Letzgo hunting paedos

[butchersapron]

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

Wouldn't bother really - not that relevant to the thread.

 

[DotCommunist]

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.

stinson hunter isn't even collaring proper child sex rings, people traffickers or darknet loving child-porn sharers. He's overdosed on 'to catch a predator' re-runs.

 

[Frances Lengel]

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.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/snared-pervert-who-planned-abuse-5693949

Beverley, of Abbotsleigh Avenue, can now be unmasked after he was convicted of child sex offences, including storing and distributing vile images of child abuse, and jailed for six years.

*This depraved creature tried a similar trick. It didn't work.

Depraved Neil Beverley believed he was exchanging internet messages with a man who would introduce him to the boy he could abuse.

But unbeknown to Beverley he was writing directly to a police officer monitoring and recording his every word.

A meeting was arranged at Debdale Park, Gorton, and the M.E.N. was there as stunned Beverley, 48, was met by two undercover police officers and arrested. Beverley, from Wythenshawe, even sent a text message to his ‘contact’ when he arrived, saying: ‘I’m here’.

......

Beverley – who worked as a credit controller and has no previous convictions – bizarrely claimed he was carrying out research and had intended to ‘trap’ a paedophile then contact police.

...

The court heard he used a chatroom to exchange messages with a police officer posing as a man who would organise a meeting with a boy, who police called ‘Chris’.

The meeting at the car park of the McDonald’s restaurant at Debdale Park took place in March last year.

An examination of Beverley’s computer after his arrest revealed another attempt to meet a child for abuse, although it is understood no meeting took place, the court heard.

....

The court heard Beverley, who sobbed uncontrollably and rocked throughout the hearing, continue to maintain his innocence. He shouted ‘I did not do it’ as he left the dock in handcuffs

.

In his twisted mind, the fact that there never was any boy for him to abuse and it was all a police set up probably does make him innocent. AFAIC though, this operation potentially prevented children from being abused by this man in the future and hopefully gave this man access to whatever treatment he might need.

This sort of thing is defo best left to the polis though, and not to glory hunting weirdos like Stinson Hunter.

 

[phildwyer]

stinson hunter isn't even collaring proper child sex rings, people traffickers or darknet loving child-porn sharers. He's overdosed on 'to catch a predator' re-runs.

Predictably enough, quite a few targets kill themselves before it gets to court too.

If you ask me, Stinson and his ilk are actually stimulating the desires they claim to be repressing.

 

[likesfish]

While zero sympathy for stinsons targets probably isnt a a hobby that should be encouraged its going to end really really badly sooner rather than later. Theres a reason Police get training and have rules and we have a justice system rather than mob rule.
Channel 4 encouraging this loon someobody should have mentioned ethics, even that wanker kyle has some professionals in the back ground to attempt to mitigate the carnage he causes.
Much as going out leon or taxi driver appeals monstering some sad git in a motel carpark really isnt on

 

[andysays]

Wouldn't bother really - not that relevant to the thread.

Well, it may or may not be "that relevant to the thread", but if I'd been on the jury for that trial, given all the evidence contained in the report, and in the absence of other evidence which may or may not have come up in the trial but doesn't appear in the report, I would have struggled to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Had you also been on the jury, you would have needed to do rather more to convince me than simply say that his defence is feeble.

And if I were a defence solicitor who discovered only now that the whole thing had apparently been staged as part of a C4 documentary, I'd be looking into the possibility of appealing the conviction.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, it may or may not be "that relevant to the thread", but if I'd been on the jury for that trial, given all the evidence contained in the report, and in the absence of other evidence which may or may not have come up in the trial but doesn't appear in the report, I would have struggled to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Had you also been on the jury, you would have needed to do rather more to convince me than simply say that his defence is feeble.

And if I were a defence solicitor who discovered only now that the whole thing had apparently been staged as part of a C4 documentary, I'd be looking into the possibility of appealing the conviction.

