And if you are very wealthy you get back door deals with the Chancellor!!! 

I don't doubt that a decision-maker somewhere would decide it's not in the public interest, although HMRC are interested in collecting every penny due from anyone who isn't wealthy enough to afford an accountant.

Im very suspicious and if I am honest, the likelihood would be they "turn a blind eye" 

Well, if they are suspected of not being decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, if the authorities were to find out by some means....

I wouldn't expect so if I am honest. 

I trust they'll be declaring that income to HMRC, DWP, or some other relevant authority to them...

well now one of these groups, one of the most famous ones, are now asking for "donations" from their followers on their facebook page....
What a surprise...

well now one of these groups, one of the most famous ones, are now asking for "donations" from their followers on their facebook page....
What a surprise...

Tougher sentences for stings
This seemed to fly under the radar. From June judges can "impose sentences that reflect the intended harm" during conversations with vigilantes.
To me this seems to empower vigilantes because they can lead their fake conversation to a level that they may not have before this change. Then those falling for it could, thanks to these changes, face a life sentence!
Of course, it could be argued this sends a strong message to potential offenders but more power given to questionable groups feels like the wrong way to go.

Hello,
By accident I have stumbled across the videos of a particular 'predator' hunter group based in Leeds. The leader is certainly a 'colorful' character.....

What is the view on here regarding these groups? do they serve a purpose or are they glorified vigilantes who actually hinder police operations?
I am in two minds about this, on the one hand I don't agree with how they humiliate their suspects however on the other hand they have helped uncover nasty cases of child abuse, for example that of an Irish TV producer who was then found to have abused several children in the Far East.
I know this topic may be a little sensitive for some forum members but I just wanted to see what people thought about these groups. 

Regards,

Personally I don't condone any of this behaviour but feel that there needs to be a line drawn between someone who has physically assaulted a child and someone who has allegedly communicated with a decoy on a dating app. The latter is suitable for early intervention with a vulnerable perpetrator whilst the physical act is in almost all cases indefensible.

I listened to an interview with one of the groups on LBC a while ago and while I understand the “vigilante message” and their incredibly emotive rhetoric that some buy in to… the fact of the matter is the end product is, more often than not, a horrific mess. I'll scrawl a few thoughts down for discussion because I think it's an interesting hot topic...

1 Why does the public have so much trust in these vigilantes who are strangers? No background checks. No accountability. No clear reasoning of their strong “need” to be involved. I saw one woman say recently she was abused as a child, so that’s why she does it - why is that “justification” never questioned? Whose responsibility is it to question it? (And if you’re reading this thinking the same thing, seek help for yourself) Again, no accountability, there’s no ‘standards authority’, what is the overarching goal? Other “vigilantes” have also turned out to be offenders, but quick, look the other way because white hot anger overrules all.

2 I don’t know the exact figure, but in terms of suicides spurred on by these situations… the number is not zero, so that’s unacceptable. I’d like to know why manslaughter never seems to come up in those cases? 

3 There have been cases where the accused has learning difficulties, autism or other diagnosis where surely criminal prosecution could be completely unnecessary. The upset and difficulty this causes to their families is horrific.

4 Would they still take part if they didn’t get their little plaudits on their social media mob pages, or if they had to be silent about what they did? Because the outcome would be the same either way, right? Or, if instead of reporting people to police, they gave help and advice to help the accused change their ways and not make another bad choice in the future? My guess would be mostly no.

5 What happens afterwards? Nobody wants to ask that question and, certainly, vigilantes don’t care. I met a man who was prosecuted via this method. It destroyed his life. He was video’d, it was put online, the newspaper used pictures. It was his first offence and, let me remind you (and I’m choosing my words carefully here), there was no complainant. As he was older but not retired, how is he going to find work again? (Especially when we all know work is one of the biggest positive factors in not reoffending) How does he tackle whatever problems he was having so that he ended up chatting to a decoy? Who can he talk openly to about this crazy world he’s found himself in. Sometimes all people need is an opportunity to discuss what they’re doing and a simple: “C’mon mate, you know that’s not right, let’s get you doing something positive…” could really deter all sorts of problems.

Removing emotion and looking at it in black and white for a second, what actually happened, it was on a screen, nobody was touched, these fake conversations are provocatively structured (important for the manslaughter argument imo) and it was essentially a “thought crime” and that is why the “throw away the key” sentence never happens and they're often suspended. So really ask... what was the point?
“Yes, but what if he…” The vigilantes cry. Well how about this - When one starts ‘what if’ing, you must also then ask, what else might a mob decide we should not be allowed to think, especially if they're casting a fishing rod?

So what can be done to protect young people? 1) Even when I was younger I was always told to not talk to strangers online. I’d imagine that message is more powerful than ever these days and that message should continue to be strong, plus, don’t underestimate how smart kids with tech are too. And/or 2) Simply get young people off the internet as much as possible. Developing minds cannot learn so much responsibility so young, it takes, time, effort and human contact. I even see early cause to ban under 18s completely from, not technology, but the internet, but I’ve rambled enough.

I too have made attempts to post my response on this subject and I honestly do not have the words to express how this makes me feel.

What I will say though is, I do not think these groups including the police, should be "hunting" for anyone using these various apps or websites where people communicate. For the purpose being that no actual crime has been committed when someone talks to a decoy. And, more importantly, it should be the responsibility of the parent keeping their child safe online, not the police. Yet many judges are now giving people 10 years on SOR and even a SHPO for basically "what if". Unless there is an actual victim involved then it should be reported on via what ever app or website for the police to then pursue and investigate, not splashed around social media for likes making the claim "this is for your safety and ours" and dealt with by the police. By posting these encounters online, it is destroying peoples lives which many do not seem to care about, ends careers which then prevents people from finding more work meaning they will claim benefits and no longer be able to contribute to society, prevents them from getting any actual help because all people seem to care about is punishment over rehabilitation and, prevents getting actual legal advice. Because if you have no job or money then you simply can not afford legal defense.

The justice system is a mess and its only purpose is to punish, there needs to be a new system in place where people are actually given the chance to change their lives around BEFORE being made subject to public scrutiny. there is more I would like to say but I will leave it here for now.