Dad holidaying with daughter wrongly accused of paedophilia

[Pann]

They pull that shit in the U.S., too. "Cyber crimes" divisions where officers go into chat rooms and pretend to be teenagers so they can entice weak-willed men into acting in a manner that lets them boost their arrest counts.

By "weak-willed men" you do of course mean paedophiles that are trying to hook up with children.

[shrunken]

They pull that shit in the U.S., too. "Cyber crimes" divisions where officers go into chat rooms and pretend to be teenagers so they can entice weak-willed men into acting in a manner that lets them boost their arrest counts.

I somehow suspect that their intentions may not be quite so statistic & monetarily driven as you believe. I doubt two decades of arrested pederasts is going to net the city & state as much income as a few weekends worth of well placed speedtraps.

- - - Updated - - -

By "weak-willed men" you do of course mean paedophiles that are trying to hook up with children.

You have to realize that he's taking it personally. As to why that is, I dare not venture a guess!

[Mistame]

By "weak-willed men" you do of course mean paedophiles that are trying to hook up with children.

I mean men who wouldn't normally act on their attraction but fall victim to the manipulations of an undercover officer. Also, "pedophile" does not cover teenagers.

I somehow suspect that their intentions may not be quite so statistic & monetarily driven as you believe. I doubt two decades of arrested pederasts is going to net the city & state as much income as a few weekends worth of well placed speedtraps.

The fact that I was mostly being sarcastic aside, speed traps don't make the news or boost PR.

You have to realize that he's taking it personally. As to why that is, I dare not venture a guess!

Um, what? I'm just pointing out the stupidity of it. I've no vested interested in either regard.

[Mehrunes]

And yeah, I'd prefer 1000 false-positives like OP's story if it means preventing the 1 possible chomo from getting away with his crime. You don't throw a stink at airport security too, right? Who's rights are being violated by that? Who's rights are being violated by this?

Eh, for the most part air security increases post 9/11 do nothing and are intrusive for the sake of being intrusive.

This isn't even a remotely relevant comparison and "rights" aren't even relevant.

Right to privacy is of some relevance actually.

Nobody assumed anyone was a paedophile he was asked to provide ID for his daughter. All these accusations of being a paedophile are nothing more than an idiot wanting a bit of compensation for his stupidity and of course those on the internet who have a permanent victim complex fall for this.

Yeah, all he was asked to do was to prove was that he was her father and not some completely random, unspecified person of any possible non-father nature. In relation to anti-pedophilia campaign and training. Obviously nothing to do with pedophilia.

[Pann]

I mean men who wouldn't normally act on their attraction but fall victim to the manipulations of an undercover officer. Also, "pedophile" does not cover teenagers.

Riiiight. Men who wouldn't normally act on their attractions yet they are online trying to hook up with children?!?

Yeah, being a common or garden nonce is so much better than being a paedophile! You sure showed me!

[Mistame]

Right to privacy is of some relevance actually.

Well, yeah. But it's not relevant to the point he was making.

Riiiight. Men who wouldn't normally act on their attractions yet they are online trying to hook up with children?!?

For that to even be a relevant argument, you'd have to establish first that was what they were doing. Without proof that's the case, officers impersonating a teenager and enticing someone into action is entrapment.

Yeah, being a common or garden nonce is so much better than being a paedophile! You sure showed me!

This makes no sense.

[Pann]

Yeah, all he was asked to do was to prove was that he was her father and not some completely random, unspecified person of any possible non-father nature. In relation to anti-pedophilia campaign and training. Obviously nothing to do with pedophilia.

I am not sure what point you're trying to make. It is not unreasonable for a hotel to ask for ID of a minor staying on their premises but you are welcome make this into something that it is not and I don't doubt that you will try.

[Mistame]

I am not sure what point you're trying to make. It is not unreasonable for a hotel to ask for ID of a minor staying on their premises but you are welcome make this into something that it is not and I don't doubt that you will try.

Fun fact: Most minors don't have IDs.

[Pann]

For that to even be a relevant argument, you'd have to establish first that was what they were doing. That doesn't make officers impersonating a teenager and enticing someone into action any less entrapment.

Okay. So innocent men just find themselves trying to pick up children in chat rooms? Maybe I am getting the wrong impression but it seems that you are sailing very close to excusing child sex exploitation.

This makes no sense.

Indeed it does not so I am not sure why you mentioned that paedophilia does not cover teenagers.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun fact: Most minors don't have IDs.

Really? My daughter is five and has both a birth certificate, which funny enough she has had since, well, not long after her birth, and a passport. Are you sure you're a parent?

