Family and Friends Forum

This one gives links to several different research papers about this.....

https://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/esss-outlines/child-sexual-abuse-images-online-and-risk-contact-child-sexual-abuse

I remember too that the % of the other way around is higher although of course many contact offenders will never want to look at images.......

If you google: reoffend rate medium risk iioc

the 2.7% is what comes up :) and this is the reference they give:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-20831-001



i did that search before....



Also I found a figure of 2.65% in one government report about the risk assessment methods. But there it was looking at high risk rated, see link below page 28:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65bbcb0521f73f0014e0bafe/actuarial-prediction-sexual-reoffending.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjDp7v9ps-SAxVxS_EDHVMMHvEQFnoECCMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3IEvR0GRhzWr6S5pDJZdtP

I think it was from on here as it rings a bell with me too. I just asked ChatGPT to fnd the original source and it found something on a website called PubMed so maybe that's where it was originally although I certainly wouldn't have been reading some scientific research paper so I'm thinking it might have been quoted somewhere else.

This is what ChatGPT says although it's not keen on me copying and pasting it on here and it's looking a bit weird and is probably far more than you want to see!

'Yes — there is an academic research study that’s widely cited and is likely the origin of the “2.7%” figure you’ve seen in discussions.

Key Study Showing ~2.7% Contact Offending After Image Offences

A peer-reviewed study of reoffending rates among offenders convicted of indecent images of children (IIOC) found that:

Among people convicted only of indecent image offences, only about 2.7% were later convicted of a contact sexual offence during the follow-up period.

This statistic comes from a longitudinal reconviction-tracking study of convicted offenders. The context is important — it does not mean that 2.7% of all men viewing illegal images will commit a contact offence, only that 2.7% of those already convicted of indecent imagery offences were eventually convicted of a contact offence in the follow-up period.

What the Study Actually Examined

People in the “IIOC-only” group (i.e., no prior contact offence history) had very low reconviction rates for subsequent contact sexual offences.

The overall reoffending picture was:

~24.8% had any reconviction (including non-sexual offences)

~12.6% had a sexual reconviction

Only 2.7% had a contact sexual offence reconviction following their IIOC conviction.

About the Original Research

The study is published via PubMed and reports reconviction outcomes after an average follow-up of more than a decade. It’s often referenced in articles and policy discussions about recidivism among online offenders.


Here is a link to the original location found although you then have to pay to read the entire research paper but could quote the source if you want to use it to make a point. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30998030/.

I did the inform course and they went into detail about statistics and studies, so helpful. They made it clear that contact offending and online offending have very different motivations. Also there is a low risk of reoffending for online offences, especially if feeling guilt and shame etc. and engaging in therapy/making lifestyle changes.

are you sure this is low risk? if you think that the unreported figures are usually 10fold that i would say 2.7% convicted contact offenders is pretty high... at least that s how the figures play in my mind thinking about allowing my person contact with my kids :(

I see what you mean - but just looking at statistics again, 2.7% in comparison to the whole population is surelly 20 fold higher risk, no? When I take this into account and think about my children s safety I am honestly concerned... and as much as I like my person and want to believe he s changed this is constantly on my mind :(

6789, I agree entirely!

I am taking the stats for what they are.

I think if you were taking the stats for what they are, rather than assuming that the real figure is ten times higher due to under reporting, when that is not even mentioned in the report, then you would conclude that 2.7% is extremely low.

The under reporting issue is one that has come up, during one now discredited piece of research. It was claimed that under questioning, some iioc offenders admitted to lots of contact offending, which they had not previously disclosed.

However the study ignored the fact that the men were encourgaged to admit to other things in order to remain on their rehabilitation program. A program they had to complete, in order to be released.

edel2020 - that's really reassuring, thank you

It would be remiss to ignore that the efforts of police, social services and the courts to prevent future contact offending. Men who have been convicted of accessing child sex abuse material online are then often subject to heavy monitoring and restrictions designed to prevent them from contact offending, the figure of men that go on to contact offend would undoubtedly be increased without this monitoring. Also you can't disregard the amount of men accessing this material that remains undetected, therefore not subject to any protective measures and also not subject to data collection about the risk of contact offending following viewing child sex abuse material so the figure is skewed. I think a really damning statistic is by the NSPCC that 1 in 20 children in the UK have been sexually abused. Why do you think these men are viewing this material, their motivation is sexual and if you have had sexual thoughts about children, if you've viewed images of children being sexually abused and experienced anything other than horror and disgust then you are a risk always. It's all well and good seeking therapy after you've been caught and now everyones looking at you.

Post deleted by user

Lrf - motivations between online offending and contact offending are very different. Not everyone who offends online has a sexual interest in children. There's a lot of good resources out there to learn more.

