This sounds like a 21st form of pitchforks and torches. Or a western lynch mob where people become judge jury and executioner with no process of law.

This is a dangerous suggestion, and has no place in a civilised society.

I have no intention of suggesting that we need a lynch mob mentality, but unless the public feel safe there will be lynch mobs as a consequence. There are people out there who know the legal system far better than I do who could come up with a better way of managing such cases, and yes I would be concerned about mission creep. If people are innocent they need to be cleared, if nothing is done the public will over react and you get lynch mobs. I have not suggested anything that would deny them due process. The problem is that unless people can see more pieces of a jigsaw puzzle they have no hope of solving it.

What you are effectively saying is that if they look like a paedophile, then the probability of them being a paedophile is high, and so they should be on a list somewhere. Just in case.

That person then will have to work to prove otherwise, with damaging consequences to their life in doing so. We will have moved the burden of proof from the accuser (the Police/authorities) to the accused. This is not how we do things, and it is not how we should do things.

If you want to put someone on a list, then you need solid evidence to prove so. Otherwise, they do not go in a list.

Only if there have been complaints against someone and if the complaint has some merit but not enough for a conviction. Also the person making the complaint needs to be recorded incase they have a history of making malicious claims. My point was that the government need to find a way to increase the odds of catching paedophiles some way. My idea may be unworkable but there needs to be some thought given to some solution. The list could be contained by a single small Home office unit which does not give out information to the police. So if the police have a complaint it might be recorded by the details would not be seen by other police forces. The central unit might find that there are say 5 reports against a person and that maybe some further investigation is required. Though the list could be kept from the police, to limit the numbers who have access.

As to people being on the list it should have some threshold to trigger admission. Simply looking weird should not be criteria. The person should not have to prove otherwise. People here need to think of other solutions that will protect children and stop paedophiles. I am not suggesting that we give up any of our rights. My point about such a list was that Jimmy Saville got away with his cases because no one would believe the girls, so he was able to strike again and again. If girls feel that there is no chance of being helped they would not come forward. The same applies to rape. The person accused deserves anonymity until they are convicted. It is not a case of doing nothing.

There might not be a list as such, but police intelligence such as it is, is shared with child protection agencies of every hue, councils, schools.... One of the requirements after Huntley, or at least that's what happened. It might actually be worse for the applicant depending on how it's worded, as opposed to straight-up details of alleged crimes.