The paedophile hunter

[JazzAnnNonMouse]

Did anyone watch this?

I must say, I thought it was a fantastic documentary. My heartbeat actually increased when we, the viewers, were in the room with the vigilantes waiting to trap the target. Stirred lots of different emotions in me, and by the end of the programme, quite opposite and contradictory opinions in me.

I agree with Betty. The guy was a thug and certainly not an 'undercover journalist.'

he seemed to enjoy the power and is now very much revelling in his fame and the money gullible members of the public are sending him.

I thought that if he could do that,imagine if his 'talent' was actually used appropriately. I wonder what charities like NSPCC feel about him.

The most uncomfortable thing for me is the publication of the chat logs.

No doubt there's lots of people getting off on reading them, it's very voyeristic. Same as misery "daddy please don't" books.

Yeah, there's something creepy about the men watching the videos and photos and apparently, but not quite, unable to take their eyes away.

Hmm ...I agree with a lot of comments made - incidentally Vivacia I wasn't criticising you, just wondering.....and I think I'd suspect Stinson's motives far more if he hadn't been sexually abused himself as a child. It spoke volumes to me when he was asked and he clammed right up, and his persona totally changed, before he admitted it. I think this is probably his way of "purging" or trying to come to terms with what happened to him. On balance probably not a good way. And yes voyeurism crossed my mind too. Oh and how I hate those misery books Igotafreego not that I read them.......the titles and pictures on the front are enough. I don't think they're true either - just made up but can somehow publish as non fiction. I am a retired social worker - a career spanning some 30 years all in a LA Children's Services Dept. and I've seen enough human misery to last me a lifetime.

I still think the police could employ similar tactics - they could employ someone (wouldn't need to be a trained PC) maybe a woman to do the same as Stinson. However I think someone mentioned "entrapment" and this could be a problem for the police, as I think that "setting someone up to commit a crime" is an offence in itself, but I would think that's a moot point.

he had no talent - it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I think it said more about him than the targets

I bet the laws on entrapment are pretty complex.

A very close relative worked for the police in a dept dealing with crimes against children and is now working for another agency involved with similar activities. For those who said why isn't this work done by law enforcement - on one level it is, but they have very limited funding and so tend to prioritise rings, organised crime, people who are targeting multiple children at risk and those who can, if removed, have the largest impact on the highest number of children. Yes more of this work needs doing, but it is labour intensive if you want to get court admissible evidence (and that is key) which a decent solicitor will not be able to throw out on a technical technicality. Some of them know more about digital and IT forensics than the police do.

But they did have an ex-police officer explaining how they carried out similar investigations. The problem appeared to be a surplus of targets. It also explained how the actions of vigilantes can ruin evidence.

Sorry but I just don't get why the police can't do what Stinson was doing on the programme. He did it with the aid of a smartphone and nothing else. Surely the police could employ people to do this - wouldn't need to be trained people - Vivacia you say "the problem appeared to be a surplus of targets" - does this mean that they wouldn't have the PCs to follow up and arrest these paedophiles and then do all the paperwork that is needed to get the case to court if the CPS agree there is a good chance of conviction.

If that's the problem, I can see why they don't do it - and of course the govt have cut front line police in spite of their promise not to do this, just one of their broken promises.

"Stinson " has no costs no code of conduct. No accountability. No paper work. Indeed no thought to the potential impact of his actions.
I have grave misgivings about someone doing this with no real ybderstanding.

Yup. All about him

www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/paedophile-hunter-stinson-hunter-raises-nearly-30k-for-kickstarter-project-9777474.html

you did not see it in the program Nana, but to get the blokes to a point of trust enough that thy would meet you can takes weeks if not months. They need to groom the "victim" and evidence of that grooming needs to take place and be recorded. You cant just go online and say "yeah, i'm 11, wanna meet?".

You need to be online evenings and weekends to respond. Do you know how much it would cost to employ someone (or a team, because it requires a team) to be on duty all the time like that? Plus the paper work and evidence trail. The preparation of the case for CPS. It is a huge undertaking for a law enforcement agency. You cant be an 11 year old online only 9 - 5 or on a shift pattern, and you cant share the role because you need an airtight alias or the criminal gets spooked.

There are people out there doing this, but as i said often (not exclusively!) the money and resources are put into finding the bigger fish, as it were, rather than goading people on 18 plus chat sites into revealing they really like younger girls. There just isn't enough money to do it.

Thanks Strawberry, much, much clearer than my two attempts at trying to explain!

Point taken strawberry shoes - thanks!

If you have access to YouTube there are several full length episodes of a US tv show "To Catch a Predator" online. It's a similar set up to what Stinson is doing but far more slick and better organised, with the predators being invited to a house tricked out with hidden cameras and usually ending up being interviewed by the host.

There is a certain amount of schadenfreude in watching the realisation dawn on these guys' faces when the minor they came to assault turns out to be a rather commanding and professional interviewer who won't let them off the hook or accept their bullshit excuses ("No you didn't come here just to hang out, I have the transcript of all your chats.") It's appalling to see how many of the men are teachers or other workers with kids, including religious leaders and law enforcement. It's also sobering when you see how many are turning up - sometimes so many and so frequently that they have to get one perp out of the house while the next is knocking at the door.

In most of the episodes the sting is done in conjunction with law enforcement so the perp is arrested immediately on leaving the house.

The production team worked with a pre-existing "vigilante" group called Perverted Justice who have been doing the Stinson thing for years, though they never set up lures/stings themselves, simply forwarded the evidence to Law Enforcement.

I'll admit that I'm going to look this up, but I am very against this kind of alternative legal system or trial by media.

I don't really think the 'paedophile hunter' is ever going to be real solution to child sex abuse imho

If anyone believes the sort this man are catching are anything but amateur nonces they are naive. So he gets a few opportunistic dirty old men and nationally shames them and slaps them with suspeneded sentances. Most pedophiles are far to shewd to be caught by such rudimentary tactics. For example they could use any number of measures to hide their identity ranging from false social media accounts to IP spoofing, proxy serves etc and they could just arrange to meet the decoy at a public location to scout the girl at distance.

All he's going to is encourage real pedophiles to further protect their identity and wise up to such operations (especially with a C4 doc) while shaming a few idiots dumb enough to commit illict activities online using their real info and pics. Most pedos don't use the internet and all it does is turn stranger danger from offline to online.

Such operations pose vary real challenges to the judicial system (innocent until proven guilty etc). The only real solution imho is educating your children (good touch, bad touch) and provided treatment to pedophiles BEFORE they reach court. I was listening to a audio blog a few weeks a go off an american journalist who had contacted some non-offending pedophiles who were struggling to deal with their 'condition' its strange in the West there is practically no treatment available for pedophiles until they've actually committed the offense despite these men (well teenaged lads really) wanting to be treated and avoid commiting any offences.

I also saw this for the first time last night.

This chap's method was almost identical to the format of an american TV programme I came across while channel surfing about a year ago; the posing as teens, entrapment/grooming, invitation to a house, culminating in the big 'reveal' on camera. Later, there was often an arrest.

I was so gobsmacked by the US show when I came across it, I watched three episodes open-mouthed and was just so grateful at the time that we don't allow vigilantism here. The weird mixture of ego and entertainment and moralising and law-enforcement was disturbing.

There's a reason why we leave these things to law enforcement agencies in this country. In fact, I can think of at least five good reasons.