Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Letzgo hunting paedos

taffboy gwyrdd said:
one post citing something doesn't equate with the several it cites, or joining in with the pedant sniping. If it did then even fewer would would ever cite stuff for fear of being seen as part of the general morass. But reading the recent stuff a morass is what it is in any case. WTF has this place become?
Click to expand...
Clearly a place where people use child abuse as a springboard to some moral high ground. It's disgusting.
 
DaveCinzano said:
Why did anyone here ever engage with frogwoman, Manda, Nemo, Emilie, dwen, Lord Camomile, red rose (and any number of others who at the time might have been south of majority) on the u75 boards or in the u75 chatroom?

Oh, that's right, because personality, intelligence, wit and rapport aren't just doled out at age 18. Plus talking is not necessarily the gateway to noncery.
Click to expand...
Yes, i agree there. But its a different matter talking about sex. Pervert.
 
taffboy gwyrdd said:
Lots of attempts at point scoring on this thread. No great shock for the board as a whole, but this time it's essentially on the back of child abuse. Some people might want to have a look at what they've become.
Click to expand...
Name them. Identify the riding on the back of child abuse. Justify your smear.
 
butchersapron said:
Name them. Identify the riding on the back of child abuse. Justify your smear.
Click to expand...

I think he means you and me. But, it's nonsense, so I ignored it.

Though, looking back (sober) our spat was a pretty unedifying spectacle.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that you, as an anarchist, got so hot-under-the-collar at the thought of individuals reclaiming some of the responsibility for protecting children from the state. Yes, they're knobs, and I don't support what they do, but they're nowhere near the top of the list of things that need addressing.

Plus it irritates me when you don't make your points clearly. But you're not there to accommodate me I guess.
 
Athos said:
I think he means you and me. But, it's nonsense, so I ignored it.

Though, looking back (sober) our spat was a pretty unedifying spectacle.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that you, as an anarchist, got so hot-under-the-collar at the thought of individuals reclaiming some of the responsibility for protecting children from the state. Yes, they're knobs, and I don't support what they do, but they're nowhere near the top of the list of things that need addressing.

Plus it irritates me when you don't make your points clearly. But you're not there to accommodate me I guess.
Click to expand...
I wasn't making that point. Any point that i made about them was criticising the privatised/profit driven/celebrity based/state dependent nature of what they are doing in order to highlight the gap between this rubbish and civil society taking back the function of policing itself from the state. Don't confuse this with the autonomous actions of a self confident engaged community identifying and acting on its own interests.
 
butchersapron said:
I wasn't making that point. Any point that i made about them was criticising the privatised/profit driven/celebrity based/state dependent nature of what they are doing in order to highlight the gap between this rubbish and civil society taking back the function of policing itself from the state. Don't confuse this with the autonomous actions of a self confident engaged community identifying and acting on its own interests.
Click to expand...

Perhaps unsurprisingly, you've made it much more clearly in that one post than you did in all of last night's. And I don't disagree with you.
 
Athos said:
Surely there's better targets?
Click to expand...

Depends whether you find this sort of vigilantism acceptable, surely?

Personally, I don't. I find the idea of self-appointed servants of justice ensnaring/entrapping people repulsive.
Also, just to inject some reality, most non-contact (in other words, chatroom perverts) paedophiles (>90%) never commit a contact offence, so these self-elected nemeses are targeting almost entirely the wrong group.
 
Last edited:
Athos said:
Oh, I see. Bit of an anti-climax, though. I don't know why getting you to make your point clearly - especially such an anodyne one - should be so like pulling teeth.

Yeah, tax evaders are a better target for ire than those who expose paedophiles. As are paedophiles.
Click to expand...

Pre-supposing that the "paedophile" being exposed has ever been a contact offender.
 
Red Storm said:
What worries me is that what's to stop them branding anyone a peado?

Anyone they have a problem with maybe cos of some silly youtube style argument.

Can fuck your life up.

These look like a bunch of internet dickheads.
Click to expand...
Exactly my thoughts, the accusation of being a paedophile has gained so much power that it has become an easy and effective weapon to use online. I can see a lot of shit coming from these idiots and a lot of people being hurt until they finally get shut down.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Depends whether you find this sort of vigilantism acceptable, surely?

Personally, I don't. I find the idea of self-appointed servants of justice ensnaring/entrapping people repulsive.
Also, just to inject some reality, most non-contact (in other words, chatroom perverts) paedophiles (>90%) never commit a contact offence, so these self-elected nemeses are targeting almost entirely the wrong group.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't support what they're doing. But there's lots of other things that bother me more.

Also, a lot of the people they target are more than merely chatroom perverts; they're those who arrange to meet with kids. And let's not pretend that men who are travelling to have sex with children aren't a legitimate target. (Albeit I acknowledge the possibility for innocents to be wrongly accused.)

