Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
JUSTICE MINISTER Frances Fitzgerald has faced calls for new legislation against online child grooming to ban vigilante groups from engaging in “sting” operations against paedophiles.
The heads of the Sexual Offences Bill, published last month, would make it an offence to travel to a place with the intention of meeting a child and sexually abusing them, after contacting them online or by phone.
While noting that the bill hadn’t yet been finalised, a Department of Justice spokesperson told TheJournal.ie that:
It is enough that a person intended to meet a child for the purposes of sexual exploitation, regardless of whether they actually meet a child or otherwise.
Although this detail may end up being interpreted by the courts, it would appear to allow for An Garda Síochána and international law enforcement agencies to engage in sting operations – posing as children in order to clamp down on paedophiles.
However, it also seems to open the door for ‘paedophile hunting’ vigilante groups, such as those which have emerged in the UK in recent years.
Groups and individuals such as Letzgo Hunting, Daemon Hunter, and Stinson Hunter pose as children – normally girls under the age of 15 – on chat sites, social media and instant messaging apps such as WhatsApp.
Jim Gamble, a renowned child protection expert, and former chief executive of the UK’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), told TheJournal.ie how the vigilante groups usually operate.
They don’t even have to pose as a child who is “looking for sex.”
It can start, for example, with a post on a modelling website, where someone appearing to be a young girl says “I’m 12 years old, and I’d like to get involved in modelling.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in the UK, however, has pleaded with vigilante groups to leave child protection to trained law enforcement.
“While these groups may often operate with the best of intentions, we do not encourage action of this kind, which can compromise ongoing investigations into paedophile networks, and could spark an abuser to further harm a child if they feel threatened,” Channel 4 News quotes an ACPO spokesperson as saying.
Police in the UK have also expressed a fear that vigilante groups could actually be infiltrated by by would-be child abusers.
For Jim Gamble, one major difficulty with vigilantism is the lack of “a suicide strategy.”
At least two men have taken their own lives after being exposed by a group calling itself Letzgo Hunting and Stinson Hunter – an English vigilante who leads an operation which was the subject of a controversial Channel 4 documentary in October.
People may say, ‘Who cares if they kill themselves?’ Well, their families care, and they haven’t done anything wrong.
Gamble also points out that the consequences of a vigilante sting operation which goes awry can be disastrous.
These groups don’t have the ability to track the offender’s movements, they don’t always know where he lives, or if he works in a place where he has access to children.
So if a motivated paedophile travels to a public park, let’s say, to meet a child, they may see a young girl sitting on a swing, and assume that it’s the girl they’ve arranged to meet.
He could then grab that child, and you, as the vigilante, have lured him there in the first place.
Gamble says he sympathises with the frustration that gives rise to vigilante groups, but that it is “fundamentally wrong.”
I understand why some people become involved in vigilante behaviour when it comes to protecting children.
Every day they read headlines about predators targeting and engaging with children, and it can be very frustrating.
Actors such as Stinson Hunter have enormous popular support in the UK, and while police have criticised their operations, some have also used the videos and chat logs they gather as evidence leading to successful convictions.
For his part, Gamble proposes the formation of a “Citizens’ Army” of volunteers, recruited, vetted, trained and supported by An Garda Síochána to help them tackle child grooming and abuse.
He says Minister Fitzgerald’s legislation “contains a lot of positives”, and should be widely welcomed.
However, he told TheJournal.ie the bill should include two offences which would “turn the tables on predators and create a real, active deterrent.”
First, it should be an offence for anyone aged over 18 to masquerade as a child online in order to talk to or meet children, even if there is no explicit language or imagery involved.
Unless – they can prove a lawful purpose, for example an academic study or a piece of journalism.
This shifts the burden of proof on to offenders, because proving sexual intent is often extremely difficult for law enforcement.
Second, it should be an offence for anyone aged over 18 to masquerade as a child online, even if their purpose is to catch adult predators.
This would ensure that only An Garda Síochána, agents of relevant state agencies, international law enforcement, or “duly authorised volunteers” would be able to engage in “sting” operations.
Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Sinn Féin spokesperson on justice, is calling for the new legislation to explicitly state that only An Garda Síochána can take part in sting operations against paedophiles.
I’m very concerned that this would be done by people not trained, or delegated by society, to do it.
The focus for the Minister, though, must be to give An Garda Síochána the IT equipment, and human resources that they need.
We have to give the Gardaí every angle they need, and I hope we’ll be teasing through all this in the Justice Committee.