You fucking what? Two things. You've again confused my general point for the specific and secondly made sure that you look stupid given that you are not privy to all the evidence contained in the report or any other evidence in this case so have no fucking business suggesting what you would have done as a jury member.

 

[andysays]

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...news/snared-pervert-who-planned-abuse-5693949



*This depraved creature tried a similar trick. It didn't work.


......
.......

.

In his twisted mind, the fact that there never was any boy for him to abuse and it was all a police set up probably does make him innocent. AFAIC though, this operation potentially prevented children from being abused by this man in the future and hopefully gave this man access to whatever treatment he might need.

This sort of thing is defo best left to the polis though, and not to glory hunting weirdos like Stinson Hunter.

Fair enough, it certainly may be simply a concocted attempt at a defence.

I agree that this stuff is best left to the police, and that hopefully the people in these various cases will now get whatever treatment they need.

It would be even better if they could get such treatment without having to be convicted of such offences, but as existentialist has already argued, the sort of moral panic which we've seen does nothing to make such treatment more accessable. It may also, in my opinion, lead to unsafe convictions in some cases

Edited to correct the inadvertant suggestion that existentialist said anything about unsafe convictions. Thanks to butchersapron for bringing this to my attention

 

[butchersapron]

Fair enough, it certainly may be simply a concocted attempt at a defence.

I agree that this stuff is best left to the police, and that hopefully the people in these various cases will now get whatever treatment they need.

It would be even better if they could get such treatment without having to be convicted of such offences, but as existentialist has already argued, the sort of moral panic which may lead to unsafe convictions does nothing to make such treatment more accessable.

I don't think he mentioned unsafe convictions. Why post that in association with your 'some doubt' posts earlier?

 

[andysays]

You fucking what? Two things. You've again confused my general point for the specific and secondly made sure that you look stupid given that you are not privy to all the evidence contained in the report or any other evidence in this case so have no fucking business suggesting what you would have done as a jury member.

There seems to be quite a lot of confusion in our attempts to communicate with each other, not just my not understanding your general point, but also your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet and this one

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

which seems to me, in my confusion, to be a direct contradiction of the record of the posts which are still there for everyone to read.

Just as well we're not likely to find ourselves in the same jury room anytime soon.

 

[butchersapron]

Sometimes, you just have to ...wait.

 

[andysays]

I don't think he mentioned unsafe convictions. Why post that in association with your 'some doubt' posts earlier?

You're right; he didn't. That is genuinely confusing, so I'll go back and edit it.

 

[butchersapron]

What about this bit:

but also your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet

it's patently untrue. How many did you have?

 

[andysays]

What about this bit:



it's patently untrue. How many did you have?

Oh dear, I know you can do better than this.

If you, rightly, don't like it when this sort of shit is thrown at you, maybe try to avoid it yourself

 

[butchersapron]

I don't know what you're on about here. I said that i knew the case has been to trial and resulted in a conviction - you translate to "your confusion about whether this case has come to trial yet". Then this other stuff. It literally ignores all the previous conversation.

 

[elbows]

I wonder which production company this is.

From the article I linked to:

Despite being asked to feature in numerous documentaries in the past and refusing, Hunter said that it was an offer from AMOS Pictures and the chance to work with BAFTA winner Dan Reed that changed his mind.

I've barely watched this sort of TV for a decade so I am ignorant as the the quality of prior Dan Reed work.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself. Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark has to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're done.
Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions per se. They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Unfortunately, the UK law is still a bit murky on "for sexual purposes", as it's taken as read that the contact is for such purposes, rather than needing to be provable (which may be a commonsense assumption, but is still just that - an assumption).

 

[existentialist]

Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself. Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark has to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're done.
Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions per se. They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.

