safewalrus said:
And your point is 'Always'?
So is the nonce more or less dangerous than the journo (who some would say was doing a public service!)?
And whilst on the subject is not the editor of the 'News of the Screws' Guilty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 2(1) in not looking after the Health Safety etc of those in his employment in that he allowed his 'journo' to get to the state where he went to court for carrying out his duties and got banged up for his pains? MMMmmm
In this case the nonce is probably less dangerous than the journo: it depends upon the gravity of the offence. At the end of the day the sex offender was
not making or distributing child pornography, though by viewing it he was condoning the distribution. The question in my mind is what scale did the photographs come under? Did for example they depict scenes of the utmost kind of depravity such as rape or did they show a child posing inappropriately before a camera, but fully clothed? On the journalists' behaviour, could their behaviour have compromised the safety, security or psychological well-being of members of the Royal Family in their capacity as private individuals? At the end of the day the judiciary are independent and it is they who choose what they consider to be the appropriate punishment having taken into consideration all the facts presented to them, to which the public may or may not be privy. It is not the responsibility of the judiciary to award non-custodial sentences to offenders simply because of misadministration by the Home Office.
The second case of an alledged sex offender that appeared on the news this evening was, I recall, of a suspect awaiting trial? That is something very different to a convicted paedophile.
I must admit Safewalrus that when it comes to comparing the relative merits (or otherwise) of journos and paedos I think a one-way
to the Falkland Islands is merited in
both cases!