One of my oldest and closest friends is a clinical psychologist and specialist therapist now based in Canada but spent two or three years working in Cat A prisons and forensic mental health units predominantly with violent sex offenders which formed part of research and case studies she used to support an application to have a two year funded project that would work with volunteers either for group, individual therapy and counselling or inpatient treatment of child sex offenders.
There was nowhere in the UK that offered any form of treatment, facility or service that could refer people to other therapy or treatment options be it chemical castration or development of early intervention.
She realised during the time spent with violent offenders how nearly all spoke of their desperation to try and stop themselves having the initial urges, feelings and desires towards children which they knew were wrong, they knew and desperately didn't want to do and over time as they tried to starve and get rid of their urges, it inevitably worsened and many became violent (sexually) towards women in the hope that would at least serve as a macabre substitute to young children. They knew that it was wrong to do what they did to women also but felt it the lesser of two evils and that's how and why many of the world's most dangerous, violent and prolific offenders will never be released i.e. they raped and abused all ages, genders – even resorted to bestiality and necrophilia.
I'm not in that area of work but helped her to get all her research, case studies and paperwork together for submitting for funding of what she intended to be a two year clinical trial that would offer a walk in and inpatient therapy, treatment and access to services for people with sexual urges or prior offences and convictions.
The panel acknowledged the level of time, effort, research and agreed she made a very strong argument and compelling case but they turned her down based on the fact that society was not ready to accept, acknowledge or agree that taxpayers money should be spent helping paedophiles.
Her counterargument was that the clinic itself would not be a visible, listed or otherwise known NHS and all patients she aimed to work with would be there voluntarily because of the overwhelming number of prisoners with whom she'd spent several years - most of whom said they had nowhere to go, nobody to turn to or ask for help getting rid of their feelings when they first started. I think all but just a small handful said they would have gladly opted for chemical castration had it been an option or there been a means of just getting to speak with someone about it.
She was seeking to try and address the issue as an early intervention therefore just providing a service and a place for people to go for help that will ultimately allow them to offer treatment be it surgery, medication, counselling or intensive specialist therapy and in doing so, save many young children from being abused which she considered would be a very large number given how there was no objection and indeed a welcome of options that might avoid it.
The building she identified as being ideal was formerly an elderly care home that had stood empty since it closed a couple of years earlier. Word got around about potential plans for it use and it was set on fire and the whole thing burned down with locals outraged at the idea anyone wanted to bring paedophiles into their towns and near their children and schools.
There's still nowhere (not that I'm aware of anywhere but could be wrong - hope I am tbh) that has voluntary inpatient treatment, counselling or therapy and no services / nobody these people can go to for help.
What left her feeling the worst and most utterly defeated was the acknowledgement and recognition that it was something that did need to be adequately researched and clinical trials looked into for early intervention and prevention – but it wasn't allowed because society would be too upset, repulsed, outraged and simply wouldn't stand for and accept that's what NHS was spending taxpayers money on.
It was like “Yeah we know you potentially have an idea that could save countless people from enduring horrific sexual abuse but what matters most right now is what Daily Mail readers think” 
It gutted her. She's now based permanent in Canada and a professor / head of her team in behavioural sciences but it still really stings how she almost managed to get somewhere and failed at the very last – feeling she failed everyone with it.
The vigilantes and paedophile hunters I understand mean well and maybe set out to do what they do with the best intention but they ultimately create an even bigger problem driving those that desperately do need to be helped, treated, monitored – even detained under MHA and they drive them so far away and underground it's impossible to know just where these people are, how many there are, what they're doing / how they operate etc.
It means more and more abuse and I don't for a second intend to seem harsh or unsympathetic to anyone who is the victim (far from it actually) but I do think society needs to understand the way to tackle and stop it is by admitting, acknowledging and finding a way to adequately treat and prevent it.
The irony is how often people describe their actions as sick / twisted / depraved – they are 100% spot on with that too. These people are sick and not mentally functioning as a normal person would. It needs to be seen as such, we can't just keep pretending it's something only evil people that enjoy and get nothing but pleasure out of it.
Most of those interviewed and whose case notes I remember siting through were all the more tragic because of how desperate they somee worst of the worst but they didn't know how to stop or what to do about it.
I dunno what the answer is, how long it will be before we're ready to start having that open dialogue and honest, raw and horrible conversations in order to then move forward but vigilantes and paedophile hunters are not the solution. They really aren't they are the cause of even greater problems.