To catch a predator

[Pocomoke blue]

Pokomoke, you're really missed the point here. No-one is justifying paedophilia, it's an accepted fact that it's abhorent, what people are saying is that the show 'To Catch a Predator' is wrong, on may levels. It's devisive, the shows makers aren't interested in justice, they're interested in ratings and money. The police have training in how to catch criminals, whatever their crime, TV show presenters, editors and producers do not. The policing of the population should be left up to those entrusted with the job, this show is one step away from vigilanteism.

As for Knight1979's evidence, surely how long ago it was, or where it originated is entirely irrelevant? So what if the information is from 12 months ago, and is British in origin, does that mean it's entirely inacurate based solely on time and nationality? You claim he trawls the internet for information and provides nothing new himself, how exactly is anyone supposed to provide new information on paedophilia? Unless you're involved in it, from either a perpetrator or detective standpoint, how do you come up with anything new? You've also accused him of lying about someone offing themselves 'in front of the camera', that's not exactly what he said now is it? That's how you've interpreted what he said, because that way you can rant at him and try and make him seem insincere. What he said was he'd offed himself 'whilst the cameras were rolling', this doesn't mean they were aimed at him at the time. It's entirely possible the cameras were outside the house, with the police and the film crew, when he shot himself inside the house is it not?

As for using the youtube clips as evidence, one way or the other, it's a flawed process. It doesn't prove, or disprove, anything. The police may want to be on TV, to make themselves and their profession look good, one youtube clip can't say either way for certain. Also, just because the clips don't mention any out of court settlement, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it isn't mentioned on the clips so accusations of lying are a little eronious wouldn't you say?

Potentially the policedid have probable cause to turn up at this man's house, but there's a huge difference between that and conclusive evidence. And your assertion that he shot himself 'because he was guilty' is a huge assumption. Maybe he was guilty. Maybe he was so traumatised by the thought that the old adage 'mud sticks' being true that he couldn't live the rest of his life being know as a paedophile when he wasn't, I mean you've already judged him based on pretty much no evidence whatsoever haven't you?

I wouldn't say Knight1979 was an insult to anyone, let alone victims of paedophilia or 'decent folk'. I'd class myself as 'decent' and his posts haven't offended or insulted me, but maybe that's because I've actually read them and understood the point he was trying to make, rather than reacting in a very knee-jerk way and missing the point entirely.

'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
W.S.Churchill

 

[AntonDonJuan]

What actually happens when they jump out Jeremy Beadle style and present them with the evidence?

I have seen the odd advert for it on FX but don't really get the idea behind the show. Do they just track paedo's and then send a kid to go and meet them?

 

[Matty]

Pokomoke, you're really missed the point here. No-one is justifying paedophilia, it's an accepted fact that it's abhorent, what people are saying is that the show 'To Catch a Predator' is wrong, on may levels. It's devisive, the shows makers aren't interested in justice, they're interested in ratings and money. The police have training in how to catch criminals, whatever their crime, TV show presenters, editors and producers do not. The policing of the population should be left up to those entrusted with the job, this show is one step away from vigilanteism.

As for Knight1979's evidence, surely how long ago it was, or where it originated is entirely irrelevant? So what if the information is from 12 months ago, and is British in origin, does that mean it's entirely inacurate based solely on time and nationality? You claim he trawls the internet for information and provides nothing new himself, how exactly is anyone supposed to provide new information on paedophilia? Unless you're involved in it, from either a perpetrator or detective standpoint, how do you come up with anything new? You've also accused him of lying about someone offing themselves 'in front of the camera', that's not exactly what he said now is it? That's how you've interpreted what he said, because that way you can rant at him and try and make him seem insincere. What he said was he'd offed himself 'whilst the cameras were rolling', this doesn't mean they were aimed at him at the time. It's entirely possible the cameras were outside the house, with the police and the film crew, when he shot himself inside the house is it not?

As for using the youtube clips as evidence, one way or the other, it's a flawed process. It doesn't prove, or disprove, anything. The police may want to be on TV, to make themselves and their profession look good, one youtube clip can't say either way for certain. Also, just because the clips don't mention any out of court settlement, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it isn't mentioned on the clips so accusations of lying are a little eronious wouldn't you say?

Potentially the policedid have probable cause to turn up at this man's house, but there's a huge difference between that and conclusive evidence. And your assertion that he shot himself 'because he was guilty' is a huge assumption. Maybe he was guilty. Maybe he was so traumatised by the thought that the old adage 'mud sticks' being true that he couldn't live the rest of his life being know as a paedophile when he wasn't, I mean you've already judged him based on pretty much no evidence whatsoever haven't you?

I wouldn't say Knight1979 was an insult to anyone, let alone victims of paedophilia or 'decent folk'. I'd class myself as 'decent' and his posts haven't offended or insulted me, but maybe that's because I've actually read them and understood the point he was trying to make, rather than reacting in a very knee-jerk way and missing the point entirely.

'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
W.S.Churchill

Did you trawl the internet for that quote? Hardly new is it?

I'll take your rather glib, and particularly inaccurate, response as confirmation that you've got no real answer to anything I've said. In fact, having read through this entire thread, I can't actually see anything constructive you've had to say on the matter. Oh yes, you've attacked Knight1979 for something you've mistakenly assumed he's trying to say, but you've not actually brought anything constructive to the discussion. One could be forgiven for thinking that was becasue you've not actually got anything constructive to say.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his(or her) mind and won't change the subject."
W.S.Churchill

See, anyone can do that.

