Stinson Hunter (Pedophile catcher)

El Weirdo

whupdedo wrote: »

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

Of course it will. The accused could argue that he can't get a fair trial because this Hunter guy has plastered his face, name, phone number, etc all over the Internet, claiming that he is a child molester.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

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

No you don't agree. You think that it's not possible to educate children and lazy parenting is easily fixed by tabloid-fuled vigilante narcissism.

Or did I misinterpret your post?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

El Weirdo wrote: »

Of course it will. The accused could argue that he can't get a fair trial because this Hunter guy has plastered his face, name, phone number, etc all over the Internet, claiming that he is a child molester.

... and if Mr Hunter than claims that a lot of people he catches aren;t pedophiles, which he did indeed say in the Guardian, then he's guilty of slander.

end of the road

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

there are no "idiotic rantings" from me. i've contributed nothing but something useful since i've joined this thread. ultimately it is better if the police and police only can take preventative action but not the likes of this egotistical self serving fame and money hungry arsonist

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

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

You are trying to seriously tell me that publically airing the evidence, and not the full evidence but an edited version of it to fit the agenda of a show called f***ing "Paedophile Hunter", of a trial, as well as lots of personal information on the accused all over the internet and television prior to any trial taking place is not going to have any impact on a trial in any way, shape or form?

I am going to assume you are on a wind up ot being deliberately obtuse here. You cannot be that delusional.

Gatling

What they should do is make it illegal to use adult websites with the intention of impersonating a minor for any reason

whupdedo

Billy86 wrote: »

You are trying to seriously tell me that publically airing the evidence, and not the full evidence but an edited version of it to fit the agenda of a show called f***ing "Paedophile Hunter", of a trial, as well as lots of personal information on the accused all over the internet and television prior to any trial taking place is not going to have any impact on a trial in any way, shape or form?

I am going to assume you are on a wind up ot being deliberately obtuse here. You cannot be that delusional.

They wouldn't even be up in court if it wasn't for the effort put in by these guys, so either way whatever happens, no children have been abused, and the potential abusers identity is public knowledge, its a win win situation

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

They wouldn't even be up in court if it wasn't for the effort put in by these guys, so either way whatever happens, no children have been abused, and the potential abusers identity is public knowledge, its a win win situation

They won't be up in court anyway - police have said that most of them have no case to answer.

Keyword there being "potential". If you're advocating the legal conviction of being "potentially" something, we're on a seriously slippery slope.

whupdedo

Princess Consuelnanahammock wrote: »

No you don't agree. You think that it's not possible to educate children and lazy parenting is easily fixed by tabloid-fuled vigilante narcissism.

Or did I misinterpret your post?

I agree that educating is the way forward, what I'm saying is that lazy parenting and a child's natural curiosity coupled with complacency can't account for every
Scenario, put that together with the perseverance of an abuser intent on molesting a child, education will only go so far, it's one way forward but not the perfect answer

Billy86

whupdedo wrote: »

They wouldn't even be up in court if it wasn't for the effort put in by these guys, so either way whatever happens, no children have been abused, and the potential abusers identity is public knowledge, its a win win situation

So you are not interested in putting acting paedophiles away then, just in getting their names out there, presumably for society to "deal out their own justice" or some similar nonsense. Got it.

And f**k the families of these people also, let their lives be ruined by it too, it's not like that's something you'll have to think about afterwards anyway. Got it.

And who cares if these a lot of these people are not even paedophiles to begin with, by the admission of "THE HUNTER!!!" himself. Got it.

And let's ignore the fact that this can also put at risk ongoing investigations into suspected acting paedophiles that would be far more likely to end in successful prosecutions (which is one of the key reasons why the police have repeatedly offered him to work with them). You don't want them behind bars after all, just shamed on television for all to see. Got it.

Big C

amazed at some of the bile being spouted against this guy. How can anybody say "leave it to the police" when less than 3 months ago we heard how up to 1400 kids were abused in Rotherham and the police ignored them for years despite constant complaints.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29036742

hope all of the believers of law and order and "justice for Pedophile's" read this.

Billy86

Big C wrote: »

amazed at some of the bile being spouted against this guy. How can anybody say "leave it to the police" when less than 3 months ago we heard how up to 1400 kids were abused in Rotherham and the police ignored them for years despite constant complaints.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29036742

hope all of the believers of law and order and "justice for Pedophile's" read this.

