....and those who may be driven by little more than curiosity.... so Magnus: are you going to allow these men to babsit your children or grandchildren if you think they pose no threat? They are just curious after all. No harm done then.

carolyn, folkestone, UK

In a television news interview yesterday (in regards to the aforementioned investigation) Jim Gamble was asked to comment on his previous statement, as regards the punishment of the viewing of child pornography, and his response was that "...if you view images of child pornagraphy online, or try to access children, we will hunt you down and you will go to jail." I was reassured by this response, as the viewing of child pornography is part of the network of abuse of children, and should be taken as being a serious crime. I think Magnus Linkater should reconsider his liberal views, as they are dangerous to children.

Kathleen , Scotland,

Anyone who strays into this "forbidden territory", more like pathetic, sad and sick territory or has a curiosity for it needs to be questioned. A person who is, as Linklater suggests, merely curious to see pictures of babies being raped or to witness real time sadistic abuse of children needs to get to a shrink and fast. It is not a matter of growing out of an "Old Testament doctrine" but rather that we have not grown into a society whose first and foremost priority is to protect the youth of this world. It is no suprise to me that a man wrote this article.

M. Mcrindle, London, England

Its time for a witch-hunt. Its time to put children's rights before anybody else's. And its time to get a move on. We can worry about rehab regarding mildly deviated adults later, don't you think?
Can someone please explain to me why are there still internet child porn sites that the police dont know of? How on earth is that possible when the internet can be accessed by everybody, including the police?
I find this whole issue nothing short of infuriating.

Carmen Tesolin, Parma, Italy

Again, from the author of "To Catch a Paedophile", mentioned by Mr. Linklater: no one is saying that thought is the same as deed, a suggestion as ludicrous as the promise of 20 virgins in heaven to young suicide bombers. Nor will the police arrest anyone for looking at a child-porno site, but they will if the viewer's p.c. has dozens or scores or hundreds of visits. He is paying perverts who exploit children, a criminal act. Family members who know or suspect a child violator or molester should tell the police. Not to do so is aiding and abetting a criminal who may strike again and ruin another child's life. Typing a newspaper headline about a film based on Ronald Searle characters, a red flashing sign appeared on the screen which said: WARNING - you are endangering your marriage and your livelihood by viewiing this site! I thanked the security firm for their timely warning.

peter kinsley , London, england

"Which isn't to say that they (paedophiles) "deserve" more rights than others, merely that they, as human beings, ought to be treated with the same dignity that anyone else is."

And just how much 'dignity' do paedophiles treat their victims with? Nothing very dignified about being raped on camera for public view. Paedophiles (whether active or passively viewing) deserve the same 'dignity' as they hand out.

"The taboo surrounding sexuality and the child is simply beyond public discussion and unbiased discussion" . No, it's discussed a lot, and human rights say children CANNOT give consent to adults raping them BECAUSE they are children, and THEREFORE below the age of informed consent. People use the word 'taboo' as code for 'I want to do this but bigots stop me having my fun.'

There is NO case to be made for allowing adults to use children sexually in any way whatsoever.

jane, London, UK

Jen from Manchester - you obviously do not have children of your own.

Sara Berenguer, aramon, France

Are you suggesting we should not take a zero tolerance approach to peadophilia? Are you suggesting there can be a healthy curiousity when it comes to viewing children being abused. To suggest we have to soften our approach to peadophiles just isn't born out by the statistics. The sentencing allowed to judges is lenient. The difficulty in getting a conviction is enormous.
To quote Michele Elliot, director of Kidscape as thought she is hysterical is a low blow by anyones standards. This is a charity dedicated to stopping the abuse of children and one experienced in dealing with the fall out of this abuse.
Of course those paying for the opportunity to view images of children being abused are complicit in the crime. Degree's of guilt might be discussed but not dismissed.
I hope none of your family are ever used in these images, however, should the terrible misfortune visit any one of them I am sure you will change your mind regarding those who view the negatives.

S McInally, Glasgow, Scotland

The hang them high brigade seem to change their tune fairly fast when they find out that its their 16 year old son accused of sleeping with his 15 year old girl friend. The problem isn't just that people are outraged by paedophilia, they are afraid of appearing "not sufficiently outraged" to others. So everyone tries to out do everyone else.

