The case of paedophile Scout leader Peter Francis throws up a series of very disturbing questions. How was a man who had a conviction for abusing a child in the 1970s, when he was in the Army, able to become a Cub Scout leader and begin his vile 17-year campaign of abuse against both boys and girls? Why was his record not spotted?

How can it be that a man who is today beginning a double life sentence for a string of appalling offences could be released in just five-and-a-half years? By whose standards is that "life"?

A huge question mark hangs over the decision by the police not to release a photograph of Francis. They say it is to protect his family from victimisation. Yet sharing our front page today with the story of Francis's conviction and sentence are two photographs which the police were quite happy to release, of men convicted of the murder of Kevin Jackson in Halifax - men who, like Francis, can expect life sentences but who will probably not be back on the streets so soon. What about their families?

Why on earth do the police think that while it is appropriate to issue the photographs of murderers it is also right to withhold the picture of a paedophile who has already been identified by name?

They appear to believe they have a duty of care to his family. Yet surely that should be over-ridden by their duty to the public. In less than six years this man will be free to mingle again with ordinary families. They have every right to know what he looks like, to enable them to protect their children from him.