[Mistame]

Okay. So innocent men just find themselves trying to pick up children in chat rooms? Maybe I am getting the wrong impression but it seems that you are sailing very close to excusing child sex exploitation.

Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what, but one can be in a chat room for reasons other than "picking up" someone.

Indeed it does not so I am not sure why you mentioned that paedophilia does not cover teenagers.

Because it literally doesn't. If you don't understand how the word works, don't use it.

Really? My daughter is five and has both a birth certificate, which funny enough she has had since, well, not long after her birth, and a passport. Are you sure you're a parent?

Well obviously they have birth certificates. Parents don't typically carry those around. And most minors don't have passports.

[Pann]

Well it IS true. Being attracted to someone that's 17 years old isn't "pedophilia". Should look the word up.

Oh, well thanks for that. I am not sure where you got 17 years old from or what relevance it has to this thread or anything I wrote but, hey, you get to make a point on the internet. Well done!

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse or what, but one can be in a chat room for reasons other than "picking up" someone.

Of course they can. But I struggle to see how someone who is not looking to hook up with a child would be entrapped by a police officer posing as a willing child.

Because it literally doesn't. If you don't understand how the word works, don't use it.

And? What is your point? If the police are able to secure convictions what does it matter whether it paedophilia or hebephilia? It seems a very strange point to make.

Well obviously they have birth certificates. Parents don't typically carry those around. And most minors don't have passports, not that a passport proves parenthood.

No, they don't but perhaps staying in a hotel is one of those times a parent might, just might, think that bringing along a birth certificate or another form of ID is a good idea?

[Mistame]

Of course they can. But I struggle to see how someone who is not looking to hook up with a child would be entrapped by a police officer posing as a willing child.

Because one can suffer from a -phelia while having no intention to act on it. An officer posing as someone of that age range can manipulate and entice that person into acting abnormally, which becomes entrapment. Obviously, that's not the case if the individual is there for that very purpose and seeks out the supposed "teenager", etc, of their own volition.

And? What is your point? If the police are able to secure convictions what does it matter whether it paedophilia or hebephilia? It seems a very strange point to make.

Being accurate is never a "strange" point. I specifically said "teenagers" and you responded with "pedophiles". I merely corrected you.

No, they don't but perhaps staying in a hotel is one of those times a parent might, just might, think that bringing along a birth certificate or another form of ID is a good idea?

When traveling to another country, perhaps, as a passport is required pretty much any time one does that. That still does not justify a private entity demanding "proof of parenthood".

[Pann]

Because one can suffer from a -phelia while having no intention to act on it. An officer posing as someone of that age range can manipulate and entice that person into acting abnormally, which becomes entrapment. Obviously, that's not the case if the individual is there for that very purpose and seeks out the supposed "teenager", etc, of their own volition.

Yes? And? Someone who has no intention of acting on their impulses would not be trying to talk to children online. You seem awfully determined to excuse child sex exploitation.

Being accurate is never a "strange" point. I specifically said "teenagers" and you responded with "pedophiles". I merely corrected you.

Good for you! I hope your future endeavours in excusing nonces is just as fruitful!

When traveling to another country, perhaps, as a passport is required pretty much any time one does that. That still does not justify a private entity demanding "proof of parenthood".

Really? Why shouldn't a parent take ID for their child if they are staying in a hotel regardless if it is in a foreign country or not? Like it or not, cheap hotels, like Travelodge, are used by people that sexually exploit children. Do you not think the hotels should be vigilant and attempt to make every effort to protect children from this? I mean packing your child's birth certificate is not exactly difficult or a hardship.

You say you have daughter do you not think the thirty seconds inconvenience packing and producing her ID is worth the chance of protecting someone else's daughter from potential exploitation?

The hotel is absolutely justified in asking for ID just as the father is justified in refusing to produce it however the hotel is then justified in refusing him accommodation and if they believe that a crime may be tacking place they are duty bound to report their suspicions to the police.

[Mistame]

Yes? And? Someone who has no intention of acting on their impulses would not be trying to talk to children online.

Okay, so you are being obtuse.

You seem awfully determined to excuse child sex exploitation.

And you seem awfully determined to express your lack of reading comprehension skills.

Good for you! I hope your future endeavours in excusing nonces is just as fruitful!

Not sure what "nonces" is supposed to mean, but given the rest of your comments I imagine it's neither important nor relevant.

Really? Why shouldn't a parent take ID for their child if they are staying in a hotel regardless if it is in a foreign country or not?

Because it's not necessary in-country in the U.S. It's not the role of hotel staff to verify parenthood.

