Paper on vigilantes
Notifications OFF
A member reached out and asked to read a paper I have written on vigilantes so thought I would share with everyone. Of course it is put together without my personal views or opinions because it's academic and I have to be neutral. Sources are not included but if anyone has time to read it and wants any further information please let me know. I also will, at some point, put together some key information relating to PACE as there are many rules that police should adhere to in regards to offering legal representation which I've seen on here haven't been followed. I would also like to point out how I struggled to find any academic pieces which were in favour of the actions of vigilantes Xx
Online sexual communication with children: Members of the public take the law into their own hands
DO VIGILANTES HAVE PROTECTING CHILDREN AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR ACTIONS OR IS IT SELF-INTEREST AND HOW DOES THE LAW ENABLE THEIR MISSION?
1. The rise of online offences against children
1.1 Online grooming offences are growing year on year, there has been an 80% increase over the last four years and in 2021/2022 there were 6156 offences under Sexual Communication with a Child. This is alarming and surely should require investigation into why it is increasing so that steps can be made to help remedy and prevent these offences from increasing, or more importantly, happening in the first place. Many police forces deploy decoys on chat rooms and social media platforms to detect offenders and do so within the requirements of the law. Over the last few years members of the public have begunto replicate police action in their own ways and it has been revealed that a fifth of prosecutions relating to meeting a child after grooming are due to the operations of vigilante groups, there are more than 75 of these types of groups within the UK.
1.2 Online offences against children mainly include Sexual Communication with a Child, section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which specifies a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment but doesn’t list any exceptions in the legislation,whereas Section 46 in relation to indecent images of children includes prevention of crime as being an exception for criminal proceedings. Vigilante groups operate in the majority by exercising Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when they arrive at the potential offender’s residence or locate them in public, they often livestream the event on social media to thousands of viewers, questioning the individual whilst advising that they must comply or the Criminal Justice System will be harsher,and sometimes make threats of informing their neighbours if they don’t answer.
2. Vigilante enablement
2.1 Although Section 24A of PACE rightfully allows any member of the public to detain an individual suspected of committing an unlawful offence, there are no provisions to prevent this law being exploited for public entertainment and due to members of the public not being legally trained,they may be unaware that they have entrapped the individual which would result in an abuse of process should prosecution commence proceedings, and there can also be a lack of understanding in regards to what reasonable detainment is. Contrary to the lack of legal knowledge, there have been suggestions from members of the police that vigilantes could in fact be employed to help investigate cases of online offences against children to help tackle the issue, and that as the police do not have all their powers regulated but only some, this doesn’t mean that evidence or cases brought from the vigilantes should be considered irrelevant.
2.2 The legislation is simple to understand so section 24A of PACE 1984 should not be questioned when utilised by vigilantes of this nature, with the outcome helping to monitor and prosecute those willing to exploit children. There is however, valid concerns in regards to section 78 as the evidence obtained in regards to initial admission of guilt is mainly under duress, without the right to legal representation when the vigilantes question the suspect and request admission of guilt, often offering advice which would not be given from a competent solicitor and some vigilantes will leave out the initial conversation where threats have been made so section 78 may not apply to these circumstances and is at the discretion of the court.
3 Manipulating society
3.1 The media tends to offer opposing views in relation to vigilante groups, either praising and sensationalising prosecutions or highlighting the issues around their methods. It is common tactics within the UK for the media to exacerbate fears around paedophiles which manifests into our legal system and even politics, as their reporting can influence movements such as the Sarah’s Law campaign. There are also a lot of articles posted with the intention of condemning any kind of vigilante justice in an attempt to try and deter thepublic from taking matters into their own hands, often exacerbating events to make it seem as though there is a threat to the safety of society. The media often refer to anyone convicted or accused of a sexual crime relating to children as a paedophile, however an individual who commits a sexual act does not scientifically or psychologically make them so, such hysteria around the casual categorisation of offenders doesn’t help to tackle the issue, it causes issues in how to approach these crimes and prevent them. Whilst the public are entitled to be made aware of news, the media have been shown to spread misinformation, particularly around matters involving crimes relating to children and vigilantes, which could inadvertently bring campaigns to end rights to protest or enforce legitimate rights of law.
