As our investigation into the Gaydar social networking website for gay men shows, about 40 contacted Sunday Tribune journalist Una Mullally who was posing as a teenage boy looking for liaisons with other gay people.

Even worse, many wanted to meet 'Davey', the fictitious teenager created for the purpose of the investigation, whom they knew was underage. Their crude and explicit email and text exchanges with her and Mick McCaffrey show their express purpose was to have sex. To its credit, Gaydar cancelled the account but only after two days during which time mobile phone contact had been established and meetings arranged.

We all recognise that it is difficult to protect young people who are determined to have sexual contact at the age of 14 or 15. This is a world in which children are exposed to sexual pressures and imagery from a very young age.

It is precisely because of this that the debate about age of consent and the need to impose a strict, legal zone of protection around children under 16 is so important.

The adults who prey on vulnerable teenagers who may be too young to realise that certain sexual experimentation is inappropriate - and worse still, adults who groom unsuspecting children into sexual activity - must be left no margin of error and every facet of their action, from first contact with a minor (however "willing") to physical sexual abuse, must be subject to severe sanction.

This is why the loophole in the law discovered by Labour leader Pat Rabbitte is not, as Michael McDowell would have it, "a relatively minor" legal infringement.

The emergency legislation, to go before the D�il next week, should reflect that. The offence of soliciting a minor to have sex under the old law was a district-court matter. Given what we now know about the predatory nature of paedophiles and the way they "groom" and blackmail young children into having sex with them, there is a strong case for increasing the penalties for the offence of soliciting a minor.

Deterrence is vital. The release of paedophile swimming coach Derry O'Rourke after serving just three-quarters of his 12year sentence is a case in point. O'Rourke got a full four years' remission for "good behaviour". He took guitar lessons while in prison but he refused to undergo counselling for his paedophile predilections. Is it too much to expect that paedophiles automatically forfeit their remission if they spurn the professional help that may prevent them from re-offending on release?

The events of this week again raise serious concerns about the strength and cohesion of our child-protection legislation. As we prepare for the referendum on children's rights, Labour and Fine Gael's argument that we hold two referendums, separating the urgent child-protection measures from the amendments providing for the rights of the child and the adoption of children in longterm foster care, is gaining credence. Neither aspect should be unnecessarily delayed, but if the "rights" amendments need more time for consideration, then that should not hinder the referendum on child protection.

Meanwhile, as a society - legislators, educators, parents and teenagers included - we need a much deeper debate about the inyour-face sexually-charged nature of the world we live in.

The use of sex to sell everything from Bratz dolls to dance music, from television soaps to plain old soap, has consequences for adults and children. Yet one in four schools still refuses to run a "Stay Safe" programme which gives young people some insight into the insidious, blackmailing tactics used by paedophiles to force them to have sex. And sex education - in the broadest sense - is often not addressed with the relevance, openness and honesty it deserves, either at school or in the home.