Like it or not, cheap hotels, like Travelodge, are used by people that sexually exploit children.

Perhaps, but that's not the problem of a guy vacationing with his daughter.

Do you not think the hotels should be vigilant and attempt to make every effort to protect children from this?

I think they should watch for suspicious behavior. If the "child" seems to be under duress, etc, then they should call the authorities. I do not think it's their place to request a child's ID, nor proof of parenthood for no reason. Now if they have a company policy of requiring every adult, regardless of gender, traveling with a child or children to provide the identification for both the adult and child(ren), and proof of parenthood/guardianship then that's a different story. But singling out a man with his teen daughter because "OMG HE CUD B PREDATURZ" is just stupid.

You say you have daughter do you not think the thirty seconds inconvenience packing and producing her ID is worth the chance of protecting someone else's daughter from potential exploitation?

I think the implication that I'm anything other than a man with his daughter is enough for someone to get knocked out. I won't be singled out or insulted because "BUT DAH CHILRINZ".

[shrunken]

The fact that I was mostly being sarcastic aside, speed traps don't make the news or boost PR.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the sarcasm didn't come through. At least, not so strongly as your apparent problem with authorities making life tough for pedophiles online. Now I'm not here to judge you or... well, whatever. Just don't act on your weird tendencies and we'll have no problems amigo.

[plaits]

It's very likely nobody would've questioned it if it was a woman with her daughter or son though. And no, it wasn't just being asked to prove it since the police were called.

Not true. My friend lives in the UK and frequently travels to other European countries with her kids. Her kids have her husband's last name, but she does not. She was once detained at a border on suspicion of having kidnapped the kids because they didn't share her name and whatever documents she had on her at the time weren't enough to convince the border authorities that she legitimately had custody of them. Her husband had to come and get them along with proof they were married and that she wasn't some kind of non-custodial parent stealing the kids away from him.

ETA if it matters, she is white and her husband is not. Her kids do look Asian.

[Mistame]

Don't take this the wrong way, but the sarcasm didn't come through. At least, not so strongly as your apparent problem with authorities making life tough for pedophiles online. Now I'm not here to judge you or... well, whatever. Just don't act on your weird tendencies and we'll have no problems amigo.

The insinuation that because I mention what I deem to be a possible issue somehow makes me support the aforementioned types of actions or that I myself am guilty of them seems to suggest a bit of ignorance on your part. Not to mention that you seem to be confusing "pedophile" (or any other -phile) with "sexual predator", which are two distinctly different types of behaviors. The former being a mental disorder that is rarely acted upon and the latter being the type that actively seeks out victims. And more often than not, the latter is not actually diagnosed as the former.

My point was merely that an adult with even a moderate history in psychology, posing a "victim", may be able to convince the former of acting out in a way that they normally wouldn't and thus lure them into a trap to convict them of being the latter. IE, entrapment (which, by the way, is actually illegal). I do, however, support the authorities preventing the latter from obtaining victims via online resources, even by posing as a potential victim. The difference is in how the event occurs. If the "subject" is actively seeking out a victim, the officer merely provides them with a potential victim and the subject acts upon it, absolutely put them away. If the officer is attempting to manipulate the subject into acting, it becomes entrapment.

Alternatively, a less... caustic example would be officers who pose as prostitutes in order to catch men engaging in solicitation. If she's standing on the corner, he picks her up, they go to a motel and he offers to pay her for sex, then he's broken the law. However, if he's sitting at a bar, she goes up to him and starts flirting, touching him, etc, invites him to her room and then gets him aroused enough that he agrees to pay for an encounter, it's entrapment.

That said, a simple mentioning when booking that "Parents must provide valid ID of any children staying with them" would also be acceptable in my book. That way the parent isn't caught off guard at the hotel and unable to stay because of some silly policy rule he/she wasn't aware of that would otherwise NEVER come up in conversation or otherwise. And they are aware in advance why this is being done.

Agreed. If it's part of their policy and customers know this, it is no longer an issue. But, as in the OP, having your integrity questioned just because you're a man and your daughter is a teenage girl is inherently discriminatory, disrespectful and unprofessional.

[shrunken]

The insinuation that because I mention what I deem to be a possible issue somehow makes me support the aforementioned types of actions or that I myself am guilty of them seems to suggest a bit of ignorance on your part.

I lose sleep praying that I remain ignorant to your weird predilections.

[Mistame]

I lose sleep praying that I remain ignorant to your weird predilections.

You're cute when you're cunty.

[Anastacy]

We should definitely check for proof of parenthood anytime the race/ethnicity of the child is obviously different than the parent(s).

Because wow...red flag.