24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4

[oobster]

CoolHands said:

I only watched first few mins and switched off as it was obvious it was horrible as soon as the under cover policeman started writing about smell of knickers on that chat room. Some things are not good to watch.

Same here, gave it maybe 10 minutes and had to turn off, WAY too much detail that the viewer didn't need to know.

[Gweeds]

Started watching with my wife and teenage daughter (almost 18) who studies criminology, law and sociology so has an interest in these areas.

We got about 5 mins in and that was enough. Massive respect for anyone working in this field, but wasn't something we could watch.

[Gameface]

3 years (and out in much less) for the bloke in the second episode who groomed and travelled to the Air B&B (with restraints, vibrator and a butt plug) to fk a 12 year old.

fking joke.

Edited by Gameface on Tuesday 16th February 14:38

[1602Mark]

Gameface said:

3 years (and out in much less) for the bloke in the second episode who groomed and travelled to the Air B&B (with restraints, vibratior and a butt plug) to fk a 12 year old.

fking joke.

Agreed. Especially given the lack of remorse and his self confessed lack of respect for the laws around this issue.

I also think the companies that host these supposed 'chat rooms' should be held to account. That said, were these all removed would it make the job of finding these offenders even tougher for the Police?

[nellystew]

The only things on the first bloke "Andrew Groombridge" on Google/DuckDuckgo are a couple of pages created today.

Either it was a false name or he's gone for "the right to be forgotten", but I see how Google have agreed to this as their rules say

For example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.

Surely this would come under the criminal convictions?

[hungry_hog]

Gameface said:

3 years (and out in much less) for the bloke in the second episode who groomed and travelled to the Air B&B (with restraints, vibrator and a butt plug) to fk a 12 year old.

fking joke.

Edited by Gameface on Tuesday 16th February 14:38

I don't understand why his punishment was more lenient than the first chap

He showed no remorse at all - even claimed he was going to "watch videos" with the girl whilst carrying half of Ann Summers in his bag

[XCP]

I guess if you don't want to know what the police do, don't watch a programme about what the police do.

Which is the reason I don't watch this type of programme.

[Gameface]

Real CSI programme on BBC2 at 21.00.

No.2 of 10 episodes. Last week's was good.

[Legacywr]

Last weeks was 1/10

[Gameface]

Yeah, I saw that on the other thread.

The kid they showed at the charging desk was about 4' tall and 7 stone.

Bloody ridiculous.

[untakenname]

Says episode 2/3 on my EPG, was a good one this week was surprised by the foot size of the suspect.

For the channel 4 program also discussed on the page I usually don't agree with trigger warnings but that episode was worthy of one.

[Driver101]

Gameface said:

3 years (and out in much less) for the bloke in the second episode who groomed and travelled to the Air B&B (with restraints, vibrator and a butt plug) to fk a 12 year old.

fking joke.

Edited by Gameface on Tuesday 16th February 14:38

Just watched this now.

He got 3 years when he was going to carry out the act, but the other guy got 8 for doing stuff on the net?

It's a disturbing program to watch. The problem is clearly much worse than most of us realise.

[jonwm]

Hard watch, I have a nearly 8 year old girl that is on her iPad lots chatting to friends and watching tik toks. my wife don't watch programs like this and she thought I was going mad when I was deleting everything off my daughters iPad.

I've always felt the vigilantes were doing it for the wrong reason and had a weird sometimes sympathy for the entrapment when they would snag a mental bloke chatting to a 15 year old, but last night I could have killed that guy going to the air BnB.

Guy with the wife obviously had some real issues and needed real help. Hundreds of messages to kids in a week..wtf what was his wife doing whilst he was doing this.

[Driver101]

Both weeks the programme has been on has highlighted how common it is for kids to be approached on social media by adults. Last week the police guy was approached 22 times by adults when he logged into a children's chat site.

For some reason, after the publicity of the historic paedophiles outed, I thought it was a crime on the decline. As the police said last night it's been getting significantly worse in recent years.

[warch]

XCP said:

I guess if you don't want to know what the police do, don't watch a programme about what the police do.

Which is the reason I don't watch this type of programme.

My Mum spent about forty years working with abused children, trying to elicit exactly what suspected paedophiles had done to them, including that stuff using a doll that people on the internet seem to use as comedy shorthand for when people are deemed to be over sensitive.

Of course social workers have none of the status the police have, and are variously regarded as being lefty/ineffectual/overzealous but not an easy job to do, especially as you will get criticised if you do nothing (e.g. Baby P) or do too much (e.g. Rochdale Satanic Rituals case).

There are loads of things that happen in modern society that people would prefer to pretend didn't happen.

[Oakey]

nellystew said:

The only things on the first bloke "Andrew Groombridge" on Google/DuckDuckgo are a couple of pages created today.

Either it was a false name or he's gone for "the right to be forgotten", but I see how Google have agreed to this as their rules say

For example, we may decline to remove certain information about financial scams, professional malpractice, criminal convictions, or public conduct of government officials.

Surely this would come under the criminal convictions?

It's not easy to get Google to remove something under right to be forgotten. I tried on behalf of a mate over a fraud case he got caught up in nearly 15 years ago and Google's response was "nope, we think this in the public interest".

[zygalski]

Could be another chap by the same name living in a similar area has asked it be removed from a Google because of death threats received from internet sleuths?

[thetapeworm]

Part 1 of the Paedophile thing has disappeared before I've had chance to watch it, seems a bit short-lived in a world of catch up TV

[tim0409]

thetapeworm said:

Part 1 of the Paedophile thing has disappeared before I've had chance to watch it, seems a bit short-lived in a world of catch up TV

They have probably done you a favour; like others have said, it was particularly difficult viewing. I gave up after 5 minutes, but then persevered later as I am normally interested in documentaries on policing, and whilst the subject matter was difficult it was good to see the police persevere and get results. It's good to see the Police actively engaging in seeking out these type of offenders.

I found it staggering how open and blatent the perpetrators are and the shear quantity of material they view; when they say they have recovered 10,000 images/videos (for example), does that mean they have viewed that number (and there is a trace left on their hard drive even when deleted), or they have physically saved them? Given the likelihood of an early morning knock on the door when you are engaging in this type of behaviour (especially contact offending) it seems incredibly reckless.

[Gameface]

tim0409 said:

I found it staggering how open and blatent the perpetrators

The bloke who'd been inside for this st before and was released on a "rehabilitation order" was using an email with his name in it FFS!