3.2 The grounds for abuse of process should only concern law enforcement, however the rise of online vigilantism has triggered confusion within the courts, as judges view the evidence presented to them in a traditional sense, despite the investigation being carried outby members of the public. In the case of R. v TL the judge had applied the incorrect test when staying criminal proceedings as an abuse of process which was then appealed. The judgestated that the lack of failure to regulate the activities of vigilante groups is abusing the process of the court however, the appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered. This reinforces the enablement of the public carrying out their own investigations and depicts a lack of understanding within the criminal court system when dealing with prosecutions arising from the actions of vigilante groups.
4 Investigation interference
4.1 The use of section 24a of the PACE Act has enabled vigilantes to conduct their own investigations, knowing they will be able to detain the alleged offender and post the act of self-proclaimed social justice online. The actual prosecution element needs to be dealt with by the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service which involves time and resources, the actions of the vigilantes could potentially be redirecting the time and resources away from preventing and prosecuting offenders which have been identified legitimately, therefore inadvertently putting real children in danger and obstructing justice. Furthermore, there have been instances where the low-level offenders caught by vigilantes have interfered with huge investigations by the police and potentially warned off dangerous high-leveloffenders who they were engaged in groups with.
4.2 Although vigilante groups often state that their interest lies with bringing justice to those who harm children, reinforcing to any doubters that they follow the law and have no interest in the glory they get from posting their work online, there are inconsistencies to these statements from groups who justify the videos posted online as a means of raising awareness to parents and the general public that they live amongst an alleged predator. The awareness is purposed to create moral panic and enrage society but the enablement of the videos being allowed to remain online opens the door to public shaming, this further ostracises individuals from society which inadvertently can lead to re-offending or further negative behaviour. Recently vigilantes appear to be delaying the posting of their catches online until charges have been made by the CPS, although within the realms of normal police arrests and investigations there are no recordings made for public spectation, unless televised, the prospect of being named and shamed could potentially be used as a deterrent and it could be argued it is in the interest of the public to learn how these crimes develop and take place, as a means of education for parents.
5 The true purpose of the law
5.1 The main areas of law potentially being exploited by vigilante groups are The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1987. The purpose of the Sexual Offences Act is to protect the public, particularly children from the harm the offences cause. It is clear there is a continuous increase of these types of offences so arguably there should be a review of the law to assess whether it is fit for purpose whilst bearing in mind that the protection of children is the main purpose. Additionally, the large amount of prosecutions resulting from vigilante stings following execution of section 24A of the PACE Act are not necessarily a direct reflection of dangerous predators being served justice. There have been many newspaper articles containing retired vigilantes who claim vulnerable people are often targeted; those who have learning disabilities, immigrants whose English is poor along with the use of entrapment. Furthermore, research shows that the representation the decoys used in vigilante stings could be invalid in comparison to communications with real minors, particularly where pictures of adults and questions around the initial age of profiles are not in line with that of a minor, mens rea for these offences could be questionedand section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is undoubtedly broken in instances such as these.
5.2 Although vigilante groups may secure convictions sometimes involving repeat offenders or those who are communicating with real children online, the positive actions of this are dulled upon learning that they often monetise by means of donations which they request from online followers and also Section 44 of the functions within social media which allow users to ‘gift’ them which can then be withdrawn as cash by the vigilantes. The monetary gain is minor in comparison to the glorification the groups get online from their followers, for a lot of the members of vigilante groups they don’t have particular status in terms of careers so this is a way they can act with authority and purpose when executing Section 24A of the PACE Act and demanding answers from the alleged offender.