Scroll down to read the General Scheme of the 2014 Sexual Offences Bill or, if you’re viewing this on a mobile device, click here.
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2014/12/general-scheme-of-the-criminal-law-sexual-offences-bill-2014.pdf
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’ve kids that age, I would welcome and happily support any vigilantism that’s focused on those paedo sick f*ckers.
Amen
Stinson Hunter gets a lot of abuse for what he does based on having a criminal record himself(arson)
I think what he does is right though. A lot of the men he contacts have met girls before and are likely to keep doing it. He doesn’t get violent he just questions them on camera and gives the information to the police.
Vigilantism is dangerous, but you are right, he is never violent (despite looking from pictures that he might be) and gives them an opportunity to defend themselves. It’s hard not to like him just a little bit.
Horrific revelations on British news this morning, regarding the ongoing Westminster paedophile scandal.
Some police officers were working on cases, where very powerful politicians were implicated – and ordered to cease their inquiries. In many cases the police were actually left powerless when dealing with these crimes. As usual, no mention of this major story in any Irish media.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex-detectives-who-claimed-vip-paedophiles-4847176
So a few paedos topped themselves after being outed, my heart bleeds.
And their victims saved from being abused by their greazy filthy heinous hands.
That is truly a great thing.
I’d be very surprised if the gardai have any on going stings. So this is one situation where I say let the vigilantes at it.
What would they know about child protection, they allowed 1500 girls be raped in Rotherhak because they didnt want to appear racist
Allowing for people to pretend that they are children on-line only allows for offenders to use the defence that they were only doing it to catch paedophiles. They arrive at a meet only to find a vigilante group and just tell them that they were doing exactly what the vigilante group were doing.
Vigilantes may have good intentions but it is the job of police to uphold the law. There is a well known case in the UK http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html where a mob attacked a doctor because the were clueless as to what a paediatrician does.
If people have evidence of grooming of a child they should present the evidence to the police and let them carry out a proper investigation and arrest the suspects in a legal manner. Posting videos on the internet without any investigation by the police could in fact prejudice any legal trial that might take place. Everybody wants to protect children however this is not the way to go about it. Better education of how children should use the internet and protect themselves on-line would be a far better way of doing things.
All very well and good but it seems some places really actually vigilantes. The UK being a case in point. They didn’t get the job done in Rotheram now did they? They let down children for many years. Vigilantes usually only grow out of frustration cause by inaction or ineffectual policing. Corruption is rife in many places and Institutions like the BBC and the Catholic Church. Offenders got off because of who they were or because they were protected. Vigilantes only protect the children . I don’t believe online vigilantes should be banned. We have no proof at all here that they don’t work or interfere with policing. If after time it is proven they do seriously damage investigations then ban them but now.
Rotharham was down to the fact that the offenders were Asian and the authorities didn’t want to appear racist which is another problem. If I feel that my local cop isn’t doing a good job should I be allowed to take the law into my own hands? If as you say ” after time it is proven they do seriously damage investigations ” then where so we draw that line? Do we wait for an innocent person to kill themselves or wait for a known sex offender to get off on a technicality because of a vigilante groups actions? Why are we even using police at all when we could all be out playing amateur detective?
The police who do this are well trained and have much better resources than amateurs. A vigilante group might allegedly catch one offender but if they had forwarded on the information to police then a whole network could be caught. If these vigilantes are genuinely interested in the welfare of children the why don’t they get educated an join the police, social services or other legitimate groups that work within the law as opposed to outside it?
These vigilantes did keep paedo’s dirty hands away from some children.
And that could not be a bad thing.
It must be hard for them to restrain themselves from kicking the crap out of these stinking deviants.
The law’s far too little, far too late attitude to pedophilia is apparent in the huge numbers of offenders that roam the planet and the internet.
These are predators pure and simple unless they volunteer for chemical castration remove them from the planet anyone who gets off by exterminating innocence should themselves be exterminated
This is why we need to think carefully before legalising gay marriage. Paedophiles may use this as a way to adopt and abuse children.
There are actually no words for your level of stupidity/ignorance…
I take it you don’t believe this could happen then ? Very naive.
Tony I don’t suppose that you have any peer reviewed research to prove your point?
Because children raised by heterosexual couples are never abused? This has got nothing to do with gay marriage. A single man of any sexual orientation could adopt a child as the law currently stands. Bigot.
There is no arguing that, the natural way for a child to be brought up is by it’s (one male and one female) birth parents.
