THE internet has changed the way we do everything in the space of 20 short years, but has its great potential been hijacked by the likes of depraved musician Graham Coutts who raped and killed teacher Jane Longhurst? Today we ask if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

"HURRAH for the Longhurst family and for Jane's boyfriend Malcolm Sentance. They're not suggesting we shut down the internet or stop access to it. But what they do want is something to be done NOW about the morass of filth and violent pornography available on it to anyone who can log on.

Their horrific experience proves that the end result of gawking at porn all day is not harmless. It proves that the premise - put about by vested interests - that porn is an outlet for otherwise dangerous fantasies is ludicrous. Violent and depraved porn FUELS violent and depraved sexual fantasies. And instead of having to seek it out behind the counter at seedy sex shops, or advertise, obliquely in magazines, the internet allows these men to experience it at the click of a mouse. It allows the seemingly respectable, like Graham Coutts, to maintain that veneer, even as they plot their own real-life experiences. Right down to murder.

The standard argument against better policing of the internet is, from the service providers, that it's very difficult. So? Landing a man on Mars is very difficult, but that hasn't stopped anyone from declaring their intention to do it and putting up the money for it to happen.

ISP's make billions from their business. Fine. But with power comes responsibility. And their responsibility is to work night and day to pull the plug on pornographic sites. Because, if they don't, they may find that families whose loved ones have been murdered like Jane Longhurst may start to see them as a fitting target for a liability suit, for allowing such corruptible material to go live in the first place. I know I would."

Faith Eckersall, parent and columnist at the Daily Echo

"IT IS difficult to find blame in the media from the complexity of behaviour you are looking at. The sort of problems Graham Coutts had and his violent tendencies may not have come from the web. Had it not been the web he may have turned to violent videos or games. Although they obviously might have contributed to his behaviour that is not the same as saying the web caused the behaviour.

"The problem with the web is it does make material readily available to people. Within two or three clicks someone can find offensive material whereas they cannot walk into WHSmith and see that or turn on ITV and see the same sort of material. There is a case against the internet and that is the fact the freedom of the internet has allowed for free access to all sorts of material that might be of a violent nature. If these people have a compulsive personality the internet could fuel their fantasies but so could violent books, violent sport and even violent comics. The complexity of the argument is that it would be nave to suggest the internet was the prime cause of this behaviour. The issue is that he actively had to seek out this material on the internet to help fuel his fantasies. Did the internet feed his fantasies? Yes, but if it wasn't the internet it would have been something else.

"Through the internet we all have easy access to more information and the down side of this is some people have access to what we might consider deviant material. The question is what drove this man to commit these crimes? And the answer is that there is something wrong with the person."

Michael Molesworth, senior lecturer of interactive marketing at Bournemouth University