Following a sex offender using Facebook to abduct and murder a teenager has prompted talk of yet more panic knee jerk legislation. It is being suggested that everyone on the sex offenders register be tagged and be banned from accessing the internet.

Man A breaches conditions and commits a crime so Man B must also be punished even though Man B has not breached conditions or broken any laws during the ten years he's been on the register. The clear message to Man B is that staying within the law is pointless if he is to be punished regardless. Not a very sensible move by those in authority.

The European Court of Human Rights did rule that adding people to the register retrospectively was not illegal, but they have also ruled that adding to a sentence without there having been any further trial or judicial review is illegal. If the conditions of the sex offenders register were to be changed then anyone being added to it as part of their sentence is bound by the conditions as written when that sentence was passed. If the conditions of the register change, they cannot be applied retrospectively as that would be equal to adding to a sentence and, therefore, against the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. This protects the rights of Man B against being punished for the actions of Man A.

Some conditions have been imposed retrospectively, such as limits on how many days someone can spend abroad without having to inform the police. This, when applying the ruling of the ECHR, is illegal but some on the register have not challenged this for fear that they might lose their anonymity, while others do not even realise they have the right to challenge it. To now impose more sever conditions and restrictions such as tagging and denial of internet access, etc. to those already registered would be a major breach of human rights. No British Court can overturn or act against the ruling of the ECHR which is the higher authority.

I think this current debate likely effects several people who visit this board. If in doubt consult a solicitor.

Yes let's punish Peter for Paul's crimes. Very sensible.

We are always hearing of wrong convictions being overturned and it makes me think of those less lucky who are on these registers for things they did not do. It must be a bad enough nightmare to be branded so wrongly, but to have so many restrictions imposed on your life, maybe for the rest of your life, must be horrendous.

Another awful crime of Tony Blair's government was to bury the finding of the all party select committee and ignore their recommendations for safeguards against wrongful conviction. To show such callous disregard for the suffering of innocent people! How about hauling him in front of an inquiry about that?

knowing someone who used to work with local authorities maintaining 'a register here (which is incorrectly referred to in the media as a 'sex offendor's' register or people are referred to as 'registered sex offendor' when there is no such legal status-it has an entirely different name) he says 90% of police think it's a complete waste of time and resourses and serves no useful purpse..especially as anyone convicted has a record anyway!

In fact the police have triumped over campaigning politicians who always demand more conrol as they don't have the resourses to implement them and whenever the media goes off on one of it's moral crusade against a person, the police spent $M implementing the law to keep that person safe.

One odd result..when a person is arrested on some charge the police have no ability to look up their previous sex conviction because it's so highly secret until after they are charged.

It's all the reult of politicians allowing the media to rule and the media have only one motive-profit. In fact it's in the media's interest now for crime to incease.

We'e all doomed anyway as BR will tell you when the Alien mothership returns him

I see the human race collapsing as society loses its moral compass and I thank heavens I'm the age I am; I wouldn't want to be young in the world that has been created.

There are several points which come to mind regarding the new proposals about monitoring "sex offenders" online and flagging them when they log on.

1. We've heard all this before and it's already been found to be virtually unworkable.

2. Most sex offences are committed by people with no previous conviction, as reflected by the low rate of re-offending among those already convicted.

3. Governments are clambering to protect children from adults while overlooking recent high profile cases of children abusing children - so age is no guarantee of safety.

4. Why is Facebook apologising for one of it's users not having the common sense to be more careful of who they meet. Webcams are very cheap these days and all computers are capable of running one, so if you're thinking of meeting someone you've met via Facebook it's reasonable to ask them to go on camera so that you can see them beforehand. Then you'll at least know if they are the age and gender that they claim, although it won't guarantee anything about their personality.

5. If they flag a sex offender when he or she comes online, will that threaten any business that they run online and push them out of the market so that they are forced to find capital elsewhere, even through crime? Is it reasonable or practical to monitor their online conversations with family or their shopping transactions, etc. Of course, they might just go access the web via an internet cafe or library where they cannot be monitored.

6. If sex offenders are banned from the internet, will that lead to them being banned from cafes, cinemas, libraries, streets, etc.? Either you allow people into society or you keep them locked up. Will all this lead to internment of anyone classed as a danger? That was how the Soviet gulags began, to protect the public from dangerous people (although they were really used to protect the government from critics).

7. An election is approaching and all parties are clinging to whatever headline grabbing bandwagon comes along. So stand by for more weeping relatives being paraded across the TV screens accompanied by hand wringing politicians full of wild promises.

I thoroughly support perverts being banned from communications. Indeed, in past eras both the telephone and Royal Mail were probably utilised in contacting victims. Why didn't some brilliant tabloid editor come up with the idea of banning perverts from using them? Think of the lives that could have been saved. Come to that, ban murderers and drug dealers and fraudsters and other criminals from ever communicating with anybody. And why stop there? Since most criminals are just ordinary people before committing their appalling crimes, ban everybody from ever having contact with anyone else. Then there can be no victims. Sorted.

Alice, you can come home now.