[Closed] Police supporting vigilante squads

The police will arrest whoever is apparently breaking the law. It's their job. They release them when they are satisfied they have not broken the law.

Absolute cock up by the vigilantes - interesting interview with one on 5Live just before this broke who was adamant this wouldn't happen.

If the Police arrest me and take my DNA, it will come in handy if they ever need to link me to another crime.

Hope they sue them. The police should know better but I can imagine it being a fairly hostile environment, perhaps taking the victims away was easier.

Humberside Police declined to comment on Monday's arrests but the force has previously warned against vigilante groups carrying out stings, saying they can create more problems than they solve.

If the Police arrest me and take my DNA, it will come in handy if they ever need to link me to another crime.

Hmmmmm.

Hope they sue them.

Definitely.

but IMHO heads need to be rolling in the police too

I'm not sure advocating  people lose their jobs over a situation you don't know all the facts about is the best step forward 🙂

Hope they sue them. The police should know better but I can imagine it being a fairly hostile environment, perhaps taking the victims away was easier.

This.

Attending, getting the couple away from the mob, and sorting it out in a calm safe place was the right thing to do.

😄 My comment doesn't quite come across as I'd intended. But I've got a pretty strong alibi for the Kennedy assassination 👍

You're arrested on suspicion of a crime, by the sounds of it the police had reasnoble grounds for that (a "witness" saying they did something). Then on further investigation determined that wasnt the case.

Hope at the very least the vigilantes are charged with wasting police time, if not assaulting the poor blokes and slander and whatever else they can be.

The description I read - and of course this was as related to a journalist so the usual standards of evidence don't apply - was that the couple had been detained (by the vigilantes), and moved to another location nearby where they were prevented from leaving. So, I was surprised the police didn't basically just arrest everyone and sort them out at the station later, because that sounded a bit like a kidnapping. Which is ironic.

It sounds very much like the vigilantes need to answer some charges relating to this.

When they say they won't be taking responsibility for all of the stuff that happened, who else, exactly, is responsible for their actions?

It doesn't sound like the police have done anything wrong, or supported the vigilantes, in the circumstances.

The police conduct In this incident should be Investigated. So should the conduct of the so called child protectors with a view to prosecution if appropriate, then they can be sued.Saying we are truly sorry doesn't begin to cut it.

It's entirely possible the police arrested the two guys for their own safety to be fair, faced with an angry mob, it may well have been the most sensible option.

Oh good. Lynch mobs hunting child molesters.

That worked out really well last time around.

Their apology is a joke.

Tricky one, depends a bit on how inflamed the situation was.

If things weren't kicking off then I would have thought it would have been simple enough for the police to establish, at the scene, the couple were visiting family and therefore highly unlikely to be related to the person the vigilantes were trying to trap (if at that point the vigilantes remained aggressive/threatening to the couple the vigilantes should have been arrested).

If things were kicking off and they were only arrested for their own safety then surely also the vigilante group were guilty of an offence (affray?) and the officers, once the couple were in a police car, should have called for backup to deal with the vigilante group.

If things weren’t kicking off then I would have thought it would have been simple enough for the police to establish, at the scene

Not defending the vigilantes in anyway whatsoever.
Simple it would not be. Cba to do a big post from my phone but Playing devils advocate, if you pitch up and you’re given credible allegations about an offence and want to question the suspect has been committed you’d have to caution them, you also need to decide straight away if they don’t want to talk and are going to walk off, destroy evidence bin their phones am I going to allow this - if not you’re going to arrest them and then you can de-arrest. The lads weren’t outside the relevant address so that adds a complication of detaining them while you verify their story, etc

It sounds very much like the vigilantes need to answer some charges relating to this.

I’m not quite sure what those who are saying the police should be investigated think they should be investigated for?

Arresting people in order to investigate alleged ongoing child sexual offences?

Adhering to the proper process by taking suspects into custody before questioning them, as the law requires?

Leaving their crystal ball at home that day?

Don’t get me wrong, the vigilante groups are a pain in the arse, but I am not seeing anything in that article that indicates anything improper has been done by the police.

