Paedophile loses “human rights” appeal

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53416056

GOOD

Glad to see the courts putting safeguarding children ahead of this paedophile’s belief he should be free to contact minors with impunity.

[Loveinatimeofcovid]

Since when do peadophiles qualify as human?

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

That’s... not the angle I was coming from at all.

More that it’s not a human right for any adult to contact a minor child for the purposes of sexual gratification, and to keep that contact private, as Mark Sutherland was trying to claim he should be enabled to do.

[LizzieMacQueen]

Ironic (in a good way) that it's now splashed all over the news.

[LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett]

I think it's a really important ruling, especially the part about there being no reasonable expectation of privacy when you contact a 13 year old because they should tell their parents.

I do feel quite ambivalent about the peodophile hunting groups though.

[Thelnebriati]

We should bookmark this one as an example of why its so important to think carefully before you create a test case.

Mark Sutherland has no chance of winning this case. He was basically arguing that his right to privacy absolved him from any responsibility for harming the human rights of someone else.

But he seems to have created a precedent that allows vigilante groups to use set ups, and I have concerns about vigilante groups.

[Siablue]

What a sensible judge putting the rights of a child not to be abused first.

I too am uncomfortable about pedophile hunters but society does need to do more to bring abusers to justice.

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

I think most of us have concerns about vigilante groups, but the opposite ruling would have had horrendous safeguarding implications. It’s Mark Sutherland himself who brought the case and forced the ruling and made this explicit.

And seeing as there are more men downloading images of child abuse and trying to groom minors than the police and courts can actually deal with, I tend to think that better the vigilante groups weed out at least some of these child abusers than not. Even if the process is questionable.

Every single man they catch has the intent to groom a child for sexual abuse/exploitation. Every one of them. They are all quite clear and deliberate in that intention.

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

@Siablue

What a sensible judge putting the rights of a child not to be abused first.

I too am uncomfortable about pedophile hunters but society does need to do more to bring abusers to justice.

Yes.

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

@LizzieMacQueen

Ironic (in a good way) that it's now splashed all over the news.

Isn’t it just! A whole lot more people know Mark Sutherland’s name and crimes now than before!

[TalkingtoLangClegintheDark]

It’s quite some brass neck really to argue that you should be entitled to “privacy” around your deliberate attempts to commit a crime, especially a crime that has such devastating consequences for the victims, and those victims being children.

[Mumoftwoyoungkids]

Isn’t it just! A whole lot more people know Mark Sutherland’s name and crimes now than before!

Yes - I’d never heard of him before but now I know that Mark Sutherland is a paedophile.

Like most posters I have concerns about vigilante groups. One solution that occurred to me is for the police to recruit volunteers to form official anti grooming groups. They could then be trained to ensure that they don’t risk cases being thrown out due to the groups not following the law and to ensure that they don’t fall into vigilante type action. They can also then contact the police and have an officer available for the meetings etc.

[JamieLeeCurtains]

The UK's highest court ruled on Wednesday that the interests of children have priority over any interest a paedophile could have in being allowed to engage in criminal conduct.

Very key ruling.

I bet the 'Minor Attracted Persons' groups don't like them apples.

Good.

Also the comments on a 13 year old not being expected to have to keep secrets from her parents - are you reading, Mermaids? Tell your lawyers to have a good look.

[Thisismytimetoshine]

This shitebag tried to claim his antics were protected by his human rights?? 🤮
Thank God sanity prevailed (for once).

[LittleDonk]

Oh no, the poor menz rights.

Good.

[TheProdigalKittensReturn]

Nobody has the right to conduct private correspondence with a child to whom they're not related. What a ridiculous argument.

[LittleDonk]

Lol. Where's my human right to being a paedo in peace?

[PurpleHoodie]

JamieLeeCurtains

This.

Very key ruling.

I bet the 'Minor Attracted Persons' groups don't like them apples.

Good.


And especially this!

Also the comments on a 13 year old not being expected to have to keep secrets from her parents - are you reading, Mermaids? Tell your lawyers to have a good look.

[TheSingingKettle49]

@Thelnebriati

We should bookmark this one as an example of why its so important to think carefully before you create a test case.

Mark Sutherland has no chance of winning this case. He was basically arguing that his right to privacy absolved him from any responsibility for harming the human rights of someone else.

But he seems to have created a precedent that allows vigilante groups to use set ups, and I have concerns about vigilante groups.

I agree completely, I wonder how many police operations these vigilantes have damaged.

[OhHolyJesus]

Those YP10 rights are being stretched to hell aren't they? Right to privacy? Do me a favour. Nasty vile paedophile.

[Pocketfull86]

I used to be opposed to any sort of vigilante groups, until they found a prolific one at my daughters school last Christmas time.

He was insidious. He’d wormed his way in to a local children’s charity, was VERY involved with the school and often helped out at his wife’s brownie groups. He was chatty and friendly in the playground and had many friends.

He was talking to/getting pictures from 7 year old girls, daughters of his friends at school. Apparently some of the parents were quite irresponsible and their children were on bloody Instagram.

He sent topless pictures of them to other pedos and told them to go after them for more. He bragged that he’d had sex with an 11 year old...the exact age of his daughter.

And despite the fact that one mother had already raised concerns to the police he was not investigated.

We all only found out what a cretin he was when a local vigilante group got him to admit all of this and tricked him in to meeting them but pretending to be an 8 year old girl who would meet him when walking home from school.

If it had just been left up to the police he would still be preying around our school and on children.

[WhoWants2Know]

The fact that it happened on Grindr shocked me a bit. I really hope actual 13 year olds aren't hanging out on there!

[ProfessorSlocombe]

One solution that occurred to me is for the police to recruit volunteers to form official anti grooming groups.

So one group of people with a less than stellar track record of excluding undesirables gets to vet another group ?

Can't see that going wrong in any way at all.

Luckily vigilantes have never murdered innocent people in the most cruel of circumstances, or it might be serious.

[fascinated]

I haven’t read the ruling but it sounds promising. The more precedent there is stating that rights have to be qualified by respect for others‘ rights, and safeguarding of children, the better.

[SetYourselfOnFire]

The /worldnews reddit thread on this story is dominated by users sympathetic to poor innocent pedophiles (being entrapped! they were non-offending!) with thousands of upvotes.

[ChurchOfWokeApostate]

I agree completely, I wonder how many police operations these vigilantes have damaged

I’m really conflicted, because it seems by reading that article that half of all the grooming cases Are brought about by these groups, so it seems that rather than damaging operations, they’ve helped the police by approx an 100% increase in cases.