Am I? An adult who is attracted children who has no intention of acting on their attraction would not be trying to pick children up online thus would not be in danger of being entrapped by the police. Or are you suggesting that the police somehow trick them in to going to chat rooms to try to pick up children?
Hey, at least I'm not defending perverts who try to abuse children.
Do I? You've repeatedly tried to defend those who have been caught by police officers posing as children online.
You are aware that there are countries other than the US? And whilst it is not law in the UK it seems like common sense to take ID for your children when staying in a hotel.
Really? Are you sure that you are a parent? Well it is his problem as Travelodge have a policy of asking for a child's ID and he wanted to stay in a Travelodge.
How are the hotel staff to know that they were father and daughter? They do have a company policy to ask for the ID of every child staying in their hotels but don't let facts of anything get in the way of your persecution complex.
Wow, you sound like a real tough guy! What a role model you are! Honestly if you think being asked for ID for child is a reason to knock out someone who is just doing their job then you really need to re-evaluate your priorities in life.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh no, what I am to do? But it is interesting what kind of a pervert a person is, is of relevance to you. Well... by interesting I mean weird...
Last edited by Pann; 2017-04-21 at 08:34 AM.
What? Although I have no experience in this matter I would imagine that a chat room with children (or police officers pretending to be children) is the last place that a man (or woman) who is attracted to children but has no intention of acting on that attraction would go. But what do I know?
But thank you for the pointless and not at all relevant to my point education on what entrapment means.
Clearly, as you've still yet to grasp what "entrapment" is. I explained it on the previous page. Try reading. Or, you know, a dictionary.
No, they wouldn't be trying to pick up children online.
You're almost there. You can do it!
Neither am I. But hey, way to double down on your stupid.
No, I haven't. Learn to read.
Seems like they singled him out and sprung it on him. If he'd known that he needed his daughter's ID lest he be accused of being something other than a father, he would have brought it.
I mean, that is the logic deduction. Unless, of course, it's common for them to get child predators coming to their hotel, in which case they should probably just shut down.
I am. Not sure how that's relevant.
I'm not explaining this again. If you're too dense to comprehend the context of my comments, you should just stop responding.
It's exactly relevant. But please, hand-wave away.
I am fully aware what entrapment means I am however struggling to see how it fits your argument that people trying to groom children online are being entrapped.
So what are these poor men doing then when they inadvertently try to groom police officers instead of children?
So the police do trick the poor perverts into going online to try to pick up children? Wow that is some paranoia.
Sure sounds like you are.
Uhm, yes, you have. You've even claimed that is some kind of police conspiracy in the very post where you claim not to be defending them. Perhaps it is your inability to articulate your point rather than my ability to read that is at fault here?
Does it? How do you know? You're just making things up. He wasn't accused of anything he was asked to provide ID for his daughter for most people this is a perfectly normal request.
What? You are not making sense. How do they know the familial relationship from just looking at two people? Are you seriously suggesting that they just ignore the prospect that a child might be in danger? Wow!
I am not sure of its relevance either but you've repeatedly stated you'd knock someone out so I guess you think it impresses someone.
Aw. Explaining again would imply you've offered an explanation.
In what context is attempting to knock out a member of hotel staff for asking to see your child's ID ever acceptable? It is ironic that you, as someone who thinks physically attacking someone for asking a question is somehow the appropriate response, would call someone else "dense".
It is not at all relevant. People who have no intention of acting upon their impulses are not going to visit chat rooms to try to groom children thus they are in no danger of being entrapped by the police. You seem to have a really strange definition of entrapment.
The only thing you're struggling with is critical thinking, as I never made that argument.
Again, can you not read? I said if cops are posing as "victims" and attempting to manipulate someone into acting in a way they normally wouldn't that is entrapment. Literally.
I'm really not sure why you insist on being so obtuse, but someone going online and/or going into chat rooms does not automatically mean that they're trying to "groom children". You have to actually establish that is the case in order to even make that argument.
All this tells me is that your ability to parse coherent logic is flawed. Pointing out a possible discrepancy in how an operation is carried out does not imply support for the subject of that operation or his/her actions. Next you'll say that anyone who objects to the police shooting someone they suspect of murder without bothering to arrest them and give them a fair trial is themselves a "murderer". The authorities have to follow the rules and should be held accountable if they fail to do so.
He clearly didn't know he needed to prove he was her father or he would have brought proof. That's a pretty logical deduction. And they called the authorities before they even asked him for proof. That alone is an indirect accusation and it's insulting.