 

[Matty]

What actually happens when they jump out Jeremy Beadle style and present them with the evidence?

I have seen the odd advert for it on FX but don't really get the idea behind the show. Do they just track paedo's and then send a kid to go and meet them?

They send a young woman who is actually 18 or so but looks like they could well be much younger. They then film the encounter, confront the paedophile and then he is arrested by awaiting police. It's all done in the best possible taste obviously, and not in the least bit exploitative and sensationalised to appease the idiotic viewers who think it's exceptional TV.

 

[Pocomoke blue]

What actually happens when they jump out Jeremy Beadle style and present them with the evidence?

I have seen the odd advert for it on FX but don't really get the idea behind the show. Do they just track paedo's and then send a kid to go and meet them?

no, they don't send anyone! they track the paedo for a while then arrest him when he turns up wanting sex! and there are some sick people out there! To me, it's a good thing these creeps are put in jail! only appeasers of paedophilia have a problem with the show!

 

[AntonDonJuan]

My old PE teacher and football coach at school got done for being a paedo.

Can't remember how long he got, caleld Malcolm Abbott. There is a group on facebook called "I went to West Hill school and Mr. Abbott cupped me" haha

He used to get in the shower with everyone after training, i used to leg it before he made you get a shower (I'm lying i used to scrub his back and let him wash my coin purse =0)

 

[Pocomoke blue]

Pokomoke, you're really missed the point here. No-one is justifying paedophilia, it's an accepted fact that it's abhorent, what people are saying is that the show 'To Catch a Predator' is wrong, on may levels. It's devisive, the shows makers aren't interested in justice, they're interested in ratings and money. The police have training in how to catch criminals, whatever their crime, TV show presenters, editors and producers do not. The policing of the population should be left up to those entrusted with the job, this show is one step away from vigilanteism.

As for Knight1979's evidence, surely how long ago it was, or where it originated is entirely irrelevant? So what if the information is from 12 months ago, and is British in origin, does that mean it's entirely inacurate based solely on time and nationality? You claim he trawls the internet for information and provides nothing new himself, how exactly is anyone supposed to provide new information on paedophilia? Unless you're involved in it, from either a perpetrator or detective standpoint, how do you come up with anything new? You've also accused him of lying about someone offing themselves 'in front of the camera', that's not exactly what he said now is it? That's how you've interpreted what he said, because that way you can rant at him and try and make him seem insincere. What he said was he'd offed himself 'whilst the cameras were rolling', this doesn't mean they were aimed at him at the time. It's entirely possible the cameras were outside the house, with the police and the film crew, when he shot himself inside the house is it not?

As for using the youtube clips as evidence, one way or the other, it's a flawed process. It doesn't prove, or disprove, anything. The police may want to be on TV, to make themselves and their profession look good, one youtube clip can't say either way for certain. Also, just because the clips don't mention any out of court settlement, doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means it isn't mentioned on the clips so accusations of lying are a little eronious wouldn't you say?

Potentially the policedid have probable cause to turn up at this man's house, but there's a huge difference between that and conclusive evidence. And your assertion that he shot himself 'because he was guilty' is a huge assumption. Maybe he was guilty. Maybe he was so traumatised by the thought that the old adage 'mud sticks' being true that he couldn't live the rest of his life being know as a paedophile when he wasn't, I mean you've already judged him based on pretty much no evidence whatsoever haven't you?

I wouldn't say Knight1979 was an insult to anyone, let alone victims of paedophilia or 'decent folk'. I'd class myself as 'decent' and his posts haven't offended or insulted me, but maybe that's because I've actually read them and understood the point he was trying to make, rather than reacting in a very knee-jerk way and missing the point entirely.

'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.'
W.S.Churchill

Did you trawl the internet for that quote? Hardly new is it?

I'll take your rather glib, and particularly inaccurate, response as confirmation that you've got no real answer to anything I've said. In fact, having read through this entire thread, I can't actually see anything constructive you've had to say on the matter. Oh yes, you've attacked Knight1979 for something you've mistakenly assumed he's trying to say, but you've not actually brought anything constructive to the discussion. One could be forgiven for thinking that was becasue you've not actually got anything constructive to say.

"A fanatic is one who can't change his(or her) mind and won't change the subject."
W.S.Churchill

See, anyone can do that.

No I did not trawl the internet for that quote! I'm reading a book on Churchill!
So my opinion is different so it becomes not contstructive!? i really don't care!

 

[mat]

Chris Morris was right:
Paedogeddon!

 

[AntonDonJuan]

Oh how i miss my Malky =(

 

[The Pink Panther]

My old PE teacher and football coach at school got done for being a paedo.

Can't remember how long he got, caleld Malcolm Abbott. There is a group on facebook called "I went to West Hill school and Mr. Abbott cupped me" haha

He used to get in the shower with everyone after training, i used to leg it before he made you get a shower (I'm lying i used to scrub his back and let him wash my coin purse =0)

My Mrs and brother attended the same primary school and one of the teachers got caught and convicted of paedophilia whilst they were there. He picked his targets (the quietest girls) and molested them.
Not very funny at all