I'm sorry but this is so wrong.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4393676...children-online.html

It's not done under controlled conditions and again by the loudest cans who are benefit drug taking low life.
MWT started this off now wait for it to end a very nasty way.

It's the old entrapment game under another name (George Michael where are you when we need you?). Linked, of course, to blackmail (how many turn up and say "we'll give this evidence to the media, Judge Johnson, unless you pay us"?). Despite saying "we condemn it", police are into encouraging crime, now ably assisted by the rest of the judicial system.

Until these paedophile "set up" groups enticing vunerable people to commit a protential crime I never saw how dangerous and wrong, in general, entrapment could be.

Do I think the guys caught are stupid and lack intelligent? Yes I do. Could they be a hidden paedophile maybe but most likely not?

So a guy is online and this willing individual and very young to boot shows real interest in a guy who normally noboby takes any interest in. So due to his need for attention and sex he can not believe his luck and goes for it hook line and sinker.

But if the scammer criminals were not operating then I guess (as no real research in these subjects) is most likely would never cross the line (Maybe near all cases.


Scammers are everywhere trying to get people to believe just anything normally to entice their money out of their pockets. It is the scammers that awaken desires in people that they can not control and lose ther marbles to take control and think.

this is a particularly vicious new aspect of a society going to the dogs.

These are generally people, no matter what you think of them who are probably extremely lonely and seek contact on the internet.

It's basically a thought crime and this decision has just legitimized it.

It will all end in tears.

John Marsh wrote:
Until these paedophile "set up" groups enticing vunerable people to commit a protential crime I never saw how dangerous and wrong, in general, entrapment could be.

Do I think the guys caught are stupid and lack intelligent? Yes I do. Could they be a hidden paedophile maybe but most likely not?

So a guy is online and this willing individual and very young to boot shows real interest in a guy who normally noboby takes any interest in. So due to his need for attention and sex he can not believe his luck and goes for it hook line and sinker.

But if the scammer criminals were not operating then I guess (as no real research in these subjects) is most likely would never cross the line (Maybe near all cases.


Scammers are everywhere trying to get people to believe just anything normally to entice their money out of their pockets. It is the scammers that awaken desires in people that they can not control and lose ther marbles to take control and think.

I have little sympathy for those who cross the line, no matter if they were provoked or not.

But... How do we know that they didnt know they were meeting an adult? After all, it WAS an adult, and people are entitled to play pretend games with other adults.

And how do we know the conversation hasn't had bits cut out?

If the police want to use this method then good luck to them,but it should be done by police in a proper setting, (I imagine it would attract those who get a kick out of it?) not by randoms who sound more dangerous than those who they are hunting.

I agree with honey and I think that's a very good point about the motivation of the vigilantes. I wonder why they are anonymous. It's not as if they'd be putting their names and pictures in the messages they send. Perhaps they have criminal records.

Benefits that's why they will not say who they are.
Drugs
Burglers
Wife beaters
Low life lazy shit heads
All have something to hide


"How do we know something has not been cut out the conversation " as honey saY's.

My exact thoughts
We know even the METS undercover online team have not supplied all chat logs in their stings it's to "protect the covert I/D and that's under controlled conditions.
In 2007 over 300 were caught in MET stings but we never hear of 300 actual meets of real 14 15 year old in the ten years since so is it happening at all? Probably yes but on a minute scale.

Semario
I go online saying I'm a bank manager and I want someone to help me Rob my bank, do I then get the police to arrest the guy who turns up outside Barclays ? I am not a bank manager but thought I would pretend to be one.
We have seen what happens when newspapers set up stings it comes back to haunt them

Some good points in the posts above.

There is a debate to be had over whether this is entrapment when the police do it. The key test is whether an agent goes beyond what a regular member of the public would do in the same situation. Like I said, there's a debate to be had and there is case law about the issue, which I'll not go into now.

