Forum menu
Police should make it clear that they wouldn’t accept information at that point, and are only interested in intelligence.
They would 100% sure lose interest if that was the case. They are in it for the confrontation.
@nealglover. Having had the misfortune to speak to a couple of them thats very much my assessment as well.
Re comments about investigating the police I bow to your greater knowledge @TheGreatApe
It’s not that great gordi, just picked up the odd thing here and there over the years 😀
The vigilantes screwed up; badly. I hope they get prosecuted and sued. It's not the sort of thing you can get wrong.
It’s not the sort of thing you can get wrong.
Exactly, nobodys perfect, but I'd rather have the Rozzers than these nobheads.
I appreciate where you’re coming from, but that’s just not possible. It’s a child protection issue and the police can’t just turn round and say we’re not investigating it.
There are no children. I know that’s flippant and the point is the suspected offender apparently thinks there are children but the immediate risk is very low; afterall barring some incredible evidence or admission they are going to be released on bail in 24hrs whilst computer records are examined etc.
There are (a) any other children he may have been contacting other than the pretend one, and (b) any children he may have access to - his own, relatives, girlfriends kids etc.
The police have acted correctly here from what I can see -
They had a suspicion someone had committed a crime. Given the nature of the crime it is important to seize any electronic devices for examination, the powers of which require arrest. No arrest could lead to the destruction / disposal of crucial evidence. They will also have needed to consider the safety of the two falsely accused men - leaving them with a baying mob is not the most sensible of actions...
The fault here lies with the Paedophile hunters. They have jumped too early in search of Internet hits, and unfairly and wrongly broadcast two innocent people being accused of one of the most abhorrent crimes with no consideration/proof. The law allows a citizens arrest only when that citizen KNOWS that person has committed a crime, whilst police only need to suspect. The paedophile hunters clearly didn't know those people had committed a crime as they were the wrong people - it couldn't have been them. In my opinion action needs to be considered against them as such misidentifications can have serious ramifications.
Also, have you considered the outcry of the police weren't arresting suspected paedophiles?
What if that same paedophile went on to harm a child, rather than be subject to bail conditions, etc?
I'm not advocating locking everyone up. I am suggesting that both sides need to be considered, and the health and welfare of vulnerable people (such as kids) should always be at the forefront of any decision making, as per the comments of TheGreatApe...
We only know about this because it was quickly obvious that they were innocent, I understand this was because the real target continued to communicate with the vigilantes after the arrest. Imagine for a sec that the real target saw the arrest (they were supposed to be there) and stopped messaging. In that scenario, the couple could still be under investigation now.
That's what really scares me about this incident, any of us could be in this situation and it could change your life even if you aren't ultimately charged because there's no evidence.