Do you agree with pedophile hunters?
 

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?

Not really.

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.

no

I don't agree with vigilantism, no.

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'

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.

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.

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.

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

.

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

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.

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.

This

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I guess nobody here has heard of Chris Hansen?

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

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.

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:
Even if he doesn't face a custodial sentence, his career, google search, and probably marriage is ****ed.

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

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

And what’s wrong with entrapping a sexual pervert?

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.

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.

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.

Doesn't catch them though does it?

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 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
..