Once again the police have REPEATEDLY offered to work in tandem with this guy, which he keeps ignoring. He clearly could not care less about "justice" - all he is interested in is his bank balance and fame/profile.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

I agree that educating is the way forward, what I'm saying is that lazy parenting and a child's natural curiosity coupled with complacency can't account for every
Scenario, put that together with the perseverance of an abuser intent on molesting a child, education will only go so far, it's one way forward but not the perfect answer

Firstly, you're assuming that parents are too lazy to protect their kids. I'd argue the exact opposite - when it comes to protection parents are pretty much always diligent.

Secondly, you haven;t asnwered my question: if the parents ARE lazy, how does a vigilante narcissist going to help them ahead of education of parents?

You're suggesting, basically, that there is more knowledge to be found in a shock-value TV show focusing on a guy who pretends to care for kids when he only really gives a **** about his own street-cred, than in anythign constructive and educational.

end of the road

Big C wrote: »

amazed at some of the bile being spouted against this guy. How can anybody say "leave it to the police" when less than 3 months ago we heard how up to 1400 kids were abused in Rotherham and the police ignored them for years despite constant complaints.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-29036742

hope all of the believers of law and order and "justice for Pedophile's" read this.

its called corruption. the police are still the only legitimate force that are allowed to deal with criminals suspected or otherwise

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

They wouldn't even be up in court if it wasn't for the effort put in by these guys

bull****. if there was any suspicion of any wrong doing and the evidence to prosecute they would be before the courts without the egotistical fame/money/self gratification hungry riffraff.

whupdedo wrote: »

either way whatever happens, no children have been abused

at the cost of someone who may be an abuser being let go free due to him not being able to get a fair trial? great.

whupdedo wrote: »

the potential abusers identity is public knowledge

so the ferrel vermin wild animals can do as they wish costing the tax payer more money in the long run, even though the potential abuser may have no case to answer, or may not be a potential abuser at all.

whupdedo wrote: »

its a win win situation

no . its a win for the ferrel scum. a lose for the rest of us who will have to deal with the fallout

Gatling

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out out this vigilante has more than a passing interest in underage kids

whupdedo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Firstly, you're assuming that parents are too lazy to protect their kids. I'd argue the exact opposite - when it comes to protection parents are pretty much always diligent.

Secondly, you haven;t asnwered my question: if the parents ARE lazy, how does a vigilante narcissist going to help them ahead of education of parents?

You're suggesting, basically, that there is more knowledge to be found in a shock-value TV show focusing on a guy who pretends to care for kids when he only really gives a **** about his own street-cred, than in anythign constructive and educational.

Not all parents, dont invent arguments to back up your statements,

If these guys help convict potential abusers (which they have) i fail to see the problem

I'm not saying anything of the kind, but where the police fail, if someone else can expose these perverts, in whatever way they do it, publicly of privately, then that's alright with me

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

Not all parents, dont invent arguments to back up your statements,

YOu can;t expect to be able to lable parents as being lazy and not have it questioned.

If these guys help convict potential abusers (which they have) i fail to see the problem

How do they help...??

I'm not saying anything of the kind, but where the police fail, if someone else can expose these perverts, in whatever way they do it, publicly of privately, then that's alright with me

Em, yes you are - or we wouldn;t be having this conversation in the first place. You called it a "win win situation".

Big C

Gatling wrote: »

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out out this vigilante has more than a passing interest in underage kids[/

what a load of cra**, of course I forgot lets just shoot the messenger and then we won't have to worry about the real world

Billy86

To be fair, if child molesters murder all the children, whose school is he going to burn down?

I guess I can see where he is coming from after all.

whupdedo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

YOu can;t expect to be able to lable parents as being lazy and have it questioned.


How do they help...??



Em, yes you are - or we wouldn;t be having this conversation in the first place.