I also believe that if you’re arrested your DNA is taken by force and permanently added to the police database.

Then Venn diagram of your belief v reality is two circles that don't intersect.

I also believe that if you’re arrested your DNA is taken by force and permanently added to the police database.

Then Venn diagram of your belief v reality is two circles that don’t intersect.

I thought that was the case, is it not?

With the caveat that it’s 12 years since I moved from England, and have had no reason to keep up to date with the law there, I think they can still take and retain samples from anyone arrested, regardless of the outcome of the case. This is/was being challenged in the courts at one point.

In Scotland, we only take DNA if you’re charged, and we only keep it if you’re convicted, although we can use force to take it if necessary.

https://www.acro.police.uk/Early_Deletion_of_Biometric_Information.aspx

Details are here:

this implies they can take a cheek swab by force: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539483

This states it can be kept for 3 years (for qualifying offences which if the two int he OP were arrested for possibel child molesting etc would be the case): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-dna-and-fingerprint-provisions/protection-of-freedoms-act-2012-how-dna-and-fingerprint-evidence-is-protected-in-law

so there is an intersection.

Don’t get me wrong, the vigilante groups are a pain in the arse, but I am not seeing anything in that article that indicates anything improper has been done by the police.

Stop bringing facts into this it’s all about speculation  and saying the police support vigilante groups even when they condemned to the press.

The law changed in England and samples from people where no charges are brought are "only" retained for 3 years, unless an application is made to keep them longer (over 5 yrs would need a court order).

TGA - do you arrest everyone alleged to have committed a crime as your first action to investigate that crime? One of the "lessons" from the Carl Beech case was that the police had been too quick to assume that allegations were credible. You can ask questions without arresting someone, although of course the answers may not be admissible in court. Presumably your Custody Sergeant would prefer you weren't depriving people of their liberty if you could have satisfied yourself that these people were witnesses not suspects at the scene? Of course that may not have been possible, or they may not have been cooperative.

he couple had been detained (by the vigilantes), and moved to another location nearby where they were prevented from leaving.

I know the law varies from country to country - so, what constitutes as a "Citizen's Arrest", rather than a kidnapping, in the UK? Assuming that the vigilantes in this case were sincere and genuinely believed they had apprehend criminals and wanted to prevent their escape before the fuzz arrive, rather than some indiscriminate mob. Were their actions in detaining their suspects illegal, regardless of whether their suspected perps were guilty or innocent?

if you pitch up and you’re given credible allegations about an offence and want to question the suspect has been committed you’d have to caution them, you also need to decide straight away if they don’t want to talk and are going to walk off, destroy evidence bin their phones am I going to allow this – if not you’re going to arrest them and then you can de-arrest

Agree and I know we're all just speculating about how things went down at the time but to me the "credible allegation" part is where there may have been an opportunity to ascertain that at the scene. Presumably if the officers had asked the vigilante mob what the basis for their allegation was it would have become clear it was just the couple of in the vicinity of where they expected a paedophile to be but they didn't have a description/ID of the suspected paedophile or anything else to link them to whatever method they were communicating with the suspected paedophile.

At that point (had I been the person in the wrong place at the wrong time and had been cooperative) I think I'd have been pissed off if the police still chose to arrest me (on suspicion of committing an offence). It's not just a few hours of your time being wasted, I imagine it's a bit of an ordeal getting carted off to the station and potentially interviewed over such disgusting allegations

But yeah a bit pointless speculating without all the facts or an understanding of how chaotic the scene was, I'm not anti-police in anyway, far from it.

The law changed in England and samples from people where no charges are brought are “only” retained for 3 years, unless an application is made to keep them longer (over 5 yrs would need a court order).

Thanks, I regard that as great news.

"I am not seeing anything in that article that indicates anything improper has been done by the police."

As always with these things it's impossible to tell from an almost certainly inaccurate news report, but here's a potential argument:

As I'm sure you know, kidnap and false imprisonment, having the potential for life imprisonment, are more serious offences than meeting a child following grooming (10 years). If a priority call had to be made then those should have been the ones investigated. There seems to have been a clear public order offence and quite possibly affray, and yet no mention of arrests on the vigilante side. If the police are systematically ignoring crimes committed by vigilante groups then that would seem to be reasonable cause for complaint. And would justify the "police supporting vigilante squad" accusation.

