Almost half of last year's child grooming/abuse cases used Paedophile Hunter evidence.

[TheQueef]

AIBU to be surprised?
I'm watching Paedophile Hunters on BBC3.
I've always been pretty certain I was against vigilantes like this for the usual reasons but if it's true that almost half used PH evidence I must be wrong somewhere.
If the hunters are so bad then why does it take their evidence, why isn't someone with authority do what needs doing?

Quite simply, they are. These 'people' are on radars and being looked at.

It's just that a lot of the time these groups get there first. Mainly as they don't have the "hassel" of obtaining warrants.

I've always been pretty certain I was against vigilantes like this for the usual reasons but if it's true that almost half used PH evidence I must be wrong somewhere.

I think that’s one factor, but another important factor in the “value” of PH groups would be how many people do they “hunt” that actually turn out to be innocent/mistaken identity etc. and how many police investigations are hindered (or even ruined completely) by their involvement. I should say, I have no idea on the stats for either of those, I just think that’s important info to know before changing your opinion of vigilante groups. I am personally totally against vigilante groups, but appreciate not everyone agrees with me on that.

‘Pedophile hunters’ who quietly collate evidence and pass it to the police = good

‘Pedophile hunters’ who endanger the victims of abuse, interfere with investigations, post showboating videos on Facebook and risk affecting convictions = very, very bad.

The groups are a bit ramshackle but most seem to just want an arrest.
Watching the fb sting it was hardly the bloodbath I expected.

I watched that programme too, I think there are some very damaged people in these vigilante groups who obviously want revenge for things that have happened to them in the past, I think the police should be doing more to reassure them that they can handle without them needing to get involved because one day something awful is going to happen.

I would have more respect for these groups if they complied their “evidence” and brought it to the attention of the police quietly.

But that doesn’t get as many “likes” on Facebook, does it?

The most recent one in my area was of a man with very obvious learning difficulties and they way they interrogated him and spoke to him was appalling.

Those groups are fucking weird. I'm very suspicious of their motivations.

They aren’t beholden in any way shape or form to the same standards or regulation as any public authority is. They can bait someone, film them with no regulation, record them etc. No lawful authority is able to act that way - or ride roughshod over the rights of other investigations.

I know someone who is part of this. Her group have a lot of training, guidance, regulation they have to follow. They keep careful records.

My issue is with publicising their stings. But their argument is it's a deterrent.

The woman I know is a decoy. She has a queue of men waiting to chat with her 13 yr old alter ego, and has done within an hour of making the profile. Knowing what I now do, I'd really struggle with my kids having social media.

Training from who?

They aren't supported or affiliated with any organisations so I would be interested to know what training consisted of too. They don't have to adhere to PACE or any legislation relating to protection of vulnerable people's rights, they can conduct surveillance and entrapment to a degree no lawful authority can and they have no knowledge of what else they interfere with - catching one person on a speculative chat which may prevent the disruption of wider organised crime. I don't think they are helpful.

Training within their group. If they don't follow the group process they get kicked out.

The decoy has to record everything that's said, for example. She can't say anything leading.

I was at a local park last summer with the kids and I chiuld see a crowd. Dp said, look that's the guy that a PH he's got a group on fb, one of my friends 'shared' one of his 'stings'
We kept a distance back but they were really bullying this guy, they were trying to get him to throw a punch at the PH so the PH could lay into him back..
They ended up filming in front of my car. They were stopped there. Goading this bloke calling him names etc..
When we said excuse me. They started trying to tell us this guy was a Pead and remember his face etc. They did move along so we could leave.

That one case Did end up in court.. But found not guilty. Can't remember the ins and ours but it was to do with the PH involvement.
This guy is now roaming our area..
Had the PH just said to police, I have xyz evidence and he's supposedly meeting an underage child at xyz Park at whichever time. And handed In what they had then chmaces are he would of been prosecuted.

Their training doesn’t mean much, tbh.

I agree they might not lead the conversation but the rest of it is appalling. The ones we have in our area spout the law but they have no idea what they are talking about.

I'm not defending them. I would imagine there is a real mixed bag, some professional, some not. I assume the 50% of cases which succeed have been well handled.

I'm against it because the police are against it. As far as I'm concerned, they know best. I wonder why they don't set up something cooperative, though.

Same as the police couldn't support any vigilante group - they don't operate to comparable legislation and I suspect the groups wouldn't pass any type of vetting to have access for information sharing.

I suspect if the police did cooperate with them that they wouldn’t like all of the protocols and get frustrated by having to follow the laws and would waste a lot of police time and cause a lot of disruption.

These 'people' are on radars and being looked at.

It's just that a lot of the time these groups get there first. Mainly as they don't have the "hassel" of obtaining warrants

Could you supply anything reliable which backs this up?

As far as reliable sources go, at the moment police are so overstretched they only have the resources to look at the worst offenders and aren't even attempting to look at low level offenders who groom.

I was surprised that these men have commit a crime. They may have intended to meet an underage girl but they didn't. Seems odd that taking artificial bate is a crime.

Having said that, I think the groups do a good job. I have no doubt they put criminals in prison and make pedophiles think twice before targeting children online.

Of course police take the line that they have got it under control and don't need any help but they only have limited resources and wouldn't be able to put the hours in that these groups do. The police can't publicly endorse these groups or they will be blamed when it goes wrong but they are happy to accept the evidence and I believe that they say "good job lads" off the record.

wine Do you agree with them videoing it live on fb?

Trust me, the police don’t say “good job”. We hate them.

I just watched this. And to be honest have to admit I am also a little confused as to how speaking (however indecently) to a FAKE underage girl is a crime? Why is it not considered entrapment?

I very much question the motives of these so called 'hunters' and think they more like the thrill of the FB likes and comments.

The offence is in the act of grooming rather than whether it is impossible or not to commit the offence and you can't entrap someone unless you are part of an authority rather than a member of the public. Provocation might be considered for the public but the threshold would be higher and activity by police etc is far far more regulated by powers such as RIPA.

But how is it grooming? The person isn't ACTUALLY underage? I get they may think they are but what I mean is, is it actually illegal if it isn't actually someone who is underage? Or is it more that when the police investigate these individuals they find out the have been speaking to genuine underage girls?

The offence is in committing the act of grooming when you believe that person to be a victim. It doesn't matter that it's impossible - it is about their intent to groom a person they believe to be a child and for the correct unlawful intent. This means that the offence is complete even when it isn't possible because the person doesn't exist. It's about the intent of the offender.

ladyoftheloch has it spot on.