Are you saying every parent is perfect, which you kind of implying, if so, we would have no social problems (I'm mirroring your assumptions to my posts)

The men that have been convicted, set out on a course that would ultimately have led to them abusing a minor, they could have persisted in their course of action until they succeeded in this, but, because they were caught the chance of them abusing a child will hopefully be lessened

The win win situation I'm talking about is that these men can be convicted and publicly identified, without a child being abused, in many cases where child abuse takes place, the perpetrators identity is concealed because of the sensitivity of the case

kowloon

This has to be done...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU

Gatling

Big C wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it came out out this vigilante has more than a passing interest in underage kids[/

what a load of cra**, of course I forgot lets just shoot the messenger and then we won't have to worry about the real world

It wouldn't be the first time or the last time a so called legend has been shown to be sicko

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

Are you saying every parent is perfect, which you kind of implying, if so, we would have no social problems (I'm mirroring your assumptions to my posts)

The men that have been convicted, set out on a course that would ultimately have led to them abusing a minor, they could have persisted in their course of action until they succeeded in this, but, because they were caught the chance of them abusing a child will hopefully be lessened

The win win situation I'm talking about is that these men can be convicted and publicly identified, without a child being abused, in many cases where child abuse takes place, the perpetrators identity is concealed because of the sensitivity of the case

I'm questioning you're case that this guy is nessecary because parents are too lazy too look after their kids. This is a point you made but have no proven. I don;t have to prove the contrary.

Woah - who's been convicted? Name one case of a man who's been convicted as a restult of Hunter. They can't be convicted and have actually been ruled to have "no case to answer for". The police have contacted the guy, told him he's not helping, he persists. How does that even help a case make it to court in the first palce?

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

The win win situation I'm talking about is that these men can be convicted and publicly identified, without a child being abused

but most of these men our arsonist friend went after weren't convicted, because of him. publically identifying someone before conviction is a recipe for disaster and the likes of our arsonist friend are being irresponsible and we have to deal with the fallout along with it costing the tax payer more money in the long run because of his irresponsibility.

whupdedo wrote: »

the perpetrators identity is concealed because of the sensitivity of the case

rightly so. its done for a reason. because they may be innocent. the people do not have a right to know who someone is until convicted.

Pretzill

To answer the OP - I watched the C4 documentary at the start I thought it was all a bit seedy and uncomfortable - the techniques used seemed like entrapment, however, by the end I was asking why the police hadn't given this guy and his team an incident room and some resources to continue their good work!

What changed my mind? All of the men featured were predators and knew well what they were planning - the only one who got a full sentence - 3years I think - was so brazen and as someone else said here non plussed about the allegation.

Children are safer because of this hunter guy's methods however self serving some believe him to be. And I'm sure some peado fantasists have been turned off the reality of their perversions after watching - so this hunter guys techniques of naming and shaming as well as back up from the police serve to prevent as well as catch -

whupdedo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm questioning you're case that this guy is nessecary because parents are too lazy too look after their kids. This is a point you made but have no proven. I don;t have to prove the contrary.

Woah - who's been convicted? Name one case of a man who's been convicted as a restult of Hunter. They can't be convicted and have actually been ruled to have "no case to answer for". The police have contacted the guy, told him he's not helping, he persists. How does that even help a case make it to court in the first palce?

I never said all parents were lazy, your generalising my posts which you need to read again, but what 1 person might think to be good parenting, another thinks is lazy, some parents let the Internet keep their kids occupied without proper supervision

As for your second post, are you for real, he's actions have led to several convictions including a 3 year prison sentence, have you watched the documentary, or are you always this protective about convicted child groomers

whupdedo

end of the road wrote: »

rightly so. its done for a reason. because they may be innocent. the people do not have a right to know who someone is until convicted.

My point is that if they went on to abuse a child, their identity would be concealed if they were convicted in a court of law, because of the sensitivity of the case concerning the child.

Billy86

Pretzill wrote: »

To answer the OP - I watched the C4 documentary at the start I thought it was all a bit seedy and uncomfortable - the techniques used seemed like entrapment, however, by the end I was asking why the police hadn't given this guy and his team an incident room and some resources to continue their good work!

They have. Repeatedly.

He hasn't taken the offer up because he is not interested in actually bringing these people to justice and put away. He is interested in using them to boost his profile and bank balance.

Gatling

On a side note he's seeking crowd funding for new camera equipment and associated costs to take / expand his exploits country wide ,

end of the road

Pretzill wrote: »

To answer the OP - I watched the C4 documentary at the start I thought it was all a bit seedy and uncomfortable - the techniques used seemed like entrapment, however, by the end I was asking why the police hadn't given this guy and his team an incident room and some resources to continue their good work!

