Stinson Hunter (Pedophile catcher)

pickarooney

biko wrote: »

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventy-paedophile-hunter-says-quit-6068327

Come on, surely suicide of the guy being stung is exactly what they're aiming for?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

pickarooney wrote: »

Come on, surely suicide of the guy being stung is exactly what they're aiming for?

If that was the case, why don't they just go down there and murder the guy?

Pedophilia has been discribed (incorrectly, in my view) as a mental illness and you're advocating driving people with mental illness to suicide?

swimming in a sea

I would initially have been uneasy about the entrapment part of this programme. As in luring someone into doing something they may never had the nerve to do, but a lot of the suspects featured in the Channel 4 programme were happy enough to send naked pictures of themselves to what they thought were young girls. Now maybe it was clever editing and they were begged first to send the pictures, I don't know either way I have mixed emotions on this.

RobbingBandit

pickarooney wrote: »

Come on, surely suicide of the guy being stung is exactly what they're aiming for?

Think they would rather string these guys up and cut their balls off first.

allibastor

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I would initially have been uneasy about the entrapment part of this programme. As in luring someone into doing something they may never had the nerve to do, but a lot of the suspects featured in the Channel 4 programme were happy enough to send naked pictures of themselves to what they thought were young girls. Now maybe it was clever editing and they were begged first to send the pictures, I don't know either way I have mixed emotions on this.

Again, I think they are very careful about entrapment and make sure that all messages are the older person pushing.

Once entrapment can be shown the case is out of court, but judging on the numbers who have been charged, albeit with suspended sentences, he must be doing something correctly.

As for the thoughts that these lads may not have had the nerve to do it otherwise, the people featured on the documentary got trains/cabs etc to the house, how did they not have the nerve?

Big C

The grooming part is where the paedophiles will be in trouble but if I recall the legality of the sting approach is not allowed in many countries. I could be wrong but didn't the Garda plan something on this for car thieves or am I mixing that up?[/QUOTE]

wouldn't worry about the Gardai, they too busy with water meters.

Fantastic that they got so many to court (pity about all the suspended sentences,

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

Can't stand the bloke been honest .
Seem to be a vigilante with a hero complex .

We only get to see one side of his so called investigations .

There is a lot to be said about due process

Nobody forced the men in question to get into their cars and drive to a house where they suspected there was a child they could rape. He never encouraged them to send naked pictures of themselves to people they believed were underage girls and boys. If ye watch the show, it was the nonces themselves that did all the running. All your man is simply doing is recording their actions, their pictures and their comments. As he said himself, he's only "holding up a mirror". So a few of them have hanged themselves? Good. One less predatory paedophile in the world.

The men in the show aren't victims, they're dangerous predators who deserve everything they get really.

Thargor

DamagedTrax wrote: »

?????? :eek: do explain!

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

The guys name in How I Met Your Mother is Barney Stinson.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ah ok, when he said main guy i thought he meant ted.

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

Is Stinson Hunter his name, or is a Stinson a new word for nonce.

I never liked that How I Met Your Mother rubbish but who knew the main guy was a wordplay name :pac:

Im still lost, whats the wordplay?

FTA69

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If that was the case, why don't they just go down there and murder the guy?

Utterly ridiculous comparison. What they're doing is simply recording the actions of men who decide to approach young kids, send them naked pictures of themselves and then subsequently arrange to rape them. Every one of those steps above is a choice that these men make. All Stinson is doing is recording their actions. To compare that with Stinson arbitrarily murdering people is nonsense.

Pedophilia has been discribed (incorrectly, in my view) as a mental illness and you're advocating driving people with mental illness to suicide?

B*llocks. If someone decides to kill themselves because they've been exposed as a predatory paedophile that's their own tough sh*t.

sbsquarepants

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If that was the case, why don't they just go down there and murder the guy?

Pedophilia has been discribed (incorrectly, in my view) as a mental illness and you're advocating driving people with mental illness to suicide?

I'm inclined to say fúck them to be honest.
I mean the likes of ted bundy and so on weren't able to control what they were doing because of mental illness, does that mean you should have sympathy for him. If you're born a paedo, that's kinda a raw deal for you - but tough shít really, there are more important considerations.

El Weirdo

FTA69 wrote: »

B*llocks. If someone decides to kill themselves because they've been exposed as a predatory paedophile that's their own tough sh*t.