Slowly the game changes from "protect the children" to "castrate paedophiles" which isn't quite the same thing. It does read well as a headline though.

Roger, London, UK

I do hate this constant abuse of the word "Paedophile". It simply means a 'lover of children' (Not in any sexual sense). By definition, all the best teachers and parents are paedophiles. What is wrong with the good old english word 'Pervert'. Or, if one wished to remain in classic roots then perhaps 'Paedophobe' would be appropriate.

The word 'paedophile' was hijacked by a pressure group 'Paedophile Information Exchange' in the 70's. Its obscene aims were to make sexual contact with children socially acceptable. They abused the word for that purpose.

Since they wish to abuse children these perverts cannot, by definition, be paedophiles.

Brian Vallance, LEFKIMMI, Greece

Yes there is a difference between accidental and purposeful visiting of such sites, but anyone who purposefully accesses images of children is a criminal and a peadophile and should be punished, no matter how much of a peadophile they are.

As a teenager i already know three of my friends who have suffered from such people, and a convicted peadophile lives a few doors away from me. I seem to be in a world where peadophilia is everywhere.

A previous commenter said "It is probably not the case that everyone who looks at child pornography is unfit ever to go near a child again... But it is certainly the case that they should never be allowed near a computer again". What?!
This is exactly the kind of attitude i keep coming across and this article is encouraging it. One sufferer i know has found her family forgiving her grandfather for disgusting acts. The one who lives near me is fully accepted into the community again.
A sorry is just not enough to forgive such crimes.

sara, cambridge,

Paedophilia is a sex aberration of the worst kind: it preys on defenceless children who often remain traumatized for life, and cannot be cured. There are no valuable excuses in this field such as 'I just happened involontarily on the site', or ' I only watch'. By now, with all the publicity on this subject, nobody is just looking by chance. The simple fact of acceding to a paedophile site is a crime of co-conspiracy.
As for the way the problem should be handled there is no middle of the way: The paedophile has committed a terrible crime because he is a sex deviant. If left alone -- as the Catholic Church has done up to very recently -- he will continue to assault children. He should be given two choices: Either jail for 30 years, or castration, preferably surgical to be sure he will never violate a child any more.

Robert Collu, Quartu SE,

In general, I would tend to the liberal side of the political spectrum. I agree that criminals should be dealt with compassion and understanding and that part of punishment should include attempts at rehabilitation. Crimes against children are, however, a little different. When a car thief or a shoplifter are released back into society the potential cost of that release is quantifiable and, for the most part, recoverable. But when a person who has harmed or facilitated, supported, condoned or financed the harm of children is released back into society the costs become far harder to quantify and more or less impossible to recover. The cost of the life of an innocent child being destroyed as well as the life of his parents and family is too high. For this reason, I put aside my liberal tendencies and believe that those who are found guilty, at any level, of crimes against children should be seperated from society forever. I can think of no other guaranteed way to protect the innocent.

APK, Bruxelles,

"but they can be assured that, despite the warning headlines, they will be able to play, eat and sleep in perfect safety. The threat from outsiders is minimal" –

It is a great pity that Magnus Linklater spreads this myth. The fact is, that the world has changed since the 1950's when children could walk the streets. What has changed is cars.

Paedophiles now have cars and there is a tremendous movement of people. A lone child can be thrown in a boot and gone before anyone sees.

Secondly, paedophilia appears to have become a profitable industry, with these bad people looking for the opportunity of a child alone. This is one instance where we don't want to test the market by leaving children out alone or in vulnerable situations.

kate G, London,

The Old Testament is often quite liberal in sexual matters and ther term should not be used as shorthand for 'Puritan'. For example, with the Lord's and his wife's blessing Abraham had a child, Ishmael, with Hagar, his wife's slave-girl. The OT is full of things like this. I wonder how much of it Magnus Linklater has read and understood.