5.3 Many of the individuals accosted by vigilante groups are unaware that their actions were illegal and whilst ignorance of the law isn’t a defence, nor is it morally excusable in the situation of sexual communication with a minor, the response of the police and courts seem to discredit other areas of law which also come into the equation. In the case of Sutherland v HM Advocate for Scotland it has been made clear that the courts continue to dismiss cases involving vigilante groups which not only set a precedent within the courts but reinforce the assumption to members of the public that the law will side with them should they wish to commence their own private investigations. The argument for Article 8 of the Human Rights Act being infringed by the vigilantes for interfering with the appellant’s rights to respect for private life wasn’t upheld due to the fact he had committed a crime, and that crime was committed with the belief it was real child.
5.4 There may be no breach of the Human Rights Act but certainly some of the vigilante groups are breaking the civil law of trespass when they are entering the land of the alleged offenders. There is the possibility of areas of the civil Trespass laws being broken and potentially an offence of aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984. The possibility of some of these laws being broken by vigilante groups are seemingly ignored by the police and Crown Prosecution Service as the overriding objective is to punish the more severe crime which is against children. Perhaps the objective of only investigating the wrongdoing on the alleged offender’s part is the best way forward, but not all of the individuals on the radar of vigilantes have committed a crime, in some years almost a third of the cases handed over from vigilantes resulted in no action. Whilst vigilantes continue to livestream and carry out their own investigations with little questioning of their own upholding of the law, it is likely that these groups will continue to operate.
6 Findings
6.1 Despite the claims vigilantes make that they act in the interests of protecting children, there is no evidence, that their actions contribute towards protecting children from online offending. There is however, a multitude of evidence to show that their actions, which are enabled by the law, undermine the fundamental rights of the individuals they target, keeping in mind that not all of the individuals have even committed a crime and risk police investigations which inadvertently could put real children in danger. Furthermore, the media contribute towards the issues with vigilantism of this nature by spreading misinformation and sensationalism of the topics around online offending, it is the duty of the media to report accurately and ensure that society are informed but guided sensibly so that opinions can drawn fairly.
6.2 Often, society ignore the issues around vigilantism, focusing solely on the convictions of those who have predated on children, whether they are real or decoys, as outweighing the negatives,but what society fail to see the risk to everyone as a collective when the law is taken into the hands of those who are not qualified to do so. Bijan Ebrahimi was an innocent man who had no connection to any crime relating to children but was murdered in an act of vigilantism due to the incorrect assumption that he was a paedophile, not only was he murdered but his calls to the police to express his concern prior to his murder were ignored, which suggests police collusion with the actions of vigilantes. Unfortunately, this is not the only case of this nature.
6.3 Furthermore, what would usually be a covert investigation by officers of the law and only reported on once the case appeared in court, has now become public viewing at the hands of vigilantes and even though most of society have seen or heard of the videos put on display, it has not reduced the number of offenders or offences which should be the case if the actions were to be seen as a deterrent. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest their actions result in anything other than harm and it should be a matter of urgency that legislation is amended to prevent more harm from occurring.
7 Recommendations
7.1 It is clear from the issues presented around vigilantism for online child sex crimes that there are a multitude of legislations which could be amended to prevent the enablement of vigilante groups. Section 24A of the PACE Act should specify that it can only be actioned by a member of the public upon immediate knowledge a crime has taken place and for the crime to have taken place physically before them, this would prevent vigilantes from detaining individuals and would prevent their end goal of public entertainment from being filmed as individuals would be able to choose whether or not to engage with them.
7.2 A combined approach amongst the police, media and criminal justice system is required to transform the approach to dealing with online sex crimes against children which completely dispels the actions of vigilantes. The current model of policing isn’t fit for purpose in the new technological age, a holistic approach towards preventative measures is required in comparison to the current reactive approach which is replicated at the hands of vigilantes. The main focus of the laws are to protect children but the law’s sole purpose is punishment and the sentencing is minimal in comparison to other crimes so this doesn’t appear to be workingas a deterrent.
