So, what happens if you have the misfortune to look like one of the pictured sex offenders and live in an area populated by rabid scum?

The truly bad will take the trouble to dye their hair, grow a moustache, whatever, and some poor innocent bloke who 'kinda looks like' the photo on the website will have his life turned into merry hell.

So this is a really good plan, uh huh.

One of the arguments given by the NSPCC (and many other child protection organisations) against publishing pictures of known offenders is that it's more likely to drive them underground and out of the sight of the police.

I guess that argument doesn't really apply when the offender is already underground or on the run...

Will they only be the ones dangerous to children, or will it include children who've done the dirty with their girlfriend (both under age), people who've been caught short with no WC in sight and so on?

If the latter, I say "Oi! No! Leave it aaaht!!"

We are told that this website has already allowed police forces in England to track down 9 of the 13 "missing" sex offenders originally poste, so the problems can't be too bad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7097059.stm

AC, ignoring your dodgy views about sex and consent, the point of the sex offenders' register and the requirement to report to the police is to protect further children (or, heaven forbid, women) from suffering at their hands. Punishment (if such it is) is a side effect.

There are, of course, major failings in the system as far as rape prosecution is concerned. 5.7% is a tiny percentage, and a lot of cases are thrown out because evidence is not admissable because of strict criteria. A lot of cases also get thrown out because women are too ashamed to report rape early enough for evidence such as vaginal bruising to have gone.

Having a narrow minded "they ask for it" view is not just naive, but childish and completely useless.

"AC, ignoring your dodgy views about sex and consent,"

We have a problem in the UK, that lies that should be weeded out at the interview stage are not weeded out in the case of rape. That in turn results in a high failure to convict rate for the UK for rape cases. Note that by the time the case gets to court, a lawyer is involved and coaching of the plaintiff has happened, so a resulting increase in wrongful conviction must also result.

You can also consent to tell lies and make a false allegation. But the police no longer investigate those lines of evidence. They look for evidence of rape, but ignore evidence of malicious false charges.

"the point of the sex offenders' register and the requirement to report to the police is to protect further children (or, heaven forbid, women) from suffering at their hands"

Yet re-offender rates are higher here than countries in Europe where this isn't done. Reporting your location at regular intervals isn't the same as 'stopping' anything. If it did we'd all report our locations at regular intervals and all crime would be stopped.

We are following the USA approach to crime and we know where that leads.

Pray tell what in the AC's post said "they deserved it"?

Drop the persecution complex.

"There are, of course, major failings in the system as far as rape prosecution is concerned. 5.7% is a tiny percentage, and a lot of cases are thrown out because evidence is not admissable because of strict criteria."

5.7% is the *HIGHEST* failure rate in Europe, it's not the small size it's that is so much higher than the rest. So why is it out of step? The only factor different that screams out is that half a case is investigated in the UK, the plaintiffs half. So bad cases are presented to court that would otherwise not be presented if both sides were investigated. By rights that number should be much higher, more in line with other crimes given the loaded nature of the prosecution mechanism.

"Having a narrow minded "they ask for it" view is not just naive, but childish and completely useless."

You cannot withdrawn consent just because you're later dumped. You cannot withdraw consent just because you were drunk and horny and regret it now. The idea of 'chased' women who don't consent out of marriage is fantasy.

Has anyone other than you ever lived at your address?

Have you ever received a piece of junk mail intended for someone who used to live at your address?

Have you ever been refused credit because someone who used to live at your address once ran up a bad debt?

Yes to all three.

Being turned down for finance in front of a store full of customers while trying to buy a new washing machine was embarrassing (even although in all probability I would never see any of those people again). And having to borrow the money off my parents was also embarrassing. But at least it wasn't a life-threatening situation -- there were no angry mobs of people wielding pitchforks and flaming torches and baying for my blood because they thought I owed them a few grand.

The problem with the Sex Offenders' Register is that it is too easy to get registered nowadays. There's a world of difference between deliberately procuring under-age kids for sex, and copping off with someone you met in an over-21s nightclub and who later turns out to be just 15 years old; or between flashing at a woman, and taking a leak in a deserted alleyway because the local council have locked up all the public toilets. Getting carried away in a moment of heated passion in the woods is not the same as showing pornography to minors, and sometimes a drunken fumble is just a drunken fumble.

@Liz and Shakje,

Your concern is misplaced. It's not AC's fault that there are people who falsely cry rape, but it most assuredly does happen. And being falsely accused of raping someone does not do one iota less damage to a person than actually being raped. I firmly believe that making such a false accusation should be an offence in its own right, *precisely because* it trivialises the suffering of genuine rape victims (and their husbands and boyfriends; who will be forever wondering what they could have done differently, and also are unlikely ever to be able to enjoy sex again).

"And I quote:

"It makes clear that in certain situations the photographs of offenders, including high risk child sex offenders who have failed to comply with the requirements of the sex offenders register, can be published. This will involve careful consideration of the legal implications and, in particular, the potential prejudice to any future criminal proceedings.

"So it is limited to those failing to comply. Not everyone on the register."

Yes ..... and VAT was originally a tax on luxury goods.

Set up a social networking site specifically for sex offenders - give it a catchy name like "PaedoFile" or something. Then you won't need to put sex offenders on a list, they'll sign up themselves. You won't need to track them or demand they tell you when they change address or go on holiday, just sign up to their Twitter and they'll tell everyone exactly where they are and what they're doing. Everything they purchase will be broadcast to the world, and if that purchase happens to be "windowless van" or "50m of rope and gaffa tape", you can take appropriate action.

People used to be concerned about Big Brother, but then Little American Cousin asked us to tell him everything about us, everything we did, everyone we knew and everything we bought, and we said "sure". I don't see why paedophiles would be any different in that regard. They wouldn't take so many incriminating pictures and videos if they didn't have the same exhibitionist tendencies as the rest of us. Build it, and they will come.

"AC, ignoring your dodgy views about sex and consent, the point of the sex offenders' register and the requirement to report to the police is to protect further children (or, heaven forbid, women) from suffering at their hands. Punishment (if such it is) is a side effect."

Now, Miss Liz, you don't think that Anonymous has a point? You believe women don't use an accusation of rape as a weapon against men here and then?

You might want to consult a seach engine of your liking to query for "rape false accusations divorces" and "child molestation false accusations divorces".

The "minor" bit is irrelevant, what he "actually did" was sexually assault someone at random, the guy should be kept under observation.

@Liz

"We are told that this website has already allowed police forces in England to track down 9 of the 13 "missing" sex offenders originally poste, so the problems can't be too bad."

This doesn't resolve the doppleganger problem, just because no-one has yet been lynched (wrongly, a correct lynching is almost as bad of course) doesn't mean that no-one will be.

Is tracking 9 perverts, who may not be especially dangerous (see above) worth the risk of an innocent weirdo getting twatted?