Sara Nilsson wrote that she had accepted to participate in Afterlyst special but made it clear to the editorial team that she did not want to discuss issues that Dumpen had raised since its inception over five years ago. She stated that she could consider participating if the conversation was about offenders and shortcomings in children's protection. Nilsson wrote that she had hoped the editorial team would pay attention to the influx of judgments in neighboring countries and compare them with Swedish legislation, which she believed was insufficient to prosecute individuals who actively tried to involve children in their sex lives. She also argued that individuals confronted by Dumpen had gone beyond merely viewing abusive material and were willing to risk a lot to gain access to children. Instead, the production, according to Nilsson, had developed questions about, among other things, the risk of exposing innocent people, men who had taken their own lives after confrontations, responsibility for relatives, the police's role, and her own defamation verdict. She perceived the layout as a crime special focusing on criticism of Dumpen. Nilsson wrote that she became very angry when a contact person at TV3 said that they privately thought Dumpen was doing a good job. She criticized people who, according to her, only expressed support for children's right to protection when no one else was listening, and called for adults to stand up for children openly. She stated that Dumpen had a support team with, among others, conversation therapists and psychiatrists, and asked what support Afterlyst offered. Nilsson claimed that individuals Afterlyst published information about were not more convicted than those published by Dumpen, and referred to the principle that a person should be considered innocent until a guilty verdict is announced. She asked whose right to protection was prioritized when the program created a special episode criticizing its own coverage. #Barnsäkerhet #Rättvisa #Skydd (translated)