John, Perth, N. Ireland

I'm informed that to enter the muslim heaven, one must first confess to the crimes that one has NOT committed.This then displays the 'thought' crimes that one might have committed, but didn't and so the histories of battles won. Are we saying the thought is the same as the deed? What of murder, theft? |Who could claim innocence of a crime without implicitly admitting it?

v.mcspode, lowestoft, UK

I agree with Michele Elliott, director of Kidscape, that “… that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs." Even a visit to a child pornography site driven by "only" mild curiosity necessitates some child to have been abused in order for the photos to be on the site. I do not know, Mr Linklater if you have children of your own, but if so how would you feel if it was your child that had been subjected to this kind of trauma? Anyone visiting such a site is guilty of a crime by association, just as receiving stolen goods is a crime even though the "receiver" did not actually commit the original crime. I have been a daily user of the Internet now for over 15 years and have never landed on such a site, “accidentally” or otherwise! I believe that the police should deploy even more resources to investigating Internet pornography. I also believe that when found guilty of sexual assault, castration is an appropriate punishment!

G Thomason, Alicante, Spain

I used to be quite casual and friendly with children and , surely, be physical too. They would sit on my lap, I'd kiss them on their forehead as they would doze off, or I'd play with them without fear.
Nowadays I'd think twice even to look at them while they are playing around for, lets say, longer than 3 minutes. " Why is that old man looking at my child all the time"

It's the same when entering a shop and there's a beep. I immediately feel like a thief though I've never stolen anything in my whole long life and I have no such plans.

Thank God I am not a pedophile nor a shoplifter, but I feel the Old Testament very much present these days.

robert, Moncton, ont.,

And why would someone be 'straying' into this 'forbidden territory'? You fail to give any explanation whatsoever, let alone a logical one. Justification without the actual justification. How odd. I wonder if you would have the same view of these straying individuals if it were your children they were viewing.

J. Davis, Manchester, United Kingdom

In this politically correct age, paedophiliaphobia is one of the last acceptable sources for a fix of indignation and righteous rage. Though, I have two young daughters, I am just as concerned by the effects of the climate of fear they are forced to live in than by any perceived threat to their safety. And I am chilled by the implication for our freedoms of the drive by some to criminalise people's very thoughts.

jeremyinOz, Perth, Australia

Given that penalties against viewing pedophiliia have risen with secularism at its historic apex, it can't possibly be connected to religious doctrine, Old Testament or New Testament; rather, criminalizing possession of child porn has followed from studies associating viewing child porn with pederasty.

It is in fact a thin line. I recently worked with a young man who would go into chat rooms and egg on pederasts, (including a molestor of a three year old), telling them how sexy their descriptions were to him. He got two years in prison her in the U.S., and hopefully will get treatment.

So, what's with the bible blaming? I believe it is by and large a question of externalizing guilt. Soceity has told you you are bad for accessing child porn, for any reason -- and this is a way to attack in return.

Linda, Princeton, NJ, USA

Mr Linklaters comment on paedophiles "having served their time" should remember that in our penal system this is unlikely to be true (easy for a paedophile to get time of for good behaviour as prisons only house the over 16's). The victims of paedophillia on the other hand serve their time till they die. No right minded person would suggest a 'witch hunt' but surely the innocent deserve societies protection first and foremost and their right to go about their daily lives surely comes before the rights of a convicted fellons rights.
I would also like to point out that anyone who is literate never mind computer literate will soon realise they have hit a dodgy internet sight and if you immediately close it down ignorance at this point is an acceptable plea. However staying on it, paying for it and returning to it constitutes a list of sexual criminal offences, period, no ifs no buts, guilty as charged. No customers equals no sites, customers are therefore as guilty as the suppliers

C.S-U, Edinburgh, UK

Wheely Bin and Mia definitely know how to read an article and miss the point.

The article is simply saying that there may be ways that are more beneficial to society as a whole (and indeed, the potential victims of abuse) than instantly assuming someone is beyond rehabilitation.

In Saudi Arabia they remove a hand for stealing. I'm sure some (perhaps A. Watson) would think that this level of punishment would act some kind of deterrent. But stealing still happens in Saudi Arabia. Paedophiles are (I imagine) aware of the stigma attached to it, the prison time and continued destruction of their lives post-prison. And yet they are still prepared to commit the offence. Does this not suggest that the punishment does not act as a deterrent in either case?