What changed my mind? All of the men featured were predators and knew well what they were planning - the only one who got a full sentence - 3years I think - was so brazen and as someone else said here non plussed about the allegation.

Children are safer because of this hunter guy's methods however self serving some believe him to be. And I'm sure some peado fantasists have been turned off the reality of their perversions after watching - so this hunter guys techniques of naming and shaming as well as back up from the police serve to prevent as well as catch -

he has no backup from the police. his naming and supposibly shaming (which nobody who is named is ever shamed) is just for publicity and to cause trouble. he is a form of terrorist. as in his tactics cause fear and panic within the gullible causing ferrel gangs and large amounts of tax payers money to be spent. the police have offered to work with him and he refused so they should give him nothing and should do what is necessary to stop him. his tactis cause more harm and more cases to colapse.

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

I never said all parents were lazy, your generalising my posts which you need to read again, but what 1 person might think to be good parenting, another thinks is lazy, some parents let the Internet keep their kids occupied without proper supervision

As for your second post, are you for real, he's actions have led to several convictions including a 3 year prison sentence, have you watched the documentary, or are you always this protective about convicted child groomers

5 to 10 is all. who were on the police radar anyway

end of the road

whupdedo wrote: »

My point is that if they went on to abuse a child, their identity would be concealed if they were convicted in a court of law, because of the sensitivity of the case concerning the child.

rightly so. thats how it has to be. it doubly protects the identity of the child. if they named the abuser the potential for the child to be identified is great potentially

BlaasForRafa

Gatling wrote: »

Big C wrote: »

It wouldn't be the first time or the last time a so called legend has been shown to be sicko

Now then now then hows about that then girls and boys!

Buona Fortuna

I just sat through most of the C4 Doc.

It strikes me that Stinson is a wannabe.
He's found his little niche, his usp.
He'll make a few bob by crowd funding, docu fees, Utube fees, public donations.
He'll pick off the low lying fruit of the pedo world
And in doing so he'll muddy the waters for a police prosecution
And make the rest of the pedos highly surveillance aware.

Great job:mad:

Paramite Pie

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Extremely dangerous fake vigilante behaviour; If it was about helping, he'd be working with the Police or at least providing them information quietly;

You obviously don't know what vigilante is, it's someone who takes the law into their own hands, judge, jury & punisher/executioner. This guy gathers evidence and gives it to the police, not circumventing the system at all.

Complaining about him getting media attention is no different than complaining about police only being in it for the money cos they get paid. Everybodies in it for something after all.:rolleyes:

Gatling wrote: »

There is a lot to be said about due process

Yeah, that it doesn't work.

The problem with the police is that they're a reactionary unit who can only respond after a crime is committed. Prevention is extremely difficult. But plotting murder or a heist is a convictable crime so why not planning some underage intercourse?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

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

Well even you disagree with this definition of mental illness so your question becomes redundant. A dead prospective pedophile is better than an offending pedophile.

Billy86

Paramite Pie wrote: »

This guy gathers evidence and gives it to the police, not circumventing the system at all.

No he doesn't. He airs it publicly to line his own pockets and build his own fame/profile. The police have asked him to do this on multiple occasions, and also to work with them, and he refuses to do so because it's not as lucrative to him as a high profile internet persona and Channel 4 programme.

Paramite Pie

Billy86 wrote: »

No he doesn't.

Yes he does.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/the-paedophile-hunter-twitter-reacts-to-vigilante-stinson-hunter-in-c4-documentary-30632023.html

First line in the article.:rolleyes:

Hunter and his associates 'Stubbs' and 'Grime' lure and trap sexual predators by posing as underage children online. Any evidence from initial introductions to final confrontations is filmed, passed on to the police and posted online.

Now find a link for your argument.:pac:

Billy86

Paramite Pie wrote: »

Yes he does.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-news/the-paedophile-hunter-twitter-reacts-to-vigilante-stinson-hunter-in-c4-documentary-30632023.html

First line in the article.:rolleyes:

You literally quoted the part about it being posted online. You do realise that this greatly diminishes what the authorities can do with this evidence, right?

But like I said, he doesn't give a sh*t.

