Police caution 8000 "sex offenders" ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6717997.stm

I wonder how many are actually guilty - and how many simply accepted a caution as a way of "end" the whole thing and avoid publicity?

After all ... if the police actually had a case, then they would have prosecuted?

Fascinating ITK - not one word in the BBC article makes your point.
It assumes that everyone named is guilty.

Perhaps that is the case, in which case we are clearly a race of sex offenders.

And all those in prison for perjury and making false allegations should be freed immediately.

If there are a few false allegations though, might it not be better for someone - BBC, Conservatives, Lib Dems... to mention that possibility in news items?

Too confusing for the poor simplistic readers, viewers and listeners who can only understand and accept caricatures!

I rememmber an old gay friend of mine telling me how things used to be years ago.

If you were arrested for either cruising or cottaging you were usually charged with a breach of the peace. Simple fine - and virtually no publicity.

Even people who were innocent would plead guilty - as no one knew what a "breach of the peace" actually meant (as it covers a multitude of possibilities) !

If you actually challenged the charge and pleaded not guilty then the details (or what the police claimed) would come out in court (and be reported) - and many would feel guilty by association (no smoke etc).

Of course, the police were perfectly aware of this ... so when the conviction numbers were a little down ..........