Do you agree with pedophile hunters?

[Wizard.]

Do you agree with people who pretend to be children to catch pedophiles then record them when they’re supposed to meet the underaged person the put it on social media?

[Marsh.]

Not really.

[Withano]

Not really. Recording them sort of creates a witch hunt.

That American show where actual police are involved works well, angry vigilantes don’t really.

[RileyH]

no

[Tom4784]

I don't agree with vigilantism, no.

[Jack_]

I think we had this thread recently and no not really, it's entrapment and I get the feeling that most of them are in it for the notoriety...like 'look at me, aren't I such a Great Guy catching these nonces'

[Wizard.]

It’s difficult because technically by pretending to be a child the person hasn’t broken the law and it could harm cases against the perpetrator, I think I have actually heard that the police say not to do it.

[Marsh.]

It’s difficult because technically by pretending to be a child the person hasn’t broken the law and it could harm cases against the perpetrator, I think I have actually heard that the police say not to do it.

It harms the case even if they were to use a real child as bait, as because of "entrapment" I understand such evidence isn't permissible in a court case.

That's how I understood it anyway.

[Oliver_W]

I'm on the fence. If someone will arrange to meet a fake underage person, they'd meet a real underage person, and someone like that should face the law - I'm not gonna lose any sleep over crappy things happening to a paedo.
I guess the "middle ground" would be if someone recorded/screenshotted conversations, and passed them onto the necessary authorities, without making it public. That way, at the very least someone official might have half an eye on the situation, or be able to chip in if someone else reports the would-be groomer.

[Marsh.]

I'm on the fence. If someone will arrange to meet a fake underage person, they'd meet a real underage person, and someone like that should face the law - I'm not gonna lose any sleep over crappy things happening to a paedo.

Except being tricked by a member of the public isn't facing any "law" and if said person was under investigation, forms of entrapment can actually jeopardise any legal proceedings.

[Shaun]

Except being tricked by a member of the public isn't facing any "law" and if said person was under investigation, forms of entrapment can actually jeopardise any legal proceedings.

Agree with this... only disagree with them because people can go free because of their actions. I understand their point is that they're "going free as it stands anyway" but it surely wouldn't be that hard to just accost them and call the police there and then, rather than make footage of them harassing the suspect incredibly public just for likes on Facebook.

[Vicky.]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

[Matthew.]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

yeah i agree with this

[Cal.]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

.

[Black Dagger]

I don't have much time for vigilante's tbh

[user104658]

As I said on the other thread about this recently; it can go horribly wrong. Obviously. Because the people doing it are amateurs, and also usually pig thick amateurs. I personally know of a case where a group of facebook live "paedobusters", who looked like they'd come straight off of the set of "This Is England", posed as a 15 year old girl and busted a "paedo" who turned out to be a 16 year old boy. He also happened to be a 16 year old boy from another pretty rough family, who tracked down the "paedobusters" group, and let's just say it... ended with their facebook page going offline permanently. Amongst other things.

IF it was being done in an organised and professional way, and with care, then sure why not. As it is, it's being done by idiots who are really only looking for a "legitimate" way to throw their weight around and threaten people because that gives THEM a thrill, and they like the positive attention and praise they get on Facebook from other like-minded idiots. They make mistakes, hurt the wrong people, and ultimately end up getting themselves hurt too.

So no I don't agree with it.

[Maru]

If they're not law enforcement acting on part of an investigation, then all it does is make them smarter about how they go about it. A little YT video isn't going to stop any pervert with a tendency to sexualize children. Sadly...

[user104658]

If they're not law enforcement acting on part of an investigation, then all it does is make them smarter about how they go about it. A little YT video isn't going to stop any pervert with a tendency to sexualize children. Sadly...

That's another thing I hadn't actually considered. There are people whose actual jobs are tracking and catching sexual predators... and having Bob-and-his-mates doing their own unofficial version will only make the really dangerous ones be more careful and hide their tracks better, so in the end they're less likely to be caught.