The answer may not be what Mr. Gamble is suggesting, but research should be carried out in order to ascertain the best way to protect children, not just the best way to punish those who abuse them.

Chris Leeder, Ipswich, UK

Well done, Magnus. From the level of reactionary rage-filled frothing in most of the above posts it is clear that such brave and level-headed arguments as yours & Mr Gamble's are sorely needed in modern British society.

Alex, London,

What strikes me most is the hypocrisy. We encourage young girls to look sexy, act like adults, and enter the modeling industry as young teens. We encourage those women who are already in the business to look prepubescent, and reward anorexics with fame and fortune. This is perverted. If society is really serious about paedophilia, it would not encourage the infantilisation of young girls. Instead, arrested development is a cause celebre.

Nick Ferriman, bangkok, Thailand

Agree with the article. Not everyone who strays on to something like these websites is a paedophile. The mob mentality definitely rules when it comes to this matter. The feelings are driven by the media and over-protective mothers.

Alison, London,

Just one look at the comments posted so far proves that the subject of paedophilia is too emotive for sensible, detached or objective public discussion to take place. And so prejudice and bigotry - the real monsters in all this - remain alive and pernicious. The taboo surrounding sexuality and the child is simply beyond public discussion and unbiased discussion: it elicits fury and intemperate language. This is a limitation of contemporary culture.

Jonathan Stiles, helsinki, finland

I do not agree. I am a very curious person but I have never been tempted to download such things because I couldn't bear to think that I was, in even the smallest way, involved in this filthy business. Anyone who downloads these images for any reason other than to investigate and prosecute these crimes, has gotten themselves soiled and will truly never be the same after the experience. We must do absolutely everything in our power to put an end to this greatest of evils and I, frankly, don't care what happens to anyone who choses to indulge their curiosity or their perversions in this manner.

Diane, los angeles,

What is the attraction to kiddie porn? If you are even "just curious" I would advise you to get your head examined.Maybe Im a little hardcore because I used tobe a correctional officer but nothing good comes out of looking at that crap

D, Tucson, AZ

paedophilia "the smallest suggestion of sexual deviancy"? Either i read the title wrongly (in which case it wasn't too well written) or it was written wrongly. I don't think playing down the danger of paedophiles is the way to go about protecting children from these evil beasts.

Marco, bhm, uk

Not so well said; It would be foolish to deny that as with all crimes, there are different degrees of seriousness. There is hopefully a universal consensus that people involved in creating and distributing these dreadful images of children being abused should be put away for a very long time.

Those who download and view these images, (whether the motive be curiosity or more sinister) cannot be unaware that they are breaking the law. Such people contribute to this disgusting trade in the misery of children and there is no doubt in my mind that custodial sentences should be mandatory for these offenders too. By all means flex the sentences to reflect the number of times sites had been accessed etc. but please let's get away from this notion that a slap on the wrist (a caution/community work/probation etc.) is an appropriate punishment for those who knowingly contribute to this loathsome and terrible industry that without consience destroys childrens' lives.

Kevin Ryall, London,

mia from Brisbane says "Paedophilia is the most abhorent and disgusting of all crimes put together."

This is an automatic viewpoint for many people, but is it really true? What about torture? Or even sexual/violent crimes against adults? A child is far more likely to recover physcologically from abuse than an adult is. It's all too easy to descend into "Can't we please think of the children!?!"-style hysteria.

In this context we often see kids described as "innocent". Leaving aside the apparent implication that we all become guilty of something when we turn 18/21, how is the victim's "innocence" in any way relevant to their suffering or the heinousness of the crime?

Ed W, London,

I don't think that Jim Gamble was making the point you make here. It isn't the old testimentness of jailing every viewer that he is objecting to. It is the impossibility and the undesirability of not making distinctions in who we try to jail. You do not have the gaol space to pursue the same punishment for the casual viewer and for the child rapist.

The goal I think should be to catch men and boys with an interest in paedophilic themes early and attempt treatment. There should also be a permanent probationary state so that progression attempts by convicted viewers (such as hiring underage prostitutes) can immediately bump them into a higher risk class without a new trial.
I think we should also have a well developed monitoring and warning system with risk assessment built in. It may not be safe to have public access to a data base of offenders in the UK but it is certainly possible for people to report all new contacts with children in their care to be screened for risk.

