Vigilantes: Policing the Net?

Earlier this month, a young gay couple from West Sussex were left traumatised after they were targeted and physically attacked by group of violent self-appointed vigilantes, who wrongly suspected one of them of contacting via the internet, for immoral purposes, a female child, invented by the vigilante group.  As the 'sting' was carried out, the targeted duo were surrounded by a mob of around fifteen individuals screaming homophobic abuse and one of the innocent men was dragged from their car. Of course, as is often the case in these vigilante stings, the attack was filmed and live-streamed to over 30,000 viewers, many of whom doubtless 'liked' the footage on Facebook.

'Yorkshire Child Protectors'

In fact, the entire incident was an appalling example of mistaken identity by their assailants, who had misidentified one of the men from a poor quality digital photograph. Nevertheless, to add to their ordeal, the police still arrested the two innocent victims and they were held overnight in cells while their mobile phones were checked. It soon became apparent that the vigilantes had targeted the wrong people, not least because – even after the two innocent men had been taken into custody and their mobiles seized – the alleged online predator they were hunting was continuing to communicate with the non-existent child the group had created.

The following day, the two victims were released without charge by police and the vigilante group responsible, the self-styled ‘Yorkshire Child Protectors’, was obliged to make a public apology. Even so, the leader of the outfit still made an effort to put the blame onto others, rather than accept full responsibility for the appalling incident. He also defended the group's tactics in posting 'sting' videos on their Facebook site.

What was even more troubling was that the Yorkshire Child Protectors had been stalking their innocent victims for some time, as well as intimidating the sister of one of the innocent men. She had been pressured into luring her brother and his partner up to Hull, where she lives. Once there, they could be ambushed, attacked, abused and publicly shamed online. So much for ‘justice’ when a gang of violent, ruthless vigilantes can act – seemingly with impunity – as if they were detectives, prosecutors, judge and jury, as well as media broadcasters.

Innocent victims arrested by police

It remains to be seen whether the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will bring any criminal charges against members of this gang of thugs. Based on past experience, it seems highly unlikely. There has also been talk of the two men taking civil action against them, but that can prove ruinously expensive in legal costs for ordinary folk who are neither wealthy nor celebrities.

Vigilante groups have established a presence online over the past decade, especially here in Britain. Activists claim that they ‘police’ the internet and target paedophiles seeking contact with children in a way that UK police forces claim they lack the staff and resources to do. Activists also assert that their activities protect vulnerable youngsters from online predators, with evidence they gather being used by the CPS to support criminal prosecutions against individuals who pose a threat to children.

However, critics of these groups – including many senior police officers and lawyers – are warning that some of the vigilantes’ methods, such as live-streaming ‘stings’ on suspects in public places, or even on their own doorsteps, risk undermining the presumption of innocence, as well as the prospect of successful future prosecutions. To add to this, as we have seen in this appalling case of mistaken identity, sometimes these self-appointed vigilantes get it all horribly wrong. As this case highlights, innocent people can be mistakenly identified and accused publicly of being paedophiles – causing damage to their own reputations, and often to their families' reputations, that can never be undone. In some cases, following one of these vigilante stings, the trauma directly causes vulnerable targets to take their own lives.

So what motivates private citizens to set up, join or support online vigilante groups? One common thread seems to be the leadership of a forceful, confident individual, who is willing to gather around him (rarely her) a small number of like-minded people, often personal friends or family members, but in some cases ex-prison associates.

Kieren Parsons ('Stinson Hunter')

Some groups are led by people who claim that they themselves (or a close family member) have been a victim of sexual abuse, often of an historical nature. Others appear to be more motivated by the prospect of public accolades, online viewer ratings of their websites and, in certain cases, by opportunities to solicit cash donations online, particularly via crowd funding sites. One segment of these activists seem to maintain themselves by a combination of state benefits, supplemented by their online income from cash intended to support their vigilante activities. There is no doubt a sizeable tranche of these self-appointed vigilante types that simply take enormous pleasure in humiliating other people, while advertising their suffering and shame to the world.

As mentioned above, some vocal campaigners are themselves ex-prisoners, who have a string of previous convictions, often for anti-social offences such as assault, drug dealing, arson, robbery and fraud. As is well known, in prison culture, sex offenders – ‘nonces’ - are the ‘lowest of the low’, and those who have been convicted of abusing children at the bottom of the heap.

Most prisons segregate sex offenders from mainstream inmates to reduce the risk that they will be assaulted by other prisoners, or even murdered. It seems entirely possible that this prison culture of institutionalised revulsion for those suspected of being paedophiles or child abusers plays a key role in, at least, some of these vigilante groups.

