The Paedophile Hunter

[Goughy]

The Paedophile Hunter - 4oD - Channel 4

"Using online profiles of fake underage children, we attempted to lure predators out from behind their online personas and into carefully constructed, and filmed real life meetings with me. In these stings, I confronted these men - and the world - with evidence of what they had done, and then I handed them over to the police."

Did anyone watch this? I am interested in your thoughts as I am trying to make sense of my own.

I expected to think poorly of the guy "acting outside of the law" but, IMO, he came off very well. Not just that he acted with professionalism - there are no threats or violence just posing as children online to attract a certain type of person and all evidence is posted online to shame and also given to the police - but that he (Stinson Hunter) has changed his life around and is doing something that he believes is of great value to the community which also gives him self worth and self esteem . I felt proud for someone I didn't expect to like and probably couldn't relate to if I met in person - perhaps just good film making.

What has been amazing has been the response. It has been overwhelmingly positive (with the exception of the review in the Guardian and the associated comments which show a distrust of the shabby working class and questioned Hunter's motives and how he affords the equipment.)

Most broadsheets seemed to nervously conclude that this type of activity is unusual, far from ideal but there is a need for it in light of limited police resources, the fact that posing as underage decoys is legal (those caught are charged with conspiracy to groom rather than grooming underage children for sex) and it appears to be effective. Almost universally Hunter is praised for his ability to show restraint and desire to turn his life around. Of course the red tops and facebook are populated more with the "hanging is too good for paedophiles" and "all paedophiles should be castrated" crowd so Stinson appears to be the flavour of the month and a working class hero - the day after the show he launched a Kicksarter campaign for new equipment and it reached its target in less than a day - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stinsonhunter/project-1

I guess my own opinion is that it is disappointing that guys like this have to exist as the current system is under funded and lacks the resources to protect vulnerable members of the community. I also worry about others trying to do similar but with less restraint and making the situation worse. I dont, however, worry about paedophiles being exposed (unlike the Guardian again - "the online humiliation of would-be predators is, frankly, unpardonable.") There is no doubt that this guy's naked working classness and dubious history makes him feel an unlikely and awkward protector of children but, on reflection, I think he is.

 

[sledger]

This sounds a lot like To Catch a Predator, which I have watched a great deal of.

 

[fredfertang]

There is a great deal I find disturbing in that sort of behaviour in the name of entertainment, but you have to weigh up the pros and cons, and if educating parents as to how these people work saves children from harm then a few nonces getting a slapping is an acceptable price to pay

 

[Top_Cat]

Was fun to do this as a job, tbh.

 

[duffer]

Top_Cat; CW's Hero!

 

[Howe_zat]

There is a great deal I find disturbing in that sort of behaviour in the name of entertainment, but you have to weigh up the pros and cons, and if educating parents as to how these people work saves children from harm then a few nonces getting a slapping is an acceptable price to pay

Yeah I would agree with this, including the bolded. It's a little unsettling.

 

[Top_Cat]

The truth is, though, that you need a court system to support operations like this otherwise they come to naught. We had one ****er who flashed his wang within 5 mins of starting to chat with what he was told was a 13 year old girl then spent quite some time describing in very fresh detail what he wanted to do (grandfatherly fantasies, FYI). He insisted on meeting for clearly sexual purposes and, lo and behold, turned up at the appointed location. Did he own up? No. Immediately he claimed he was only meeting 'her' to warn her of the dangers of internet paedophiles and to make a point. What a Samaritan. Unfortunately for him, he then gave a false name and address and some fake license plates were found on his car so it would seem that perhaps he was looking to conceal his identity, somewhat sullying his rosy saviour image to that point.

The result? A 3-year bond. If a case like this doesn't attract anything resembling a custodial sentence, other less clear-cut cases have no chance and sure enough I can't think of a single case when a crook did time for this stuff. Packaging them as entertainment is a-okay by me because for crooks and cops alike, that's all they end up being. Court ruins everyone's fun although at least these are registerable offenses (although I think they're not a 'for life' offence from memory, could ask to be removed when I left though was so long ago this may have changed).