The article doesn't mention a reason for the arrests but, given the circumstances, you'd have expected the victims to have been cooperative, rendering arrest unnecessary and therefore unlawful. To the best of my knowledge the use of PACE s32 (I'm going to have remembered that wrong) as a necessity criteria for arrest (I needed to arrest otherwise I wouldn't be allowed to search) has never been tested by the courts.

given the circumstances, you’d have expected the victims to have been cooperative, rendering arrest unnecessary

I dunno, if I'd been accosted by a mob outside my family's house whilst visiting I imagine I'd be pretty worked up and uncooperative by the time the police arrived!

That's not keyboard warriorism, I'm as placid and laid back as they come.

Much easier for police to arrest 'suspects' without evidence than to deal with self-righteous 'vigilante' morons.
As with many posts ^^^ the 'vigilantes' should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for any and every possible offence; give it to the CPS' finest.
Use of term moron is deliberate - remember the halfwits in Bristol who could not distinguish between paedophile and paediatrician?
Are social media complicit in this by providing hosting services for these groups of morons?
Police should think before taking action; their guiding principle appears to be....ready, fire, aim.

Drac 😀

The law changed in England and samples from people where no charges are brought are “only” retained for 3 years, unless an application is made to keep them longer (over 5 yrs would need a court order).

That’s an improvement then 👍🏼

TGA – do you arrest everyone alleged to have committed a crime as your first action to investigate that crime?

The work I do (serious crime), pretty much never, we do a ton of work beforehand. But in a dynamic, ongoing situation, which these vigilante incidents invariably are, because they phone us after they’ve confronted the suspect/potential suspect, which means an immediate decision often has to be made giving due regard to securing evidence, securing a suspect, preventing interference with witnesses, safeguarding any child, potentially lots of reasons. But if it’s possible to resolve it without arresting anyone, then absolutely that’s the best way - sometimes possible, sometimes not, as you say it depends on the situation.

I dunno, if I’d been accosted by a mob outside my family’s house whilst visiting I imagine I’d be pretty worked up and uncooperative by the time the police arrived!

That’s not keyboard warriorism, I’m as placid and laid back as they come.

Me too. But either I'd be delighted the police were there to sort it out and only too keen to share my version with the officers, or I'd probably have already lost it and legitimately been locked up for a totally different public order offence.

The focus should be on the vigilante group, not the Police.

Unfortunately these groups rarely seem to contain the brightest of individuals as the 'cause' often seems to attract the kind of people who also talk about "muslamic rayguns", people who have little understanding of important things such as the legal process.

We've seen the idiocy of 'Paedo Hunter' groups previously.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/vigilante-mob-attacks-home-of-paediatrician-710864.html

As always with these things it’s impossible to tell from an almost certainly inaccurate news report

Indeed, that’s where I’m coming from really.

but here’s a potential argument:

And a fair one, although I’m fairly confident that that level of ‘kidnapping’ would not attract a life sentence, and the counter argument could be that in the context of the scenario a short term ‘kidnapping’ was less serious than meeting a child for sex (which it appears somebody was doing, albeit not these chaps).

But I would hope that any offences committed by the vigilantes would be robustly pursued.

Yorkshire Child Protectors sound like ****ing idiots. Just checked youtube and there are loads of "groomer caught" videos.
[i]remember the halfwits in Bristol who could not distinguish between paedophile and paediatrician?[/i]
Near Portsmouth, I believe that was (unless there was more than one case)

Me too. But either I’d be delighted the police were there to sort it out and only too keen to share my version with the officers,

Thing is, imagine you're in that situation.

You've not had time to delete your browsing history, delete tinder/grindr/scisor, purge the watsapp messages from your ex, even if all that was entirely legal. And you're getting more and more convinced you've been fitted up for something. And do you really want to hand that phone over to someone who's going to go through all that in detail looking for evidence that you're a wrongun?