Also, I have little sympathy for the entrapment argument. Not least of all because the logical extension of it would be to exculpate child molesters who've been 'encouraged' by their victims, and, thereby blame those victims.
 
Last edited:
Puddy_Tat said:
indeed.

i don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...
Click to expand...

I'd perhaps liken them as witch hunters who would hunt potential 'Witches' down from village to village and then tie them to a chair dunk them for ten minutes underwater and if they didn't drown they were witches... Self serving cunts basically. Witch hunting still goes on today in countries where superstition still stakes fear into the heart of communities.
 
Batboy said:
I'd perhaps liken them as witch hunters who would hunt potential 'Witches' down from village to village and then tie them to a chair dunk them for ten minutes underwater and if they didn't drown they were witches... Self serving cunts basically. Witch hunting still goes on today in countries where superstition still stakes fear into the heart of communities.
Click to expand...

Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.
 
Athos said:
Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.
Click to expand...

Or in the article linked to in the first post, men who went to meet someone they thought was 18 (possibly slightly creepy for a middle aged bloke, but legal) then was told they were 15, tried to bugger off, and got chased by the lynch mob

Peter thought he was meeting an 18-year-old, and insists he is not a paedophile or child groomer. Only when he was waiting in the cafe did a text come through saying "she" was 15 and that he immediately got up and left.
Click to expand...
 
Puddy_Tat said:
Or in the article linked to in the first post, men who went to meet someone they thought was 18 (possibly slightly creepy for a middle aged bloke, but legal) then was told they were 15, tried to bugger off, and got chased by the lynch mob
Click to expand...

According to the bloke.

If that's true, then it's wrong. But it doesn't make what I said any less true i.e. that they have identified a number of men who hoped to meet children for sex.
 
Athos said:
Except that witches don't exist. Whereas they appear to have identified a number of all too real men who travelled to meet children for sex.
Click to expand...
Witches did exist and still do now.
It's built around superstition. It was religious zealots who wanted to wipe them out. Check your facts.
 
Puddy_Tat said:
don't wish to be considered a paedo-apologist or any such bollocks, but the idea of this sort of thing, when there's still people out there who subscribe to the "all queers are kiddy fiddlers" theory, this sort of thing makes me feel somewhat uneasy...
.
Click to expand...

In the russian version of this which targets gay men attempting to meet other gay men over the age of consent through online dating services are called "Occupy Pedophilia" and "Occupy Gerontophilia" respectively.

Trigger warning NSFW images http://paper-bird.net/2013/08/11/truths-behind-the-gay-torture-images-from-russia/
 
Batboy said:
Witches did exist and still do now.
It's built around superstition. It was religious zealots who wanted to wipe them out. Check your facts.
Click to expand...

There are not (and never have been) women who commune with the devil; there are men who seek sex with children.

And to link a dislike of paedophilia to religious zealotry is to liken religious freedom to sexual abuse.
 
Athos said:
There are not (and never have been) women who commune with the devil; there are men who seek sex with children.

And to link a dislike of paedophilia to religious zealotry is to liken religious freedom to sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you didn't say "women who commune with the devil don't exist", you said "witches don't exist". Entirely different things.

And for some reason you seem to have at least a degree of support for a grown man who's given himself the name "Stinson Hunter". Have a word with yourself.
 
Frances Lengel said:
Yeah but you didn't say "women who commune with the devil don't exist", you said "witches don't exist". Entirely different things.

And for some reason you seem to have at least a degree of support for a grown man who's given himself the name "Stinson Hunter". Have a word with yourself.
Click to expand...

I talked about witches in the context that they were introduced to the thread i.e. historical witch hunts. Either you didn't understand that, or you deliberately de-contextualised the comment in order to score a cheap point. Well done.

And I've made it clear more than once that I don't support the hunters' methods.

But I'm reluctant to condemn them, for a number of reasons. First, I have some sympathy for their aim of protecting vulnerable children; secondly, I understand their frustration at the lack of effective action by the police and courts; and, thirdly, because I don't rush to write off those who look to do something for themselves, rather than rely on the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Police hunt for Kyle Clifford after three women murdered in Bushey, Herts
2 3
Replies
80
Views
4K
GarveyLives
G
danny la rouge
Very weird story about paedo “red carpet” event
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Voley
Voley
marty21
Jeremy Hunt Chancellor/Next PM , your time is up.
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
196
Views
11K
DotCommunist
D
Cloo
Transphobes gunning hard for 'paedophilia' angle all of a sudden
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
1K
Views
55K
teqniq
teqniq
hitmouse
Eton hunt drama
Replies
26
Views
1K
rekil
rekil
Back
Top Bottom