Here, we bring you are few more issues, surrounding Shane, and his sad, dangerous and damaging antics.
Firstly, more mentally-disturbed ravings, again, confirming his actual motivations, which are nothing to do with protecting or nurturing real children and adults (and how his operation impacts on the dangerously-feeble-minded) ...
en passant ...
Interesting questions arise, on, just how, Shane manages to live and eat etc (occasional work? black economy? living in van? paying tax?) ...
Of course, Shane is a consummate and terminal liar, he lies to himself, about his mental health issues and their causation, his whole operation is based on lies and deceit and, here, we see him, cherry-picking-cropping, for effect ...
Note the actual date ... (and that he sees being a 'RSO' as some kind of major problem - which he delights in, of course) ...
Shane begins to see, how civilised people, who understand actual risk, behave and operate ...
The reason for your imminent failure, is that you do not understand the difference, between danger and risk, inchoacy and victim-based offences; 'the system' does, although, for sociopolitical reasons, it is unable to say so, in public.
You started as newbies, and continued to fail, spending your own time and money, on a pointless, yet damaging, expensive, hate-filled, debacle.
... and not one child 'saved', but, a present and future of damage, destruction and negative outcomes - what is going to have to take, for you to learn ... a dead child, or more, like the USA learned, to its cost?
Proving, once again, that these dangerous people, have no real interest, in the prevention of abuse, or the safety of children and adults. More hate, offensive, unrealistic, barbaric suggestions, and gormless ignorance ...
Britain's far right in 2016: fractured, unpredictable, dispirited …
"... and violent
In the wake of Thomas Mair’s conviction for the murder of Jo Cox, Ian Cobain examines rightwing extremism in the UK."
"Britain First was set up five years ago by former BNP members, and is
led by Paul Golding, a former BNP councillor. Its membership is thought
to amount to a few hundred, but it has a sizeable digital presence. Its
Facebook page has received almost 1.5m likes."
Stephen Lawrence murder: A timeline of how the story unfolded
"22 April 1993 - Stephen Lawrence murdered
The eighteen-year-old is stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack by a gang of white youths as he waits at a bus stop in Eltham, south-east London, with his friend Duwayne Brooks."
"Brooks ran to call an ambulance while an off-duty police officer stopped his car and covered Lawrence with a blanket. Lawrence was taken to Brook General Hospital by 11:05 pm, but he was already dead.[23][26] Lawrence was murdered only nine months after another victim, an Asian boy, Rohit Duggal, was stabbed to death in Eltham in an unprovoked racial attack.[27]"
"On the rightwing website Redwatch, hundreds of photographs of anti-war and anti-fascist activists are posted - with the message that they will 'pay for their crimes'. And now a number of those people have been attacked. So why hasn't the site been closed down?"
Should journalists, bloggers and activists be held responsible for what others do with the facts they make public?
"Freedom of speech, when you agree with the speech in question, is an easy, black-and-white issue. Redwatch, however, is more of a grey area. Variously described as a far-right site (the BBC) or Nazi hate site, (Angela Eagle MP), it is a deeply unpleasant place, which sets its aggressive tone instantly with a crosshairs cursor and a banner ad for its sub-site, "Noncewatch". The ad consists of a single word, in blood red, complete with dangling nooses.
Redwatch is unquestionably the work of far-right, even fascistic individuals who seem to have very little regard for either the arguments of their political opponents or those individuals themselves."
"Stinson Hunter was the man who discovered that if you dangle a carrot in
front of a donkey on an adult dating site, soon or later, you will get a
nibble. He was entirely motivated by ‘’fame and fortune’’ (as evidenced
as many times over by so many people), and in my book, was just
downright lazy. His method of catching ‘so-called paedophiles’ was
entirely lethargic (he realised it was an easy score indeed – rather
than seeking real offenders which takes more time and effort), and his
evidence gathering was also half-hearted (he often claimed the police
and CPS had failed him – but this was proven many times to be downright
lies).
Many other similar hunters, have followed suit, even down
to the lazy methods of catching ‘offenders’. Instead of dealing with
high-risk individuals (like real detectives do), they too, catfish (what
mainly appears to be mixture of idiots and simpletons, people with low
morals, or even people with low comprehension in some cases) men on
adult dating sites. You only have to look at some of the latest stings
to know this is still true today. Men stating they didn’t believe it was
a child on an adult site. In some cases they seem genuinely confused,
in others, there is evidence they genuinely did believe it.
