No link to the article is provided. The OP writes "a paedophile who was caught with a 3ft 9 inch blow up sex doll along with other things
he was jailed", and "I think he was jailed for having Indecent Images.
So why presume he was jailed for possessing the sex doll?
Why are you arguing against something that may not have even happened?
The sex doll may have only been included in the the article because it is a detail that is likely to capture reader interest. As most regular dolls are made to look like children, and are shorter than adult height, and often have removable clothes, I don't think possession of a child doll would count as a jailable offence in most jurisdictions.
Perhaps save the outrage for occasions when it really is called for?