7.3 Should the law not enable changes to legislation to prevent vigilantes from carrying out their own investigations and detaining individuals, the detained individual should be questioned from a victim perspective to determine whether the vigilantes had committed any crimes, whether criminal or civil, should there be any crimes committed they should be investigated or pursued. Although there have been failures to prosecute vigilantes where misconduct has been apparent, this has been sparse. Individuals claiming to act within the realms of the law and being granted the same status in a court of law in regards to obtaining evidence should be held to the same standards as law enforcement and punished should an omission occur.
7.4 There could be an opportunity to utilise the vigilante groups or the interest from the public to police the internet and collaboration between the police and civilians could take place, if proper training were to be undertaken and regulations had to be adhered to, it could be an opportunity to save police resources and offer reassurance to the public without the issues surrounding the current groups of vigilantes undertaking their own investigations.
Online sexual communication with children: Members of the public take the law into their own hands
DO VIGILANTES HAVE PROTECTING CHILDREN AT THE FOREFRONT OF THEIR ACTIONS OR IS IT SELF-INTEREST AND HOW DOES THE LAW ENABLE THEIR MISSION?
1. The rise of online offences against children
1.1 Online grooming offences are growing year on year, there has been an 80% increase over the last four years and in 2021/2022 there were 6156 offences under Sexual Communication with a Child. This is alarming and surely should require investigation into why it is increasing so that steps can be made to help remedy and prevent these offences from increasing, or more importantly, happening in the first place. Many police forces deploy decoys on chat rooms and social media platforms to detect offenders and do so within the requirements of the law. Over the last few years members of the public have begunto replicate police action in their own ways and it has been revealed that a fifth of prosecutions relating to meeting a child after grooming are due to the operations of vigilante groups, there are more than 75 of these types of groups within the UK.
1.2 Online offences against children mainly include Sexual Communication with a Child, section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which specifies a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment but doesn’t list any exceptions in the legislation,whereas Section 46 in relation to indecent images of children includes prevention of crime as being an exception for criminal proceedings. Vigilante groups operate in the majority by exercising Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 when they arrive at the potential offender’s residence or locate them in public, they often livestream the event on social media to thousands of viewers, questioning the individual whilst advising that they must comply or the Criminal Justice System will be harsher,and sometimes make threats of informing their neighbours if they don’t answer.
2. Vigilante enablement
2.1 Although Section 24A of PACE rightfully allows any member of the public to detain an individual suspected of committing an unlawful offence, there are no provisions to prevent this law being exploited for public entertainment and due to members of the public not being legally trained,they may be unaware that they have entrapped the individual which would result in an abuse of process should prosecution commence proceedings, and there can also be a lack of understanding in regards to what reasonable detainment is. Contrary to the lack of legal knowledge, there have been suggestions from members of the police that vigilantes could in fact be employed to help investigate cases of online offences against children to help tackle the issue, and that as the police do not have all their powers regulated but only some, this doesn’t mean that evidence or cases brought from the vigilantes should be considered irrelevant.
2.2 The legislation is simple to understand so section 24A of PACE 1984 should not be questioned when utilised by vigilantes of this nature, with the outcome helping to monitor and prosecute those willing to exploit children. There is however, valid concerns in regards to section 78 as the evidence obtained in regards to initial admission of guilt is mainly under duress, without the right to legal representation when the vigilantes question the suspect and request admission of guilt, often offering advice which would not be given from a competent solicitor and some vigilantes will leave out the initial conversation where threats have been made so section 78 may not apply to these circumstances and is at the discretion of the court.