[LukeB]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

This

[Maru]

That's another thing I hadn't actually considered. There are people whose actual jobs are tracking and catching sexual predators... and having Bob-and-his-mates doing their own unofficial version will only make the really dangerous ones be more careful and hide their tracks better, so in the end they're less likely to be caught.

Yeah I think it just makes them go for easier targets.. maybe children of people they know. Actually, if that person didn't have inclination either before... perhaps they won't forget the thoughts after being "prodded" that direction more or less... may actually go exploit a child to satisfy that urge. Sort of like a trigger that can open pandora's box so to speak...

[Livia]

Those who work within the law I think are a tremendous asset. There aren't enough police officers to cope with the time consuming act of trapping a paedophile. There are groups who catch them and hand them straight over to the police with all evidence. I think that is a public service.

[Livia]

I would much rather padeos be speaking to and meeting fake children than real ones tbh. So I cannot get worked up over this tbh

Me neither. It's hard to get worked up over people hunting paedophiles when those paedophiles are hunting children.

[Livia]

It harms the case even if they were to use a real child as bait, as because of "entrapment" I understand such evidence isn't permissible in a court case.

That's how I understood it anyway.

There's at least one group of "paedo hunters" who work alongside Norfolk Constabulary. They're well-organised, keep records and hand over all evidence and transcripts to the police for prosecution. They are not brainless, violent chavs, they are men who have been affected by child abuse in one way or another. There are probably more groups, that that's the only one I know about for sure.

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.

[Beso]

Yes, i just wish they would give the scum a good beating with bats b4 calling the police.

[Marsh.]

There's at least one group of "paedo hunters" who work alongside Norfolk Constabulary. They're well-organised, keep records and hand over all evidence and transcripts to the police for prosecution. They are not brainless, violent chavs, they are men who have been affected by child abuse in one way or another. There are probably more groups, that that's the only one I know about for sure.

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.A police organised investigation is completely different to slapdash vigilantism.

[Livia]

A police organised investigation is completely different to slapdash vigilantism.

I completely agree. Sadly though, there aren't enough officers to cope with the problem. And I agree that slapdash vigilante action is always wrong and dangerous. But if they're acting within the law with the knowledge of the local constabulary, I think they're doing the public a service.

[Maru]

I guess nobody here has heard of Chris Hansen?

DDWDbZK0zdo

[Nicky91]

i've heard of Chris Hansen yes, i've seen his show on ID (Investigation Discovery)


i also like shows like web of lies, dr g medical examiner, paula zahn, Aphrodite jones


even that show from Roseanne, Momsters when moms go bad

[user104658]

Entrapment is a sticky one anyway. To entrap someone the paedo hunter would have to approach a man and attempt to act in a way to make him commit an offence. Actually, these people hang about in chat rooms and the paedos contact them. So it could be argued that it isn't entrapment at all.

Allegedly and totally open to being denied, is a large part of the problem. The accused can claim that they were approached and the coversation altered. Also they can claim that the "hunter" was the first one to suggest meeting in person and then has omitted this part of the conversation. And when the evidence is essentially part of a witness statement and not an official investigation, there's little way to prove that they're lying.

(Also, in some cases, they're not lying and the "paedohunters" have gotten impatient and pushed for an encounter)

I'd be interested to see what percentage of these groups "stings" actually result in any sort of meaningful conviction, actually.

[Oliver_W]

I saw this (well, the stream itself) shared quite a bit on facebook, as he's from Rushden which is just up the road from K-town:
EXCLUSIVE: Home Office consultant 'trying to meet 12-year-old girl for sex' is SACKED after being snared by paedophile hunters (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5869737/Home-Office-official-snared-paedophile-hunters-trying-meet-12-year-old-girl-sex.html)

A Home Office worker snared by paedophile hunters allegedly trying to meet a 12-year-old girl for sex has been sacked.

Gary Hodgkiss, 48, who was an IT consultant for the Border Force, was filmed by vigilantes as he arrived to meet a young girl in Manchester last night.