These
vigilantes keep claiming there are scores of real children on the very
adult sites and apps they decoy on. Not a single one has ever evidenced
this whatsoever – which speaks volumes. No substance to their argument.
Now for the analogy:
If
I was to deliberately place valuables in my car and leave the window
open, I would undoubtedly be ‘inviting crime.’ This is EXACTLY what
vigilantes are doing.
A skilled car thief would not require an
‘open window,’ as they would have the tools for the job. However, an
opportunist WOULD be tempted by my open window. I have baited that
person, and lured them in.
The real paedophile that is a high risk
to children, like the skilled car thief, knows how to commit his crime
very well. He seeks children where they actually exist and certainly
would NOT go looking for the subject of his criminality, where they do
(or are not proven to) not exist.
The ‘invented paedophile’ is the
one that became the opportunist by my ‘open window invite.’ He joined an
‘adult dating site’ (most probably seeking the company of adults – for
whatever purpose ranging from romance to sexual encounters), and there
is no/little proof he was seeking anything other than an adult
encounter. He simply became that ‘offender’ BECAUSE they gave him an
easy ‘open window’.
What blurs the line of course is the age
range. This started out as ‘14 or 15’ year old decoys, and has now
progressed to much younger. Does this suggest they are truly showing
sexual inclination toward children, and therefor a ‘paedophile’ in the
true definition of what the word actually means? Well, yes, probably or
most likely – but we still have some area of doubt over whether that was
ever their original intention when joining adult dating sites (which
are the majority of cases caught be vigilantes over the last ten years).
Now imagine I have a team of hoodie wearing security men with
me. I have a camera, a facebook page, and I live stream confrontations
of my captures each time a thief, whether a true thief or an
opportunistic person, enters my vehicle. Would that make me a vigilante?
Damn right it would.
For me, it seems a huge missed opportunity
that people like Stinson Hunter did not seize upon the fact that there
are real offenders out there targetting REAL CHILDREN that exist on
sites/apps designed for children.
There has been the odd rare
exception such as Shane Brannigan, who I am led to believe only decoyed
on the liked of Facebook (where real kids exist = Shane is clued up),
and there once was an effort to protect kids on something called ‘BIGO’
(which I applaud and support 100%), but the majority of stings have been
performed on ‘Mr Opportunist’ on adult only sites – I GUARANTEE THIS IS
A FACT.
In some respects, it seems a rather bizarre situation that a man talks
to another adult on an adult dating site – and then goes to prison for
it on the strength of a fabrication. Also pretty ironic that all these
‘children’ on adult dating sites will undoubtedly just be decoys – and
that by employing this particular hunting method, no real children will
ever be protected or ‘saved’ (sad but true – although there have been
rare occasion where real children have some to light – but this is
usually either pure luck, or because a parent has approached hunters
directly – instead of going to the police like they should).
Most
hunters/decoys/followers of vigilante pages reading this will be saying
‘he’s an apologist.’ What they don’t understand (because they never
do), is that I understand that ‘technically speaking’ they are breaking
laws, and I understand that from a moral point of view ‘they are/were
wrong to get involved’ – even if it’s a twisted fantasy in their mind,
and they never intended it to go further than just chat online. So do I
feel sorry for them? No, not at all, they made their beds and have to
lie in it. BUT – you are still assisting to incite a crime with people
that may have never even thought of committing a crime, let alone, one
of the most abhorrent nature. If the decoy was not there, the crime
would never have existed. This is one case where you can definitely say
‘victimless crime’ in the majority of cases.
My issue with vigilante hunters is thus: Presenting a false reality.
This
idea that the police are letting the public down is an outrageous
fabrication of the truth. The police do not waste their time dealing
with ‘opportunists’ on adult only sites as they will NEVER be considered
a genuine high risk to real children (unless there are special
circumstances – such as repeat offender etc...). The hunting community
just don’t seem to understand that a good proportion of ‘offenders’
getting remanded, are in fact done so simply because they are deemed to
be in danger (from the public), or a possible threat to themselves. This
is further confirmation they are not considered a high risk to real
children.
The police will always respond to cases involving real
children straight away – hence why there is a department often called
‘Central Referrals.’ When they receive a ‘first referral,’ even in the
middle of the night, they respond (hence why detectives specialising in
child protection will be on call out of office hours – if department not
24/7). Unlike vigilantes, the police do a very good job of dealing with
real offenders that go after real children. This is a FACT which most
vigilantes deny due to the need to justify their own existence.
