Father poses as his own schoolboy son to snare paedophile on MSN

**Maggy** · 21-09-2010, 16:59

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-online.html

Title says it all really.

Quote:

He logged into his 15-year-old son's web chat account after discovering that pervert Jonathon Styles had been grooming him.
So, pretending to be the boy, he arranged to meet Styles in a car park for sexual activity - but then wrestled with the paedophile and carried out a citizenâ€™s arrest.

Could have gone so wrong but seems to have worked out well.

Hom3r · 21-09-2010, 17:44

Wouldn't you want to batter this type of **** (sorry for insulting ****) and stuff the police?

Sirius · 21-09-2010, 18:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Wouldn't you want to batter this type of **** (sorry for insulting ****) and stuff the police?

If i had been that father i can tell you now, That ******* pedophile would never have been seen again after i had finished with him

Osem · 21-09-2010, 20:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-online.html

Title says it all really.

Could have gone so wrong but seems to have worked out well.

Well done that man!

Gary L · 21-09-2010, 22:02

Quote:

He has also been banned from using MSN Messenger.

I've never understood this kind of thing. how can you ban someone from using/doing/eating something when they're at home?

Osem · 21-09-2010, 22:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

[/URL]

I've never understood this kind of thing. how can you ban someone from using/doing/eating something when they're at home?

The same way they can ban people from driving who've been banned umpteen times before....

Gary L · 21-09-2010, 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

The same way they can ban people from driving who've been banned umpteen times before....

No. it's not the same way.
I could have been banned from reading this forum because you're all a bunch of weirdos, but I can still do it.

without having a police guard standing over me they are never going to know.

but another thing is. what right does the court have to actually stop you from using MSN in the first place?

Osem · 21-09-2010, 22:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

No. it's not the same way.
I could have been banned from reading this forum because you're all a bunch of weirdos, but I can still do it.

without having a police guard standing over me they are never going to know.

but another thing is. what right does the court have to actually stop you from using MSN in the first place?

You may not be used to it around here but I was actually agreeing with you, hence the

...

Plenty of people are banned from driving but carry on regardless - IMO those bans are about as enforceable as this guy's MSN ban.

Gary L · 21-09-2010, 22:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

You may not be used to it around here but I was actually agreeing with you, hence the

...

Oh. sorry. I'm that used to people picking on me that I just thought you were

Quote:

Plenty of people are banned from driving but carry on regardless - IMO those bans are about as enforceable as this guy's MSN ban.

They're enforceable if someone of authority lives with the person 24hrs a day. it's just pointless giving him the ban in the first place. and I really do believe they have no right to ban somebody from doing something in their own home and not in their care.

vanman · 21-09-2010, 22:45

this paedophile is now on record so they could monitor his isp stopping him using msn from his home at lease.
but i think he needs his testicles dissected

SideWeaver · 22-09-2010, 01:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanman

this paedophile is now on record so they could monitor his isp stopping him using msn from his home at lease.
but i think he needs his testicles dissected

Yeah I am pretty sure they can have access to his traffic logs to see what he is doing on a daily basis. They have good grounds to access the logs the ISP have on their end.*

Pretty much like a tag but of a virtual nature.

* - I believe this is how it works but might not be 100% correct.

Derek · 22-09-2010, 07:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

They're enforceable if someone of authority lives with the person 24hrs a day. it's just pointless giving him the ban in the first place. and I really do believe they have no right to ban somebody from doing something in their own home and not in their care.

It isn't so much enforcing it as using it as an excuse for further punishment if the ban is breached. It's pretty trivial to prove someone has been using MSN etc. and if they are banned from doing so due to a history of grooming attempts then they can be hauled up in front of a judge and given an alternative punishment that involves a stay in one of her majesties bed and breakfasts.

Flyboy · 24-09-2010, 14:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

[/URL]

I've never understood this kind of thing. how can you ban someone from using/doing/eating something when they're at home?

It would be just the banning of using MSN, he would be banned from possessing or using a computer full stop.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

It isn't so much enforcing it as using it as an excuse for further punishment if the ban is breached. It's pretty trivial to prove someone has been using MSN etc. and if they are banned from doing so due to a history of grooming attempts then they can be hauled up in front of a judge and given an alternative punishment that involves a stay in one of her majesties bed and breakfasts.

Besides, he'll have at least seven years to forget about using a computer again.

nffc · 24-09-2010, 17:35

******* should be locked up and banned from the internet for it, but branding him a paedophile is incorrect.

broadbandking · 24-09-2010, 17:39

He needs to be locked up for life so he can't attempt to abuse a child again, well actually and very deep hole with him thrown in to it would be better, dam ****.

---------- Post added at 17:39 ---------- Previous post was at 17:39 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nffc

******* should be locked up and banned from the internet for it, but branding him a paedophile is incorrect.

How is it?