Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors

[thebar]

Great too see, get these head cases locked up no need for these guys on the streets, they offer nothing to society.

[Milltown Row2]

THE one the other day we're the hunters caught a hunter! But sure they are doing a great job, I wonder did the police checks they do (cause they are so professional) root these perverts out of their own groups first?

[Asal Mor]

Arrests in 'paedophile hunter' probe - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43119276

Fantastic news. It's a start but these groups should be getting charged with common assault and disorderly behaviour after each of their stings from what I've seen. It's a credit to this board that pretty much everyone sees these groups for the attention seeking scum they are.

[Main Street]

The fact is the police have done feck all to intercept these pedophiles. The set-ups to trap the pedophiles don't appear to be that complicated. If those self-publicist morons can  trap a pedophile and come close to doing it to a legal compliant standard, then why can't the police? Let me guess, they have not the resources or the will?
The police have now finally examined 15 of the 115 cases dropped onto their desk and we are told the cases are not 100% perfect.Well, stop the lights.
Now, they blame the hunters for not being able to prosecute those fiends.
I suspect the police would go out of their way to find fault in those 15 cases before being embarrassed by a bunch of self-publicist nutcases doing the work they should be doing.
The focus should be put on the police  to get up of their backsides and do the hunting on behalf of the community and quit deflecting blame onto the vigilante hunters.

[Milltown Row2]

The police don't have the resources. Thats plain to see, they don't have the man power either otherwise they'd be on it

[Asal Mor]

The police might be chasing real paedophiles who are chasing real children, rather than going onto 18+ dating apps and luring men(yeah they should know better), who otherwise would probably have harmed no one, into ruining their lives. It's debatable as to who's grooming who in those stings.

[RedHand88]

The police might be chasing real paedophiles who are chasing real children, rather than going onto 18+ dating apps and luring men(yeah they should know better), who otherwise would probably have harmed no one, into ruining their lives. It's debatable as to who's grooming who in those stings.

Would love to see the chat logs for these "stings". What's the bets it's a "gotcha" method everytime? I doubt they use profile pictures of children, more likely pictures of over 18s.

[Franko]

Arrests in 'paedophile hunter' probe - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43119276

Excellent news.  The great majority of people will be pleased about this development.  There will be those who are unhappy with this move by the police but these will generally be confined to the lower level dregs and scummier elements of our society so not to worry.

[haranguerer]

The fact is the police have done feck all to intercept these pedophiles. The set-ups to trap the pedophiles don't appear to be that complicated. If those self-publicist morons can  trap a pedophile and come close to doing it to a legal compliant standard, then why can't the police? Let me guess, they have not the resources or the will?

How do you know they're not? Do you actually want a fb live video as proof?

[Snapchap]

Why did a BBC reporter turn up uninvited and unannounced at a private law abiding citizen's home? No wonder the guy was upset and lost it

The BBC reporter may have tirned up uninvited amd unannounced but that is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. Nor was is against journalistic regulations. So given that he broke no rules or laws, then the abusive reaction by the group was utterly over the top and by and rational standards, broke several laws. Now given those facts, is it fair to assume you no longer support that particular group since you stated yourself that you would only support them 'so long as they acted within the law'?

In your own time there, Tony.

If a BBC reporter and camera crew turned up at your house out of the blue would you be happy,unless it's a stunt on Michael Mc Intyre's show

1. If a BBC reporter and camera crew turned up at your house out of the blue and acted entirely lawfully, would you feel you have the right to break the law in response?
2. You clearly stated that you supported these groups "so long as they act within the law". Given that this group quite clearly broke several laws in response to them being 'unhappy' at something, is it not fair to assume that either you no longer support the group in question or else you were lying in saying your support was conditional on their law abiding behaviour?

Once again... in your own time, Tony.

I know I said 'in your own time' but let's not take the mickey here. Any chance of an answer or two?

[T Fearon]

Free the Three.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Free the Three.

[Aaron Boone]

False imprisonment is a big charge if that one sticks.

[Milltown Row2]

Free the Three.

Is that the three from the 115 that are up for consideration Tony?

[clarshack]

False imprisonment is a big charge if that one sticks.

What kind of sentence could one expect for that?