Paedophile Hunters

[Sabrinnnnnnnna]

Just caught the end of this. I gather the guy is a victim himself and sets up 'decoys' to trap paedophiles who are grooming children (girls) online and trying to meet up with them for sex. He's referred to as a vigilante - difficult subject, obviously.

I've had personal experience of a good friend's dh being imprisoned for online child abuse offences and (it transpired) trying to groom my 5yr old daughter - so this is something uncomfortably close to me.

But that's not really what I wanted to talk about.

During the programme, this clearly troubled young man said something I found deeply disturbing, when talking about his pet dog. It was something like:

"She my best friend, she loves me unconditionally no matter what I do. I could beat her, beat her to within an inch of her life and she'd still come back and love me"

And I wondered about this in the context of violence against women - domestic violence. Is this what men who are violent to their partners are about? Are they after a person who will love them "no matter what they do to them" ? But what about their responsibility in the relationship? Or is this something that can happen to victims of abuse.

It left a very bad impression with me that people think true love, unconditional love means "I can do whatever I like to you, and you will still love me." It's so one-sided - what about equality, mutual respect and decency? Worrying.

How awful. I don't pretend to know what is in the mind of someone like this, but I think you might be on to something. 'Unconditional love' is one of those phrases that is bandied about a lot these days in a culture that seems slightly obsessed with pop-psychology. For me, it's right up there with 'believing in yourself' and 'feeling the fear but doing it anyway.' Is there really such a thing as unconditional love? Even if my children, who I think I love unconditionally, did something completely unacceptable (such as beating a woman within an inch of her life, to use your quote), I don't think I could still love them.

I think that love relies on and is linked to respect and that is where the responsiblity element comes into it. As you say, unconditional love implies a lack of responsibility for making a relationship work just as 'believing in yourself' implies a lack of respnsibility for taking on the onus of hard work or effort in any endeavour.

Such phrases also cleverly have an in-built victim blaming message. What, you didn't get your promotion? Nothing to do with your poor level of education, working-class background, recent maternity leave or whatever - you just didn't believe in yourself! What, your husband is abusing you? Nothing to do with his controlling, horrible behaviour - you just haven't offered him unconditional love! Of course, there is no sugestion of the priviledged side having to play this game (and therefore take responsibility), thus corprorate banks do not have to 'just believe' in low-paid, disadvantaged workers and abusive men do not have to offer 'unconditional love.'

You can read a pretty good report about it in the Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/oct/02/the-paedophile-hunter-review-dark-and-disturbing?google_editors_picks=true

I don't really know what to think about the comment you refer to and many other aspects of the program.

What I was left with, was that here we have a troubled young man and his young "helpers" trying to do what they think is right and for a greater good though may not actually be quite on the right path.

If this program had been about a middle aged couple in a detached house in the suburbs with a good education with filing cabinets full of paper work and the backing of the local mp. If that were the case these people would be held up as heros.

I'm watching it now on OD. I have absolutely no clue why they included that bit about the dog in it. It's so incongruous with the rest of the programme. I'll be back when I've stopped feeling sick.

I think the dog bit was to show how he was affected by being left by his parents and having to go in to care. I think it was to show his mistrust of people, that they will leave him, but his dog never will.

Then why not have him doing a piece to camera about that then? The whole 'I could beat my dog' speech was weird.

I can't see a problem with what he's doing. I understand why the Police can't do more, due to financial constraints, but I don't understand why they don't work with people like Hunter as part of a range of things they are doing. From reading the conversations on his website, there is no entrapment used, the decoys ages are given within the first couple of messages, no photos of an explicit nature are sent by the decoys. the voices used are from women over the age of consent who are aware of what's going on.

If the Police worked with people like him instead of against them, then there could be no conflict of interests, and more of these men could be caught.

Not sure if that is an offence, but going to meet the decoy with the explicit purpose of having sex with them surely is.

puffin I'm not sure it was planned but having said it, it makes good tv, showing a dark and complex character.

I would guess the police don't want to work with him because he is not part of their organisation with their expectation of training etc. and he might do something very wrong which would come back on them. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of individual police officers have no problems with what he is doing though. It's an interesting development in law enforcement where individuals have the tools to catch criminals more effectively than the police.

