Ping
Vigilantism happens in the absence of the government enforcing existing laws, or favoring one group over another in that enforcement. The authorities ought to be grateful that this group has concentrated their efforts on a single issue. There are many potential others. For example, what happens when a single demographic is responsible for rapes and assaults and the government turns, or is perceived to be turning, a blind eye to it? Those authorities had better be thinking about that, because they already have one vigilante group and the next one might not be so well-behaved.
“Detective Superintendent Steven Woollett, of the Kent and Essex serious crime directorate, then warned vigilante groups could make paedophiles more evasive and said they should leave the job to the police.”
There’s simply no way to see this statement in a good light. At best it’s official snobbery, showing more concern for protocol than anything else. More likely, it’s an attempt at official protection for highly-placed monsters, which seems quite common in the UK.
“Detective Superintendent Steven Woollett, of the Kent and Essex serious crime directorate, then warned vigilante groups could make paedophiles more evasive and said they should leave the job to the police.”
I’d say that if whatever the “professionals” are doing isn’t making paedophiles more evasive then it can’t be very effective.
DS Woollett makes a valid point, vigilantes might sometimes be working at cross purposes with covert police ops. But the fact is the police and other agencies have failed and continue to fail. Not surprising when you realise that this corruption goes right to the top of the Civil Service.
Or, they could just expel a few million muzzies.
Pedophile sympathizers in government telling others to back off.