Publically outing a sex offender / peadophile on social media

[rosegoldivy]

This morning DH said to me he had seen something on Facebook that had stated that a sex offender / paedophile had moved into an address a few streets away from us. I asked how he knew this and he said that something had been shared on facebook. He openly joked about how people would be going round to have a word with the guy and said it seemed from comments that it looked like his door had already been kicked in by angry residents.

I went on to facebook to have a nosey (obviously) and found the post he was talking about.

It was from one of those vigilante groups and they had named and shamed the individual, given details of his past crime (molested a child several years ago when he was 15) and gave his full address. From reading the comments on the post it was clear his door had been vandalised and kicked in then further down in the comments it came out that the address that was publically outed was not his address but actually a member of his family’s address and that young children live there. The sex offender actually lives in a town nearby but had been visiting. (why he had been visiting a house with young kids after his past I don’t understand)

So my AIBU is more that I don’t think the vigilante group should have shared a full address on social media without knowing all the details. Yes named the street so residents were aware but giving out the full address I think is a bit much especially in this case when the sex offender doesn’t live there and in fact there is a family living there who have now been subject to violence.

Thoughts?

I’m reminded of the vigilante group that vandalised a woman’s house because she was a paediatrician

I remember that one too

In 2017 150 convictions were secured thanks to evidence turned over by paedophile hunter groups

Given that a hell of a lot more "stings" are being performed than that, what happened to the rest of the people the hunters thought they'd caught?

So why broadcast them if they are only after a conviction? That’s my main issue with them

Bet uncaught sex offenders monitor the vigilantes' FB groups.

Your own posts suggest they're not getting good results, Antisocial.

Anti Because they aren’t getting results. They are causing disorder, deaths have been attributed to these groups and some of their methods are dodgy to say the least.

I would support them more if they collated their “evidence” and hand it into the police who can deal with it in a controlled way rather than 9pm in the high street on a Friday night.

@smartbusiness Do read the thread. You'll find out the truth was that it was not a vigilante group but some idiot kids.

@AntiSocial Actually you're not being accurate there. Deliberately, one assumes. The FACT is that evidence collated by paedophile hunters was USED to CHARGE 150 suspects in 2017. The data only confirms that the evidence was used in some part. It does not suggest that the vigilantes' actions were solely responsible for charges being brought, nor does it state that all 150 charges resulted in 150 convictions (presumably not, or it would have stated so).

The ones used were those that ensnare and trap these people by posing as children, getting them chatting online and arranging to meet them, where they then film them having called the Police. Which is very different anyway to just chucking random suspicions online.

Antisocial, some of the reasons people object to them are the following

1. Evidence can be wrong
2. Unfair trials, which are against the justice system in this country
3. Children of accused can also be victimised and/or impacted by vigilante groups.

We have a rule of law in this country which deserves respect and given that so many mistakes are made by vigilante groups, the dispensers and pursuants of justice are in a more rational position to approach potential offenders.
Any evidence is far better given discreetly to police.

In my experience, the type of men who get a hard-on from mob justice are not the best arbiters of right and wrong.

when justice fails it’s for the people to dispense it

People like the Yorkshire-based "Protecting the Innocent" group, whose name is rather ironic considering that in April last year they were forced to issue a public apology after live-streaming a confrontation with an innocent, mistakenly identified target.

@Racerback Oddly enough, when I tracked down the BBC article about the "150 convictions were secured" in reference to @AntiSocial's incorrect statement I discovered that one of the groups they spoke to was set up by a bloke who had done 15 months for robbery. And another where the bloke was a prominent member of the English Defence League.

Antisocial, no it isn't. It's for lawmakers to reexamine evidence or laws, because if that isn't the case we get miscarriages of justice and innocent children and families made victims of 'the people'.
Which people are you referring to anyway? Don't presume to speak for large swathes of society.

If these groups were really interested in gaining any sort of "justice" for the victims of paedophile rings, they would collate evidence quietly, hand it over to the police and not live stream across social media.

The only thing they're interested in is their 5 minutes of fame, which the more hard of thinking fall for instantly.

Are you sure it's the majority? Or the majority of people you connect with?

the majority agree with my opinion

Statistic to back that up please? Preferably an accurate one, not the one you twisted earlier to suit your own agenda.

This sort of thing is for those with a minute brain cell who need facebook fame regardless if they've got the right person or not, Tina Malone was prosecuted for it and rightly so.
People marching through the streets carrying weapons are not arbiters of justice they're thugs plain and simple and no it is not a good thing at all as how can the moronic idiots be sure they're picking on the correct offender
The people who think they can dispense justice are usually lawbreakers themselves.

Well no you don't but you are making yourself look a bit of an idiot tbh.

@AntiSocialLOL No, of course you don't have to. I just thought you might like to prove your point, seeing as I demolished your earlier "fact" for not being anything of the kind. You know, just to redress the balance so that we might think you do know something about the subject rather than just continually spouting total shit.

Obviously, you don't want to be taken seriously and, as with your other threads, you're only here to wind people up.

Antisocial, you are right, you don't. However, I, and possibly others reading this don't have to take your claims seriously.

Well no you don't but you are making yourself look a bit of an idiot tbh

I honestly can’t decide whether they’re goading for a reaction or generally just thick to be honest.