Rational people don't look at every man as though they're a pedophile, even when they're with a young girl. This type of mentality is inherently wrong. And no, they shouldn't ignore the possibility, but it's not exactly difficult to tell when a child is under duress. Use some common sense. It's really not that hard.
Just a statement of fact. What others think of it is irrelevant.
Implying that someone may be a "sex predator", even if they're not, is inherently degrading. Asking for proof of parenthood, out of the blue, from someone who was clearly not expecting such a request is the equivalent of such an accusation. Again, not a difficult concept to grasp.
It is relevant because you're ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly specified behavior on the part of the authorities that constitutes entrapment, yet you keep insisting that I'm calling situations where actual predators are actively seeking out victims and the authorities are catching them in the act "entrapment", which is a false narrative on your part.
It is perfectly conceivable for someone who has an innate attraction to teenage girls, for example, and no intent to act upon it, to be minding their own business, perhaps chatting with others of a similar disorder, and be approached by an officer posing as a teenage girl who then manipulates or coerces them into questionable conversation and/or meeting in person for the sole purpose of arresting them. This would be entrapment, literally. On the other hand, if the officer was minding their own business and a predator approached them in the same manner, this would not be entrapment.
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-04-21 at 07:25 PM.
I am not sure why you brought this up in the first place or why you keep trying to place the blame for the actions of online child abusers with the police.
I never said that it did, that's that paranoia again. I don't have to establish anything. You're the one that made the ridiculous argument that men were supposedly being entrapped by police on the internet.
Does it really? At this point in time I really don't think you understand what is or is not entrapment. Also I am not sure why you need the word murderer in quotation marks since this part of a bizarre fantasy of yours.
And no one is disputing that he did not know he needed to bring ID. According to Mr Darwell "We checked in and then I had to move my car" at this point in time the staff do not know if he is moving his car or dropping the girl to be involved in sex trafficking, like the gang in this story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...king-gang.html
It appears to be an unfortunate misunderstanding that "...took them about two seconds to realise he had got the wrong end of the stick..." However it could have been avoided by taking a few seconds to pack some ID for his daughter.
No one is looking at every man as if they are a paedophile, and just to return to your earlier pedantry she was 13. This type of mentality exists only in your mind.
Ok so what you are saying is that as long as the adult does a good enough job grooming the child so they don't look under duress then no one should ask any questions? Utterly ridiculous.
Of course it is.
Asking to see a child's ID who is staying in a hotel is not implying that someone might be a sexual predator. It is not the hotel's fault Mr Darwell forgot to engage his brain when packing and was not expecting such a request.
No it is not. Your lack of understanding as what constitutes entrapment is neither here nor there. A police officer posing online as a child is not entrapping anyone.
Perfectly conceivable in your mind but back in the real world evidence gathered in this manner is not admissible.
I have to say that your continued efforts trying to justify the actions of child sex exploiters and your objection to hotels asking to see ID for minor staying on their premises (that might help identify child sex exploitation) is really rather disturbing. And even more so considering your claim to be a parent yourself.
I didn't.
I said it was possible.
I've already explained the difference. You're welcome to disagree, but you'll still be wrong.
A word in quotes implies the word is not being used seriously. Basic English and all.
And it's insulting and degrading nonetheless.
People don't typically do things like this unless they know know they have to.
It appears in any rational man's mind in cases of people falsely accusing someone of this type of behavior.
I'm saying that the idea that people should think the worst by default, even if it's "for the children", is fucking retarded.
No, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities sure as hell is.
It's certainly not the hotel's fault that he didn't do something he didn't know he needed to. It is their fault for not informing him beforehand that he needed to, though.
That's hilariously ironic, considering the stupidity of your posts for 4+ pages.
If the subject initiates and advances the situation, no. If the officer does, however, it is. That's how that word works.
And I have to say that your continued efforts to portray my objection to people with mental disorders being manipulated into an entrapment-type situation as indicative of some sort of predatory behavior disturbing. I'm starting to wonder if I should be concerned for your mental health.
Uhm, yes you did.
Lots of thing are possible although many of those things have no place in this thread. So again I am not sure why you seem to believe that the police are entrapping men on the internet.
No a word in quotes implies that it is a quote. The clue is in the name.
Being asked for your child's ID is not insulting or degrading.
