone is shamed and can be identified from a post, theres always someone who sees himself as a bit handy who is up for a ruck who will wade in and cause trouble. I delete it now, there has been some horrendous attacks on folks for spurious reasons. We teach personal safety and theres always some dickhead who pops up to suggest violence. There were sex attacks recently, a flasher and we had self styled vigilantes asking probing questions about where the victims lived. Of course I didn’t tell them where. I think these paedo hunters are no different, only more organised and high profile. I think its always more about their own glory than anything else.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 6, 2019)

pinkmonkey said:


> Its like the Facebook witch hunts, sone folk get a kick out of it. I have to be super careful when adminning a community group as if anyone is shamed and can be identified from a post, theres always someone who sees himself as a bit handy who is up for a ruck who will wade in and cause trouble. I delete it now, there has been some horrendous attacks on folks for spurious reasons. We teach personal safety and theres always some dickhead who pops up to suggest violence. There were sex attacks recently, a flasher and we had self styled vigilantes asking probing questions about where the victims lived. Of course I didn’t tell them where. I think these paedo hunters are no different, only more organised and high profile. I think its always more about their own glory than anything else.



There are groups out there that don't go down the YouTube route (though they are obviously v. visible).


----------

