news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/7760717.stm

Interesting to see that sending an e mail gets an 8 month sentence ( even though it was sent to a person who was fictional ) yet POLICEMEN who shoot an innocent person in daylight with witnesses ( a real crime ) cant be even accused of "unlawful killing" in a UK coroner's court.

There is something distinctly wrong with JUSTICE of lack of it in the UK.

This MAYOR was guilty of GROOMING ! WTF.

Basically if taken to logical extremes anyone sending an e mail saying " I wish I could kill you" which is common parlance in many relationships !!! would be locked away for GROOMING MURDER !!!

Jail is now for THOUGHT CRIMINALS !! rather than for REAL CRIMINALS who actually commit crimes.

So beware - if you are a member of a "second life" site and you have sex with an underage person or live your second life as a bank robber or superhero - you could well be jailed !!!LOL

This is all getting so ridiculous our society rewards those who COMMIT offences and puts in jail those who pretend to commit a crime !!!

Madness.

There was a time that this was classed as entrapment.

I'd have to ask why the site admin was posing as a child anyway. Did they engage in online conversations with real children while they were involved in this pretence?

The Mayor was very foolish and needed to get his wrists slapped (at least), but I do wonder what the initial motives of the site admin were. It seems very weird.

Hmmm. While I can see - and sympathise with - the "entrapment" angle, it should be borne in mind that what Mr Lightfoot was attempting was indeed illegal. We shouldn't be under any illusions that he wasn't aware that the legal age of consent in the UK is 16. He knew this and tried to persuade the "girl" in question to enter into a real situation. It was his decision and even though no actual physical contact took place, the evidence points to a desire and intention on his part to cross the line between fantasy {not yet a crime, even in these strange and hysterical times} and reality. Had the "girl" been real and been swayed by his entreaties, then the danger of an all too real crime being commisioned and commited are obvious. We shouldn't entrap people like this, though, I'd argue that Mr Lightfoot shouldn't be in jail. But I would argue that he is obviously in need of psychological help. And he should never have entered into sexual dialogue - or made the explicit suggestions he did - with someone he believed to be under the age of consent. As long as we simply throw people into jail and demonise them like this this problem will persist. Help must be available, and it should be descreet and confidential. And those who knowingly seek to engage in sexual relationships with underage girls or boys should seek that help rather than taking their predatory desires onto the net. Or, bu extension, onto the streets. This is a dificult one because it raises so many dichotomies for those who believe in both the well being of children and offering help to those equally vulnerable people who fall victim to their sexual drives and desires.

I agree Locked but we are entering a very dangerous grey area - how many people might entertain a fantasy (murder, for example) yet never dream of actually doing it?

And are we not almost inciting such crimes by tempting people forward?

Meanwhile, real crimes (Milly Dowler's murder) go unsolved allowing real criminals the freedom to murder in fact, not in fiction.

And giving incompetent police excuses to convict instead of arresting killers.

Oh, I agree with your points entirely, JK, and it is implicit in my posting that I comletely recognise the difference between fantasy and reality. I shudder to think how far Mr Lightfoot was pushed into his actions, he would probably never have made the suggestions he did without a lot of encouragement. There has to be an element of incitement here, that much should be obvious to even the most unwilling observer. The grey areas are manifold. From the illustration here to the notion that I'd argue that it's incredibly likely that there is at least one policemen serving with CEOP who becomes sexually excited reviewing child pornography every day of his working life and gets away with it while ruining other peoples' daily lives. We can only work with what we know about. What I'd hoped would be explicit in my posting is that our perceptions can be skewed by our experiences and our own likes and dislikes. He's done wrong. But perhaps he should be helped not simply banged up. And he should never... never... have been encouraged. By anyone.

Lets compare the BABY P case with this.

BABY P was injured and seen 60 times and the people around her were linked to violence and abuse.

Yet THE POLICE DID NOTHING.

This was a REAL CASE with REAL VICTIM.

In this second case we have someone posing as a child on the internet messing around on social networking sites. Lets be fair - on music sites alone we get 100s of people posing as "stars" "managers" etc and some are probably sitting in a park having a laugh ! winding up industry professionals.

So we have no crime - no victim - yet there is an 8 month sentence etc etc etc etc

I think this grooming law should be repealed and certainly there should be two laws - one to deal with ENTRAPMENT - which should carry a caution with councelling and a suspended sex offenders register and one for REAL GROOMING where a REAL VICTIM is involved which may lead to a custodial sentence if it is serious enough.

Our LAW is wrong. I believe this Mayor needs help and needs to be dealt with - but the POLICE are wrong in this instance to waste resources whilst REAL VICTIMS are suffering REAL ABUSE.