The 6ft 7in consultant, from Northampton, was said by the vigilantes to have travelled 150 miles from government offices in London and alleged he was unaware that the person he had been grooming online was an adult.

But the government today announced that his employment had been terminated.

A spokesman said: 'The Home Office expects the highest standards of personal integrity from external contractors.

'We are in the process of terminating this individual's contract with immediate effect. It would be inappropriate to comment further on an ongoing police investigation.'

Hodgkiss was filmed by the gang pulling up in a sports car at an undisclosed location in Manchester.

Members of the paedophile hunter group Dark Light then surrounded his vehicle and spoke to him on camera.
Hodgkiss, pictured, is a director of GRC Services, a government contractor
+6

Hodgkiss, pictured, is a director of GRC Services, a government contractor

The confrontation was streamed on Facebook Live attracting 42,000 viewers in 30 minutes.

The 16-minute clip ends with Hodgkiss being arrested and taken away by police in a marked van.

In the video, one of the vigilantes said: 'You work for the Home Office. You have ********* your life. You have instructed what you believe to be a 12-year-old girl to masturbate.'

As he was told this, Mr Hodgkiss took off his glasses and put his head in his hands.

Later in the video a paedophile hunter said, 'I've seen the messages you sent while on the way up here about getting a hotel room and spending a night in a hotel room with her.'

The paedophile hunters claimed to have evidence that Mr Hodgkiss was grooming three decoys online posing as underage children.

The confrontation with Mr Hodgkiss was livestreamed and ached by more than 40,000 people.
Even if he doesn't face a custodial sentence, his career, google search, and probably marriage is ****ed.

[Glenn.]

I’m kinda in two minds about it. Yes ok technically when the hunters lay the bait the recipient isn’t breaking the law because they are not minors etc. But the intent is there. They want to groom these kiddies and that’s just as bad. Also if the attention is on the fake kid and not a real one then good.

Plus even if no conviction does happen after they’ve been live-streamed/caught, as someone has said, they’re reputation is gone anyway so win win

[Withano]

I guess nobody here has heard of Chris Hansen?

DDWDbZK0zdo

Its fine when they work closely with the police. The UK doesn’t have an at all similar thing. We just have chavs starting and leading aggressive witch hunts

[Redway]

I think we had this thread recently and no not really, it's entrapment and I get the feeling that most of them are in it for the notoriety...like 'look at me, aren't I such a Great Guy catching these nonces'

And what’s wrong with entrapping a sexual pervert?

[Beso]

Who ****ing cares, plaster these vile scumbags faces all over the net, let everyone know who they are...then hopefully some right minded individuals can sort them out proper.

[Beso]

Who ****ing cares, plaster these vile scumbags faces all over the net, let everyone know who they are...then hopefully some right minded individuals can sort them out proper.

[user104658]

And what’s wrong with entrapping a sexual pervert?

It can **** up any legitimate case, leaving them out, free, and not on the sex offenders register? I mean it's a slight problem. Just a little one.

[Redway]

It can **** up any legitimate case, leaving them out, free, and not on the sex offenders register? I mean it's a slight problem. Just a little one.

And it can catch hundreds of pervs that wouldn’t have been brought to police attention otherwise. I’m all for it.

[Marsh.]

And it can catch hundreds of pervs that wouldn’t have been brought to police attention otherwise. I’m all for it.

Doesn't catch them though does it?

[user104658]

As usual the issue here is that people who think that anyone who has any reservations about vigilante paedophile hunters "must luv paedos and not want them to get caught!!! Care more about teh rights of teh paedos than they do about little children wtf!!1!1"

It's such basic, kneejerk logic that it really irks me. "Paedophiles bad, therefore paedophile hunters good, wot else u need to know". Well... here's what I need to know;

Some sort, ANY sort, of substantive evidence that having chav vigilante social media paedophile hunters blundering around in what are potentially very sensitive legal cases does more good than harm. I don't even need to be convinced that it does "only good, no harm"... just MORE good than harm. There is no such evidence because no one - let alone these skinhead anti-paedo "toughguys" - have actually bothered to look into it.

