This is Cameron's "crusade" moment. Remember when George W Bush used that word after 9/11?

The problem is that despite appearing to not want one, he's sewn the idea in the minds of idiots who are easily confused. It was a poor choice of words in a situation that I expect he wasn't prepared for.

They need to prosecute as many as possible

They need to prosecute all the ones they have reasonable evidence of having committed a crime. no more, no less. Prosecuting people for the sake of appearing to do something (especially for a 'no smoke without fire' kind of crime as child abuse) is just as much of a travesty of justice as not prosecuting people.

Jon

I agree but with such a serious offence they really need to mark the rest on the Police National Computer as probable/possible sex offenders.

There is also a very significant possibility that these people might have committed other offences that have not come to light.

There is also a very significant possibility that these people might have committed other offences that have not come to light.

How very McCarthy.

Well if anyone is arrested their DNA is stored for many years just in case of other offences. No different to what DNA regulations currently allow. It was not until Jimmy Saville was named that many came out of the woodwork. If girls could have made complaints that may alone not have been provable with time and more claims it increases the chances that he would have been stopped during his lifetime.

Well if anyone is arrested their DNA is stored for many years just in case of other offences. No different to what DNA regulations currently allow.

It's entirely different to what DNA regulations currently allow. The DNA database is there to allow a comparison of evidence to identify a suspect - you have to have evidence a crime has been committed (in the form of a DNA sample from the scene of the crime) before you can use it. The 'probably is a kiddy fiddler' database you're talking about throws away the whole inconvenient 'evidence' bit and goes straight from accusation to conviction.

If someone is charged with an offense, fine, keep that on record (there are arguments as to why you shouldn't but they're actually pretty weak). But if you haven't got enough evidence to even charge someone with something, what justification can you possibly have for saying that they 'probably are guilty'? The lack of enough evidence to even bring a charge suggests they actually probably aren't.

If they drown they're innocent, if they float they must be a peadophile, is that the rule now?

If someone has been investigated and cleared then yes they should have a clear record. I also see that there needs to be protections in the case of malicious claims, in a similar way to rapes. Anyone investigated deserves privacy, even after such allegations. Though by having a national record if the person was to move and be suspected of similar offences elsewhere it would start to trigger queries,

it might have caught Saville, who committed offences all over the country.

I am not going anywhere near suggesting that these people are outed except at a trial.

Lord McApline deserves privacy and he should be entitled to protection from malicious claims. Though would anyone have known unless he spoke out today? These cases are similar to rapes in that in many cases it might only be one persons word against another, as there will be no other evidence. My ex told me about a man who raped his wife regularly but locked her in a room for days till the bruises disappeared, and there was no physical evidence against him.