[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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?

Youtube video

[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]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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]

Originally Posted by Maru

I guess nobody here has heard of Chris Hansen?

Youtube video

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]

Originally Posted by 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'

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]

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.]

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Redway

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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. .

[user104658]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

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?