Letzgo hunting paedos

[phildwyer]

Oh now Stinson has announced that he's been making a documentary with Channel 4 since last June.

http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stin...-documentary/story-20521659-detail/story.html

And that should clear up any lingering doubts as to his motives:

" Speaking in the film about the news, he said: “'I’m so excited to be able to finally tell you all that since June last year we’ve been filming for a Channel 4 film. It covers from my humble beginnings as a child 32 years ago right up until the point we’re at now and the future.”'

I just bet he is "excited." What a complete and utter scumbag.

 

[likesfish]

He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up

But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight Somebody might suspect it was a set up.

Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?

 

[existentialist]

He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up

But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight Somebody might suspect it was a set up.

Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?

We have a legal system for banging up wronguns, though: if it isn't working, then that's what needs to be done, not freebooters riding on the back of popular prejudice. The legal system is at least theoretically accountable - who gets to carry the can when Mister Paedo Hunter gets it wrong and a life is wrecked?

Even if we have a long way to go, we should be aspiring to having a legal system that is just, and seen to be so: entrapping people in the way this guy is doing risks encouraging sympathy for the people he's going after.

And I find myself wondering what his motivation for all this is, too...

 

[Citizen66]

He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up

I think the arguments against are centred around the possibility of their actions interfering with any police investigations into their targets and the fact that entrapment is a pretty direct route to getting anything they do unearth thrown straight out of court.

They also publish the videos of their hapless prey thus ruining their lives whilst circumventing the entire judicial process.

On the plus side it sounds a great disincentive for people planning a bit of online grooming.

 

[DotCommunist]

Stinson Hunter is clearly a self aggrandizing wanker though

 

[Citizen66]

It's something I considered doing once. I started building a database of names of sex offenders from the local paper. Or did I just think about doing it? Either way I got bored after a few days in typical fashion and moved onto another fantasy. In my defence I was about 11 at the time.

 

[elbows]

I think the arguments against are centred around the possibility of their actions interfering with any police investigations into their targets and the fact that entrapment is a pretty direct route to getting anything they do unearth thrown straight out of court.

Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.

 

[butchersapron]

He is getting wrong ones banged up if your stupid enough to go looking for under age girls to meet in hotel rooms on the net you dont really have any defence if you actually turn up

But the whole thing stinks of being a sett up if on came on here advertising free sniper rifles and a certain mr blairs itenery for the next fortnight Somebody might suspect it was a set up.

Not that anyone here holds any ill feeling towards are former pm do they?

So the publicly declared set-up stinks of being a set-up does it? Ever thought of setting up a private detective agency?

I wonder which production company this is.

 

[andysays]

Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.

It surprised me too, and I also find it concerning.

From the info in those reports, it appears that two people have been found guilty, jailed (and presumably put on the sex offenders register) solely for an on-line conversation with a women falsely claiming to be underage, and then being foolish enough to attempt to meet them.

There's absolutely no suggestion that the two were known sex offenders, or that the search of their computers which no doubt happened when they were arrested found anything of concern, or anything else to demonstrate their supposed paedophile tendencies.

The fact that these entrapment activities appear to be conducted in order to make a TV programme just makes the whole thing even more surprising and concerning - if I was one of these two men, or their lawyer, I'd be looking to appeal the conviction - it seems the "evidence" is utterly tainted.

 

[existentialist]

Thats why I posted on this thread the other day about several convictions that seem to have resulted from his activities. The entrapment stuff didn't seem to get in the way of prosecution, which somewhat surprised me.

I suspect that, a lot of the time, faced with the entrapment evidence, a lot of the accused simply fold and plead guilty.

But justice isn't about what happens "a lot of the time" - it really only takes one person to have been mistakenly identified or misindentified, and the whole principle of law is undermined. Perhaps these vigilantes have been lucky so far.

I'm still hugely suspicious of the motives of someone who dedicates the time and effort to pursuing a specific group of people in this way: how do we know that their motivation isn't itself suspect in some way?

 

[phildwyer]

It surprised me too, and I also find it concerning.

From the info in those reports, it appears that two people have been found guilty, jailed (and presumably put on the sex offenders register) solely for an on-line conversation with a women falsely claiming to be underage, and then being foolish enough to attempt to meet them.