Outsourced managerialist criminal justice systems, if the likes of Stinson Hunter et al get much of a free run at it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Just thought I'd mention that a majority (around 70% in England and Wales) of males arrested for non-contact sex offences (internet grooming, mostly) had no previous record of sex offences, at least as far as 2001 (which is the last Home Office bulletin I have on the subject.
Now, given that the majority of contact sex offenders have at least one conviction for a sex offence under their belt while still a juvenile, it makes me wonder whether rather than tapping into a vein of paedophiles per se, that non-contact offence legislation has tapped into a previously undiscovered seam of people who, pre-internet, merely fantasised, and didn't go beyond fantasy because they were socialised enough to have "real world" relationships part of the time. The advent of mass-computer ownership and internet use may have been the key factor in their offending.

Hmm, something else to research.

 

[andysays]

Internet-arranged non-contact offences have been on the statute book since (IIRC) 1998, with an update around 2003 to take into account the increasing use across the board of the net.
Basically, it boils down to the authorities merely needing to show that you were arranging contact with a putatively-underaged person for the purposes of grooming for sex or for sex itself. Once the underage person declares themselves to be underage (which is the "out" the mark has to be offered, to get around the whole entrapment issue), as soon as you carry on the contact (confirming to the authorities that you are indeed attempting to "groom" an underage person for sex, even if sex hasn't entered explicitly into your conversation), someone should stick a fork in your arse and flip you over, because you're done.
Convictions for non-contact sex offences are a big contributor to sex offence convictions per se. They also have utility for the OB and CPS, in that they're fairly cheap and easy to prosecute.
Welcome to the brave new world of a managerialist criminal justice system.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess in that case my surprise and concern should be directed at the way the law has been framed, rather than the fact that particular prosecutions have been successful, because that strikes me as allowing and encouraging entrapment in a way which doesn't (as far as I know) happen in relation to other offences.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess in that case my surprise and concern should be directed at the way the law has been framed, rather than the fact that particular prosecutions have been successful, because that strikes me as allowing and encouraging entrapment in a way which doesn't (as far as I know) happen in relation to other offences.

The law was designed so that entrapment (in the legal sense) couldn't happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that what amounts to entrapment can't take place.

 

[Athos]

I'm not sure this is entrapment. It's not a case of the defendants being persuaded to commit crimes that they otherwise wouldn't commit. It'd be different if the 'hunters' were approaching people and offering to meet them for sex, but, if the Stinson Hunter's website is to be believed, that's now how they operate:

We never approach the people we catch first, we set up a profile and wait for people to contact us, upon receiving the first message we immediately inform the person that we are underage and it is then up to them if they wish to continue talking, we don’t engage in sexually explicit chat nor do we encourage it or send indecent images, we simply keep the chat (on our part) neutral. The people we meet normally always suggest meeting the ‘child’.

 

[andysays]

The law was designed so that entrapment (in the legal sense) couldn't happen. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that what amounts to entrapment can't take place.

Maybe I should have written "allowing what I personally (and obviously I'm not a lawyer, or even have sufficient knowledge of what the actual legal position is) consider to be amounting to entrapment?"

Out of interest, how does the situation compare with making arrangements to buy drugs on line, where those drugs don't actually exist, or other similar situations?

 

[andysays]

Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales

Entrapment arises when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime. If entrapment occurred, then some prosecution evidence may be excluded as being unfair, or the proceedings may be discontinued altogether.

Some examples of entrapment are as follows:-

1. A police officer encourages a person to commit a crime so that the officer can have them prosecuted for that crime.
2. The greater the degree of entrapment by the police officer, the more likely the court will see it as entrapment. See the case R v Bryne [2003]. That is, entrapment is not a substantive defense (R v Sang); i.e. it does not automatically negate the prosecution case.
3. Customs Officers who aid and abet fraud in order to prosecute the fraud. A notorious example of this occurred in 2003. The 'Stockade' prosecution ended in failure when the Court of Appeal quashed convictions against seven people accused in connection with the alleged diversion of £105 million in excise duty (VAT). The conduct of such Excise diversion cases resulted in the loss of up to £2 billion in public revenue.[24]

If a person has committed an offense because of entrapment, the Court may stay the proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuses of process (which prevents the case going ahead) or exclude evidence under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The grant of a stay is normally the most appropriate response.