3 Manipulating society
3.1 The media tends to offer opposing views in relation to vigilante groups, either praising and sensationalising prosecutions or highlighting the issues around their methods. It is common tactics within the UK for the media to exacerbate fears around paedophiles which manifests into our legal system and even politics, as their reporting can influence movements such as the Sarah’s Law campaign. There are also a lot of articles posted with the intention of condemning any kind of vigilante justice in an attempt to try and deter thepublic from taking matters into their own hands, often exacerbating events to make it seem as though there is a threat to the safety of society. The media often refer to anyone convicted or accused of a sexual crime relating to children as a paedophile, however an individual who commits a sexual act does not scientifically or psychologically make them so, such hysteria around the casual categorisation of offenders doesn’t help to tackle the issue, it causes issues in how to approach these crimes and prevent them. Whilst the public are entitled to be made aware of news, the media have been shown to spread misinformation, particularly around matters involving crimes relating to children and vigilantes, which could inadvertently bring campaigns to end rights to protest or enforce legitimate rights of law.
3.2 The grounds for abuse of process should only concern law enforcement, however the rise of online vigilantism has triggered confusion within the courts, as judges view the evidence presented to them in a traditional sense, despite the investigation being carried outby members of the public. In the case of R. v TL the judge had applied the incorrect test when staying criminal proceedings as an abuse of process which was then appealed. The judgestated that the lack of failure to regulate the activities of vigilante groups is abusing the process of the court however, the appeal was granted and a new trial was ordered. This reinforces the enablement of the public carrying out their own investigations and depicts a lack of understanding within the criminal court system when dealing with prosecutions arising from the actions of vigilante groups.
4 Investigation interference
4.1 The use of section 24a of the PACE Act has enabled vigilantes to conduct their own investigations, knowing they will be able to detain the alleged offender and post the act of self-proclaimed social justice online. The actual prosecution element needs to be dealt with by the police and the Criminal Prosecution Service which involves time and resources, the actions of the vigilantes could potentially be redirecting the time and resources away from preventing and prosecuting offenders which have been identified legitimately, therefore inadvertently putting real children in danger and obstructing justice. Furthermore, there have been instances where the low-level offenders caught by vigilantes have interfered with huge investigations by the police and potentially warned off dangerous high-leveloffenders who they were engaged in groups with.
4.2 Although vigilante groups often state that their interest lies with bringing justice to those who harm children, reinforcing to any doubters that they follow the law and have no interest in the glory they get from posting their work online, there are inconsistencies to these statements from groups who justify the videos posted online as a means of raising awareness to parents and the general public that they live amongst an alleged predator. The awareness is purposed to create moral panic and enrage society but the enablement of the videos being allowed to remain online opens the door to public shaming, this further ostracises individuals from society which inadvertently can lead to re-offending or further negative behaviour. Recently vigilantes appear to be delaying the posting of their catches online until charges have been made by the CPS, although within the realms of normal police arrests and investigations there are no recordings made for public spectation, unless televised, the prospect of being named and shamed could potentially be used as a deterrent and it could be argued it is in the interest of the public to learn how these crimes develop and take place, as a means of education for parents.
5 The true purpose of the law
5.1 The main areas of law potentially being exploited by vigilante groups are The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1987. The purpose of the Sexual Offences Act is to protect the public, particularly children from the harm the offences cause. It is clear there is a continuous increase of these types of offences so arguably there should be a review of the law to assess whether it is fit for purpose whilst bearing in mind that the protection of children is the main purpose. Additionally, the large amount of prosecutions resulting from vigilante stings following execution of section 24A of the PACE Act are not necessarily a direct reflection of dangerous predators being served justice. There have been many newspaper articles containing retired vigilantes who claim vulnerable people are often targeted; those who have learning disabilities, immigrants whose English is poor along with the use of entrapment. Furthermore, research shows that the representation the decoys used in vigilante stings could be invalid in comparison to communications with real minors, particularly where pictures of adults and questions around the initial age of profiles are not in line with that of a minor, mens rea for these offences could be questionedand section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 is undoubtedly broken in instances such as these.
