Family and Friends Forum

Hi,

This happened to my person and yes he was approached by the child too and she sent explicit photos too but as my person is an adult it's his fault. This is an actual child not a decoy

I'm sorry but what is a child doing contacting a grown man in the first place anf sending photos, not of her face but her body. My person told her from the start his real age

Surely there is something not quite right either with the child or with their life for them to do and think how they do about such explicit things in the first place.

I'm not condoning what my person did but when he found out how old she was he blocked her so she went to the police and here we are.

Xx

You have raised something I had not previously considered. I now wonder if police decoys are incentivised based on their success in engineering offences (which may or may not have otherwise taken place). Perhaps worthy of a FOI request...

Amazing, thank you EllBee. One suggestion from me would to word the request to cover decoy scenarios where:

a) communication is with a decoy (non-existent) child and

b) communication is with a (decoy) adult about a (non-existent) child.

It would also be extremely useful to understand the basis on which police decoys determine the age of the ficticious 'child'. For example, 17 years and 11 months old would be illegal, but we never see decoy cases at that age... What is the police's perceived benefit of manufacturing scenarios involving children of younger ages?

The more I learn about the justice systems and politics, I wouldn't be surprised if the manufactured cases are target driven. And again, I go around in my head - But he responded, he didn't need to > But is the dialogue something that would realistically happen > It does happy, friends children's talk about being inappropriately approached online > Why are the majority of the cases I see reported in newspapers only if people that had a conversation /s with decoy/s and no evidence of a conversation with real children.

I did a FOI request to see the breakdown of decoy related offences and non decoy. It was denied.

It would be interesting to know of they are targeted and if there is, is the target broken down between decoy and non decoy cases.

If the decoys were catching me that had actually had Interactions with real children and this was in earthing them, I think I'd feel very different. But it's not what I read in newspaper reports.

The decoy thing really gets to me. My person was on an over18's dating website. How then is someone allowed to go on pretending to be underage. Surely they should be prosecuted for something. Ours is vigilantes. And why do they pick on certain individuals. Do they cast a line and see who bites? My person is struggling to remember conversations and how they started but obviously shouldn't have continued.

With the usual caveat that OF COURSE our people were wrong to engage with any of this activity, I really do think the tax-paying general public would be interested to know how police time and resources are spent on engineering these situations.

The sentencing is also inconsistent. Yesterday I read about a man in his 30s who was directly and knowingly communicating over an extended period with five (real) 13 and 14 year-old girls. His offences were wide-ranging and numerous, including inciting activity, sending and requesting images etc etc. As I was reading this I was thinking to myself, 'wow, he's in for a long sentence...'. No, he received a two-year suspended sentence. My person's offences were nothing close to as dangerous as this and he's in prison for a long time. The only actual children suffering harm (and will do for a long time to come) are our own much loved children.

I also read a newspaper report about a female teacher in her 20s who got drunk and assaulted two teenage boys in a park - exposed her private parts, sat on their laps with her private parts exposed, told them in explicit detail what she was going to do with them if they came home with her etc... No custodial sentence.

There's a lot to debate around this.

Definitely lots of inconsistencies regarding this subject.

My son was caught by viglantes totally agree with what you all say.

What gives them the right to barge into someone house and start videoing them inside there on home or turn up to someone work

What about privacy in your own home

I found out about by the video, that they streamed all over Facebook

There so many stings on Facebook, from all different ages,even people with leaning difficulties

They must set out to trap people who are most valuable

Dear Forum Users

The issue of vigilante’s, also known as Online Child Abuse Activist Groups (OCAGs), and police decoy’s is one that is often raised here on the forum, and is one that always generates strong feelings due to the impact that it/they can have upon your lives. Whilst we can’t answer all of the questions posed or points raised within this thread, we hope we can offer some helpful information and explanation.