The main authority on entrapment in the United Kingdom is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely; Attorney-General's Reference (n.3 of 2000). A grant of a stay is awarded if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime.

In Loosely, Lords Hoffman and Hutton indicated certain factors that should be considered in deciding whether proceedings against a defendant should be stayed. These include:

• Whether the police acted in good faith;
• Whether the police had good reason to suspect the accused of criminal activities;
• Whether the police suspected that crime was particularly prevalent in the area in which the investigation took place (Williams v. DPP);
• Whether pro-active investigatory techniques were necessary because of the secrecy and difficulty of detection of the criminal activity in question;
• The defendant's circumstances and vulnerability; and
• The nature of the offence.

It has been held that it is generally acceptable for the police to conduct test purchases (DPP v. Marshall) or pose as passengers to catch unlicensed taxi drivers (Nottingham City Council v. Amin).

So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.

 

[Athos]

Maybe I should have written "allowing what I personally (and obviously I'm not a lawyer, or even have sufficient knowledge of what the actual legal position is) consider to be amounting to entrapment?"

Out of interest, how does the situation compare with making arrangements to buy drugs on line, where those drugs don't actually exist, or other similar situations?

Test purchases of drugs are fairly uncontentious, and not ordinarily considered by the courts to amount to entrapment. The leading case on the definition of entrapment in English law is Loosley. It's worth reading the judgement: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/loose-1.htm Essentially the key is the difference between luring/inciting a crime and presenting a potential offender with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime. To my mind the conduct of the 'hunters' falls within the latter category.

 

[Athos]

Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales



So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.

Historically, the focus has been on the fact that the state has acted unfairly (rather than upon ny diminution of the accused's culpability), and all the public policy reasons for preventing the state from acting in that way. But I'd be surprised if the hunter's conduct would be exempted from the question of entrapment merely because they are not the police. I think that the reason it's not entrapment are the same reasons that it wouldn't be entrapment if the police were doing the same thing (as, indeed, they do).

 

[ViolentPanda]

Here, out of interest, is what wikipedia says about the legal meaning of entrapment in England and Wales



So it's only entrapment when the police or another official body are doing it, not when random vigilante groups try it on.

Hence why the OB always get their honeytrappers to make clear they're "underage" - gives the putative "perp" a way to easily get off the hook, and if they don't take it, they're making their intentions very clear (as far as the OB are concerned) by continuing to stay in contact.

 

[kenny g]

Just read through the thread. In English law there is not a per-se objection to entrapment as is often believed. Case law covers situations such as the police setting up pawn brokers who buy stolen goods from burglars in order to "entrap" the burglars. This has been deemed acceptable. If the bogus pawn broker were encouraging the burglars to go out and rob then section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may kick in. The general assumption in English (rather than US) law is that ALL evidence is admissible. If investigators have acted inappropriately that should be dealt with by way of either civil claims (i.e tort of privacy etc) or by professional disciplinary action. However, obviously if otherwise innocent people are being persuaded to commit crimes by the popo section 78 of PACE can be used by a judge to kick the case to touch.

I always find it strange that people assume that this kind of thing should be left to the police. A strong motivator for police action is when the general public start acting. The state needs to assert its monopoly of power and then starts to step in. I would love to see some private prosecutions of paedo scum start as a further motivation of further police action. Don't forget that Snowden revelations suggest that a concerted state intervention would bring shed loads of paedo's to the Courts.It just hasn't been treated as a priority.

 

[rubyblue89]

"Stinson Hunter has even admitted as much."Guys that I catch generally aren't paedophiles," he told supporters in an online broadcast in August."