Now find a link for your argument.:pac:

Um, ok... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/paedophile-hunter-justice-child-sexual-exploitation-stinson

Warwickshire police have met Hunter on a number of occasions and tried to find a way to work with him. If he was genuinely concerned about public good, he would hand over his evidence to the police, rather than exposing people online, so that officers with the right training can take it forward. By making their identities public he makes it difficult for the case to go to a fair trial, and so his work cannot always lead to a conviction.

end of the road

Billy86 wrote: »

You literally quoted the part about it being posted online. You do realise that this greatly diminishes what the authorities can do with this evidence, right?

But like I said, he doesn't give a sh*t.

Um, ok... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/paedophile-hunter-justice-child-sexual-exploitation-stinson

were wasting our time, the mentality is "as lng as he CTCHES da PDOS FCK da CSTS" translates as "as long as he catches the paedeophiles i couldn't care about the costs or fallout"

Billy86

end of the road wrote: »

were wasting our time, the mentality is "as lng as he CTCHES da PDOS FCK da CSTS" translates as "as long as he catches the paedeophiles i couldn't care about the costs or fallout or the acting paedophiles being put away. "

Just had one minor change to make there.

It's freaky just how accurate some of The Black Mirror episodes are if you watch them.

rosedream

Kidchameleon wrote: »

One question I have that I cant seem to find an answer for in the interweb, have the guys actually done anything wrong? I know it is illegal to engage in sexual conversation with someone underage, I know it is illegal to send naked pics of yourself to someone underage, but these guys haven't done that. They thought they were, but in reality they were talking to an adult journalist.
QUOTE]

They arranged to meet up for sex with the idea of knowing it was a child. Doesn't matter if it did end up being an adult journalist undercover, the fact that they were willing to do that with a kid is still so wrong.

Pity there's not more of these undercover stints going on, the more disgusting, pathetic cowards that could be caught before they hurt anyone, the better.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

whupdedo wrote: »

I never said all parents were lazy, your generalising my posts which you need to read again, but what 1 person might think to be good parenting, another thinks is lazy, some parents let the Internet keep their kids occupied without proper supervision

You did inply that they were and that this guy was the answer. My question is in what way is this guy the answer? In what way is he helping parents and not doign this for his own self-gratification?

As for your second post, are you for real, he's actions have led to several convictions including a 3 year prison sentence, have you watched the documentary, or are you always this protective about convicted child groomers

I'll need links to sepcific coutrt cases here: also, was the sentence a DIRECT result of his actions?

Buona Fortuna

rosedream wrote: »

Pity there's not more of these undercover stints going on, the more disgusting, pathetic cowards that could be caught before they hurt anyone, the better.

Stinson Hunter and his ilk taint any evidence they obtain.

They make it more difficult for the police to prosecute.

There must be several asian gangs grooming children in Stinson's neck of the woods. I wonder why he didn't go after them? The police don't seem overly interested.

ALiasEX

I wonder how many of his victims have been set up by someone else. e.g. a wife who is about to file a divorce.

Sunnyisland

ALiasEX wrote: »

I wonder how many of his victims have been set up by someone else. e.g. a wife who is about to file a divorce.

He poses as underage children in attracting peodophile on the internet, if a man or less likely a woman falls into the trap, **** them, they deserve what they get.

The police have not got enough resources to tackle this crime and if this mans actions in any way helps expose and stop them beasts, fair play to him.

whupdedo

ALiasEX wrote: »

I wonder how many of his victims have been set up by someone else. e.g. a wife who is about to file a divorce.

are you saying every man is a potential abuser, or that women are vindictive enough to set their husband up to make him look like a child molester, your post is beyond stupidity

He did a live video feed last night.

whupdedo

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You did inply that they were and that this guy was the answer. My question is in what way is this guy the answer? In what way is he helping parents and not doign this for his own self-gratification?




I'll need links to sepcific coutrt cases here: also, was the sentence a DIRECT result of his actions?

I never implied anything of the sort, how you perceive my posts is up to your own warped logic, i never said he was the complete answer, but an option in conjunction with education and stricter parenting of kids online

There's plenty evidence online and in the documentary, Google the relevant words and it comes up, I'm sure you can manage that ?

Big C

I repeat "1400 children abused in Rotheram"

Some people here seem to protest too much ??????????????????????????