We know that in recent years there has been a significant rise in groups of vigilantes operating online to identify child sex offenders, and the controversy surrounding the practice is widely known and accepted within this field. We know that the methods used by these groups can increase the risk posed to potential victims, the suspects, and their families, and the way in which some groups operate can also impede police investigations. The CPS does have specific guidance in relation to cases involving vigilante groups, which we hope can shed some light on the discussions which have taken place in this thread: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/online-child-abuse-activist-groups-internet

Regarding police decoy cases, unfortunately we’re not able to shed any light on the age parameters used, although we understand that they must constantly ensure that the person they are speaking to is fully aware of the age of the child. We also understand that these undercover officers must act passively and can’t incite the commission of a crime, for example, if they are acting as a child and speaking to a potential offender, they are not allowed to suggest a meeting, offer sex to the offender or share indecent images. If police officers have incited the commission of an offence that would not otherwise have been committed, then the case would not stand up in court. What we do know, is that the children who are victims of online sexual communication are often very vulnerable, experiencing a lot of difficulty in their lives off line, such as loneliness, being in care or being neglected. Where the CPS is deciding about whether or not to prosecute cases, including those involving online grooming, there are set of general principles they must follow, part of which looks at whether or not there is enough evidence to charge a person, and whether or not it is in the public interest for a charge to be brought. You can read more about the code for crown prosecutors here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/code-crown-prosecutors.

There are a number of reasons why there appear to be more decoy-related convictions, rather than real victims, with one of them being the fact that many of these offences go unreported because the child doesn’t realise they’re being groomed, and may even consider the person grooming them to be a boyfriend or girlfriend. In addition, many children feel too scared to report the abuse, they worry no one will believe them, that they will get in to trouble, or they may not know how to explain it. In some cases, the person grooming them will have encouraged them to keep the abuse a secret, or will have made various threats against them should they report it.

Whilst we cannot comment on individual cases that appear in the media, we want to emphasise that it’s not always helpful to compare personal situations with those that do appear in the media, as often, the full details of these cases are not shared and so any comparison can be hard to make.

Kind regards,

The Forum Team

Thank you for your detailed response.



My son says the Police decoy was very suggestive to him but he didn't respond anything sexual. But I'm not naive enough to know they would not make an arrest without any laws being broken.

In the case involving my partner the police decoy was placed within a KIK group which was specifically for talking about sex, members also had to send something to the moderator before being granted access to ensure person was over 18. The decoy picture I saw in the case bundle was a blonde female taking a picture of herself in the mirror wearing a towel and the mirror was steamy. I understand the law perfectly clear and understand why it has to be worded a certain way to protect children against various eventualities but I do believe that some of the police decoys operate in ways which purposely draw doubt on the alleged age of the decoy and I already know some vigilantes most certainly use dirty tactics to get their "catch".

BaffledB you are so right. Anyone that thinks that vigilantes ( yes, let's call them what they are) stick to government guidelines is not living in the real world.
The inability of our government to police social media companies leaves vigilante groups to rule with threats and by creating fear with the main aim of self glorification.
You don't have to look at them very closely to see that they are trapping vulnerable men who are often mentally unwell. I see no proof that these men would otherwise be communicating with real children.

The reason that we employ solicitors to help us navigate this minefield, is for situations like this.

It's their job to identify if the person has been entrapped, either by the vigilantes, or by police decoys and point this out to the court. So if your person was a victim of entrapment and they were still convicted, that is as much a failure of the solicitor to do their job properly, as it is the fault of the police.

Edel, when a man is caught by vigilantes the damage is done before any legalities can be tested.
Do you want to live in a country where a group of 6 men, with no relevant training, education or authority ( other than that given to them by social media followers) can knock on your door at any time of the day or night, regardless of whether your own children are at home, and drag your partner off to god knows where, live-streaming for all your friends and neighbours, accusing him of anything they like?

I have no doubt that everyone wants nothing more than for vulnerable children to be safe, well and protected. However, I would be extremely interested to know if any actual abuse is prevented as a result of decoy/vigilante action.

Meanwhile the lives of offenders' families are absolutely shredded - we are suffering enormous harm. I feel ruined by this experience. Noone is interested in protecting us from harm. Why is our safety and wellbeing less important than that of pretend 'victims'?

A vast amount of police time and resource (which we are constantly told is is short supply) is being spent on arresting and convicting men on the basis of entirely fictitious scenarios.

