Child pornography: 'Each successful prosecution acts as a deterrent'

It is encouraging that this appears to be the case in Edinburgh, though there has to be a suspicion that the conviction rate for viewing child pornography represents only the tip of a very large and rather murky iceberg.

There is rarely such thing as a victimless crime and it must be absolutely clear that any child who is exploited by being viewed in any form of inappropriate manner is a victim, even when images don't identify them.

What's more, last year's convictions of Edinburgh paedophiles Neil Strachan and James Rennie demonstrated all too clearly how the bridge between viewing sickening pornography and actually abusing children is easily crossed.

High-profile international police crackdowns such as Operation Ore have made perpetrators more wary and therefore difficult to catch.

But Lothian and Borders' own paedophile unit, while still in its infancy, is already at the forefront of the battle. As we report today, it has had some early success and there is the promise of more local convictions once it is fully up and running.

In an era in which child protection is of paramount importance, it is vital that the full force of the law is brought to bear on those who exploit vulnerable youngsters. Each successful prosecution can only serve to act as a deterrent and therefore reduce the risk to kids.

Freedom of speech

YOU may not agree with the industrial action the city's bin men have taken in support of their pay claim. This newspaper did not. But you have to respect their right to explain why they embarked on such a course of action.

That is why there should be concern over the sacking of refuse worker Paul French. He was dismissed for speaking out against his employers and deemed to have damaged their reputation in the process.

Throughout the dispute the council has been granted ample opportunity to present its arguments publicly – not least through the columns of the News. Mr French, and others, have been granted the same courtesy in the interests of balanced reporting.

But in suspending and subsequently sacking him the council clearly does not recognise that he and his fellow workers should be allowed to present their case to the public.

Whatever happened to democracy and freedom of speech?