Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Vigilantes hunting paedophile Hunters
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
MWTW |
Robbie this is the problem and confuses issues.
Mark Williams Thomas states anyone accused of a sexual offence on someone under 18 is a paedophile, wring.
Photos clothed semi clothed semi naked &naked under 18 is a sexual offence but not up to the 1990s. (If you happen to have these images of under 18 over 16 and your pc is looked at a good chance you will be charged)
In my youth a guy in his 20s turning up outside my school to pick up his 15 year old girl friend would just be looked at being flash, today you get arrested.
It was ok in the 80s for Sam Fox to have a countdown week on page 3 of the Sun with a top on but her 16th birthday photo topless sold millions and men of all ages bashing one out in the process, nothing has changed blokes still like 15 16 year olds.
That image actually is of a 15 year old taken just hours before her 16th.
So my point in all this is if your unlucky enough to have legal images from the 80s they are illegal today so yes it can be retrospective. |
|
robbiex |
JK2006 wrote:
And I feel sorry for the silly old queen trapped and terrorised by these Neo Nazis who, 80 years ago, would have been smashing the windows of Jewish shops. Probably never had sex with anyone; now old and bored; hooked by the new technology to indulge in a fantasy... I remember the days when the biggest selling tabloids featured naked, under age girls and millions of dirty old men peered and sniggered (and probably even wanked). I remember Sam Fox being quite genuinely shocked by the possibility when she was 16.
16 is under age. 16 is the age of consent in the uk, although you have to be 18 to do glamour pictures (topless). It used to be 16 and so wasn't underage at the time, you can't retrospectively apply the law. |
|
MWTW |
This as started in America and our intrepid Mark Williams Thomas picked up on it a pretty easy way into tv.
In late 2006 early 2007 Mr WT created many accounts of young girls using the names Suzy and Helen in many variations going with his evidence to tv companies with what he had getting breakfast show promotion, it took off big time.
Mark knew that just going and filming the meets were a bit on the no go side so passed this info onto a good mate at the Met police mark already doing the leg work with the idea of filming stings most of what you see in his series 'to catch a paedophile' were in fact his own creations so you will never see 'first contact' details just a 'we have this person talking to children online' stance.in all 2007 08 173 arrest were made by the Mets online unit with most men receiving between 3 to 30 months.
From this it has grown into what we see today and the first big player was 'Kieren Parsons' aka Stinson Hunter a known drug taking dealer small time crook who baled out about 18 months ago from set ups as he decided to do talks around the country as a nice little earner.
Now of course we have all kinds of names groups doing it but as I have said before doorstoping is going to one day end in tears.
The police condemning this is just words they need to stop it now. |
|
Jo |
Perhaps they're not breaking any law if no children are involved. One would think that if they were breaking the law, individuals arrested through their efforts would have successfully appealed by now. |
|
Randall |
As I've pointed out here several times before, what these vigilantes are doing falls squarely within s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 "arranging or facilitating commission of a child sexual offence."
Here is the text of s.14
A person commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally arranges or facilitates something that he intends to do, intends another person to do, or believes that another person will do, in any part of the world, and
(b)doing it will involve the commission of an offence under any of sections 9 to 13.
Sections 9 to 13 are assorted contact and non contact sexual crimes concerning children.
No need for anything grand like perverting the course of justice. The vigilantes are committing, plain as day, one of the very crimes they claim to be campaigning against. They even pass a complete file of evidence of their crime to the police, don't they?
While the irony is delicious, the serious point is that we have police forces cherry picking which laws to apply to which people. So apparently, these laws that we have are optional. Right ok, I'll remember that... |
|
|
|