And what if they do it because they've been wrongly exposed as a predatory paedophile? Tough shit too?

whupdedo

I'm surprised that some people on here don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that men who organise to meet a 13 year old child would probably have gone on to molest and rape the CHILD if it wasn't a sting operation

The cops should be glad that they have these people to do the likes of this for them, not trying to stop them

So what if some dirty animal that's a potential threat to children hangs himself, in my book that's at least 1 child that dirty bastard can't ever lay a hand on

FTA69

El Weirdo wrote: »

And what if they do it because they've been wrongly exposed as a predatory paedophile? Tough shit too?

Wrongly exposed? Have you watched the show on Channel 4 at all.

1) They approach the profile and initiate discussion.
2) They initiate sexual conversation
3) They send explicit images of themselves
4) They suggest sex
5) They get in their cars and drive to the house.

It's pretty open and shut stuff.

FTA69

whupdedo wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people on here don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that men who organise to meet a 13 year old child would probably have gone on to molest and rape the CHILD if it wasn't a sting operation

The cops should be glad that they have these people to do the likes of this for them, not trying to stop them

So what if some dirty animal that's a potential threat to children hangs himself, in my book that's at least 1 child that dirty bastard can't ever lay a hand on

Exactly. As if Stinson's profile was the first child's profile they ever messaged.

El Weirdo

FTA69 wrote: »

Wrongly exposed? Have you watched the show on Channel 4 at all.

1) They approach the profile and initiate discussion.
2) They initiate sexual conversation
3) They send explicit images of themselves
4) They suggest sex
5) They get in their cars and drive to the house.

It's pretty open and shut stuff.

These people claim different.

allibastor

FTA69 wrote: »

Wrongly exposed? Have you watched the show on Channel 4 at all.

1) They approach the profile and initiate discussion.
2) They initiate sexual conversation
3) They send explicit images of themselves
4) They suggest sex
5) They get in their cars and drive to the house.

It's pretty open and shut stuff.

Damn right. People who worry about being set up should really ask the question,
How the **** do you set someone up to have sex with a 13 year old.

" Hey, I am a 13 year old girl, I know I just met you on a chat room, but would you like to screw me."
" Am, yeah sure why not, I have 40 mins to spare"

No, a normal person answer would be, " No I don't want to screw you cause your 13"

Even if someone set it up as a sting, how do you justify these people even responding.

FTA69

El Weirdo wrote: »

These people claim different.

There was nothing like that in Stinson's show anyway; in one incident he specifically told the paedophile he was an autistic 11 year old.

allibastor

FTA69 wrote: »

There was nothing like that in Stinson's show anyway; in one incident he specifically told the paedophile he was an autistic 11 year old.

That is where this kind of crap does show the danger alright.

Where as, from what I can find, the Stinson guy doesn't entrap, these lads seem to have very much caused entrapment to the guy.

I agree with what they all do, lets be frank, but it should not go to the internet until the cops have at least looked at the messages and are happy no entrapment has taken place.

El Weirdo

FTA69 wrote: »

There was nothing like that in Stinson's show anyway...

Of course there wasn't. Wouldn't look too good now, would it?

FTA69 wrote: »

... in one incident he specifically told the paedophile he was an autistic 11 year old.

He says. On his Facebook page, he still has the video of of one of the guys in that Guardian piece up. A guy that was found by the Police of having no case to answer, iirc.

It's extremely dodgy ground that he's treading and it's only pandering to the tabloid-reading-string-them-up-by-the-bollocks morons that end up burning down paediatricians' offices.

FTA69

Of course there wasn't. Wouldn't look too good now, would it?

The show was a documentary by Channel 4 who I imagine would have no qualms in exposing Stinson had he been deliberately misleading people.

He follows a pretty standard format and as I said above, it's the paedophiles themselves who make all the running. I suggest you watch the above show, especially the part about the nonce that the CPS decided to let go and I guarantee you that you'll find it disturbing to say the least.

The only immorality at play in that situation was the fact a clearly dangerous predator was let loose by those supposed to be prosecuting them.

FTA69

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=319407334897857&set=vb.143981935773732&type=2&theater

Here's the video itself by the way, your man's initial texts etc were also corroborated by the independent Channel 4 documentary.

Billy86

biko wrote: »

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/coventy-paedophile-hunter-says-quit-6068327

Absolutely farce, all this Stinson eejit is is a copycat of another "paedophile hunter" whose show has resulted in the suicide of other "prey." http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/features/predator0907

I'm not defending peadophiles, buy the guys who make these programmes are absolutely nasty pieces of sh!t themselves.

whupdedo

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not defending peadophiles, buy the guys who make these programmes are absolutely nasty pieces of sh!t themselves.