It also bugs me that they quite blatantly care more about A) The thrill of the chase and B) having orange-faced single mums gush over them on facebook, than they do about actually protecting anyone.

[Beso]

I thought the hunters gather all the evidence, then pass it to the police....the police or prosecuter then decides if there is enough evidence....
**** knows how caring and disgusted parents who are willing to give up the vast majority of thier time to gather such evidence are suddenly labelled as chavs is beyond me....maybe thats just down to the snobbery if TIBB.....or maybe cause some men shave a balding head to hide the balding is now classed as chavvy...who knows
..

[user104658]

I thought the hunters gather all the evidence, then pass it to the police....the police or prosecuter then decides if there is enough evidence....
**** knows how caring and disgusted parents who are willing to give up the vast majority of thier time to gather such evidence are suddenly labelled as chavs is beyond me....maybe thats just down to the snobbery if TIBB.....or maybe cause some men shave a balding head to hide the balding is now classed as chavvy...who knows
..Because I have seen the videos? Aggressive, unintelligent thugs.

[Redway]

As usual the issue here is that people who think that anyone who has any reservations about vigilante paedophile hunters "must luv paedos and not want them to get caught!!! Care more about teh rights of teh paedos than they do about little children wtf!!1!1"

It's such basic, kneejerk logic that it really irks me. "Paedophiles bad, therefore paedophile hunters good, wot else u need to know". Well... here's what I need to know;

Some sort, ANY sort, of substantive evidence that having chav vigilante social media paedophile hunters blundering around in what are potentially very sensitive legal cases does more good than harm. I don't even need to be convinced that it does "only good, no harm"... just MORE good than harm. There is no such evidence because no one - let alone these skinhead anti-paedo "toughguys" - have actually bothered to look into it.

It also bugs me that they quite blatantly care more about A) The thrill of the chase and B) having orange-faced single mums gush over them on facebook, than they do about actually protecting anyone.

I’ve been pretty calm on this thread so your post better not be directed at me.

[user104658]

I’ve been pretty calm on this thread so your post better not be directed at me.Do you think it applies to you?

[Oliver_W]

This might be a stupid question, but how does bringing attention to the fact that someone arranged to meet what they thought was a child endanger a potential case?

[Beso]

Because I have seen the videos? Aggressive, unintelligent thugs.


Congrats.

All l i see is dirty old men, scummy perverted ****s who are only there for sex with minors...

[user104658]

This might be a stupid question, but how does bringing attention to the fact that someone arranged to meet what they thought was a child endanger a potential case?For a start, it makes the worst offenders be far more careful and therefore less likely to get caught by official means. Secondly, the actual conviction rate from these "stings" is abysmal. And when there is a conviction its rarely a meaningful one. Thirdly, anything they **** up - any hint that it was them that suggested a meeting / they pushed the conversation forwards themselves and the whole thing collapses and are now more careful and potentially more dangerous.

There's a reason that every "civilised" society throughout history has had laws against vigilantism. But hey... I guess these FB groups know better. :facepalm:.

[user104658]

Congrats.

All l i see is dirty old men, scummy perverted ****s who are only there for sex with minors...Exactly. You're so laser-focused on the "baddies" that you don't care about the methods or motivations of the people "catching" them. I doubt you've even given it five minutes consideration, frankly.

[The Slim Reaper]

Exactly. You're so laser-focused on the "baddies" that you don't care about the methods or motivations of the people "catching" them. I doubt you've even given it five minutes consideration, frankly.

Agreed. If it was just about justice then why round up a big intimidating group to all shout at the bloke that he's a nonce etc. Just round him up and hand over your evidence, but they like the fame that goes along with it.

[Beso]

Exactly. You're so laser-focused on the "baddies" that you don't care about the methods or motivations of the people "catching" them. I doubt you've even given it five minutes consideration, frankly.

Thats a load of bollocks ts, sorry to burst your opinion of me....infact i have looked into this a lot.