There can also be a very strong undercurrent of virulent homophobia. For example, the young gay couple who were attacked in Hull were assaulted while being called ‘gay nonces’ and ‘poofs’ by members of the ruthless Yorkshire Child Protectors gang. Hardly evidence that ‘social justice’ of any kind is high on the group’s agenda. In fact, the details of this incident suggests that the real motivation is likely to have been an old-fashioned ‘gay bashing’, concealed for public consumption under a thin veneer of supposed child protection.

Some self-styled 'paedophile hunters' - such as Kieren Parsons (aka 'Stinson Hunter') – already have serious criminal records. Parsons is a convicted arsonist, who was previously jailed for ten years after he set fire to a local school, causing £250,000 worth of damage. As ‘Stinson Hunter’, he poses as a young girl online in a bid to entrap paedophiles, and was once lauded on Channel 4 in a documentary about online ‘paedo hunters’.

Dure: convicted criminal

Parsons' more recent exploits include vile behaviour towards his ex-girlfriend, including filming himself urinating on her clothing as a form of a bizarre revenge attack after she had left him. In subsequent interviews, Parsons has admitted having addiction and mental health problems. It might be thought that such a damaged individual is hardly a suitable role model for anyone who claims to be concerned about protecting children.

Of course, some vigilantes go on to acquire criminal records in the course of their on- and off-line activities. Convicted criminal Stephen Dure (aka 'Stevie Trap') was jailed for fifteen weeks in 2018, after he admitted falsely accusing an innocent man of grooming teenagers. The victim lost his job, and his home was attacked by vigilantes as a result. Dure runs a Facebook site which has over 240,000 followers, although he claims that he was banned from YouTube 'for life' earlier this year.

In other cases, the motivation behind involvement in online vigilante activities can be even darker. This year alone, at least three separate individuals who had been actively involved in ‘anti-paedophile’ campaigning on the internet were themselves convicted of possessing child abuse images and were exposed as paedophiles. They had used their self-appointed roles as vigilantes to gather illegal abuse material for their own sexual gratification. How many more of these genuine sexual predators are actually hiding in plain sight within the ranks of the vigilantes?

Philip Day: jailed for 15 years

And then there are dangerous obsessives who are drawn into the world of violent vigilantism. In May, one ‘anti-paedophile’ vigilante, Philip Day of Runcorn, was jailed for fifteen years, plus a five-year extended licence, after he had waged an eight-year campaign of hatred and harassment against innocent local teachers. Day’s final act was to set fire to a school where he had falsely claimed pupils had been sexually abused. He had also falsely claimed to have been a victim of abuse himself and had, unsuccessfully, made a series of bogus allegations over a period of years.

Some other online activists seem to become utterly unhinged due to their obsession with the whole subject of child abuse, often involving weird and destructive conspiracy theories. In January, Sabine McNeill, aged 74, was jailed for nine years for repeatedly breaching court injunctions against her spreading baseless malicious rumours and smear stories online against local clergy, teachers and parents in Hampstead, whom she accused of sacrificing children in ‘satanic’ rituals. Since her conviction, a string of her supporters and cheerleaders have also been prosecuted for a range of criminal offences related to their campaigns; some were jailed and others fined.

Sabine McNeill: 9 years jail

In another case, a Newbury businessman, who has a seeming obsession with the sexual abuse of boys, has been running a Facebook site for years on which he actively trawls for allegations against members of the teaching profession. Making contact via his website, he seems to get unalloyed pleasure from encouraging alleged victims of childhood abuse to relate their stories to him. In some cases he meets up with those he has made contact with online and invites them to his home. In specific cases he has played a role in spreading malicious smears about teachers, totally without foundation, as well as leaking confidential material in a bid to destroy innocent professionals' careers. He is suspected of helping bogus complainants network with other ex-pupils to develop their false allegations before approaching police.

Even more disturbing, he has also boasted online that he has been asked by specific police forces to forward information to them – effectively ‘trawling’ on their behalf – as well as gleefully updating his online followers with news about arrests, prosecutions and convictions. Tellingly, his Facebook site also features a link to a personal injury solicitor who specialises in sexual abuse compensation claims.

Although official police representatives often attempt to warn against the activities of these vigilantes, some police forces seem more willing than others to work with them in order to boost their conviction statistics. Thames Valley Police and Suffolk Constabulary are just two examples of police forces that have made use of the Newbury vigilante’s online services.

It seems that all these vigilantes are prepared to ditch the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' in a British court of law in order to expose anyone whom they suspect of being sexually interested in children. But they are always playing with fire and it is inevitable, as the awful story of the attack on the young gay couple in Hull shows only too graphically, sometimes innocent people are inevitably going to be seriously burnt.

Now we wait to see what legal reprisals the self-styled 'Yorkshire Child Protectors' will face following the recent fiasco. No one hold your breath.