I just think it's a deluded viewpoint, not all of them accidentally click on it are horrified and shut it down. What do you do when you view porn? You masturbate. Maybe it's not a forever interest but certainly at that point in time they are watching sexual content of children often multiple times over a long period of time. I feel like often people have latched on to this idea 'well mine wasn't viewing it for sexual reasons' because it suits both their narrative and the offenders narrative, it minimises the crime and makes a horrific circumstance more able to be coped with psychologically, it makes it more palatable if you convince yourself that they are 'ill' when in actual fact they would likely still be accessing this content if they weren't caught. In short it makes you feel better about it, you can compartmentalise it and then you don't have to deal with the scary stuff.

2.7 percent means that some men are going to abuse children following this offence it being a relatively low statistics makes no difference, yours could be that 2.7 percent, you can't dismiss the risk because it does happen and just as you were blindsided by the knock, you'll say no way it couldn't be mine!

Anyway the point I'm making is that the safety of children is paramount. The reason the 'pro's' won't let offenders restrictions slide is because often these men have spent long periods of time deceiving loved ones in a very skilled way, this means it is difficult to know whether they do pose a risk to children but certainly their past behaviour points towards the enjoyment/motivation to watch children being abused. They've watched child sex abuse material (often prolifically) feeding the abuse of children - if you watch it you are a consumer and therefore you are commissioning others, through demand, to abuse children so that the content can be consumed.

The reason that restrictions are held firm by police, courts and social services is to protect children and if they don't like the restrictions they should not of commited the offence. They get barely any punishment as it is while women often end up picking up far greater punishment for an offence they did not commit (like me a now completely single parent to multiple children, including a disabled child, only able to work part time due to no support system and living in poverty as a result of my ex's crimes, also lost most of my friends and social opportunities, can noblonger leave the house on my own, severe depression, anxiety and complex PTSD not to mention having to juggle social services, schools, professionals. whilst my ex lives alone, earning his salary, going about his business with no childcare responsibilities, has weekly therapy (I would like to do this but have no child free time as a result of his actions), has within a year completed his community service, his parents paid his fine and nobody knows about his offending he can now continue with his life whilst I continue with the punishment

One in 20 children are sexually abused in the UK and these men have shown behaviours that make them a risk 2.7 percent (at least) will go on to contact offend and we have no way of knowing which men are those 2.7 percent. Don't be fooled and lulled in to a false sense of security by a man that prolifically lied to you, hod a huge part of his behaviour and personality and fooled the person closest to him whilst he commited crimes against children.

Logged in to support you LRF. The level of excuses given on the various fora leaves me perplexed and horrified. I've never seen iioc and I've been online since 1993ish when we had it at university. Offenders should own their actions. Apologists don't help anyone. Moaning about police and social services protecting children for me is a hard wtf?

Evening all

This is a journey that not one of us could ever imagine to find ourselves on but we are

Statistics are a way to understand and try to comprehend how many of our loved ones, estranged partners etc are offenders and to be honest a taboo journey to be on

I have been on this forum for over 5 years and was very active other than the last year (personal decision to step away)

The one thing this journey does not explain is how long everything takes, how peoples reactions are

There is no right or wrong to stay or leave

However for new people finding themselves here its about support, understanding, and just been able to reassure them

No.one knows this journey until you walk in our shoes

There really isnt any point to.my post other than we do understand and to say if you need support then please reach out x

Let's remember the aim of the forum - statistics don't mean a dot in my opinion.

When my journey began all I wanted was to be in contact with someone who understood, someone to help me through my loneliness and the hell I was going through at that time, a hug or reassurance. Not a fact or a figure.

Child light.org have produced several studies on online offending, a recent one looked at offending rates in the UK which were that 7 % of the male population in the UK have admitted to or been convicted of online offending against children. The equivalent of this is 1.8 million men (stated in the independently funded research article), 2.7 percent of 1.8 million is 48,600.

Lrf

The studies show what crime has been committed, and despite this journey we all fully understand the impact to the victims (that is the hardest part of this, victims because of what our loved ones have done)

The forum was designed connect people who have never had somewhere to be able to share this horrendous journey, to be able to open up and talk about this journey, to be able to be listened to, to find support, not just any support, but understanding, non judgemental understanding

Sometimes we just need to feel understood and for me to try to reassure new people to this forum, this journey, is what this forum is about x

There's always going to be differences of opinion from those who are supporting their person and those who aren't, and also dependent on the relationship i.e. partner, ex-partner, son.

Some people need facts and figures, others don't, but we all need non judgemental support, surely?

Supporting and having some level of understanding(as much as one can ever understand another person) doesn't equal minimising/excusing. We wouldn't be here looking for support, asking questions, etc. if we didn't understand the horrific nature of these crimes.

Supporting a loved one and also completely abhoring the person's offence, can co-exist.

Peace x

Lrf, I can hear how much pain and exhaustion you’re carrying. Single parenting, financial pressure, feeling unable to access support for yourself while watching someone else rebuild their life is incredibly hard.

At the same time, I think it’s important to remember that this forum includes people in very different circumstances. Some have left relationships, some have chosen to stay, some are parents, grandparents, children, siblings and most are already living with fear, shame, confusion and deep uncertainty.

