sex offenders to be required to give email addresses-a very good plan with only 3 minor drawbacks...

[hecate]

here

I fail to see how the uk is going to work this, given that the internet is global. Do they expect to get email addresses from around the world? "Hi, I'm Don from Tasmaina, I'm a sex offender, just thought I'd add my email to your database. Keep up the good work."

Do they really think that a sex offender is going to think "hmm, well, I have been finding children to groom and try to meet up with, but I don't want to break the law with regard to the internet, so I'd better stop now" The clue is in the fact that these are people ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW IN A MUCH MORE EVIL WAY!!!

And how many anonymous emails can you set up? I've got 3 and haven't had to give my details for any of them! Set up in a cyber cafe, move around....

It's the most stupid, ill thought out idea! It won't help, even the most stupid person would create a second email address, give one to the police and use the other one. People who use the internet in this way are found already and will continue to be found. They are NOT going to be found because they registered their email address with the police and then used it to find children. They would have to be so stupid that they would need instructions on a hanky before they could use it

SOMETHING needs to be done certainly. But this just smacks of 'gimmic' to me and imo there are some things you just don't play about with pointlessly to try to give your image a boost.

And finally, if they go on about this, they'll give people the false impression that sex offenders can't access the sites their kids go on because their email addresses are banned making some parents less wary perhaps?? Making it easier for someone to make contact with their child.

lol

Exactly my thoguhts when I heard it this morning.

exactly what i thought when i heard this earlier..what's stopping them from having 2nd email addresses? how are the authorities going to make sure they give all addreses? it's already been pointed out time and again that you can't police the internet..it's just too big!

I agree Its nonsense - and an expensive system to set up too. What a waste.

I thought the same Hecate. Waste of time and money and typical of this govt.

seriously. how many of us have 2nd (or 3rd) email addresses for our MN names?

Aah but think of all the lovely jobs it will create (and probably already has created to get this far as an idea) in government - a whole new layer of bureaucracy. Just what we need really.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

Well, as I understand it, the penalty for having an undeclared e-mail address will be five years imprisonment. The authorities clearly hope that the penalty in itself will be sufficient to deter sex offenders from having a second e-mail address, since I really can't see any way in which the authorities can monitor it effectively otherwise.

More practically, couldn't they just ban these people from having an internet connection at home? Speak to the cable or broadband operators and simply restrict their access?

Well there's a pretty harsh penalty for abusing children and that doesn't stop them! The law doesn't deter them from doing what they do, so the governmentmust be insane if they think legislation about email addresses will stop sex offenders from trying to get/talk to/view children! Got to catch them, just like now. Going to be no easier.

The money they are wasting on this shameful publicity stunt could be put into improving current resources to increase detection and aprehension.

Quite apart from all the pervs who haven't actually offended yet...

AND AS USAL ITS ALL SPIN
its onlya plan

I thought exactly the same, can't believe it's not been mentioned. ridiculous

As UQD says, that's apart from all those out there who haven't actually offended yet?

So how does this get policed? Especially against those who haven't been convicted?

..and you don't need an email address to access horrible sites and download...you DO need a credit card and you DO need to be able to access such sites in the first place so why not actually force ISPs to be responsible and make it illegal for ISPs to give access via their equipment to sites carrying illegal images, and also make it illegal for credit card companies to provide their services to companies who make and profit from these sites?
I'd say credit card companies and ISPs are equally as culpable here as they are enablers to this revolting trade.

I have to have a CRB check for my work and it's remarkably lax, really.

Not the check itself - I'm sure that's rigorous - but the checking by the institutions you go to that you actually have one, that it's up-to-date and so on.

I think nobody has ever actually asked to see mine in all the school workshops I've done - I always take my CRB documentation along and wave it under the secretary's nose. I even ask if they'd like to photocopy it.

But the point is I could get the CRB check one day and then go and do something unspeakable the next. It's no guarantee.

Surely a more effective thing would be to ban all sex offenders from having a computer or internet access??? Why isn't that possible?

Oh yes, it probably inteferes with their Human Rights. Doh. [slaps head]

ditto what a waste of time and money

A five year prison sentence for having an undisclosed email address is laughable considering the penalties for actually sexually assaulting a child.

I do agree that ISPs should be made to take more responsibility for content - infact it could be a major marketing plus point for those with children. I can imagine that a service provider that has guarantees about no violence, porn etc would be very popular.

Actually the ISP idea while sensible on the face of it means that ISPs would have to look at everything you did to be sure it was ok. That's very impractical and means a loss of privacy for the rest of us so I'm fighting against it elsewhere.

The IWF currently recommends sites to be blocked and most ISPs block them, but it doesn't do it very well. In some cases this has meant the whole of youtube being blocked because someone complained of a borderline image on one page.

It's just not workable I'm afraid. Much like this email idea

not being geeky, but do they not mean the computer i.d. number/address, rather than the actual posting address you use..it would close it down to a particular pc - not watertight but better than what we are interpreting as 'address'.

Paninni, Sorry was that referring to my bit about banning websites or to the email thing?

If banning or monitoring individuals then yes you have an IP address issued by your ISP. Mine is static, but most ISPs issue dynamic ones which change frequently. The ISP however can always tell which their customer is using at the moment so a limited form of monitoring is in fact possible.

However, take me for example. Mumsnet knows my IP address right now and could at a pinch identify me (would probably need a court order which they wouldn't get)

But I have a dialup modem in this PC for emergencies. With a few clicks I can be online via another ISP entirely and posting as someone else.

Also with a few clicks I could connect via a proxy which would show my IP as different.

This is why ISPs throw up their hands at the very idea of making it their problem. They feel the government is trying to pass on an impossible task to them so they will be the ones failing at it.

yes....yes greyriverside......my point exactly..............thank you for clarifying my thoughts......>