5.2 Although vigilante groups may secure convictions sometimes involving repeat offenders or those who are communicating with real children online, the positive actions of this are dulled upon learning that they often monetise by means of donations which they request from online followers and also Section 44 of the functions within social media which allow users to ‘gift’ them which can then be withdrawn as cash by the vigilantes. The monetary gain is minor in comparison to the glorification the groups get online from their followers, for a lot of the members of vigilante groups they don’t have particular status in terms of careers so this is a way they can act with authority and purpose when executing Section 24A of the PACE Act and demanding answers from the alleged offender.
5.3 Many of the individuals accosted by vigilante groups are unaware that their actions were illegal and whilst ignorance of the law isn’t a defence, nor is it morally excusable in the situation of sexual communication with a minor, the response of the police and courts seem to discredit other areas of law which also come into the equation. In the case of Sutherland v HM Advocate for Scotland it has been made clear that the courts continue to dismiss cases involving vigilante groups which not only set a precedent within the courts but reinforce the assumption to members of the public that the law will side with them should they wish to commence their own private investigations. The argument for Article 8 of the Human Rights Act being infringed by the vigilantes for interfering with the appellant’s rights to respect for private life wasn’t upheld due to the fact he had committed a crime, and that crime was committed with the belief it was real child.
5.4 There may be no breach of the Human Rights Act but certainly some of the vigilante groups are breaking the civil law of trespass when they are entering the land of the alleged offenders. There is the possibility of areas of the civil Trespass laws being broken and potentially an offence of aggravated trespass under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984. The possibility of some of these laws being broken by vigilante groups are seemingly ignored by the police and Crown Prosecution Service as the overriding objective is to punish the more severe crime which is against children. Perhaps the objective of only investigating the wrongdoing on the alleged offender’s part is the best way forward, but not all of the individuals on the radar of vigilantes have committed a crime, in some years almost a third of the cases handed over from vigilantes resulted in no action. Whilst vigilantes continue to livestream and carry out their own investigations with little questioning of their own upholding of the law, it is likely that these groups will continue to operate.
6 Findings
6.1 Despite the claims vigilantes make that they act in the interests of protecting children, there is no evidence, that their actions contribute towards protecting children from online offending. There is however, a multitude of evidence to show that their actions, which are enabled by the law, undermine the fundamental rights of the individuals they target, keeping in mind that not all of the individuals have even committed a crime and risk police investigations which inadvertently could put real children in danger. Furthermore, the media contribute towards the issues with vigilantism of this nature by spreading misinformation and sensationalism of the topics around online offending, it is the duty of the media to report accurately and ensure that society are informed but guided sensibly so that opinions can drawn fairly.
6.2 Often, society ignore the issues around vigilantism, focusing solely on the convictions of those who have predated on children, whether they are real or decoys, as outweighing the negatives,but what society fail to see the risk to everyone as a collective when the law is taken into the hands of those who are not qualified to do so. Bijan Ebrahimi was an innocent man who had no connection to any crime relating to children but was murdered in an act of vigilantism due to the incorrect assumption that he was a paedophile, not only was he murdered but his calls to the police to express his concern prior to his murder were ignored, which suggests police collusion with the actions of vigilantes. Unfortunately, this is not the only case of this nature.
6.3 Furthermore, what would usually be a covert investigation by officers of the law and only reported on once the case appeared in court, has now become public viewing at the hands of vigilantes and even though most of society have seen or heard of the videos put on display, it has not reduced the number of offenders or offences which should be the case if the actions were to be seen as a deterrent. Overall, there is no evidence to suggest their actions result in anything other than harm and it should be a matter of urgency that legislation is amended to prevent more harm from occurring.
7 Recommendations
7.1 It is clear from the issues presented around vigilantism for online child sex crimes that there are a multitude of legislations which could be amended to prevent the enablement of vigilante groups. Section 24A of the PACE Act should specify that it can only be actioned by a member of the public upon immediate knowledge a crime has taken place and for the crime to have taken place physically before them, this would prevent vigilantes from detaining individuals and would prevent their end goal of public entertainment from being filmed as individuals would be able to choose whether or not to engage with them.
