The vast majority of contact offences are committed by people abusing a position of trust e.g. relative, teacher, coach etc. I don't there are grounds to interv

The vast majority of contact offences are committed by people abusing a position of trust e.g. relative, teacher, coach etc. I don't there are grounds to intervene until they have committed at least some offending, or at the very least indicated a desire to offend e.g. in forum messages. You wouldn't even necessarily lose access to your own children even after being convicted of a CSAE offence, e.g. if you were convicted of downloading IIOC and not suspected of anything else you would probably not lose access to your own child. Surveillance in the general sense definitely stops offending from happening because it allows on-going offenders to be identified. This article is about client-side prevention of distributing known IIOC, which is more a method of preventing a crime before it happens (the crime being Distribution of IIOC, not the sexual assault/rape the imagery depicts). Loads of things "worthy of investigation" are closed off due to resourcing issues but what you said was that only cases where there is an _immediate threat to life_ are investigated which is completely false.