There's absolutely no suggestion that the two were known sex offenders, or that the search of their computers which no doubt happened when they were arrested found anything of concern, or anything else to demonstrate their supposed paedophile tendencies.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you trying to make a joke?

I'd say that attempting to meet what they thought was an underage girl for sexual purposes was plenty of evidence to "demonstrate their supposed [sic] paedophile tendencies."

It's also illegal.

Personally, my problem isn't with the law, it's with vigilantes. I consider them as bad as their targets.

 

[andysays]

I'm not really sure what your point is here. Are you trying to make a joke?

I'd say that attempting to meet what they thought was an underage girl for sexual purposes was plenty of evidence to "demonstrate their supposed [sic] paedophile tendencies."

It's also illegal.

Personally, my problem isn't with the law, it's with vigilantes. I consider them as bad as their targets.

No, I'm not trying to make a joke, I'm making a serious point.

There was no real underage girl, there was no sexual activity.

Having paedophile tendencies is not so far, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence.

I'm suggesting that the fact that these convictions were obtained solely on the evidence of a "sting" operation, one which wasn't targeted at specific known or suspected sex offenders was seems to have been a general "trawling" operation, and in which a TV production company was involved, is rather concerning.

You're not obliged to agree, you're even welcome to come up with a coherent argument against what I've said, but please don't suggest (especially with your record...) that I'm joking.

 

[phildwyer]

No, I'm not trying to make a joke, I'm making a serious point.

There was no real underage girl, there was no sexual activity.

Having paedophile tendencies is not so far, as far as I am aware, a criminal offence.

I'm suggesting that the fact that these convictions were obtained solely on the evidence of a "sting" operation, one which wasn't targeted at specific known or suspected sex offenders was seems to have been a general "trawling" operation, and in which a TV production company was involved, is rather concerning.

You're not obliged to agree, you're even welcome to come up with a coherent argument against what I've said, but please don't suggest (especially with your record...) that I'm joking.

Fair enough. I agree about how pernicious this operation is.

But if someone attempts to meet an underage girl for sex, they're attempting to commit a crime, which is itself a crime in the eyes of the law. And also in mine.

 

[laptop]

I wonder which production company this is.

AMOS Pictures and the chance to work with BAFTA winner Dan Reed

Read more: http://www.nuneaton-news.co.uk/Stinson-Hunter-star-Channel-4-documentary/story-20521659-detail/story.html

Should be working, not looked at their other output...

 

[andysays]

Fair enough. I agree about how pernicious this operation is.

But if someone attempts to meet an underage girl for sex, they're attempting to commit a crime, which is itself a crime in the eyes of the law. And also in mine.

But there is, in at least one of the cases, some doubt as to whether the person was really attempting to meet an underage girl for sex - he claimed that he knew she wasn't really underage but was pretending, and that he wanted to go along with the pretence.

I'm not saying for sure that he's telling the truth, but it's not a simple as saying that making the arrangement and meeting up proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was genuinely attempting to commit a crime.

 

[butchersapron]

Should be working, not looked at their other output...

Cheers,guess i should have read the article!

 

[butchersapron]

But there is, in at least one of the cases, some doubt as to whether the person was really attempting to meet an underage girl for sex - he claimed that he knew she wasn't really underage but was pretending, and that he wanted to go along with the pretence.

I'm not saying for sure that he's telling the truth, but it's not a simple as saying that making the arrangement and meeting up proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was genuinely attempting to commit a crime.

I haven't looked at the case - but him saying that alone does not constitute 'some doubt'. It requires a bit more than that.

 

[andysays]

I haven't looked at the case - but him saying that alone does not constitute 'some doubt'. It requires a bit more than that.

Well, I think it does, though whether it's enough doubt is another question.

What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?

 

[butchersapron]

Well, I think it does, though whether it's enough doubt is another question.

What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?

I didn't post the post that you're quoting in this post. There's some doubt.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, I think it does, though whether it's enough doubt is another question.

What else would you like to see before you agreed that there was some doubt, out of interest?

Supporting evidence (even if contentious) rather than bald assertion. Telling someone that you were going to catch a paedophile catcher and recording this before doing so.

 

[DotCommunist]

the other thing is who gave Stimpson Hunter a mandate to go on his not-at-all-self-interested peado hunting activities. No one.

 

[andysays]

Supporting evidence (even if contentious) rather than bald assertion. Telling someone that you were going to catch a paedophile catcher and recording this before doing so.

