IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.
|
Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Another paedophile hunter in court
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Stormzy Daniels |
What always amazes me about these cases is the very idea that a guy in his 50s 60s or whatever (and usually obese and unwashed)can honestly think that a girl or boy of 14 would want to meet up with them.
They deserve arresting for being so damn moronic.Such blatant stupidity has no place in society. |
|
Randall |
Totally agree, Hedda.
hedda wrote:
How do we know these pedo hunters are not getting off on acting as a young girl or boy and talking about sex to some bloke ?
With the added bonus they can get public approval for indulging in their perverted fantasies?
There seems to be a range of motivations. Titillation, as you suggest, is one. "Methinks he doth protest too much" is another. Others seem to have personal issues they're struggling with. Often this is a claim of having been abused as a child, which motivates their mission (or misdirected revenge?).
However... My impression is that a sizeable number of these groups are straightforward content creators, usually of a semi-professional nature. They're no different to people who produce YouTube videos or Facebook writing on a chosen theme. Once enough online followers have been gained, the channel can be monetised with advertising, merchandise or an appeal for donations. The more sensational the content, the better. Like a DIY online Cook Report. |
|
hedda |
you can't stop people having inclinations or thoughts and indeed it's not illegal.
It's not illegal to be a peedeofile.
Acting upon inclinations are when it becomes illegal but surely there has to be a victim here..not an imaginary one.
I know it's against the law but the Law Is An Ass in this case.
These Pedo Hunters strike me as very weird people and not unlike Gay Bashers who often turn out to be gay.
## When I ran the Notting Hill gay bookshop for a few months when the owner was in jail for tax evasion he warned me what happen and it did.
The police raided once every 4 months or so and while there'd be half a dozen young PCs packing up the books... he said
"take note of the more aggressive one who will say mean things to you"..sure enough he would be the one who came back in civvies after a few days (and we had re-stocked) and buy some magazines.
The young straight cops just did their job with indifference..the closet gay acted all tough an moralized (poor thing).
How do we know these pedo hunters are not getting off on acting as a young girl or boy and talking about sex to some bloke ?
With the added bonus they can get public approval for indulging in their perverted fantasies? |
|
Randall |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
I know an awful lot of adults who wont/cant tell them to bugger off, let alone children.
We're talking about someone receiving unwelcome communication online. And you know an awful lot of people who can't find the block button or the off switch?
Let's be honest, the internet is a useful outlet for horny teenagers to explore their developing sexuality anonymously and without risking embarrassment among their peers. It's only if their peccadilloes are later found out that they suddenly have a problem with it.
Of course I, like almost everyone else, want people to not abuse children online.
I don't concede that anyone can be abused online in a way that requires criminal prohibition. Nothing I can possibly type here could ever hurt any of you reading it, even if it really really REALLY upsets, annoys or frightens you.
Abused in the sense of being insulted, yes. Abused in the Kantian sense of being reduced to a means of giving pleasure without duly recognising the innate value of the person (something internet communications lend themselves to), yes. But I don't believe the law should enforce these moral concepts and impose them on people. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Randall wrote:
hedda wrote:
how in the Hell can someone be arrested and charged for communicating with a 45 year old thug who claims to be a young girl?
It's usually treated as the attempted version of various sexual speech crimes, Hedda.
I have three problems with this. Firstly, it's not readily apparent how there is an actus reus when there's no actual child/youth. In real life, where most of us would like criminal justice to operate, the arrested person you suggest has neither communicated, nor attempted to communicate with a child - because there is no child. So the person is being prosecuted because of his suspected illegal inclinations, not for something he's actually done.
Secondly, arresting and prosecuting someone for attempting illegal communication with a non-existant person interferes with the person's legal right to freedom of expression. This legal right can only be restricted in pursuit of one of the legitimate aims listed in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act. In addition, case law on freedom of expression has determined that the legitimate aim must be pursued in the specific circumstances of the case, and must be convincingly established by a pressing social need. Does anyone think that a pressing social need to stop non-existent people being spoken to has been convincingly established?
Thirdly, I think speech can never be criminally prohibited. Yes, even Carl Beech should not face criminal sanctions for saying what he did. The better remedy is to meet his free speech with more persuasive free speech in rational debate under public scrutiny. Harvey Proctor's press conference is a much more enlightening response, of much greater benefit to society, than throwing Mr Beech in an oubliette for 18 years. Likewise, if you're a child who really exists and someone says stuff to you that you don't like, "bugger off" should do the trick quite nicely. If you DO like what they're saying to you, well fear not: words won't hurt you. In both cases, no need for the criminal law to poke its nose in.
I know an awful lot of adults who wont/cant tell them to bugger off, let alone children.
Of course I, like almost everyone else, want people to not abuse children online.
However, a lot of these people are very vulnerable themselves, and I do not want vulnerable adults to be encouraged to show their penises online!
(and that is assuming they ARE adults. Not children posing as adults) |
|
|
|
|