 

[fredfertang]

That's remarkable - over here the maximum sentence is 7 years, and even for the least serious case of sexual grooming imaginable the starting point in the guidelines is still 12 months at Her Majesty's pleasure

 

[YorksLanka]

i watched this programme after hearing about all the discussion of it in the news..i have to say well done to these guys for doing what they do. This is what the police should be doing imo. As for all the people saying that the paedophiles shouldnt be shamed,they are entitled to their opinion, but i disagree. I dont understand whats wrong with what the guys in the show are doing trying to catch these sick weirdo's- if they were knocking seven bells out of them after they found them then that would be wrong- but i see this as a service to those of us who have kids..I am amazed at the woman who was questioning how her child was going to get on without her other half who comitted suicide after being caught. She would really want her child around a monster like that?Who is to say that if he can have the lack of basic morals to do that to someone elses child, why would he not to his own?good riddance to an oxygen thief...keep up the good work fellas highlighting these scum...

 

[Top_Cat]

That's remarkable - over here the maximum sentence is 7 years, and even for the least serious case of sexual grooming imaginable the starting point in the guidelines is still 12 months at Her Majesty's pleasure

Mandatory sentence?

Anyway, for all I know it's been changed, been a while. Grooming laws were pretty new when I was in the job.

 

[fredfertang]

Mandatory sentence?

Anyway, for all I know it's been changed, been a while. Grooming laws were pretty new when I was in the job.

They've only been around here since 2003 - guidelines are just that and not, as Judges love to point out, tramlines, but is pretty rare to not have an immediate custodial for this offence

 

[YorksLanka]

if you saw the programme, the one that amazed me in terms of descisons by the authorites, was the final guy from manchester who was released without charge???

 

[fredfertang]

There are some quite bizarre charging decisions made these days across the whole spectrum of criminal offences

 

[YorksLanka]

do you think he was providing more useful info about a bigger fish for the police?

 

[fredfertang]

It would be understandable if that were the answer, and I hope it is, but these days I've come to the conclusion that people often aren't charged because of the cost of prosecuting them

 

[social]

I know someone that works with victims of abuse of this type (both the victim and families)

Anyway, a few of us were making the usual comments about what a shame it is that children today couldn't have the same freedom we enjoyed as kids (e.g. go to the park by themselves) due to the perceived risk

She claims (and is in a position to know and not prone to exaggeration - ex-cop that has seen it all) that the incidence of sexual abuse by some random stranger is no greater today than 20 or more years ago

Not about to test the theory but I struggle to believe it

 

[YorksLanka]

Really?? Wow, I wouldn't be foolish enough to disagree with someone who is an expert in the area however I do wonder if it's the stats powered by the cases that are actually reported rather than what's actually happening- to be fair I suppose it can only be on what is reported..

 

[Teja.]

I haven't watched the show but something just doesn't sit right with me about this concept. I mean the guys caught are clearly ****s but something feels completely broken about the whole process,

 

[social]

Really?? Wow, I wouldn't be foolish enough to disagree with someone who is an expert in the area however I do wonder if it's the stats powered by the cases that are actually reported rather than what's actually happening- to be fair I suppose it can only be on what is reported..

I have no doubt that she's knows what's going on but can also guarantee that she wont let her kids out of her sight in the way our parents used to

 

[Top_Cat]

I know someone that works with victims of abuse of this type (both the victim and families)

Anyway, a few of us were making the usual comments about what a shame it is that children today couldn't have the same freedom we enjoyed as kids (e.g. go to the park by themselves) due to the perceived risk

She claims (and is in a position to know and not prone to exaggeration - ex-cop that has seen it all) that the incidence of sexual abuse by some random stranger is no greater today than 20 or more years ago

Not about to test the theory but I struggle to believe it

Tbh, my own experience bears her perspective out. If anything, the risk is probably quite a bit lower than back in the day. When the statute of limitations on sex crimes in was SA was lifted in 2003, whole networks of abuse within youth groups, churches, schools, state care, etc. were uncovered which were active throughout many decades from the 1950s onward*. It's hard to be definitive but it would appear that the risk of random stranger abductions, networks of paeds a using kids with impunity, etc. is just a lot lower. The addition of computerised systems let alone with more modern forms of surveillance and greater insight into offending patterns would be a big contributor to this.

The paranoia parents feel today, I wonder whether that's more about the greater backlash for parents who aren't paranoid these days. Studies in the area support the idea that the reporting rate is also quite a up it higher than it used to be.

*not that I'm suggesting they didn't exist before then but, well, basically those who were victims before the 50's were dead by the time the statute was lifted.