7.2 A combined approach amongst the police, media and criminal justice system is required to transform the approach to dealing with online sex crimes against children which completely dispels the actions of vigilantes. The current model of policing isn’t fit for purpose in the new technological age, a holistic approach towards preventative measures is required in comparison to the current reactive approach which is replicated at the hands of vigilantes. The main focus of the laws are to protect children but the law’s sole purpose is punishment and the sentencing is minimal in comparison to other crimes so this doesn’t appear to be workingas a deterrent.
7.3 Should the law not enable changes to legislation to prevent vigilantes from carrying out their own investigations and detaining individuals, the detained individual should be questioned from a victim perspective to determine whether the vigilantes had committed any crimes, whether criminal or civil, should there be any crimes committed they should be investigated or pursued. Although there have been failures to prosecute vigilantes where misconduct has been apparent, this has been sparse. Individuals claiming to act within the realms of the law and being granted the same status in a court of law in regards to obtaining evidence should be held to the same standards as law enforcement and punished should an omission occur.
7.4 There could be an opportunity to utilise the vigilante groups or the interest from the public to police the internet and collaboration between the police and civilians could take place, if proper training were to be undertaken and regulations had to be adhered to, it could be an opportunity to save police resources and offer reassurance to the public without the issues surrounding the current groups of vigilantes undertaking their own investigations.
Apologies, I've had a read through it and it seems as though some spaces have removed so words have joined together and there seems to be a sentence missing half way through x
@Lee 2.0
out of curiosity have you considered prosecuting them? I know that I want to, but unfortunately it's getting hold of their actual details that remains a bit of a problem. I'm hopeful that once my OH is finally released we can work together to find out as much information as possible and I will be combing through the "evidence" with a fine tooth comb
out of curiosity have you considered prosecuting them? I know that I want to, but unfortunately it's getting hold of their actual details that remains a bit of a problem. I'm hopeful that once my OH is finally released we can work together to find out as much information as possible and I will be combing through the "evidence" with a fine tooth comb
Thank you! Yes it was very eye-opening to read and research this topic in depth. There are so many papers already which speak about how harmful these vigilante groups are so I'm not sure why nothing is being done.
There does seems grounds in certain cases to push back and prosecute the vigilante groups criminally but it seems as though nothing happens.
I do think if people made civil cases against the vigilantes for trespass then it could be successful but civil cases are expensive and as Lee said, it's a huge trauma to have gone through so many don't ever want to see the a-holes again or risk them making more noise, re-sharing videos etc. It's cruel that as victims in this there seems to be no way of accessing justice.
There does seems grounds in certain cases to push back and prosecute the vigilante groups criminally but it seems as though nothing happens.
I do think if people made civil cases against the vigilantes for trespass then it could be successful but civil cases are expensive and as Lee said, it's a huge trauma to have gone through so many don't ever want to see the a-holes again or risk them making more noise, re-sharing videos etc. It's cruel that as victims in this there seems to be no way of accessing justice.
To be fair I want to prosecute them for the damage done to my family and the ongoing bullying incurred as a direct result of what they have done, there is no need bar power hungry and attention seeking behaviour, they have endangered real children, for example my eldest is being bullied by the man across the street from me and the police have done nothing because no "actual" harm had befallen her. In which case you can argue that no "actual" harm had befallen the decoy because it's not an actual child
Post deleted
Thanks Lee2.0
it is a bit distressing that they can't be held accountable
i am complaining to the police that they are not doing their duty of care but nothing back yet. They didn't even come out for the last infraction.
I didn't mean to upset or offend in any way of I have I sincerely apologise xx
it is a bit distressing that they can't be held accountable
i am complaining to the police that they are not doing their duty of care but nothing back yet. They didn't even come out for the last infraction.
I didn't mean to upset or offend in any way of I have I sincerely apologise xx