When the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 was passed (even before the Extreme Pornography sections of the Criminal Justice and Immigratino Act made it into law) Schedule 3, Part 1, Section 4 (1)d of the SVGA contains the stipulation that someone could be banned from working with vulnerable groups for:
"conduct involving sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings (including possession of such images), if it appears to IBB that the conduct is inappropriate"
In other words, *two years* before Extreme Pornography was outlawed, it was already deemed to be so dangerous that anyone looking at it could not be trusted to work with vulnerable groups.
The section of the above named act should be repealed.
Why does this idea matter?
As with the Extreme Pornography legislation in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, the provision in the SVGA makes the unfounded Thought Crime assumption that someone who looks at "sexually explicit images depicting violence against human beings" is, somehow, untrustworthy and is a risk to vulnerable groups.
This is, of course, nonsense, especially if you consider that the number of people who have abused vulnerable groups and *not* looked at such material vastly outweigh thosee who may have looked at this material.
Once again this is another "let's ban this stuff just to be on the safe side" law which tramples on the most basic provision of Presumption of Innocence since if you look at this stuff, you're already assumed to be a risk.
This is another law which should be repealed forthwith.