The UK has a bit of a reputation in law enforcement circles. SOCA/CEOP for example don’t keep records of ‘their arrests’. They were born out of the NCIS/NCS.

Ask yourself this, how many folks are in jail ( in the USA, Canada, Australia) because of CEOP or the NCIS who went before them.

Exactly, nobody. Child pornography interventions in the UK are highly regulated, they respond to the FBI, they don’y go looking on their own account. The reason for that is the Brit teaching unions.

So CEOP have no idea what happens to the FBI/RCMP data as soon as they pass it on. If they did collect that data, the FBI would ask them for it.

So the FBI can’t even ban pedophiles they identified via IP addresses from entering the USA. The British play off Iraq/Afghanistan to leverage the FBI into keeping stum about things the DfES/DCSF want to keep quiet.

Commonsense would tell you that you shoud be convicting 600 or 700 hundred teachers per annum. There is no way it can possibly be lower than 350, that is not statistically possible unless one is in the immunity business.

British teachers are involved in more electronically detected crime and more se tourism crime than teachers in Canada and the USA combined. We thankfully don’t need to ask the Home Office for stats from outside the UK.

CEOP don’t actually arrest people by the way. I’ve no idea why the British media report alomng those lines. CEOP simply pass on data from the FBI, Interpol, RCMP etc.

British teachers are notorious for pedophilia from Thailand to Timbuktu. For example, it is not much of a secret that CEOP are only allowed to target them if they in turn, are stupid enough to victimize somebody protected by the FBI. So, why the Brits simply don’t legalize pedophilia & whatever else, with or without a Bishop’s approval and get it over with, remains a bit of a mystery to many of us.

As I’ve already said on my blog, I don’t like some of the things that I’m reading in the papers about this Bill but religion has no part to play in this debate.

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com

Well… not if you take it as a basic premise that the moral has no place in politics; then I think it serves rather well as a distinction. Some people might have a ‘moral objection’ to experimenting on embryos but if they do… they shouldn’t experiment on embryos. They can be free to discourage others, of course (they may rant and rave to their heart’s content) but they cannot prevent others doing it unless they can offer a political argument which (though ill defined roughly speaking) appeal to some kind of harm done to a citizen by a certain class of action. If they can do this they can justify outlawing the action. If they cannot then they cannot and ought not. That is liberalism, or a piece of it at any rate.

So yeah: poverty, justice - these are political. What some dingbat in a hat things about stem cell research - that’s moral (or schmoral. Catholic Priests seem to thrive on the schmoral).