Hunting
groups have also created the false impression (due to what I’ve already
explained) that there is a ‘pandemic of paedophiles.’ Frightened
parents now think their child could be groomed, based on this false
reality being presented. It’s pretty simple to understand – if you don’t
allow your kids to roam onto sites they should not visit – they will
not encounter these ‘so -called monsters,’ who are ‘becoming monsters’
after joining an adult dating site – and not, seeking real children
where they actually exist in the first place. Besides, legislation to
force all adult related sites to operate a string verification sign up
policy would completely make these hunters redundant instantly (unless
they wanted to pursue real offenders instead).
Questionable motives.
There
are people that seem to be out to avenge their own experience at the
hands of a real paedophile – and while I have the greatest sympathy for
real victims – I do not believe ‘inciting a crime’ and presenting a
‘false reality’ is the answer. People wanting to contribute due to their
own experience would do far better either getting on the campaign trail
for changes in the law, or doing whatever they can to get the
authorities to agree to ‘regulated police volunteers,’ that could
actually sign up to assist detectives in capturing the real bad guys
(and girls).
Then there are those that clearly enjoy the
attention and adulation, clearly seek sexual encounter opportunities
with besotted colleagues/fans (so many hunter penis pics going about –
sheesh), and those that are clearly motivated by money, and can see that
there is money to be made from gullible people who believe their
‘hysterical hype.’
I have been in favour of regulation from the
start (this would have prevented all the unsavoury aspects we have
witnessed over the years), and I am in favour of pro-active ideas that
would help protect children in an online context (I have quite a few
good ones, do you?).
To those who find my posts ‘disturbing,’
get over yourselves. I will never apologise for having the ability to
see these vigilante scammers for what they truly are. Feral, fraudulent,
and mainly, knuckle-dragging f**kwits."
There is no child or victim, these are inchoate offences. No minor is at risk of harm.
In almost every one of these entrapments, the primary reason why the target is
not remanded in custody, is that, they present no significant risk of harm to the
public. When they are remanded, it is usually a matter of being for their own
health/safety and/or accommodation difficulties.
Ultimately, this is why sentences are, quite-rightly, relatively short/trivial, in the eyes of some.
The later consequences are not, in many cases.
*****
(3) Paedo
Due to the faux ages, adopted by the decoys, no paedophiles are involved in the process ...
... the very popular, if not the peak, age of attraction for males to females, is in the Hebephilic and Ephebophilic ranges, i.e. 11-18, hence the success of these entrapments.
A biological and evolutionary imperative, all things being equal; arbitrary, socially-constructed, laws cannot change those.
(4) Sick (Bastard / Cunt etc)
An attraction to minors, of whatever age, has never been deemed a sickness (i.e. a disease, a physical or mental dysfunction/disability).
Prior to DSM V and in ICD 10 (soon to be ICD 11), the attraction was one criterion, within the 'diagnosis' of Paedophilia (now, Paedophilic Disorder).
Alone, such an attraction (which is, fundamentally, a thought), whether preferential or not, is not rare, nor a sickness; nor is it an act; nor is it illegal; nor is it immoral (as it is not chosen).
The legal legitimacy, of the birth of these men, is, also, never established.
This is a deemed useful, derogatory, dehumanising, but false, stereotype, so as to create, maintain, shame and bait 'The Other', and for those in sexual denial, amongst the 'Hunter' groups.
(5) Dirty / Filthy (Bastard / Cunt etc)
We have yet to see any correlation, between those men who have been stung, and level of cleanliness.
They have ranged, from the untidy and/or scruffy (mainly, at home), to the scrupulously-clean and well-dressed.
Once again, the legal legitimacy, of the birth of these men, is, also, never established.
This is a deemed useful, derogatory, and dehumanising, but false, stereotype, so as to create, maintain, shame and bait 'The Other'.
*****
(6) Nonce / Bacon Bonce / Beast / Animal
Contrary to popular belief, a crime is not established, until guilt has been decided in a court of law, or the equivalent. What may be 'obvious', from the initial evidence, may be a completely different reality, once the facts have been scrutinised.
All defendants are innocent people, until guilt has been accepted or established. This is why NFA occurs, people are acquitted and, unfortunately, miscarriages of justice do occur, with the subsequent quashing of verdicts etc.
When in prison, then a 'Nonce'; before and after, not.
These names, are deemed useful, derogatory, dehumanising labels, so as to
create, maintain, shame and bait 'The Other', and for those in sexual
denial, amongst the 'Hunter' groups.
These are the same processes, which occur, in prisons, amongst the 'Main Population'.
They are vigilantes, because they do not have Legal Authority (following the law, alone, is not Legal Authority)...