I think we're talking slightly at crossed purposes. I agree with your point that had the "paedo-hunters" eg gone to the police beforehand it would strengthen the prosecution case.

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed

 

[existentialist]

the other thing is who gave Stimpson Hunter a mandate to go on his not-at-all-self-interested peado hunting activities. No one.

I guess that's at the root of my uneasiness. The likes of Stimpson Hunter would probably argue that their mandate comes from the disgust of society at the activities of child sex abusers - a disgust that is largely fuelled by hysterical and unbalanced news reporting about the subject, which the actions of these vigilantes feeds into.

I'm pretty sure I've said it before, but I think that, if this problem is to be dealt with effectively - which includes whatever it takes to prevent these people from committing such acts, rather than catching them in the act - the emotional temperature needs to be lowered. It is pretty evident that, for a lot of child sex abusers, this is a compulsion they have, not a choice they make. That doesn't in any way excuse what they do, but is ramping up the furore around it really the best way to address the problem?

I am also concerned that, by creating situations in which child sex abusers can - with some justification - claim to be persecuted, we're not pushing them further into the shadows, and creating potential situations where their activities might well become more dangerous (not to mention persuading ourselves that in Doing Something About it via entrapment and vigilantes, we're more likely to miss the far larger problem of abuse by people other than strangers to the potential victims).

And, in any event, is the public humiliation and shaming of people who may well be under a compulsion to sexually abuse children really the best way to protect those children, or the best way for society to express the offence it feels towards such people? I'm not sure it is.

 

[laptop]

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed

Indeed: if it went before a jury, they would be told that they could convict only if they were "certain, so that you are sure" that he believed her to be underage.

The doubt is on the other foot, as it were.

 

[likesfish]

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed


May they should join the swp?

 

[butchersapron]

I think we're talking slightly at crossed purposes. I agree with your point that had the "paedo-hunters" eg gone to the police beforehand it would strengthen the prosecution case.

What I'm saying is that the possible defence "I knew she was really old enough, but I liked the idea she was pretending" creates a doubt which needs to be argued against, not just dismissed

Yes, there's creating a doubt as above and there's saying that any defence at all no matter how feeble from the accused (and we're not even talking about being in court yet) at all constitutes 'some doubt' which is how your first post reads to me. It doesn't.

 

[andysays]

Indeed: if it went before a jury, they would be told that they could convict only if they were "certain, so that you are sure" that he believed her to be underage.

The doubt is on the other foot, as it were.

Except they apparently weren't.

Now I've gone back and re-read the story, it appears there's even more doubt

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.u..._supply_teacher_from_Accrington_found_guilty/

The day before the meeting, Simpson*, terrified of getting caught, had, said Miss Johnston ‘pretty foolishly’ rung the police, said he had been talking to a woman called Lisa Rogers on the internet and asked if she was an under cover police officer.

Simpson claimed in court he ‘knew’ he had been conversing with an adult and rang the police because he wanted to know what kind of ‘game they were playing’.

So the paedo-hunters didn't consult the police, but their target did.

I'm looking forward to seeing this Life of "Stinson" doc when it's finally aired...

*for clarification, Stinson is the paedo-hunter general, Simpson is one of his targets

 

[andysays]

Yes, there's creating a doubt as above and there's saying that any defence at all no matter how feeble from the accused (and we're not even talking about being in court yet) at all constitutes 'some doubt' which is how your first post reads to me. It doesn't.

It's been to court - he's been found guilty. See link in my previous post

ETA: and I'm glad you're not a judge, BTW. You can't simply dismiss any defence as "feeble", you actually have to demonstrate it to be so, beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[butchersapron]

It's been to court - he's been found guilty. See link in my previous post

I know! Obviously didn't create enough doubt did he! My point was not about that case, but about the idea that the accused offering a feeble defence in any case creates 'some doubt' - it doesn't. A defence supported by evidence of actions, previous actions, history, etc creates doubt. A bloke saying nah, you ain't got me doesn't.

 

[andysays]

I know! Obviously didn't create enough doubt did he! My point was not about that case, but about the idea that the accused offering a feeble defence in any case creates 'some doubt' - it doesn't. A defence supported by evidence of actions, previous actions, history, etc creates doubt. A bloke saying nah, you ain't got me doesn't.

Got to go out for a bit - I'll return to this later