Les Invalides wrote:
> Palindrome posted
>
>>
>> I still think that the probability of someone who possesses child
>> abuse images will also commit actual abuse is greater than the
>> probability of someone who does not possess such images actually
>> committing abuse.
>
> It's probably true. It's just that there is no good evidence for it.
>
>>
>> That doesn't mean that any one person chosen at random from those
>> caught with child abuse images is likely to be a significant threat.
>> But by putting all of them on the SOR, it is reducing the possibility
>> that one or more of them will carry out actual abuse.
>
> The same argument proves it would be even better to put *everybody* on
> the SOR.
>
>
In a way, I rather think that they are, well, at least half of them are.
Judging by the number of men now scared stiff to go anywhere near
anyone else's kids.
However, it is a tad unacceptable to tell half the population that they
can no linger work in infants' schools. Can no longer earn pocket money
baby sitting. Can no longer go to the aid of a distraught child. But, no
need to tell them - they seem to have worked that out for themselves..
Which, to me, is an even more unhappy and damaging state of affairs than
the present nonsense of the SOR.
--
Sue |