Different rules apply to journalistic entrapment and I'm not familiar with those. Before this decision, there was no case law (that I'm aware of) about private individuals entrapping people into committing a crime. Personally, I have nothing in principle against so-called vigilante action. There's a quote from Robert Peel, something like "The police are only those members of society paid to give full-time consideration to the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon all members of society." However, if one accepts that as valid, then the rules limiting police entrapment should apply to private individuals too, right?

I have two main contributions to this subject. Firstly, I question whether a prosecution for attempting to meet or molest a non-existent child pursues a legitimate aim. Interference in a European resident's liberty must pursue a legitimate aim to be lawful. The legitimate aims are listed in various Human Rights articles incorporated into member states' legal systems. The aim invoked here would be, I suppose, 'the protection of health and morals." However, it is not permitted for the aim to be pursued merely generally or in an abstract way. The aim must be pursued in the specific and actual circumstances of each individual case. Authority for that is contained in a Eurocourt ruling in The Sunday Times vs UK. In sexual sting cases, there is no child, therefore no crime victim, therefore no one's health and morals can be protected by a prosecution in the particular circumstances of the case. Ah ha, comes the counter argument, but the prosecution serves to protect the other children that the Vile Pervert would have gone on potentially to meet. That's easily smacked down by pointing out that those hypothetical future children are not part of the specific circumstances of the prosecution so it makes no difference.

My second point is that anyone - be he policeman, journalist or private citizen - who does this sort of sting operation is committing a crime of Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. That's s.14 of the SOA2003 and here is the text

(1)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.

An example of the offence referred to in (b) might be the attempted version of s.9, sexual activity with a child. A counter argument might arise out of paragraph (2) of s.14. Here is the text, my emphasis added.

(2)A person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a)he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and
(b)any offence within subsection (1)(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.

Since there is no child, there would be no offence against the child and the part of the defence in bold is absent. Therefore the defence is not available to anyone claiming to act in the interest of child safety when there is no actual child involved.

Randall wrote:
Some good points in the posts above.

There is a debate to be had over whether this is entrapment when the police do it. The key test is whether an agent goes beyond what a regular member of the public would do in the same situation. Like I said, there's a debate to be had and there is case law about the issue, which I'll not go into now.

Different rules apply to journalistic entrapment and I'm not familiar with those. Before this decision, there was no case law (that I'm aware of) about private individuals entrapping people into committing a crime. Personally, I have nothing in principle against so-called vigilante action. There's a quote from Robert Peel, something like "The police are only those members of society paid to give full-time consideration to the duties and responsibilities incumbent upon all members of society." However, if one accepts that as valid, then the rules limiting police entrapment should apply to private individuals too, right?

I have two main contributions to this subject. Firstly, I question whether a prosecution for attempting to meet or molest a non-existent child pursues a legitimate aim. Interference in a European resident's liberty must pursue a legitimate aim to be lawful. The legitimate aims are listed in various Human Rights articles incorporated into member states' legal systems. The aim invoked here would be, I suppose, 'the protection of health and morals." However, it is not permitted for the aim to be pursued merely generally or in an abstract way. The aim must be pursued in the specific and actual circumstances of each individual case. Authority for that is contained in a Eurocourt ruling in The Sunday Times vs UK. In sexual sting cases, there is no child, therefore no crime victim, therefore no one's health and morals can be protected by a prosecution in the particular circumstances of the case. Ah ha, comes the counter argument, but the prosecution serves to protect the other children that the Vile Pervert would have gone on potentially to meet. That's easily smacked down by pointing out that those hypothetical future children are not part of the specific circumstances of the prosecution so it makes no difference.

My second point is that anyone - be he policeman, journalist or private citizen - who does this sort of sting operation is committing a crime of Arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence. That's s.14 of the SOA2003 and here is the text

(1)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.

An example of the offence referred to in (b) might be the attempted version of s.9, sexual activity with a child. A counter argument might arise out of paragraph (2) of s.14. Here is the text, my emphasis added.