Rob , surrey, canada

Well, Magnus, if you needed any confirmation that the public’s attitude to paedophiles is almost as sick as the paedophiles themselves, you will find it in abundance in your inbox. I still shudder when I remember the scenes in which a lynch mob smashed their way into the house of a paediatrician, because they didn’t know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile, and even uglier scenes outside the house of an actual, but reformed, paedophile.

You will also see evidence of hysterical over-reaction in the recent case in Georgia, USA, where a 17-year old boy had oral sex with a consenting 15-year old girl friend, and was given a mandatory 10-year prison sentence without possibility of parole. Oddly enough, ordinary penetrative sex would have been relatively OK under the State laws, but oral sex counted as aggravated child molestation. What can possibly be gained by treating this young man as a dangerous criminal, destroying his life, and putting him away at huge expense?

Ian, Glasgow,

I believe that the responses to this article have very aptly illustrated the point the author was trying to make.
It seems to me that as sick and depraved as many people accuse paedophiles of being, the "normals," by their conduct and the rabid, uncontrollable animosity they unleash at the mere mention of the so-called worthy pariahs, reveal a sickness and depravity in themselves.
Paedophiles deserve to be treated as though they were humans and not like reprobates damned before time began.
Which isn't to say that they "deserve" more rights than others, merely that they, as human beings, ought to be treated with the same dignity that anyone else is.
If a respecteble member of the community is revealed to be a paedophile but has never abused a child, the respect and affection he has earned in the community ought not to be stripped from him merely because of a different method of aesthetic appraisal of his.
Are we not responsible for each other?

Feb, Los Angeles,

Why? Why champion the rights of people such as those curious about the victimization of the people in our society most vulnerable. It is frequently implied that those who react with vigour toward child abusers are less than intelligent, or the ulitmate slander - working class hysterics. It is a slippery slope Mr. Linklater. You make your living giving your opinion of important issues. Don't mistake license for superior knowledge or insight.

L. Fandrey, Ottawa, Canada

Zero tolerance is the ONLY answer, child pornography is like drug addiction. Once the first fix wears off, addicts will look for something stronger - same with paedophile tendencies. Start off with "harmless" downloading of photos, then move on the next stage. If these pictures were not available, then maybe not so many people would be curious and then follow the spiralling path. For every "harmless" viewing of a photo, there is a child, yes a poor defenceless child, being abused to make that photo. No-one asks to be abused, so we should all do everything to stop this happening, if that means Zero-tolerance and treating everyone as a paedophile, then so be it. If you don't like the label, then don't get involved. This is a sick life choice, yes a choice, but not for the abused children. Come on, let children be just that and be innocent until they choose otherwise. Zero tolerance is the only answer.

Rachel Lewis, Orpington, UK

Many people find paedophilia so exciting that they love to read about it in the papers, buy books on it etc. They enjoy exactly the same thrill that old men in macs used to get from reading the News of the World, in the days when the intrepid reporter made his excuse and left. It satisfies the need to feel superior to somebody else and creates drty sexual excitement which they can nevertheless deny. This obsession with paedophilia is corrupting relationships between adults and children and the constant shock-horror talk inevitably makes child pornography interesting to the young, who always want to try what their parents forbid.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

A child is far more likely to be run over whilst crossing the street than to be snatched and/or abused by a paedophile, yet we still drive cars. The whole media furore over paedophilia is so out of proportion. This isn't to say that paedophilia is in any way right or to be condoned, yet there are better and more effective ways of dealing with it than lighting up your torches, grabbing your pitchforks and running amok with your mob buddies.

I have not done enough research to be able to say whether paedophilia is a mental illness or condition, or whether it's something as vastly misunderstood as homosexuality has been, or whatever else it may be; yet I find ranting on about religious and moral objections to it utterly pointless and damaging. Of course it's not something we want to occur or condone in our society, but what exactly does going on about how 'evil' it is achieve? Direct those energies into accepting and dealing with the problem and the world might be a nicer place to live.

