Report comment

Non-lawyer. I agree with the need for caution, esp given that over my 75 years I have seen how politicians have increasingly made it more convenient for themselves by criminalising actions outright, when there are subtle differences where the law should allow for discrimination, however peskily difficult that would be.
I was an academic and always taught/encouraged my students to be curious, so as to be informed and, hopefully, logical in their judgements. When the paedophile 'explosion' occurred, I wondered what some of the stuff hinted at (not 25-yr-old persuading a 14-yr-old to have sex) could be, and how anyone could extract pleasure from it. The way to have done it seemed to be all these photos that were/are on the net (at that point, probably not yet illegal to access). But, since accessing interesting photos has never been a priority, I never got round to it. Yet I resented the idea that no excuse, no matter how convinced the prosector/judge was that I had no interest in (or even physical capacity for) approaching a child, would protect me from criminal conviction. It has been said that there are people whose 'needs' are satisfied by the pictures (what about men 'tossing off' to photos of nude women, which some women find disgusting?) and would never actually approach a child.
How does this tie in with the idea that IS-supporting Brits driven from their would be caliphate ought to be killed before they succeed in their intention to return here?