Ah not-a-spoon, unfortunately I can't imagine both being me and not being able to delete various apps I've never used (I've never even heard of scisor - must check it out) or anything interesting in any of my whatsapp messages ever. I'm sure the cops at the scene don't want to be trawling through my bike forum browsing history. But I take your point.

different incident in pompey:

Five families who were wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders were forced to flee their homes in the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth as violence flared earlier this month.

Hull Daily Mail has more information on this incident and a previous incident from nearly two years ago when the same group caused a riot.

Unfortunately these groups rarely seem to contain the brightest of individuals

I don't really want to make assumptions and their cause is laudable if misguided. But you've surely got to question the thought process of a group who are simultaneously throwing homophobic abuse at a couple of gay lads whilst simultaneously accusing them of grooming underage girls.

remember the halfwits in Bristol who could not distinguish between paedophile and paediatrician?

Also those that burned a learning disabled man to death as well were from Bristol.

The problem the police have is that these groups do provide usefull evidence they can use against active paedophiles. They have to balance that against the fact that many members of these groups are inadequate bullies. Once it gets to the point of "confronting" suspects then they've gone to far. Police should make it clear that they wouldn't accept information at that point, and are only interested in intelligence.

Police should make it clear that they wouldn’t accept information at that point, and are only interested in intelligence.

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but that’s just not possible. It’s a child protection issue and the police can’t just turn round and say we’re not investigating it.

Police should make it clear that they wouldn’t accept information at that point, and are only interested in intelligence.

They would 100% sure lose interest if that was the case. They are in it for the confrontation.

@nealglover. Having had the misfortune to speak to a couple of them thats very much my assessment as well.

Re comments about investigating the police I bow to your greater knowledge @TheGreatApe

It’s not that great gordi, just picked up the odd thing here and there over the years 😀

The vigilantes screwed up; badly.  I hope they get prosecuted and sued.  It's not the sort of thing you can get wrong.

It’s not the sort of thing you can get wrong.

Exactly, nobodys perfect, but I'd rather have the Rozzers than these nobheads.

I appreciate where you’re coming from, but that’s just not possible. It’s a child protection issue and the police can’t just turn round and say we’re not investigating it.

There are no children. I know that’s flippant and the point is the suspected offender apparently thinks there are children but the immediate risk is very low; afterall barring some incredible evidence or admission they are going to be released on bail in 24hrs whilst computer records are examined etc.

There are (a) any other children he may have been contacting other than the pretend one, and (b) any children he may have access to - his own, relatives, girlfriends kids etc.

The police have acted correctly here from what I can see -
They had a suspicion someone had committed a crime. Given the nature of the crime it is important to seize any electronic devices for examination, the powers of which require arrest. No arrest could lead to the destruction / disposal of crucial evidence. They will also have needed to consider the safety of the two falsely accused men - leaving them with a baying mob is not the most sensible of actions...

The fault here lies with the Paedophile hunters. They have jumped too early in search of Internet hits, and unfairly and wrongly broadcast two innocent people being accused of one of the most abhorrent crimes with no consideration/proof. The law allows a citizens arrest only when that citizen KNOWS that person has committed a crime, whilst police only need to suspect. The paedophile hunters clearly didn't know those people had committed a crime as they were the wrong people - it couldn't have been them. In my opinion action needs to be considered against them as such misidentifications can have serious ramifications.

Also, have you considered the outcry of the police weren't arresting suspected paedophiles?

What if that same paedophile went on to harm a child, rather than be subject to bail conditions, etc?

I'm not advocating locking everyone up. I am suggesting that both sides need to be considered, and the health and welfare of vulnerable people (such as kids) should always be at the forefront of any decision making, as per the comments of TheGreatApe...

We only know about this because it was quickly obvious that they were innocent, I understand this was because the real target continued to communicate with the vigilantes after the arrest. Imagine for a sec that the real target saw the arrest (they were supposed to be there) and stopped messaging. In that scenario, the couple could still be under investigation now.

That's what really scares me about this incident, any of us could be in this situation and it could change your life even if you aren't ultimately charged because there's no evidence.