So what ? Their exposing pedophiles, we shouldn't be worried about their moral character, theirs not much worse than a predatory paedophile, so I think we can live with the shadier side of their character

FTA69

The Channel 4 documentary pretty strongly infers that Stinson Hunter was a victim of sexual abuse himself while in care; from watching the show it appears to be this which is the strong driving factor behind him doing what he does. As far as I can see he's not doing anything wrong at all.

Stheno

How does he support himself?

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

So what ? Their exposing pedophiles, we shouldn't be worried about their moral character, theirs not much worse than a predatory paedophile, so I think we can live with the shadier side of their character

It is fine doing it privately, it is nothing other than populist, emotive garbage as television. He doesn't give a sh*t about justice, all he is interested in is his own image and ratings. If he had any interest in these things, he would have worked with the police who have offered this to him, rather than obsessively styling himself on being the "bad boy vigilante bringing justice to your screens!" despite knowing that publicly screening the whole thing makes it far harder for there to be a fair trial, which is only damaging for what he keeps hammering on about. This is one of the number of reasons the police keep asking him to stop what he is at.

In September last year he was talking about considering quitting because of "copycats" (hilarious, since he is a copycat) leading to the suicide of a man. Yet only six months later, he directly lead to the suicide of someone he was "hunting" (because dehumanising people is the easiest way to form a mob behind you) and his response pretty much came over as him not I giving a sh*t. Quite a magical turnaround in such a short time, eh? He knew condemning "those damn copycats" (while pretending he isn't one) would make him seem more humane and authoritative, but when that completely backfired on him he did a full 180. He should try s career in politics when this tabloid watch hunt of his does out.

Oh, and the guy who committed suicide? He had a young child. That child will now grow up without a father, knowing full well why he died (as will everyone who grows up around him). Gee thanks, Mr. "Hunter" (yes he changed his name to that being the prat that he is - he was born Kiran Parsons but must have felt that didn't suit his "character"), what an invaluable service to the community you really are!

whupdedo

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh, and the guy who committed suicide? He had a young child.!

And predatory paedophiles never abused their own kids ?

Big C

whupdedo wrote: »

And predatory paedophiles never abused their own kids ?

what if the guy was arrested and sent down for a few years, wud his have taken him back ? I think either way the kid would have grown up without a dad and maybe a lot safer too

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

I'm surprised that some people on here don't seem to grasp the very simple fact that men who organise to meet a 13 year old child would probably have gone on to molest and rape the CHILD if it wasn't a sting operation

The cops should be glad that they have these people to do the likes of this for them, not trying to stop them

So what if some dirty animal that's a potential threat to children hangs himself, in my book that's at least 1 child that dirty bastard can't ever lay a hand on

no they shouldn't. these are low grade vermin looking for attention and self gratification, putting people and cases at risk, the cops should do everything to stop them. stings are only used by the lazy and the low grade. we pay police to do such jobs for a reason. not attention seekers. deliberately driving someone to hange themselves should cary a life sentence for murder. vidulanti vermin should be stopped by whatever means necessary as they are as much of a threat to society as paediophiles themselves.

end of the road

allibastor wrote: »

Damn right. People who worry about being set up should really ask the question,
How the **** do you set someone up to have sex with a 13 year old.

" Hey, I am a 13 year old girl, I know I just met you on a chat room, but would you like to screw me."
" Am, yeah sure why not, I have 40 mins to spare"

No, a normal person answer would be, " No I don't want to screw you cause your 13"

Even if someone set it up as a sting, how do you justify these people even responding.

you can't, but the attention seekers setting up the sting put the case at risk and potentially invalidate it. which is why everything necessary to stop them should be done by the police

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

So what ? Their exposing pedophiles, we shouldn't be worried about their moral character, theirs not much worse than a predatory paedophile, so I think we can live with the shadier side of their character

people like you are a severe danger to society with bull**** opinions like this. their moral character has everything to do with this, them exposing people means nothing and is no excuse to let them behave whatever way they see fit.

whupdedo

end of the road wrote: »

no they shouldn't. these are low grade vermin looking for attention and self gratification, putting people and cases at risk, the cops should do everything to stop them. stings are only used by the lazy and the low grade. we pay police to do such jobs for a reason. not attention seekers. deliberately driving someone to hange themselves should cary a life sentence for murder. vidulanti vermin should be stopped by whatever means necessary as they are as much of a threat to society as paediophiles themselves.

Let them have their z list celebrity status if they want, who cares, the cops haven't the resources to be dealing with preventative measures to stop crimes and are largely a reactionary force, if child abusers hang themselves because they've been found out, tough, better they to hang than a child unable to deal with the consequences of being abused

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

And predatory paedophiles never abused their own kids ?

i'm sure they have. hence why we have people payed to deal with it. not riffraff and riffraff supporting them.