I was dubious at first i must admit, but like the police, i have come round to believing that they are doing a neccessary job that the police themselves admit that they find hard to police..
.and lets face it...me and you together..
.
..the only evidence these hunters can and do use is there for all to see in black and white...or via a series of pixels to be precise.

[Beso]

Agreed. If it was just about justice then why round up a big intimidating group to all shout at the bloke that he's a nonce etc. Just round him up and hand over your evidence, but they like the fame that goes along with it.


They should round up a mob of dm clad skinheads to beat these vile ***** to death.......
Imo of course.....do you agree with that, or cant you imagine the face of a child as it is penetrated by a sweaty fat old man?

[The Slim Reaper]

They should round up a mob of dm clad skinheads to beat these vile ***** to death.......
Imo of course.....do you agree with that, or cant you imagine the face of a child as it is penetrated by a sweaty fat old man?

https://media.giphy.com/media/h4Z6RfuQycdiM/giphy.gif

I've never tried to imagine the face of any child having sex, but whatever gets you through the night I guess.

I don't believe in the death penalty as a punishment, be it government mandated or a big butch gang of skinheads.

[GoldHeart]

Who ****ing cares, plaster these vile scumbags faces all over the net, let everyone know who they are...then hopefully some right minded individuals can sort them out proper.

I agree with catching these sicko's and getting them locked up and getting justice . What I don't agree with is the whole citizen arrest / vigilante theme :nono:.

Leave it to the police,give them the information they need and help them. But don't start trying to take the law into your own hands as it can escalate and you can't catch these predators on your own .

I don't like this name & shame shtick with their faces over the net ,what if someone gets WRONGLY accused and witch hunted online :facepalm: .

[Beso]

https://media.giphy.com/media/h4Z6RfuQycdiM/giphy.gif

I've never tried to imagine the face of any child having sex, but whatever gets you through the night I guess.


Some people just have to look in the mirror to imagine/ remember

.just remember that next time you insinuate something.:nono:

[Kizzy]

For a start, it makes the worst offenders be far more careful and therefore less likely to get caught by official means. Secondly, the actual conviction rate from these "stings" is abysmal. And when there is a conviction its rarely a meaningful one. Thirdly, anything they **** up - any hint that it was them that suggested a meeting / they pushed the conversation forwards themselves and the whole thing collapses and are now more careful and potentially more dangerous.

There's a reason that every "civilised" society throughout history has had laws against vigilantism. But hey... I guess these FB groups know better. :facepalm:.

That's not true, there is a very good conviction rate actually.
Throughout history there been facebook has there?... If these predictors are using social media to hunt for victims then what is wrong with utilising that to expose them?
They have in the past made mistakes but are now organised, educated as to the remit of the laws in relation to these 'stings' .
Would I prefer it if the police were the ones doing it? Yes, however the resources just aren't there therefore as a parent this is preferable to me than nothing.

If these civilians prevent the abuse/ attack of a child then is it not worth it?

[Beso]

The only difference between this and undercover criminal reporter stings like mcintyre, roger cook etc is these guys phone the police there and then....

[Kizzy]

The only difference between this and undercover criminal reporter stings like mcintyre, roger cook etc is these guys phone the police there and then....

Has roger cook made a programme in the last 20yrs?...How do we know if he wasn't still making these investigative stings as he did in the Cook report now he wouldn't adopt exactly the same tactics?

[Marsh.]

They should round up a mob of dm clad skinheads to beat these vile ***** to death.......
Imo of course.....do you agree with that, or cant you imagine the face of a child as it is penetrated by a sweaty fat old man?

Is there really any need to be so crass about child rape? :umm2:

[Beso]

Is there really any need to be so crass about child rape? :umm2:

Sorry m8..i was offline when you came on to troll me again.

[user104658]

That's not true, there is a very good conviction rate actually.
Throughout history there been facebook has there?... If these predictors are using social media to hunt for victims then what is wrong with utilising that to expose them?
They have in the past made mistakes but are now organised, educated as to the remit of the laws in relation to these 'stings' .
Would I prefer it if the police were the ones doing it? Yes, however the resources just aren't there therefore as a parent this is preferable to me than nothing.