The effectiveness of Legal Authority builds on the acceptance of the validity
of the following mutually inter-dependent ideas ...
That any given legal norm may be established by agreement or by
imposition, on the bases of expediency or rational values or both, with a
claim to obedience at least on the part of the members of the corporate
group.
That every body of law consists essentially in a consistent system of
abstract rules which have (normally) been intentionally established.
That thus the typical person in authority occupies an ‘office’.
That the person who obeys authority does so, as it is usually
stated, only in his capacity as a ‘member’ of the corporate group and
what he obeys is only ‘the law’.
In conformity with point 3, it is held that the members of the corporate
group, in so far as they obey a person in authority, do not owe this
obedience to him as an individual, but to the impersonal order.
Name three people, stung, from one year ago, even if, they still have the same name.
Can you, if you are not an obsessed, 'hunter/decoy'?
Of course not, memories are very short, on such things; same for faces.
Naming and Shaming is never good. *****
(11) Protecting Kids / Prosecutions
(a) Meeting of minors and the target group, which is entrapped, is negligible, in terms of risk ...
Posted: April 19, 2017
Kent Police issue a stern statement after a paedophile hunter sting went wrong in Bluewater
""I would therefore urge anyone who believes they have information or evidence of online grooming, or knows that a suspect is planning to meet a potential victim, to contact Kent Police at the earliest opportunity so that police officers can deal with these meetings and capture the best possible evidence.
"We do have significant concerns about people taking the law into their own hands and the methods they use, and in some cases acting outside of the law, and would strongly advise against getting involved in, or setting up activities to entrap those suspected of intending to commit offences.
"Although seemingly well-meaning, this can significantly hinder our work, compromise on-going investigations and negate months of investigative work.
"There is also the risk that it can potentially identify people who are completely innocent and mistakenly associate them with grooming offences.
"I would add that whilst police have resources and expertise to protect the vulnerable and people with mental health issues, members of the public generally do not, and can cause such individuals to be placed at serious risk of harm.
"The positive news is that awareness among children and young people about the dangers of meeting strangers has grown considerably and incidents where children meet adults in these circumstances are extremely rare.""
Hunters do not target minors, in their stings (for obvious, legal, reasons), but they are the markedly-largest group of those, who online (or offline) groom, meet and carry out sexual activities.
(d) Increasing risk to minors.
Interesting watch but a few points, saying no crime would of happened if these profiles weren't online has been debunked a few time by catching repeat offenders Not surprised you have convicted sex offender @LutherKongGood1 supporting this!
A 'repeat offence' is a fresh crime. Decoys create this inchoate offence ... https://t.co/v5nIupIVuj ... Your failure, in incorrect logic, via straw men and non sequiturs, shows you as idiots, once more. TY pic.twitter.com/krjJlwMXvK
OK Nigel simple one for you: If these people are actively looking for children, would you prefer they talked/met to a 13yr old decoy or a real 13yr old child.... simple choice i would like to see the opinion of a convicted sex offender on this.
They are not, almost never (in real risk terms). It is not the mechanism, of almost all, real grooming events. It is a fantasy construct, created, by the likes of you. This is all on our blog. You do not know if Dr Oldfield still has to notify, and, it is a feeble, irrelevant SM.
"They are not, almost never" << this Nigel is why no one takes you seriously you are worse than a politician when it comes to answering questions, come back when you are ready for a live head to head debate :) got work to get done see you around ;)
The answer to your question, is, on our position, on 'grooming', in all its forms. No real minor, no criminal offence - Period ... If one >must<, for the inchoacy. Non-sexual, civil orders, only. TY.
(a) If one 'destroys' another's life, particularly for no good, real, reason, at least one of them is going to be looking for payback (ironically, Shane's MO, in fact).
Some are clever enough, to take it out on those who are very vulnerable, leaving the less vulnerable to weep and regret it all began. Some, have enough suitable and loyal contacts, to take it out on anyone.
An eye for an eye.
To laugh about the possibility, shows a terrible lack of judgement, in those who laugh and for the safety of others.
(b) The second issue, is, the 'Nothing Left To Lose', consequence.
Consider the choice one has to make, if one has abducted a minor, or offended on one, when one has nothing left to lose. Compare with the USA, extreme sentencing and murdered minors, and the cases of Mr Ian Huntley, Mr Roy Whiting, Mr Mark Bridger and other UK offenders, may have relevance.
(c) The third issue, is, further, ongoing, inevitable, costs (let alone the legal/judicial/penal bill).