I'm not sure I understand what "quasi-statutory" means. I think that the whole point about this debate is that the main players are either clueless or toothless. The ACPO (http://www.acpo.police.uk/about.html) is, as you say, not a governmental organisation. The fact that it has drafted a memo that states, "We encourage Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Officers of Police to adopt this Memorandum" surely indicates that things are still not settled properly.
So, imagine you are working in a job that involves viewing child abuse images (if you can). Do you feel immune from prosecution because a private company claiming to represent the police has written a document encouraging the CPS to recognise your role as a useful tool in the fight against kiddie porn?
There is no agreement from the CPS in this matter. There is no license issues to the IWF, as far as anyone can make out. They are not official delegates, as you suggest.

I don't think they do have an official licence. That memo you mention is just a recommendation by, as you say, a non-governmental org.

I know, I know! Sorry... :(

Because I am stupid. Apologies to all.

Can you clarify why you think this? It's tricky reading between one line replies.

You don't think that policy makers should understand how it works? What nonsense! You'd expect economic departments to understand economics. So why do those involved in child protection and internet security not need to understand their subject?

All this FON sharing is well and good, but it's easy to forget that many (most?) UK ADSL broadband deals that offer 'unlimited' quantities of data throughput actually employ a 'fair use' policy of nGB. While most normal users will rarely, if ever, exceed a few GB/month themselves, they are far more likely to run into problems if they open their connection to others - even if the other users are not using P2P etc.

In addition to that, the idea of allowing other people to connect to the internet through your gateway is bonkers for a number of reasons. Most consumer devices won't hold extensive logs so you don't know what your 'users' are doing or where they have come from. The forensics team won't be able to tell either. So even if you don't get prosecuted, you could be partially (morally) responsible for enabling a crime. And even if a court won't find you guilty for someone else's abuse using your connection, imagine the stress and inconvenience of going through even the initial stages of the legal process.

Imagine also the stigma of being associated with certain online crimes (hacking, child porn, credit card fraud), even if you are not charged or if you are found not guilty. Will your girlfriend/wife/colleagues look at you in the same light again? "No smoke without fire," and other unfair thoughts...

Allowing random people to connect to your network also increases the chances of them knowingly or unknowingly introducing malware to your systems. Worms bouncing around behind your firewall is not a great situation, even if you use a good desktop AV product on your PCs (and Macs to a lesser degree). Yes, you could set up a DMZ - but honestly, why bother with the hassle just to give others free and unfettered access to the connection *you* pay for?

Compare this list of inconveniences to taking the short and basic security steps of enabling WPA, hiding the SSID (I know the latter is a fairly pointless defense against a knowledgable attacker) and not handing out passphrases to your neighbours. It's a no brainer and, in terms of risk/cost, very effective.

I appreciate that sharing can be a wholesome thing, but it does not always make sense.