Last weekend, I went back to my parents’. I noticed a new family had moved in next door to them, and asked what had happened to the man who had lived there before. My dad explained that that man had gone to prison for “kiddy-fiddling”.

And then today, I sit on my train to work, open a newspaper and read all about how a local evangelical church pastor (now ex-pastor) is facing life imprisonment for crimes including grooming children for underage sex, rape of a boy and making pornographic images of children. I felt quite sick just reading it.

Go back a few years, and 8-year-old Sarah Payne was murdered by a paedophile. Rebekah Wade, then editor of the trashy Sunday newspaper “News of the World” launcher her “For Sarah” campaign. “For Sarah”, Ms Wade would aim to publish details of every man convicted of sexual offences. Of course, Ms Wade took the high-and-mighty stance that she was simply a humble, public-spirited journalist seeking to inform the public of what they have a right to know. And in her morality, she could not be help responsible for what happens- she just gives information as a good, decent, public-spirited journalist whose only concern is for the children of Britain. Yes, there might be a rise in circulation from panicked parents buying “News of the World” just to check that there were no paedophiles in their area, and she might get a bigger bonus as a result, but how could anyone with a soul believe that these had any influence in Ms Wade’s decision?

Incidentally, fast-forward a few years, and what is Ms Wade up to? Editor of “The Sun”. Why is “The Sun” so popular among men? Is it the news reports? The weather report? The sports section? Agony aunt column? Surely, it cannot be the “Page Three Girls”- scantily clad young ladies. The feminist Ms Wade, opposed to sexual exploitation of women, was happy to allow the “Page Three Girls” to continue, and was able to have 16-year-old “models” proclaiming that they looked younger. I wonder how many of the paedophiles that Ms Wade railed against were buying “The Sun” and drooling over Page Three?

Of course the obvious happens. Mistaken identities- and malice.

Not too far from me is Portsmouth, with its run-down Paulsgrove estate. The Paulsgrove demonstrations a few years back were headline local news (and sometimes national). These ladies decided that certain men were paedophiles and held protests outside their homes to drive them out- despite the police confirming that the men in question were not. It was interesting to see some the ladies interviewed- their evidence was often no more than “Of course, he is”, “Everyone knows he is”, “Sharon heard a bloke in the pub say that his mate thinks that John is..”. Any journalist foolish enough to challenge these would normally get a mouthful of foul language. The supreme irony was that this was done “to protect our children”. One single mother was leaving her 3-year-old daughter alone at home while she went out to demonstrate against these men “to protect her daughter”. Said 3-year-old got out of house and was found wandering the streets.

Now “Megan’s Law” hits headlines again. This is mainly due to internal Labour party politics, as media speculation as to when Tony Blair will go is intense (he has backtracked from his “a full third term” and is now “enough time before the next election to allow my successor to settle in to the job”), and a few days ago, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, dropped a very heavy hint that in September he and Blair will announce just when they will step down. Hence, the Labour party would have to elect a new leader whom the Queen will invite to become Prime Minister. Hence, a bit of jockeying. And John Reid, the Home Secretary, is exercising the traditional right of every Home Secretary- namely, to rush around seeking populist, knee-jerk policies, that won’t work, but will get him good editorials in lowbrow newspapers that will lead to him being portrayed as a man in touch with the people. Hence his dabbling with the idea of a “Megan’s Law”. Wait for “Vote for John and protect your children from your worst nightmares.”

For once, the police are right. A sex offenders’ register with limited access (i.e. police, social workers and anyone with a “need to know”) is the effective- but not a populist- system. It keeps the vast majority of such men on the radar, as it were, and helps to ensure proper treatment is available (am I sounding like a mushy liberal here?). Very few sex offenders disappear. The police fear over a “Megan’s Law” is that it will give such men an incentive to disappear and be untraced.

Sorry!

Those of you who read The CRIB regularly know how I feel about perverts; but laws that offer no solutions or are closed-ended are bad laws….