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.

I could only watch part if it before turning it off. But I think if it get these people off the streets it's working I also think the more publicity it gets the more of a deterrent it will be to these groomers as unfortunately it being morally and legally wrong isn't enough of one for them.

In terms of the comment made by the hunter it seems like an odd thing to say in the programme but from what I saw he seems very mixed up himself I expect doing what he does must have a significant effect on him mentally and also with boundaries of whats normal. Not that I'm excusing it but I think it may go someway of explaining why he might say that.

As someone else pointed out elsewhere, one big problem with this sort of publicity-seeking vigilantism is that it can harm innocent people. No, this is not an argument that men who appear to be grooming underage girls should be spared - it's an argument in defence of the families of such men. Courts can order that the identity of a child abuser be concealed in order to protect the abuser's own children from public humiliation.

And there is something very unhealthy and dangerous about the growing idea that vigilantism is 'better' than the existing legal system with its checks, balances and insistence on evidence.

this piece points out a lot of the problems.

Also, from a feminist perspective, I find something a bit distasteful about the amount of enjoyment vigilantes seem to get out of 'protecting' women and children - the actual women and children seem to be entirely irrelevant to these self-righteous thugs who have found a moral justification for attacking people.

Well, at least I now know who the journalist called Rob is.

Following SGB's postings, I can't help thinking that the paedo-vigilantes aren't so much protecting children, as they're a group of men attacking other men, sure in the knowledge that whatever happens, they themselves are invulnerable. If catching paedophiles with this kind of trap were such a great thing to do, logically women should be doing it just as much, but somehow that doesn't seem likely.

Yep. I'm totally with SGB here and I think that fits entirely well with the dog comment.

They like the sense of power and control. Okay so they're using it against people who are morally reprehensible, and these people are being dealt with by the legal system, it's not like they're going at them with a meat cleaver, but still.

It's just treating the symptoms - to eliminate the problem, you need to attack the root cause. Not that I can tell you what that is, I don't know :(

I also think that it's not generally how abusers think but gives more of an idea how the victim sees themselves. It's very horribly true for children as well - children will always love their parents and strive for their parents' love, whatever horrible awful things their parents do, they don't stop loving them. They generally want the horrible things to stop but they want to stay with their parents.

It's very interesting how power and control is at the heart of every aspect of this.

Completely agree with SGB's comments about Hunter using this as an excuse to attack other people - this was very very clear. He is a very disturbed man - and one who is possibly 'glory-hunting' - maybe to atone for his past misdemeanors in some way, and be the 'good guy'.

The thing about identifying these men/the vigilantism/entrapment aspect is something I'm very conflicted about.

On the one hand, I'm very tempted to say to people like Hunter 'go for it' because we know these predators are out there - we know the police don't have enough resources to deal with them. When my friend's dh was caught, the Officer who came to take my statement said that for each one they catch, they know a 100 more are walking free. He was caught using a form of entrapment - a police online sting. If he hadn't been caught, I dread to think of what might have happened - he had already abused his own dc, and was grooming one of mine.

He was not a paedophile in the sense that he was sexually attracted to children - he was doing it for the power, he was a sadist, a psychopath. We know this now. There were reporting restrictions on his case to protect his children's identities - which of course is the right thing to do. But the police officer dealing with it also told my friend that a part of him wished he could broadcast his picture everywhere so people knew what he was, and any other victims could come forward.

I think if Hunter just recorded the on-line conversations, and the attempted meetings, then passed the info onto the police - rather than sensationalist chasing downs, publishing on social media - he would be in a morally stronger position.

I thought Newbieman's point was very good - if this was a MC middle-aged couple operting from a gentile living room, the reaction would be very different.

So I don't object to what Hunter's doing, just the way he's doing it.

operating genteel not gentile!

I'm bowing out of this because I really don't want to disagree with Sabrina, and I do, vehemently. Maybe it's the difference in view of someone who is a survivor of CSE.

Maybe, because Stinson is also a survivor, he believes he is doing right by exposing the perpetrators. I agree that reactions would be different if this was a MC couple, how does that make that ok? Because from here, it looks like it's Stinson you're objecting to, more than his methods.

Ah well. Hiding this now.

Puffins, I fear I may have expressed myself very badly then, because I didn't disagree with your posts at all.

I think I did find Stinson himself disturbing - but there may well be many reasons for that - not least the editing of the programme.

The whole progamme upset me more than I had realised tbh.

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?

Good question.

I read in the comments of various articles about him, that the common assault conviction he had 6? years ago was against his Ex partner and mother of his child, it also said he is no longer allowed to see his child because of that.

I obviously have no idea if that is true and don't know how to find out either way.

I've encountered a similar mindset among young (mainly white) men who are vehemently anti-racist or anti-fascist. It's about the love of a fight and feeling like a hero rather than about, well, the other people who may be victims of racism/sexism/abuse.
Stinson would probably achieve better results if he simply turned the results of his investigations (eg screenshots and emails) over to the police. The fact that he doesn't suggests that his motivation is not purely about preventing children being harmed.

It's almost like Dexter - "Is he a good person doing bad things, or a bad person doing good things?" Well, neither. It's not that black and white.

Ultimately - yes it's good if perpetrators get exposed and stopped. And I am sure that there must be some police officers who enjoy the power and control which comes with that job. Does that detract from the very excellent work that the police do? Of course it doesn't.