Why wouldn't a parent think to bring along ID for their child when staying a hotel? Still at least you now seem to acknowledge that children do have ID.
No one accused anyone of this type of behaviour. You're making things up again.
They don't. Asking for ID is not thinking the worst.
No it is not. Criminals often try to disguise their criminal behaviour and as a result perfectly innocent people sometimes behave in a manner that is similar to that of criminals. It appears that this is one of those occasions.
I agree, they should have informed him beforehand and they have apologised to him and his daughter. However the smell of compensation is strong in the air therefore a minor issue must be reported to the tabloids.
No, it really isn't. The fact that a pervert tried to groom a police officer rather than their intended target is not entrapment.
There you go again trying to excuse the behaviour of those who try to exploit children for sex. Going on the internet and trying to pick a child is not someone being manipulated.
No, I didn't. Nothing in what you quoted places blame on police for trying to stop actual child sex predators. It merely hints at the questionable behavior of some officers in regards to non-predatory individuals.
It also implies a less-than-serious connotation. Learn English.
Again, being asked for proof of parenthood and having the authorities called on you is.
A parent who does not carry a child's ID with them all the time and/or who has never been informed of a necessity to do so will not do so. Nor should they have to unless specifically required to and informed of that requirement. This is standard human behavior.
Again, asking for proof of parenthood and calling the authorities is an accusation, albeit nor formally.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
The word groom refers to the manipulation of an individual to get them to do what you want. In a scenario like I mentioned, where the "pervert" is minding his own business and a police officer starts flirting with him, hinting at sex and invites him to "her place", the officer is grooming the "pervert" and it is, in fact, entrapment.
There you go again completely failing at basic reading comprehension. Again, if some "pervert" is minding their own business and an undercover officer plays on their mental disorder to manipulate them into behaving in a manner they wouldn't behave in normally, this is entrapment; it's illegal and it's wrong.
As far as your claim that I'm "making excuses" for predators, well, you're either trolling or an imbecile.
Last edited by Mistame; 2017-04-21 at 09:39 PM.
Oh, I'm sorry I forgot you call them weak willed men.
Why? Even Mr Darwell admits that it was a misunderstanding that was quickly cleared up. But let's be honest for all the hotel staff knew he could have been one those mentally ill/weak willed people that somehow get tricked into abusing children.
No they do not, but staying in a hotel is not an everyday occurrence.
No, it is not. I explained this to you but despite the tedious nature of breaking everything down and replying to individual sentences you for some reason or another forgot to quote it.
Oh. No it's not.
He's behind you!
The pervert is minding his own business and a police officer suddenly takes over his internet and starts flirting with him, blah, blah but he never stops to think hey this is wrong? That sounds very much like blaming a rape victim for wearing a short skirt.
You appear to have a problem with concept of accepting responsibility. If the man with mental health issues, as you put it, was minding his own business he would not in chat rooms talking to children/police officers.
Yeah, that must it. Couldn't possibly be you? Could it?
Last edited by Pann; 2017-04-21 at 10:02 PM.
Your misrepresentation of the point isn't really doing you any favors.
An accusation, a suspicion or even a suggestion about something so horrible is inherently disrespectful and degrading. Being asked for proof of parenthood and especially having the authorities called on you falls under that umbrella. This guy apparently agrees.
You clearly don't understand how mental disorders work.
On the contrary, if someone actively seeks out a victim, they should be dealt with. But if an officer manipulates someone into acting in a manner they normally wouldn't, it's text-book entrapment. Clearly you've yet to grasp this concept.
If you weren't so busy trolling, you'd understand that if he's minding his own business, he wouldn't be chatting up children or officers pretending to be children. What part of the officer initiating and advancing the scenario did you not understand?
The point I was trying to make was that this was checked in relation to anti-pedophilia campaign as per the article. That you want to pretend it did not include some degree of an assumption about the guy being a potential pedophile is either you grasping at semantic hairs or just being outright dishonest. Either way, your problem, not mine.
They merely corrected you on wrong usage of words? I am not sure what point you're trying to make.
Yeah, carrying a birth certificate with you at all times is all the rage nowadays. And so is carrying a passport if you're not traveling outside of the country.
Except for some UK airlines.
Except it's not actually mentioned anywhere in their official policy. Which has been already covered in the thread. But who'd pay attention to such trifles.
Neither hebephilia nor ephebophilia are innately paraphilias. But hey, you already established you don't care about what words mean.
Fascinating.