If these civilians prevent the abuse/ attack of a child then is it not worth it?

Who is "they"? This isn't one group, it's an absolute tonne of them, and for every one that's "learned to get it right" there's another blundering along / breaking the law themselves / actually assaulting people / targetting the WRONG people. For every live stream that goes viral another have-a-go-hero has the idea slap his mind that he should call his mates, lace up his steel toecaps and give it a go himself.

One of these groups that I personally know of targetted, "exposed" and harassed what turned out to be a 16 year old boy who thought he was meeting a 15 year old girl. I keep mentioning this on these threads, and it keeps being ignored, because people just don't want to accept that these groups are making HUGE ERRORS plenty of the time. This is within the last 6 months to a year. The "hunting" group then found themselves having their property vandalised and physical threats made against them... and tbqfh I can understand why. 4 burly football hooligans streaming a 16-year-old lad on social media and bellowing "paedophile" in his face.

Is online grooming a problem? Yes. But this is NOT the answer, and I worry deeply that people are going to consider this a "good enough" answer, with the failings just "collateral damage", and no one is going to bother actually seeking better solutions that don't involve vigilante justice. If we have to resort to vigilantism to solve our societal problems then we are in some serious, serious ****... the fact that the police are accepting / endorsing it just makes it even more scary. It's not something we should ever accept.

I'll say again; civilisations for thousands of years have had laws against vigilantes for very good reasons. Amateurs are going to make mistakes, hurt the wrong people, or get themselves hurt. It is inevitable.

[GoldHeart]

Who is "they"? This isn't one group, it's an absolute tonne of them, and for every one that's "learned to get it right" there's another blundering along / breaking the law themselves / actually assaulting people / targetting the WRONG people. For every live stream that goes viral another have-a-go-hero has the idea slap his mind that he should call his mates, lace up his steel toecaps and give it a go himself.

One of these groups that I personally know of targetted, "exposed" and harassed what turned out to be a 16 year old boy who thought he was meeting a 15 year old girl. I keep mentioning this on these threads, and it keeps being ignored,
. This is within the last 6 months to a year. The "hunting" group then found themselves having their property vandalised and physical threats made against them... and tbqfh I can understand why. 4 burly football hooligans streaming a 16-year-old lad on social media and bellowing "paedophile" in his face.

Is online grooming a problem? Yes. But this is NOT the answer, and I worry deeply that people are going to consider this a "good enough" answer, with the failings just "collateral damage", and no one is going to bother actually seeking better solutions that don't involve vigilante justice. If we have to resort to vigilantism to solve our societal problems then we are in some serious, serious ****... the fact that the police are accepting / endorsing it just makes it even more scary. It's not something we should ever accept.

I'll say again; civilisations for thousands of years have had laws against vigilantes for very good reasons. Amateurs are going to make mistakes, hurt the wrong people, or get themselves hurt. It is inevitable.

I commented similar thoughts above, I'm sure you'll see my message somewhere.

Anytime you get civilians taking the law into their own hands on some power Trip it goes to their heads and they start wrongly accusing people .

I also wonder if they've come across so many paedophiles online that they stupidly think every male arranging to meet a girl is an old man predator :facepalm: , it doesn't surprise me they've made huge errors it was bound to happen as the whole idea is a terrible set up.

Plus they're putting their own lives in danger . Should be left to the police entirely . If police make mistakes just think of the mess these vigilante's are making :bored: .

Everyone wants to be a hero with a cape trying to catch all the evil people ,and it doesn't work that way :nono:.

[Kizzy]

Who is "they"? This isn't one group, it's an absolute tonne of them, and for every one that's "learned to get it right" there's another blundering along / breaking the law themselves / actually assaulting people / targetting the WRONG people. For every live stream that goes viral another have-a-go-hero has the idea slap his mind that he should call his mates, lace up his steel toecaps and give it a go himself.

