I know! Oh my land!
I've created a topic in Off-Topic. Unlike me, but this is really driving me insane. The local radio is reporting on the escalading up-in-armsness of all and sundry because of Paul Reeve, a registered sex offender who was
cautioned for downloading child pornography, but
not convicted - that's the limit of his record. He's a sex offender without actually having performed illegal sex.
The latest up-to-date news will be all over
the BBC's local news pages, but to summarise: Paul Reeve applied for a job as a gym teacher at a school. The headmaster was aware of this, and his case was reviewed by a junior minister and it was decided that there was no significant risk to the children. Then the police suspended him and he resigned. And everyone is up in arms about why he was employed in the first place! They can't understand how a person can be on the sex offenders' register and still get a job working with children.
Now somebody tell me why people aren't complaining that the man, who was cleared by officials who know what they're doing, had to lose his job because it turns out the majority of the population are overly protective and scared of what they don't understand? I fail to see how looking at pictures means someone is automatically going to kidnap children and sexually abuse them. I know many people who look at pornography, but I'm not aware of any one of them abusing anyone they're attracted to. This whole outcry is built from failing to apply simple logic and understanding, as far as I can see.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I suspect it's everyone else who's wrong.