FROM the Internet's cornucopia of filth, Graham Frederick Cutler loaded his computer with disgusting photographs of children involved in various forms of sexual activity.

But not content with that, he showed the pictures to young children in his Clitheroe home.

The effect was so dreadful that, according to one mother, her two daughters have been scarred for life by what they saw.

One girl is now frightened of adults and has needed psychiatric help; both are still undergoing counselling.

Yet, as the perils of pornography on the unpoliced Internet and the risk of children being accidentally or deliberately exposed to it become an increasing concern, what was the reaction of magistrates to Cutler's vile and damaging offence? The Blackburn bench told him he was being given the maximum sentence allowable. And that, surely, is something that society would agree was apt for such a disgusting crime - both as a penalty and deterrent example to others.

Yet, in reality, they gave him a pathetic slap on the wrist - just three years' probation.

That may be the maximum period for which magistrates can make a probation order. But they had available much stronger powers than this - of fines and imprisonment.

Yet, despite their own distaste, the horror of this offence and the need to combat Internet filth, they held them in reserve. Why?

To us, they failed in their duty. They could and should have done much more - for the protection of innocent children and of society as a whole.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.