Agree with the idea, and all but the "even if they have abused a child" part. I understand past offenders should still have access to help, but personally I think if they've already acted on their urges then they should be put down on a sex offenders list and take whatever the usual punishment is, as it's probably not a huge leap of imagination that a lot of them may reoffend (feel slimey for even saying this, but IMO it also does depend on how bad it was).

I accept my way is imperfect though, because if you changed it then they would obviously not come forward in the first place. My point is I think it's not right to attempt completely detach emotions from a very emotively charged topic, the fact is that most people would say that abusing children is one of the most disgusting crimes you can commit, and if a pedophile has at anytime acted on their urges then it is completely on them. I know I'm opening myself up to "Oh, does the use of logic bother you?" replies, but I'm saying we need a balance between the two, by trying to ignore any emotion we would just be lying to ourselves.

TL;DR I feel like while it's a great idea for a very sensitive subject, and it is a well written article, my only issue is that IMO they contradict themselves with this policy. For example;

""No-one is guilty because of their sexual inclination — but everyone is responsible for their behaviour," says the final young man as he takes the mask off, adding: "I don't want to become an offender."

"The idea behind the policy is not to help the perpetrator instead of the victim — but rather to help the potential perpetrator, in order to prevent there being a victim in the first place."

(Just in my opinion) These are the views that I agree with.