One of these groups that I personally know of targetted, "exposed" and harassed what turned out to be a 16 year old boy who thought he was meeting a 15 year old girl. I keep mentioning this on these threads, and it keeps being ignored, because people just don't want to accept that these groups are making HUGE ERRORS plenty of the time. This is within the last 6 months to a year. The "hunting" group then found themselves having their property vandalised and physical threats made against them... and tbqfh I can understand why. 4 burly football hooligans streaming a 16-year-old lad on social media and bellowing "paedophile" in his face.

Is online grooming a problem? Yes. But this is NOT the answer, and I worry deeply that people are going to consider this a "good enough" answer, with the failings just "collateral damage", and no one is going to bother actually seeking better solutions that don't involve vigilante justice. If we have to resort to vigilantism to solve our societal problems then we are in some serious, serious ****... the fact that the police are accepting / endorsing it just makes it even more scary. It's not something we should ever accept.

I'll say again; civilisations for thousands of years have had laws against vigilantes for very good reasons. Amateurs are going to make mistakes, hurt the wrong people, or get themselves hurt. It is inevitable.

You keep highlighting this law... which law are they breaking adopting this practice?

Should we as a civilised society accept grooming?...I see your point on the groups that are not acting within the perimeters of current police practice however, it is not fair to suggest that civil enforcement cannot be a valued resource for an already stretched service.

Throughout history there have been organisations that work in conjunction with the police, there's a whole 3rd sector of volunteers that ensure the safety of communities and society as a whole. Why would this area not benefit from the involvement of the public if coordinating with neighbourhood policing teams?

[Marsh.]

Sorry m8..i was offline when you came on to troll me again.:joker: I love how you never have a response to what anyone has actually said.

Never mind. Just delete your original comment and pretend you never posted it. :thumbs:

Like a child covering their eyes thinking it makes them invisible.

[GoldHeart]

You keep highlighting this law... which law are they breaking adopting this practice?

Should we as a civilised society accept grooming?...I see your point on the groups that are not acting within the perimeters of current police practice however, it is not fair to suggest that civil enforcement cannot be a valued resource for an already stretched service.

Throughout history there have been organisations that work in conjunction with the police, there's a whole 3rd sector of volunteers that ensure the safety of communities and society as a whole. Why would this area not benefit from the involvement of the public if coordinating with neighbourhood policing teams?

As a society and within our community we should help police and stop these sicko's but as I've said you can't be a hero vigilante by yourself.

And the problem with these Hunter groups is they abuse it and things escalate and people can and have been wrongly accused :facepalm:.

Once a face is posted online and named & shamed that's it .

[Beso]

:joker: I love how you never have a response to what anyone has actually said.

Never mind. Just delete your original comment and pretend you never posted it. :thumbs:

Like a child covering their eyes thinking it makes them invisible.

No..i wont delete my original comment..

You could report it though if you cant handle the image.

[user104658]

You keep highlighting this law... which law are they breaking adopting this practice?

Should we as a civilised society accept grooming?...I see your point on the groups that are not acting within the perimeters of current police practice however, it is not fair to suggest that civil enforcement cannot be a valued resource for an already stretched service.

Throughout history there have been organisations that work in conjunction with the police, there's a whole 3rd sector of volunteers that ensure the safety of communities and society as a whole. Why would this area not benefit from the involvement of the public if coordinating with neighbourhood policing teams?

As you said yourself, their tactics have adapted over the years to ensure that they aren't technically breaking any laws. These groups used to go around sending threatening letters, attacking vehicles, smashing windows, etc. but have evolved to legitimise themselves. It's the same people, though... and finding "loopholes" to keep it legal doesn't negate the fact that it's vigilantism, nor nullify the reasons that vigilantism generally is not a good idea.

Is your argument that these groups DON'T make mistakes and victimise innocent people? Or that they AREN'T at risk of getting themselves or other members of the public hurt?