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

And predatory paedophiles never abused their own kids ?

Yes, THE HUNTER SAVED A CHILD... OF COURSE!! :rolleyes:

If this had been gone about the correct way, the kid wouldn't have their fathers name plastered all over TV and tabloids (and because of the internet, that is not going to disappear with time, or by moving home). Instead her would have been able to be arrested privately instead of killing himself before his child had possibly even said their first words. Now the child is stick with this instead, which is far worse, highly likely to completely mess up their childhood, and which will hang over their lives publicly for a long, long time. Thank you "Mr. Hunter" you really are a service to the community!

Now would you like to address the following:
- He is only interested in his own self image, hence his stupid name change and different opinions when someone else caused suicide compared to when he did.

- He doesn't give a sh*t despite pretending to, labelling others as "copycats" when he is a copycat of a guy who caused someone to commit suicide, and then continuing to do so, eventually winding up in one of his "prey" committing suicide which he sounded like he could not care less about. Like I said, he is as big a hypocrite as some of the worst of politicians out there. All he was doing when he was criticising "copycats" was trying to eliminate competition for his product and bank balance.

- He is self serving and not interested in justice or anything of the sort hence his refusal to work with the police.

- He is a hindrance to proper trials of these people with the way he goes about things.

- Also, he burned down a school when he was younger. Had a similar "Hunter vigilante" charlatan like him got on that at the time, he would be ruined, but instead he was dealt with through the criminal justice system and likes to now consider himself a reformed man as a result. He is a walking example of due process, the criminal justice system and reform working... and this whole joke he is up to is just turning around and spitting in the face of it all, for his own personal gain.

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

Let them have their z list celebrity status if they want, who cares, the cops haven't the resources to be dealing with preventative measures to stop crimes and are largely a reactionary force, if child abusers hang themselves because they've been found out, tough, better they to hang than a child unable to deal with the consequences of being abused

The cops have repeatedly offered to work with this guy, and he has repeatedly turned them down, favouring his own "fame" over being able to do a far more effective job. That should tell you all you need to know.

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

Let them have their z list celebrity status if they want

absolutely not

whupdedo wrote: »

who cares

the decent in society do who pay people to do such jobs and don't want ferrel vermin and their supporters roming around the place like wild animals looking for attention

whupdedo wrote: »

the cops haven't the resources to be dealing with preventative measures to stop crimes and are largely a reactionary force

actually in the UK they do almost have the resources. you can't prevent a crime without intelligence. all police forces are mostly reactionary unless a potential crime comes to their attention.

whupdedo wrote: »

if child abusers hang themselves because they've been found out, tough, better they to hang than a child unable to deal with the consequences of being abused

not at all. vidulanti vermin don't get to have the satisfaction of putting people at risk and causing someone to kill themselves, specially someone potentially accuseed in the wrong.

whupdedo

end of the road wrote: »

i'm sure they have. hence why we have people payed to deal with it. not riffraff ad riffraff supporting them.

So what you're really saying is this :

It's better for a child to be molested, raped and abused by someone and let the process of due course deal with it... than to try and stop a child abuser before they actually do the damage, right...

end of the road

Stheno wrote: »

How does he support himself?

the tax payer of course

whupdedo

Billy86 wrote: »

The cops have repeatedly offered to work with this guy, and he has repeatedly turned them down, favouring his own "fame" over being able to do a far more effective job. That should tell you all you need to know.

That post is totally irrelevant, if he becomes famous in the course of stopping children being abused, all I need to know is that it publishes the fact that pedophiles cant always hide behind keyboards, if anything it probably makes them more aware that if they step out of line they might get caught

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

So what you're really saying is this :

It's better for a child to be molested, raped and abused by someone and let the process of due course deal with it... than to try and stop a child abuser before they actually do the damage, right...

if the police get information a crime is going to be commited they will deal with it, thats their job. not someone who burns down a school and changes his name, refuses to work with the police dispite many who would actually give a **** and bite the polices hand off for such an offer, all just to seek attention, boost his ego, and for fame and money, just to appease the tabloid types who rant and rave and spend their lives getting angry at anything and everything including the sky being blue.

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

That post is totally irrelevant, if he becomes famous in the course of stopping children being abused, all I need to know is that it publishes the fact that pedophiles about always hide behind keyboards

It 100% relevant and you know it.

As is, a lot of these people get suspended sentence if anything at all because the trial is damaged by the whole thing being televised. If he instead provided the evidence to the police, it would be a lot easier to prosecute and a lot easier to get longer and more immediate sentences.