Jen, Manchester, UK

Easy to say that it's fair enough to integrate these people back ito society, but I can guarantee that you wouldn't say that if you found a picture of your neice/nephew/daughter/son being raped by a sexual predator on demand. I think you might have a different view then. It's not that these people accidently found there way to this web site by accident, They have sophisticated software to prevent being found. Thats not an accident, thats a planned outcome (so they thought).

J MOrley, Rotorua, New Zealand

"I believe that if you download child pornography, you are just as guilty as the people who are taking the photographs.” (Kidscape)

Of course you are. Watching the images creates the market for raping children and photographing and filming them. You should be punished as if you'd raped them yourself.

Zero tolerance of hurting children. Why is that supposed to be 'extreme' in our society? If it is, then how many children IS it supposed to be OK to rape in order to avoid such undesirable extremity???

What should we do about those who are sexualised towards children? Identify them, punish them if they act on it, cure them if possible, watch them - forever. Above all, discover WHY adults can sexualise towards children, and prevent it in the first place. If they need help, give it.

"than if he ( the "wretched" paedophile) had been gradually accepted back into the community" (Linklater)

????!!!!!!!

So, paedophiles are acceptable in the community then? Answer - No.

jane, London, UK

Straying onto a site unintended is one thing.

Staying there for 20 minutes to look around then sending them money is quite another.

If you purchase child pornography, you are paying somebody to sexualy abuse a child for your pleasure.

No ifs, no buts.

Dominic, Manchester, UK

Like all witch hunts, the hunt itself does far more social damage than the original problem. At a time when boys in particular need role models and positive socializing experience not only are men increasingly reluctant to get involved, but children's groups are becoming increasingly sexist and exclusionary on the theory that paedophiles are invariably male.

Even the term "paedophile" is positively evil in its suggestion that to like children is itself deviant. We now have school policies that make it a punishable regulatory infraction for a teacher to hug a child who needs affection. Apparently the only good teacher, or parent, is one who dislikes children. This seems to be typical of the state view, given that Britain is the only 'civilised' country in Europe where 10 years of age is deemed sufficient for criminal responsibility.

Paedophilia is not about love, it's about lust without conscience. And it will thrive where real love is driven out.

Loftwork, Horley,

Modern problems need modern solutions:
It is probably not the case that everyone who looks at child pornography is unfit ever to go near a child again. Many of them are simply curious and seek nothing more than a vicarious thrill.
But it is certainly the case that they should never be allowed near a computer again. The problem would be to enforce it. Perhaps technology could come up with an implantable RF chip that disrups all Internet access in the vicinity.
Alternatively it might be easier to prevent them ever using any type of credit card.

Ross, Bristol,

"Anything short of a “zero tolerance” approach to paedophilia will never be acceptable to those for whom the merest suspicion of deviant behaviour is enough to invoke instant retribution – if not revenge."

Well,count me in, then, if by "deviant behaviour" you mean paedophilia. Mr Gamble must have got over his shock and revulsion pretty quickly if he has forgotten that at the end of those thousands of obscene pictures are real children being abused. Any one who accesses them is, therefore, contributing to that abuse and should be punished accordingly.

Which treatment is more likely to deter someone from going that one step further? Being 'managed' in the community or the certain knowledge that you will go to prison and be treated like a pariah for the rest of your life? I know which one would deter me.

A. Watson, Exeter,

The mere thought of anyone looking & thinking of babies and children in terms of sex must be evil to say the least. Paedophilia is the most abhorent and disgusting of all crimes put together. There are enough immoral women in the world to satisfy these mongrels' lust. Anyone who commits the crime, take photographs, download sites, sells undergarments to entice the evil-minded (including a recent singer/celebrity) should all be removed from the face of the earth. They use up food, water, air and space which should be used for starving children in Africa and elsewhere.. The opposite of love is not hate but lust. I dont believe any normal person can ever think of a child that way. There is no punishment that would suit this kind of crime against the innocent. I thank God that there awaits the ultimate punishment for these pests and it is not here on earth. To believe that there is no hell is definitely bad news because it's where they belong. God bless these helpless children.

mia, Brisbane, Australia

Well said; The subtle distinction between straying into an unintended site and habitually accessing pedophilic information should be clearly understood.

ravi, Sacramento, US/CA