Sex offenders get up the nose

The UK Supreme Court has decreed that sex offenders should have the right to seek to be removed from the sexual offenders' register, the right to demonstrate that they have changed. Parliament - all three main front benches - strutted its opposition to the idea. I have no doubt that the Sun's presses are melting with indignation as I write.

This is a difficult subject, but the establishment reaction to it is predictably ridiculous. The decision was that there should be a right to "seek" a change, not to expect one. The convicted offender would have to demonstrate a change.  The last figures I saw suggested that only a third of convicted sex offenders actually re-offend.  How is this different from an application for parole?

From observation of actual cases and from a lot of reading, my conclusion is that there is a spectrum here. A "paedophile" is someone who feels sexual attraction to inappropriately young people (how young is defined differently by various groups).  Not all "paedophiles" actually do anything about it, and not all of those that do repeat the offence.

Some "paedophiles" are extremely nasty and extremely dangerous.  Some are not so bad.  And some people on the sex offenders register were sixteen-year-old boys caught having sex with their fifteen-year-old girlfriends. I've given up on the tabloids, but it's Parliament's job to think carefully about things like this.