Instead, he is happy to see plenty of them back on the streets and able to go after kids again if they want because it gets him ratings. Because he clearly doesn't give a sh*t about anything but his own profile.

looking_around

HalloweenJack wrote: »

potential paedophile

Potential paedophile? You are using paedophile synonymously with child molester/abuser

They are NOT one and the same.

A paedophile is attraction to underage kids. (particularly the age 11 and under, range). They can be a paedophile without ever engaging in sexual activity with a child.
The moment they do, they cross the line into child molester.

So your post above should say "potential child molester/abuser."

Using them interchangeably is a pet hate of mine.
________
I'm also not a fan of "entrapment". There laws against the depths cops can go here for that, isn't there? As there's a very fine line from catching someone who's looking to do a crime, and forcing "optimistic" crime.

BlaasForRafa

I thought this section of the Grauniad article was rather revealing about Mr Parsons

Police say some hunters have exposed people whose potential child grooming behaviour was previously unknown, but that in the majority of cases examined the targets do not reflect any sexual interest in children.

Stinson Hunter has even admitted as much."Guys that I catch generally aren't paedophiles," he told supporters in an online broadcast in August. "A massive percent of them are guys that have been lonely and someone has paid them attention and they've jumped on it."

So, this fella has baited lonely guys and then accused them of being paedophiles when if he had never responded to them they would have just stayed as being lonely guys.

whupdedo

end of the road wrote: »

if the police get information a crime is going to be commited they will deal with it, thats their job. not someone who burns down a school and changes his name, refuses to work with the police dispite many who would actually give a **** and bite the polices hand off for such an offer, all just to seek attention, boost his ego, and for fame and money, just to appease the tabloid types who rant and rave and spend their lives getting angry at anything and everything including the sky being blue.

Why not answer the question being asked ? Is it better to let a child be abused so due process can be done, or is it better that preventative action can be taken, in any shape or form ? And please don't reply with your usual idiotic ramblings, try and contribute something useful this time

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

FTA69 wrote: »

Utterly ridiculous comparison. What they're doing is simply recording the actions of men who decide to approach young kids, send them naked pictures of themselves and then subsequently arrange to rape them. Every one of those steps above is a choice that these men make. All Stinson is doing is recording their actions. To compare that with Stinson arbitrarily murdering people is nonsense.


B*llocks. If someone decides to kill themselves because they've been exposed as a predatory paedophile that's their own tough sh*t.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm inclined to say fúck them to be honest.
I mean the likes of ted bundy and so on weren't able to control what they were doing because of mental illness, does that mean you should have sympathy for him. If you're born a paedo, that's kinda a raw deal for you - but tough shít really, there are more important considerations.

Do you want a dead pedophile at the end of this or not? The post that I replied to implied that that was the goal, so the comparison is far from ridiculous. What difference does it make if he takes his own life or if someone else takes it for him?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

Why not answer the question being asked ? Is it better to let a child be abused so due process can be done, or is it better that preventative action can be taken, in any shape or form ? And please don't reply with your usual idiotic ramblings, try and contribute something useful this time

Hidden answer C - it's better to educate children how to use the internet in the first place, and better to educate parents rather than attempting to scare the livign **** out of them.

Useful enough?

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

Why not answer the question being asked ? Is it better to let a child be abused so due process can be done, or is it better that preventative action can be taken, in any shape or form ? And please don't reply with your usual idiotic ramblings, try and contribute something useful this time

You continually (purposefully?) ignore that due process does not get done because this eejit gets in the way of it. Not because of his pre emptive approach, but much more because he insists kn slapping it all over TV for fame and money which damages the trial process.

whupdedo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hidden answer C - it's better to educate children how to use the internet in the first place, and better to educate parents rather than attempting to scare the livign **** out of them.

Useful enough?

I agree, we should also live in a perfect world where children aren't curious, never have to deal with bad lazy parenting and never should have to come into contact with people who would do them harm

BlaasForRafa

whupdedo wrote: »

Why not answer the question being asked ? Is it better to let a child be abused so due process can be done, or is it better that preventative action can be taken, in any shape or form ? And please don't reply with your usual idiotic ramblings, try and contribute something useful this time

So are falsely accused people just collateral damage?

whupdedo

Billy86 wrote: »

You continually (purposefully?) ignore that due process does not get done because this eejit gets in the way of it. Not because of his pre emptive approach, but much more because he insists kn slapping it all over TV for fame and money which damages the trial process.

It won't come in the way of a trial if it is deemed of be true,if he gets something wrong he can be done for slander and defamation