(2)A person does not commit an offence under this section if—
(a)he arranges or facilitates something that he believes another person will do, but that he does not intend to do or intend another person to do, and
(b)any offence within subsection (1)(b) would be an offence against a child for whose protection he acts.

Since there is no child, there would be no offence against the child and the part of the defence in bold is absent. Therefore the defence is not available to anyone claiming to act in the interest of child safety when there is no actual child involved.

I was boggling at the idea of a crime against a non existent person too,Randall.
But then I realised that we do have situations like this in law,such as the potential burglar "going equipped".

We dont know what the "burglar's" actual intentions were, unless we can read minds, and maybe he would have thought better of it when it came to the crunch?
It doesn't even have to be a specific building about to be burgled for the prosecution to go ahead, so perhaps this situation is similar to the vigilante cases?

(unless the law has changed on this? I am thinking of a case in the late seventies)

But Honey in your burglers situation he has not be goaded.

The attempt to me thing.
The guy thinks he's chatting to a 14/15 yr old but has no idea what that person looks like unless a photo has been used which must breach the trades discriptions act! My point is your creating the lure.
Also I know that there must be no leading questions ie "will you come and meet me in a park" but the answers can be refective ie perv; "you look nice today what a pretty top you have on" entrapper; oh do you think so it's old and does not fit very well now it's a bit tight" to me that is not just reflection that's leading but is what happens and I have seen many chat logs.
Perv; we could meet up for a chat" entraper; why would you want to meet up with me I'm only a child that's silly; and it goes on.

" you look sexy" oh no one's ever said that to me before"

In real terms if the guy is being straight I'm 48 or 35 whatever I would think most 14 15yr old would tell you to do one or block you.
It's easy to blame the guy but I see it just the same as blokes on their family holliday looking at the girls on the beach there is always one that attracts your attention who could possibly be under 18.
MWT who startrd this whole ATM thing off follows sabrina the teenage witch on twitter, I find that so strange fo obviously he has an attraction to someone who in his mind looks like that.

This vigilante thing can only turn out to be a bad thing or at least be open about who you are.

MWTW wrote:
But Honey in your burglers situation he has not be goaded.

The attempt to me thing.
The guy thinks he's chatting to a 14/15 yr old but has no idea what that person looks like unless a photo has been used which must breach the trades discriptions act! My point is your creating the lure.
Also I know that there must be no leading questions ie "will you come and meet me in a park" but the answers can be refective ie perv; "you look nice today what a pretty top you have on" entrapper; oh do you think so it's old and does not fit very well now it's a bit tight" to me that is not just reflection that's leading but is what happens and I have seen many chat logs.
Perv; we could meet up for a chat" entraper; why would you want to meet up with me I'm only a child that's silly; and it goes on.

" you look sexy" oh no one's ever said that to me before"

In real terms if the guy is being straight I'm 48 or 35 whatever I would think most 14 15yr old would tell you to do one or block you.
It's easy to blame the guy but I see it just the same as blokes on their family holliday looking at the girls on the beach there is always one that attracts your attention who could possibly be under 18.
MWT who startrd this whole ATM thing off follows sabrina the teenage witch on twitter, I find that so strange fo obviously he has an attraction to someone who in his mind looks like that.

This vigilante thing can only turn out to be a bad thing or at least be open about who you are.


It is worse,yes. But in the "possible" burglar's situation just the fact of carrying tools that "might"be used in a burglary is enough, so they dont even need to bother provoking him!

But the perv may just need that extra nudge. Or maybe not.

MWTW wrote:
But the perv may just need that extra nudge. Or maybe not.

But might have at least shown the will to commit a crime (with nobody) yet the "burglar" (like in the case of my friend in the seventies) might never have committed a crime, never wanted to, and might be minding his own business going home after fixing my mothers bike with a few spanners, only to find himself arrested and battered.
(completely cleared after a lot of palava).

Both situations are about assuming someone's intentions and presenting it as a crime.