No child porn involved
You have to be veyr very careful with the COPINE scale, he confessed to accesing at worst level 4 images. This is defined as:
'deliberately posed pictures of children fully clothed, partially clothed or naked (where the amount, context and organisation suggests sexual interest).'
You have to get to level 5 for what most people would consider mildly pornographic images. Until then the context of the images is at least as important as the content which should be very disturbing.
The teacher who accepts a caution and there was a fuss about being alowed to teach was found to have acessesed level 1 images defined as:
'Non-erotic and non-sexualised pictures showing children in their underwear, swimming costumes from either commercial sources or family albums. Pictures of children playing in normal settings, in which the context or organisation of pictures by the collector indicates inappropriateness.'
The real worry is that someones life can be destroyed for possessing 'Pictures of children playing in normal settings'. More or less anyone who possesses a computer can be conficted of child sexual offences at the whim of the authorities. Long term this will undermine child protection as accusations and convictions sexual abuse and child pornography will lose any meaning.
The danger from organisations like CEOP is substantial to both adults and children but our tabloid media continue to drive us in a very dangerous diretcion.