There is entrapment used in these stings though however this is not a defence under English law. If the child is not real, the offence is an attempt.

If I want to have a debate about what constitutes entrapment and the legalities of it, I'll do it with another lawyer.

Flora.... and I really don't want to have a row.... I've read the screen caps of the conversations they had with the older men. They state within the first couple of messages that the decoy is between 11 and 15, they act coy the whole time and any suggestion that they meet up is from the men themselves. Where is the entrapment? Please PM me if you like, I am really interested to know, because, to me, this looks like a way to help the Police catch some disgusting people and keep vulnerable children safe.

I agree with you about particular police officers probably agreeing with their methods. I can't help thinking though that the Police services are missing a trick here. They could easily and cheaply train these people to evidence gather correctly, people who are already passionate about their cause. I do understand that the Police services simply can't afford to have the numbers of officers needed on this all the time as well.

I think what I'm saying is that we as a society should maybe look at slightly more 'out there' ways of stopping this maybe?

Puffins the basis of entrapment is inducing a person to commit an offence. Entrapment is not a defence in England although it can affect evidence and sentencing and, when carried out by an agent of the state, there might be a stay of proceedings. In the US, entrapment is a defence and I think there is a misunderstanding here, based on TV shows, that entrapment must be avoided. That's not the case here and the police can and do also carry out entrapment stings.

I'm not going to link to any legal papers but here is a report in the Guardian about John Terry's father who was caught up in a sting where he was asked to supply cocaine to a NoW journalist.

www.theguardian.com/media/2010/jun/01/news-of-the-world-john-terry

What Stinson Hunter is doing is entrapment because he is placing ads on 18+ websites. He needs to state the "age" of the decoy to establish the knowledge of the men and their intention to have sex with someone underage. Doing that doesn't remove the entrapment. He also arranges agrees to meetings with the men. Even though the men request it, he accepts it.

The men are looking on 18+ websites, not children's websites, so there is no evidence they would have committed an offence with another child if this trap was not set up. There is no need for that evidence because the entrapment is irrelevant, particularly here where it is not an agent of the state doing it.

Right, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation

It's also my understanding that a lot of the convictions based on NotW traps are now under review, specifically because the victims were so desperate to get whatever offer was on the table, that they would do whatever the person asked.

Puffins I think you're right about them being under review but the problem is not the entrapment per se. It's because the judge found the NotW journalist had deliberately lied in court proceedings. If he lied in the Tulisa case, he might also have lied in the other cases so the convictions might be unsafe. I would guess that the review of the other cases will focus on the importance of the Fake Sheikh's credibility. For example, if he gave evidence but there were also tapes or other evidence about the crime, the conviction might be safe but if it was his word against someone else, they might not be safe.

I don't think, from anything I've read, that the victims being desperate to get whatever is on the table was a factor.

Ah... wishful thinking on my part probably. Fucking hated that vile rag, can't wait for The Sun to disappear as well. Along with it's owner.

Biased? Me?

Getting back to the OP..no I don;t think that one bloke talking to his dog like that (which was wildly out of context re the purpose of the film) is an indication of how DV abusers generally think, usually re 'unconditional love'. It's mightily more complex than that - v few psychopathic types may be like that, but over all, no. The concerning bit of the OP is rightly that some victims do see putting up with beatings as a potency of their 'love' for the perpetrator.

puffins

The motivation behind abusive behaviour is highly complex, but the over-riding factor is usually control.
Abusers tend to be motivated to control their victim, get them to perform certain tasks/acts and modify their behaviour the way the abuser chooses.

A desire to abuse in order to prove they are 'unconditionally loved' as the OP has suggested quite possibly comes into it, but I am cynical about any emotional context attributed to abuse.

yes, squid, it's really tricky to ascribe a 'universal' definition, or a 'political' definition to motivation to abuse. The motivation to control isn't often a sex or gender motivator..it's a sense of an expression of insecurity, and often that extends to the males in their lives. So the 'feminist' analysis of abuse is often found wanting.