We haven't been able to take payment
You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Act now to keep your subscription
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Your subscription is due to terminate
We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account, otherwise your subscription will terminate.

Common sense on sex offences

Sir, Your report that “Home Office statistics show that 444 offenders were cautioned for making and possessing indecent images of children in 2003, compared with 29 in 1995.”

This is indeed a serious issue. However, access to the internet in 1995 was extremely limited, whereas by 2003, tens of millions of people had acquired personal computers. In addition, running into 2004, Operation Ore had linked with the US in tracking those accessing pornographic sites.

The truth is that we know more about paedophilia than in the whole of our history and the solution to joining up the rigorous measures already in place has to be underpinned by common sense and a degree of addressing reality rather than pandering to hysteria.

DAVID BLUNKETT, MP

London SW1

Advertisement

Sir, Is it just that a teenage boy just over the age of consent who has sex with his girlfriend, who is just under the age of consent, can be treated in the same way as a 40-year-old man who rapes a baby?

Should the boy accept a caution from the police, he is then on the sex offenders register.

Children as young as 10 can be cautioned for admitting to sexual activities with younger children, which may be the result of the failures of the adults looking after them. Should they be blighted for life, and have their employment prospects limited?

Advertisement

Risk assessments and discretion should not be abandoned in this panic response. Clearly there has been confusion, and possibly serious failures, in the system but a sense of proportion should not be lost because of a witch-hunt to bring down a politician.

ELIZABETH EWART-JAMES

Stroud, Glos

Advertisement

Sir, The unedifying spectacle of Ruth Kelly refusing to answer factual questions put by elected representatives of the people yet again demonstrated this Government’s lack of regard for the electorate and for Parliament.

Is it not time that the Speaker of the House had authority to force ministers to answer the questions put to them, rather than allowing the evasion and obfuscation which seems to be their stock in trade. Perhaps this would restore some of the electorate’s lost faith in the political process.

WILL DAVID

Knockholt, Kent