Cynic wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:00:38 GMT, Palindrome wrote:
>
>>>> It is the linkage to potential risk of children that seems to be the big
>>>> problem.
>
>>> So don't you think that it would be a good idea to establish whether
>>> such a link actually exists? Or would that be taking too much risk
>>> that what is discovered might be the wrong answer?
>
>> I can quite understand the authorities taking a "safety first"
>> principle. If a person was found to have abused children and it then
>> came out that the authorities knew that he had 4,000 indecent images of
>> children on his computer and had done nothing about it, there would be
>> hell to pay. They have to investigate.
>
> *Investigate* sure. And if no evidence of child abuse is found (as
> was the case in all but 1 of the Ore convictees), then what?
>
>> All research would produce is statistics, No help in determining if a
>> particular person represents a real risk. So they have to act on the
>> basis that he does, until sufficient evidence about him is produced to
>> indicate otherwise.
>
> But if you use the statistics that we have, it would indicate that a
> person who is found in possession of kp is no more likely to abuse a
> child than a random person from the general population.
>
> The corelation appears to be the *other way about* - that people who
> .ually abuse children are more likely than average to have kp
> (though even that is largely supposition, as there is no base line of
> the amount of people selected at random from the general population
> that have kp on their computer).
>
> You may as well put all men on the SOR and forbid contact with
> children on the grounds that 99% of all convicted child . abusers
> are men. After all, better to take a "safety first" approach - and if
> it saves just one child etc.
>
OK, so you seem to have conceded that a person with loads of kp on their
computer is worthy of *investigation*.
But totally ignored my point that statistics can never be applied when
investigating an individual. The average person isn't a murderer - so no
need to ask questions of the wife with a bloody pair of scissors in her
hand...
If that investigation shows that the person presents no real risk to
children, then, of course, no SOR. No limitation of unsupervised access
to children. No employment limitations.
However, I am still waiting for someone to point me to where a jury has
found someone guilty purely on the basis of stuff on the shelves of WH
Smiths.
If I drove along with a mobile phone (I'd have to buy one first..) glued
to my ear - then I would expect to be prosecuted and never get work as a
bus driver again. Plus get a 2500GBP fine. Plus lose my licence. Even if
I was driving with the thing switched off. But I am not stupid enough to
deliberately do something that breaks the law. Especially when the
consequences would be so drastic.
I just cannot fathom out why people download kp - unless they are so
addicted to the stuff that they cannot behave rationally. Which, in
itself, is cause for concern for someone looking after children.
--
Sue
|