Paedophile Hunters

It's almost like Dexter - "Is he a good person doing bad things, or a bad person doing good things?" Well, neither. It's not that black and white.

Ultimately - yes it's good if perpetrators get exposed and stopped. And I am sure that there must be some police officers who enjoy the power and control which comes with that job. Does that detract from the very excellent work that the police do? Of course it doesn't.

I've encountered a similar mindset among young (mainly white) men who are vehemently anti-racist or anti-fascist. It's about the love of a fight and feeling like a hero rather than about, well, the other people who may be victims of racism/sexism/abuse.
Stinson would probably achieve better results if he simply turned the results of his investigations (eg screenshots and emails) over to the police. The fact that he doesn't suggests that his motivation is not purely about preventing children being harmed.

And I wondered about this in the context of violence against women - domestic violence. Is this what men who are violent to their partners are about? Are they after a person who will love them "no matter what they do to them" ? But what about their responsibility in the relationship?

Good question.

I read in the comments of various articles about him, that the common assault conviction he had 6? years ago was against his Ex partner and mother of his child, it also said he is no longer allowed to see his child because of that.

I obviously have no idea if that is true and don't know how to find out either way.

I'm bowing out of this because I really don't want to disagree with Sabrina, and I do, vehemently. Maybe it's the difference in view of someone who is a survivor of CSE.

Maybe, because Stinson is also a survivor, he believes he is doing right by exposing the perpetrators. I agree that reactions would be different if this was a MC couple, how does that make that ok? Because from here, it looks like it's Stinson you're objecting to, more than his methods.

Ah well. Hiding this now.

Yep. I'm totally with SGB here and I think that fits entirely well with the dog comment.

They like the sense of power and control. Okay so they're using it against people who are morally reprehensible, and these people are being dealt with by the legal system, it's not like they're going at them with a meat cleaver, but still.

It's just treating the symptoms - to eliminate the problem, you need to attack the root cause. Not that I can tell you what that is, I don't know :(

I also think that it's not generally how abusers think but gives more of an idea how the victim sees themselves. It's very horribly true for children as well - children will always love their parents and strive for their parents' love, whatever horrible awful things their parents do, they don't stop loving them. They generally want the horrible things to stop but they want to stay with their parents.

Following SGB's postings, I can't help thinking that the paedo-vigilantes aren't so much protecting children, as they're a group of men attacking other men, sure in the knowledge that whatever happens, they themselves are invulnerable. If catching paedophiles with this kind of trap were such a great thing to do, logically women should be doing it just as much, but somehow that doesn't seem likely.

Well, at least I now know who the journalist called Rob is.

this piece points out a lot of the problems.

Also, from a feminist perspective, I find something a bit distasteful about the amount of enjoyment vigilantes seem to get out of 'protecting' women and children - the actual women and children seem to be entirely irrelevant to these self-righteous thugs who have found a moral justification for attacking people.

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, one big problem with this sort of publicity-seeking vigilantism is that it can harm innocent people. No, this is not an argument that men who appear to be grooming underage girls should be spared - it's an argument in defence of the families of such men. Courts can order that the identity of a child abuser be concealed in order to protect the abuser's own children from public humiliation.

And there is something very unhealthy and dangerous about the growing idea that vigilantism is 'better' than the existing legal system with its checks, balances and insistence on evidence.

I could only watch part if it before turning it off. But I think if it get these people off the streets it's working I also think the more publicity it gets the more of a deterrent it will be to these groomers as unfortunately it being morally and legally wrong isn't enough of one for them.

In terms of the comment made by the hunter it seems like an odd thing to say in the programme but from what I saw he seems very mixed up himself I expect doing what he does must have a significant effect on him mentally and also with boundaries of whats normal. Not that I'm excusing it but I think it may go someway of explaining why he might say that.

yes, squid, it's really tricky to ascribe a 'universal' definition, or a 'political' definition to motivation to abuse. The motivation to control isn't often a sex or gender motivator..it's a sense of an expression of insecurity, and often that extends to the males in their lives. So the 'feminist' analysis of abuse is often found wanting.

The motivation behind abusive behaviour is highly complex, but the over-riding factor is usually control.
Abusers tend to be motivated to control their victim, get them to perform certain tasks/acts and modify their behaviour the way the abuser chooses.

A desire to abuse in order to prove they are 'unconditionally loved' as the OP has suggested quite possibly comes into it, but I am cynical about any emotional context attributed to abuse.

puffins

Getting back to the OP..no I don;t think that one bloke talking to his dog like that (which was wildly out of context re the purpose of the film) is an indication of how DV abusers generally think, usually re 'unconditional love'. It's mightily more complex than that - v few psychopathic types may be like that, but over all, no. The concerning bit of the OP is rightly that some victims do see putting up with beatings as a potency of their 'love' for the perpetrator.

Ah... wishful thinking on my part probably. Fucking hated that vile rag, can't wait for The Sun to disappear as well. Along with it's owner.

Biased? Me?

Puffins I think you're right about them being under review but the problem is not the entrapment per se. It's because the judge found the NotW journalist had deliberately lied in court proceedings. If he lied in the Tulisa case, he might also have lied in the other cases so the convictions might be unsafe. I would guess that the review of the other cases will focus on the importance of the Fake Sheikh's credibility. For example, if he gave evidence but there were also tapes or other evidence about the crime, the conviction might be safe but if it was his word against someone else, they might not be safe.

I don't think, from anything I've read, that the victims being desperate to get whatever is on the table was a factor.

It's also my understanding that a lot of the convictions based on NotW traps are now under review, specifically because the victims were so desperate to get whatever offer was on the table, that they would do whatever the person asked.

Right, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation

Puffins the basis of entrapment is inducing a person to commit an offence. Entrapment is not a defence in England although it can affect evidence and sentencing and, when carried out by an agent of the state, there might be a stay of proceedings. In the US, entrapment is a defence and I think there is a misunderstanding here, based on TV shows, that entrapment must be avoided. That's not the case here and the police can and do also carry out entrapment stings.

I'm not going to link to any legal papers but here is a report in the Guardian about John Terry's father who was caught up in a sting where he was asked to supply cocaine to a NoW journalist.

www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jun/01/news-of-the-world-john-terry

What Stinson Hunter is doing is entrapment because he is placing ads on 18+ websites. He needs to state the "age" of the decoy to establish the knowledge of the men and their intention to have sex with someone underage. Doing that doesn't remove the entrapment. He also arranges agrees to meetings with the men. Even though the men request it, he accepts it.

The men are looking on 18+ websites, not children's websites, so there is no evidence they would have committed an offence with another child if this trap was not set up. There is no need for that evidence because the entrapment is irrelevant, particularly here where it is not an agent of the state doing it.

Flora.... and I really don't want to have a row.... I've read the screen caps of the conversations they had with the older men. They state within the first couple of messages that the decoy is between 11 and 15, they act coy the whole time and any suggestion that they meet up is from the men themselves. Where is the entrapment? Please PM me if you like, I am really interested to know, because, to me, this looks like a way to help the Police catch some disgusting people and keep vulnerable children safe.

I agree with you about particular police officers probably agreeing with their methods. I can't help thinking though that the Police services are missing a trick here. They could easily and cheaply train these people to evidence gather correctly, people who are already passionate about their cause. I do understand that the Police services simply can't afford to have the numbers of officers needed on this all the time as well.

I think what I'm saying is that we as a society should maybe look at slightly more 'out there' ways of stopping this maybe?

If I want to have a debate about what constitutes entrapment and the legalities of it, I'll do it with another lawyer.