A child spends 9 months bonding with its natural mother inside it’s natural mother’s womb, listening to each others heart beat.
A child has it’s birth parents DNA running through its veins.
It has it’s birth parents facial features.
God only knows the long term consequences of buying/stealing a child away from it’s birth parents and banning a child from meeting it’s birth parents.
Bought surrogacy and adoption is not natural.
Same sex parenthood may be jovially buttered up by the media and celebrity gay couples.
However let us not forget that in a lot of cases where a same sex couple have kids, a child was bought/stolen away from it’s birth mother/father forever.
In a world where the Internet is supposed to bring a new Age of Enlightenment the plain stupid and ignorant still manage to get a foot in.
Brian you can throw insults around all you want. To deny what I said in my first comment is stupidity and God help any child that suffers because of it.
Tony you still haven’t backed up your statement with any evidence of any sort. You clearly havent a clue about peadophillia and obviously have a severe dose of homophobia. If I called an intelligent comment stupid it would indeed be an insult however in this case it is just a statement of fact.
No Brian. It’s only your opinion, NOT fact. I suggest it is you that knows nothing about paedophilia. We’re done here, it was only a matter of time before the homophobia card was played.
Tony I have an honours diploma in criminal psychology and have studied the area extensively so I am basing my opinions on published studies and facts. Again, where is your evidence to back up your statement? If we are done here it is because you can’t back up your absurd statements. Run away if thats how you feel.
Brian,
I’d be surprised if you have a leaving cert never mind an honours diploma. I don’t need to prove anything to you, especially anything the dogs on the street know about. Far from running away I’m not going to waste any time with anyone that resorts to petty insults and the worn out homophobia card.
Tony unlike you I dont rely on the dogs on the street for my research I prefer university professors to educate me. If you can’t back up your statements then it is a reflection on your education in this matter. Try the psychology of criminal behaviour course in UCC sometime, they could do with someone like you in the class to give them a laugh.
Moronic comment Tony! How many kids abused in heterosexual marriages? Plenty. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Unfortunately, these predatory kinds of people have no tell tale signs and are usually very good at hiding what they do. Your ignorance truly is astounding.
Reading through the comments, I can understand why your trying to make a fuss about his comment and homosexual marriage but he never says it is a fact, his wrote in simple English may be used as a way for paedophiles to get to children. Which really does not need any evidence, common sense tells you that method could be used. As could marrying a women and adopting a child be used.
Fcuking gobsh!tes let them do it it actually works and the govt don’t do enough name and shame the paedos!
Am I the only one who finds Sinn Féin’s uncharacteristically hardline pro-Garda/anti-vigilante position a little weird? Especially in view of their recently-ventilated form in this arena?
This headline totally distracts the reader from the positive move to criminalise the intent of arranging to meet a child for the purpose of exploiting them. I hope paedophiles read this article, and subsequent changes to the law detailed above, and those on the verge of crossing that line are deterred from doing so. Problem with the Irish psyche is that we are afraid to introduce laws that are perceived to restrict us. Online activity needs rules whether it be restrictions on porn or on what people do or say some people just can’t distinguish between right and wrong by themselves because they justify it with internal dialogue such as it wouldn’t be accessible so easily if it was wrong. I for one am glad to see this and would welcome an extension of better laws into all online activity.
UK NCA have already stated they don’t have the funds etc to prosecute or deal with on line pedophile activity…..now this….all at the time top politicians, law enforcement and entertainment personalities are being heavily impllicated round up and finally exposed….
These laws are timed suspicious as hell and only to protect the guilty in power.
Note how Jim Gamble is putting on a distance between himself and what happened to Brenda Leyland, by alerting that one dangers of vigilantism is to cause suicide.
“For Jim Gamble, one major difficulty with vigilantism is the lack of “a suicide strategy.”
At least two men have taken their own lives after being exposed…”
“Gamble also points out that the consequences of a vigilante sting operation which goes awry can be disastrous.”
“Gamble says he sympathises with the frustration that gives rise to vigilante groups, but that it is “fundamentally wrong.””
Here I have to remind Mr Gamble that he should have had this wisdom when he “endorsed”, as was seen in the 02OCT14 Sky News Report, the vigilante group that collated the so-called “Troll Dossier” which precipitated Brenda Leyland’s death. Jim encouraged trolls to attack Brenda online, even goading her himself, and has no business lecturing others when he has yet to apologise to Brenda’s family for his part in her death.
have your say