[Kizzy]

As you said yourself, their tactics have adapted over the years to ensure that they aren't technically breaking any laws. These groups used to go around sending threatening letters, attacking vehicles, smashing windows, etc. but have evolved to legitimise themselves. It's the same people, though... and finding "loopholes" to keep it legal doesn't negate the fact that it's vigilantism, nor nullify the reasons that vigilantism generally is not a good idea.

Is your argument that these groups DON'T make mistakes and victimise innocent people? Or that they AREN'T at risk of getting themselves or other members of the public hurt?

You are presuming it is the same groups that operated in a violent manner that have legitimised themselves today... but you don't have any evidence of that.

There is a lot of public support for these kind of sting and the evidence is proving to ensure convictions, the police are now engaging with these groups to maintain best practice. That has to be the way forward now with regulated groups affiliated with their neighborhood policing teams.

I don't have a problem with the groups who refuse to be regulated by the police being disbanded, however if social media continues as a way for predators to reach children they will continue to operate better it be in conjunction with the police than not.

[Kizzy]

As a society and within our community we should help police and stop these sicko's but as I've said you can't be a hero vigilante by yourself.

And the problem with these Hunter groups is they abuse it and things escalate and people can and have been wrongly accused :facepalm:.

Once a face is posted online and named & shamed that's it .

Who said you could or should be a vigilante by yourself?...

Yes people have been wrongly accused, ask Cliff Richard.

[user104658]

You are presuming it is the same groups that operated in a violent manner that have legitimised themselves today... but you don't have any evidence of that.

There is a lot of public support for these kind of sting and the evidence is proving to ensure convictions, the police are now engaging with these groups to maintain best practice. That has to be the way forward now with regulated groups affiliated with their neighborhood policing teams.

I don't have a problem with the groups who refuse to be regulated by the police being disbanded, however if social media continues as a way for predators to reach children they will continue to operate better it be in conjunction with the police than not.Of course its the same groups, have you ever watched the live streams? They might not be throwing punches but they're still highly aggressive. You're also still willfully ignoring the point about mistakes being made and innocent people being caught in the crossfire of amateurs... Which does happen.

It's a dangerous, slippery slope and it's naively optimistic to assume that this style of... Ahem... "community policing" will be limited sexual predators in the long run. I get that it's a highly emotive topic, the fact that children and teens are groomed and abused is horrific, but I personally believe that emotions and outrage running high on this topic clouds peoples rational judgement on whether or not vigilantism in general is something we want to accept. "Well not for most things but in this special case its OK" isn't really a sensible answer. You can't half-open the door to this sort of thing. I'm not OK with any form of social media mob justice, and so I can't be OK with this.

[Marsh.]

No..i wont delete my original comment..

You could report it though if you cant handle the image.I don't want anything deleted.

You just tend to do that when you feel you have nothing more to say. As though that should end the discussion for anyone else.

[Kizzy]

Of course its the same groups, have you ever watched the live streams? They might not be throwing punches but they're still highly aggressive. You're also still willfully ignoring the point about mistakes being made and innocent people being caught in the crossfire of amateurs... Which does happen.

It's a dangerous, slippery slope and it's naively optimistic to assume that this style of... Ahem... "community policing" will be limited sexual predators in the long run. I get that it's a highly emotive topic, the fact that children and teens are groomed and abused is horrific, but I personally believe that emotions and outrage running high on this topic clouds peoples rational judgement on whether or not vigilantism in general is something we want to accept. "Well not for most things but in this special case its OK" isn't really a sensible answer. You can't half-open the door to this sort of thing. I'm not OK with any form of social media mob justice, and so I can't be OK with this.

I'm not suggesting that hasn't happened which is why I say push for affiliation and closer working with the police to ensure those situations are not repeated.

We are discussing groups working within communities so what better to work alongside neighbourhood policing teams? Not sure what the 'Ahem' is for :/

I would've thought the police would welcome public involvement to solve any and all crime... we are constantly told to remain vigilant and report suspect behaviours to the police.

Social media like the rest of the web has, as you highlighted in another thread some seriously dark corners... the police hasn't the time or the resources to flush them out. These groups can be utilised if managed effectively, like a 'dads army'. of er... dads?