Surely the police have the ability to monitor sites and intervene when genuine communications are taking place (that way rooting out those with genuine intent), rather than purposefully manufacturing the offending scenarios.

In this world of pain, offences include 'inciting', 'facilitating' and 'commissioning'. I think there's a strong case to make that police decoys and vigilantes are themselves inciting, facilitating and enabling offences.

This will be controversial, and please take in the spirit intended, but I question whether some vulnerable men are themselves actually being groomed into offending by the decoys/vigilantes.

It's like taking a compulsive gambler into a casino and then punishing them for placing a bet.

Alternatively of course, the social media companies themselves could be made accountable for providing a platform for this activity...

If I could find a way without exposing myself and my family to the risk, I would be getting this out to every media channel I could.

InTatters, I agree with every single word you have written. Well said!

In tatters I absolutely agree with every word you have said here.

Tatters

Totally agree with you too X

Tatters....you've nailed it. Brilliantly expressed

X

What would be useful to see would be some analysis of the effectiveness of the police operation of child decoys in reducing the incidence of online child abuse.

If they are effective, fair enough. If not they are simply a waste of police time and tax payers money.

WHow many people who interact with a decoy on an over 18s online at firm would actually have interacted with a real child? Would they in fact have spotted a difference?

Do police decoys mainly operate on platforms for under 18s or do they target those restricted to adults?

And how many children/under 18s actually use social at forms nominally restricted to over 18s?

Without answers to these questions, it's all a bit shadowy

With just a little bit of digging you can find out all sorts about the vigilante groups and their members. Most have various criminal convictions for things like Drugs, iioc (yep a few have that), abh, gbh, fraud, false evidence, tampering with evidence, inciting violence, one is from another country and is a accused "p" from own family member, which is why he left there, one is currently under investigation for rape, hacking, blackmail, some are on licence themselves and yet they get away with this crap

A very interesting thread.
Personally in my simplistic view I think police should be out on the street sorting out the carnage that exists today, not sat at a computer.

I find the concept of men, in a way, being groomed by police/vigilantes thought provoking. Lots of grooming happens in other areas - so why not during the search for on line sex offenders?

I do think yes, internet use must be policed definitely, my mistrust of the police leads me to feel guidelines are fogged in many many areas - this area included.

Gosh, there is so much to discuss on this subject.

LFF the reason the majority of convictions relay to decoy /vigilantes is because this crime goes unreported. BUT if these men were grooming and inciting, sure you'd expect to see done evidence to show they'd also done this with other children on their phones?

Post deleted by user

It is very notable to me that when my person was admitted to prison, the staff member admitting him asked (with an eye roll): "So, was it vigilantes or decoy?" as if these were the only two possible options. The clear implication is that the vast majority of offenders being imprisoned are those involving decoys/vigilantes. (There was nothing in his charges to indicate the 'victim' was fictitious).

Noone will ever know (even the perpetrators) if these offences would or could have taken place without the enablement of a vigilante/decoy.

What my person did was very very very wrong (and he has done untold harm as a result) and the decisions he made in his online correspondence were entirely his choice and responsibility BUT had there not been another party to participate in - and continue - the correspondence, then it may never have happened. No decoy or vigilante will ever pull back and put an end to a conversation - as may very well happen in reality.

There is a good explanation in this link, of how the courts decide what is acceptable and what isn't.

https://crimeline.co.uk/private-informant-entrapment-in-sexual-cases-tl-a-confirmation-of-existing-principles/

"Whilst each case depended on its own facts, the principle to be applied to police conduct is that it would be unfair and an abuse of process if a person had been lured, incited, or pressurised into committing a crime which they would not otherwise have committed. However, it would be different if a police officer behaved as an ordinary member of the public and gave a person no more than an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime and that person freely took advantage of the opportunity."

and here, on how police operations should be conducted.

Was there reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, amounting to a legitimate trigger for the undercover operation;Was the operation properly authorised and supervised, so that there are legitimate proper control mechanisms in place;Are the means of subterfuge employed to police particular types of offence, necessary and proportionate;Was there an “unexceptional opportunity” to offend and causation of offending. Did the undercover officer cause crime or merely provide an opportunity to commit crime?;