"Paedophile hunters" in sheffield

[danot]

This is not true. Most convictions are not for "contact offences". Look at The Star, most offenders are sentenced for either grooming online (which is an offence) or for viewing indecent images.

 

Not sure about that, nearly every case of grooming I read about involves a sexual encounter with the child. How are these online groomers being caught then?

[redfox]

You confuse me. You claim in many cases where grooming occurs, there is no contact whatsoever between offender and victim and no inappropriate act occurs at all.

 

Despite making reference to the act of grooming in your post, using the terms 'offender' and 'victim', you then casually imply that nothing inappropriate is occurring in many of these cases. I assume you don't consider grooming inappropriate per se unless the groomers actions are sexually motivated?

 

 

You don't understand - I follow that - I responded to your post - "an inappropriate act has to occur" and your use of the term 'violated'.

 

I know what the law requires to prosecute those that conduct themselves on the internet and 'groom' - try reading the sexual offences act - s.14, s.15 and s.15A - you will learn what the offences require by way of evidence for a non-contact offence.

 

Please highlight where in my post you find evidence of my 'casual implication'.

 

Assumptions are dangerous. As is the casual use of latin.

[danot]

You don't understand - I follow that - I responded to your post - "an inappropriate act has to occur" and your use of the term 'violated'.

 

I know what the law requires to prosecute those that conduct themselves on the internet and 'groom' - try reading the sexual offences act - s.14, s.15 and s.15A - you will learn what the offences require by way of evidence for a non-contact offence.

 

Please highlight where in my post you find evidence of my 'casual implication'.

 

Assumptions are dangerous. As is the casual use of latin.

You claimed that in most cases of grooming via social media and the internet, there is no contact between offender and victim(Your term not mine)and no inappropriate act occurs. I'm confused over your use of the words "offender and victim" whilst claiming nothing inappropriate occurred between them and how you claim no inappropriate act occurs in most cases of grooming? As before, you imply there's nothing inappropriate about grooming per se, that something more is required to happen before its considered inappropriate. That's the impression I get.

[medusa]

True, but we're dealing with individuals who knowingly arranged to meet a child to have a sexual encounter with said child, but Is it necessary for the paedophile to physically carry out the act in order for the system to punish them lawfully? As I see it, the system can only punish offenders whereas paedophile hunters protect children from predators by exposing them before they carry out the act.

 

Given that the grooming is in itself an offence then usually the ONLY proof of that is from very good online record keeping, including a way of showing that the records kept are truly complete and that, for instance, elements of entrapment have not been removed. Without these good records there is no proof at all, and there is so much potential for things to be taken out of context when it comes to grooming.

 

For instance, if there is a significant element of entrapment, can you even be sure that the 'offender' actually was aiming to meet the 'victim' for a sexual encounter? Anything at all could have been sent by IM app, and it's not illegal or even necessarily risky to the child to meet a child for other reasons.

 

I'm not defending the paedophiles at all BTW- I'm all for getting evidence which is incontrovertible and which gives juries an easy job of seeing that there is real objective proof of their activities and attempts to harm children. If that can be done without any children actually being harmed then that's even better.

 

The important thing is that the proof, real proper proof, is there. Not whatever some vigilante thought was good proof which was turned over to police expecting a conviction but which later turned out to be incomplete or with holes you could drive a bus through.

[danot]

Given that the grooming is in itself an offence then usually the ONLY proof of that is from very good online record keeping, including a way of showing that the records kept are truly complete and that, for instance, elements of entrapment have not been removed. Without these good records there is no proof at all, and there is so much potential for things to be taken out of context when it comes to grooming.

 

For instance, if there is a significant element of entrapment, can you even be sure that the 'offender' actually was aiming to meet the 'victim' for a sexual encounter? Anything at all could have been sent by IM app, and it's not illegal or even necessarily risky to the child to meet a child for other reasons.

 

I'm not defending the paedophiles at all BTW- I'm all for getting evidence which is incontrovertible and which gives juries an easy job of seeing that there is real objective proof of their activities and attempts to harm children. If that can be done without any children actually being harmed then that's even better.

 

The important thing is that the proof, real proper proof, is there. Not whatever some vigilante thought was good proof which was turned over to police expecting a conviction but which later turned out to be incomplete or with holes you could drive a bus through.

Agreed. I just love the idea of online groomer hunters sitting in wait for someone to nibble the bait. I think its not only commendable but an highly effective way to smoke them out or make them think twice at least.

[sgtkate]

Agreed. I just love the idea of online groomer hunters sitting in wait for someone to nibble the bait. I think its not only commendable but an highly effective way to smoke them out or make them think twice at least.

 

I agree here, but the vigilantes have no need to accost the suspects in a public place. All that does is make a violent confrontation more likely and possibly undermine any police investigations. Why don't the police hire these people? Clearly a lot of them are good at what they do and with a bit of training in clear application of the law so as not to fall foul of entrapment laws ruining a conviction we could have a highly effective team really making a difference. They wouldn't need to be fully trained police officers, so salaries could be lower (if you can get much lower than a copper these days ) and entry requirements easier too, not fitness tests for example. They simply try to find paedophiles online who appear to be actively grooming and build evidence to hand over the 'proper' police for follow up.

 

Sadly, as a few on here have suggested, the vigilantes wouldn't want to do this as they couldn't show off on social media about how awesome they are. I think a lot of them care as much about their own appearance as they do about keeping children safe.

[hello1964]

Agree with most of the sentiment on here. Two issues that do concern me are:

 

- Vigilantes can't know if there is an ongoing police operation which they could compromise, with the risk of offenders escaping justice.

 

- I recall one example where 'the predator' turned out to be a young man with severe mental health issues, which the 'paedophile hunters' were not aware of and did not have the necessary skills/knowledge to deal with.

 

Once again, sad we have got to this as a society.

The vigilantes from Leeds who I watched on YouTube are as thick as two short planks and I don't want dross doling out justice on the streets. Thank you.

[danot]

I agree here, but the vigilantes have no need to accost the suspects in a public place. All that does is make a violent confrontation more likely and possibly undermine any police investigations. Why don't the police hire these people? Clearly a lot of them are good at what they do and with a bit of training in clear application of the law so as not to fall foul of entrapment laws ruining a conviction we could have a highly effective team really making a difference. They wouldn't need to be fully trained police officers, so salaries could be lower (if you can get much lower than a copper these days ) and entry requirements easier too, not fitness tests for example. They simply try to find paedophiles online who appear to be actively grooming and build evidence to hand over the 'proper' police for follow up.

 

Sadly, as a few on here have suggested, the vigilantes wouldn't want to do this as they couldn't show off on social media about how awesome they are. I think a lot of them care as much about their own appearance as they do about keeping children safe.

I don't doubt there'll be some doing it just for the bravado which will undoubtedly hinder the police but those conducting themselves in a style similar to those who give rouge builders a tough time are doing a commendable thing and I take my hat off to them. Long may they reign.

[nikki-red]

Theres an article on The Sun website about the Creep Catchers incident in Sheffield...

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4100897/paedophile-punched-head-video/

[Grappler]

Theres an article on The Sun website about the Creep Catchers incident in Sheffield...

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4100897/paedophile-punched-head-video/

 

If this is accurate, then the Paedophile should be locked up, and big deal if he got a punch to the head, what did he expect?

 

"...The man filmed allegedly tried to groom a 13-year-old girl online while in fact talking to a vigilante group ‘Creep Catchers UK’....."