The Paedophile Hunter

[DolphinsNose]

Anyone else watching?

I think its good that Stinson is doing this, although the programme was hard to watch.

I im glad that he puts the videos on YouTube and Facebook becsuse when the men get convicted thhey seem to always get suspended sentances. And are free to live their lives. Their faces should be in the media so that people with children are made aware when there is a pedophile in their community.

Saying that though I dont think a jail sentance would help in the long run as I think all pedophiles are wired wrong and need phycological help. and to be chemicaly castrated

Stinson has shown that with few resources paedophiles can be caught, it just needs to be policed properly then he won't need to do it.

It would be interesting to know what he would do with his life then.

So to turn it around, how could this be approached better? Appealing less to an emotional reaction and more to a practical solution that reduces potential harm to children?

The anger we feel does us no good unless we have somewhere to channel it and I don't think vigilantes (or accusing people on a thread who don't agree with you of collusion) are the way to go.

Quite

I watched the programme and agree with much of what Indy has said. I thought including the detail of the exchanges of sexual content was particularly unnecessary and salacious. It's dangerous to whip up this kind of mob outrage and the fact that even on mumsnet we have someone saying "fuck their families" is extremely concerning. What happens if someone's house gets burned down with their children inside?

From a legal standpoint, putting this stuff on Facebook is prejudicial and risks convictions.

I watched the first half of the programme and switched off. And I agree with Indy too. If catching these men (and maybe even some women) is so important, and the public at large seem to agree it is) then why the hell are we reliant on vigilantees and the media to do it? There is no reason that the very good work the police do through CEOP (don't know if it is still called that) can't be expanded. Yes, it needs funding but you know what, we're not that skint as a nation. And we are a democracy. So we could put this on the political agenda.

Or, we could just go on hysterically and ineffectively baying for blood on social media. I'm from South Yorkshire so am writing to my MP (something I should have done years ago apparently )

I watched the programme - I found it neither voyeuristic nor educational. Not quite sure what I make of it.

What I did take away from it was

• how woefully under resourced our police forces are, both in terms of manpower and money and
• the volume of men (and women) out there who are prepared to contact underage girls and
• the pitiful sentencing of the offenders.

The retired police officer who was interviewed made some interesting comments about his own time in child protection.

• when 'fishing' the decoy would hook multiple 'groomers'. Too many for them (police) to monitor and reel in.

I have no problem with SH and Co doing this. Quite frankly our system is not coping and if this catches/deters wouldbe offenders then I'm all in favour. I think he behaved quite professionally with the 'groomers' and all information was collated and given to police.

My concerns are

• copy cat vigilantes who are less interested in collection and preservation of evidence and more interested in physical punishment.
• uploading to FB potentially prejudicing any trial.

Whilst I feel for the families of the 'groomers' it cannot be that our compassion for the innocent provides a shield for the offenders. They (groomers) know and exploit this. The families should be offered our support and love. It is not their fault so they should not suffer. We should be beyond public shunning for fear of 'contamination'.

However, I was troubled by the comments of the ex-partner of the 'groomer' who committed suicide.
There was a belief of blame - that SH caused the 'groomer' to commit suicide. That SH robbed her child of a father. I'm afraid I wholeheartedly disagree. The man initiated contact knowing the decoy was underage/highly inappropriate sexual language/intent to carry out the sexual references/and went to meet the decoy.

If the 'groomer' had been taken to court, what were the chances of him being able to have a father/child relationship? Slim to none I think. Perhaps the ex-partner is still in shock/grieving - probably for a man who did not really exist. You question your relationship, your ability to make judgements. It must be so incredibly hard for her.

The idea that grooming is somehow a lesser offence, that as no actual physical harm befell the child - that this mitigates the circumstances. This is dangerous and seems to pervade current thinking. We cannot monitor thought bit we can monitor and punish actions. Just because the 'groomers' did not meet a real child or in other scenarios perpetrate actual abuse, does in my mind, not make it a lesser offence. Different but not lesser.

there is an element of the criminal world that loves the fact we have paedophiles as it makes them feel better about themselves.

it's why other prisoners will always attack a 'nonce' inside.

Hey, I may have robbed an elderly couple of their life savings but at least I'm not a paedo.

I may have beaten up my wife but at least I'm not a paedo.

I may have mugged a terrified young woman at knife point but at least I'm not a paedo.

In the case of the guy in the C4 documentary:

I may have burned down a school but at least I'm not a paedo.

Describing himself as a 'undercover journalist' was laughable. Offering to work for the police if they asked was laughable. I doubt they'd fall over themselves to sign up a convicted arsonist.

the guy was getting off on his glory and power. I also very strongly suspect there is far more to him than 'just' burning down a school. I see that he has subsequently received thousands in donations. Money he will spend entirely on his paedo fighting crusade I'm sure....

I feel Stinson is doing a fantastic job, obviously the Police resources are limited and underfunded. The only thing I don't agree with is putting it on social media because it can affect innocent children and people.

I was really interested in watching this as have a background of working with sexually exploited young people. Gratefulhead I think you've made the most eloquent and well argued responses on here and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I also agree with the comment from Nancy above that there is slightly more to Stenson and his motives than meets the eye. I'm not saying he's getting a personal kick out of this but given the details he did give about his background, I would hazard a guess that abuse is something he may have had personal experience of. This is a horrific, sexualised world that he's choosing to spend time in. Those who work for CEOP, the Internet Watch Foundation and other such organisations a) have years of professional training and experience behind them and b) have access to support, counselling and the chance to reflect on what they're seeing and being exposed to every day.
Stinson has neither of these things and nor does he have a loving, supportive family of his own. This puts him at risk of being damaged by the world he's inhabiting and I don't think there will be a good outcome for him as a result of all this.
I'm not saying he's a bad person, far from it. It's clear that the work he's done has potentially saved some children from being abused.
But I do feel that there's a danger to himself from his work, and that the line between doing things for the right reasons / wrong reasons may become blurred without the right support for himself.

I watched this tonight on 47. I found it to be fascinating and thought provoking. I hope our Home Office and Police Forces watch this. There are lessons to be learned and I hope for everyone's sake this is done sooner rather than later.

The point is he is doing something to put these men away and expose them. Rather that sitting on his ass like most if us do, upset at how disgusting it is and putting all our faith in the police ( what a joke) to bring justice to peadofiles.