[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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. .

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?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

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]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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 , 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 .

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

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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?

[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]

Originally Posted by parmnion

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?