When posts focus on statistics about progression or are written from a place of anger, they can unintentionally increase anxiety for others who are trying to hold things together and make careful, responsible decisions in their own situations.

I don't believe any of us are here to excuse harm. Safeguarding and accountability matter deeply. But this space exists to support families and friends and that space needs to feel safe and without judgement.

I hope we can continue to hold each other’s very different experiences, while keeping this forum somewhere that feels safe and supportive for everyone.

I haven't said anyone should leave or stay. But the poster is asking about the statistics and then there is some debate about what that statistics reflect with it being referred to as a very low statistic and reassuring. I just think if you're going to be reassured by a statistic that you should understand the true value of that statistic.... Which is that 2.7 percent of internet child sex offenders will go on to contact offend, which equates over 45,000 men (it could be women but a study by the government reports that 91.6% of offenders in this category are male)

Yes I'm angry that I'm being punished for a crime I didn't commit, my children are facing consequences for actions that we were given no agency over and were decided for us. But I don't judge any of your circumstances or your decisions, I have never once said that anyone should leave or stay. What I am saying is my personal experience (which is often rejected on this forum unless it conforms to an apologist perspective) and my opinion on whether the statistics is low or high.

Whenever I post not in favour of staying or a perspective that does not embrace the addict/non sexual side of the argument everybody starts talking about how we should support one another? Well where's the support for this perspective.

But actually what I care about is that we don't fall into complacency of 'well it couldn't be my husband/son/dad/brother' who goes on to contact offend, because none of us thought they would internet offend. We cannot fault the system for applying heavy monitoring and restrictions because the system is protecting children from being sexually abused. Not all of them can be an accident, if you have children to safeguard then it's important to truly understand the risk rather than see a number that looks very low 2.7 and then feel that you can't be touched by it. And if you do feel that statistic is low and you are reassured by it then good for you. But don't discount that it is lower because the courts/police and social services are doing their job and then be outraged at restrictions.

I don’t hear you telling anyone they should stay or leave. I hear you saying that complacency scares you, that safeguards matter, and that the consequences for families are devastating. That’s valid. None of us thought we would be here, and none of us should minimise risk. Child protection has to come first.

At the same time when statistics are framed in a way that feels frightening or absolute, it can increase anxiety for people who are already trying to navigate risk responsibly and often under professional supervision.

I don’t think reassurance and vigilance have to cancel each other out. It’s possible to acknowledge that progression risk exists, to respect the need for robust monitoring, and also to recognise that statistics describe populations, not individual futures.

I’m sorry that you feel your perspective isn’t supported. I may not be doing it well, but what I'm trying to do is find a place where safeguarding, accountability, and hope can exist together.

Lrf,

I just wanted to say thank you for how you phrased your view. I read your posts few times now and find them really helpfull.

I appreciate many users here find comfort in sharing their emotions and experience. I admit I find lots of comfort in facts and figures and the way you summarize this relates to me a lot.

I know a statistic is not a predictor for an individual but for me it gives me a certain guidance for my choices. Or lets say it gives me an idea, a scale of the problem

2.7% is 150 times higher than the health risk they kept my baby in the clinic for when i gave birth... this is what I often think these days

Thank you LRF for your posts. I'm bemused at being told I shouldn't post here from "a place of anger". Well my home has been raided by police, my family broken up, my children left without a father etc etc because my sexually incontinent ex-husband *somehow* clocked up one disgusting conversation and eight images of children being abused on an app notoriously riddled with paedophiles (I'm not even counting the voyeurism discovered against me). And yes he has the usual "dog ate my homework" excuses they absolutely all have. I feel like on here we're very much allowed and even encouraged to be angry at SS, the media, big tech and the police....in other words everyone but the men who got us here. As for "setting off anxiety", again, who is actually to blame for that anxiety? It isn't the poster quoting some perfectly factual information. Its 100% the bloke who put you here.

The OP merely asked for a link to some research which is very different from an invitation for opinions about that research.

We are all entitled to an opinion and our feelings are always valid, however I would suggest that a better place would be to start a new thread inviting opinions about the research, rather than using 6789's thread. Then people can choose to read or bypass. I thought that was how threads should work.....

No one actually lives their life on the basis that all feelings are valid and all opinions are equal though, because they just aren't. I'd prefer statistics myself!

All I meant was let's keeep a thread centred on what the OP originally asked for, whatever the request was (which in this case is just asking for a link to some specific research.)

You could start a new thread asking for opinions about the research and it would be an interesting debate for some and others can just scroll by. Everyone has commented politely here, but if it was me I'd feel awful to have triggered some strong responses with a simple request for a link.

I just think it's interesting that it's been said that I'm 'framing' a factual statistic in a way that creates anxiety but when the statistic is framed as 'incredibly low' and 'reassuring' there was no real debate, just clapping from the audience and validation. I actually did not frame the statistic in an unfactual way 7 percent of the male population have been convicted of this offence 7 percent equates to 1.8 million 2.7 percent of that is 48,600. So the statistics 2.7 percent actually equates to 48,600 men will go on to contact offend. Yes compared to 1.8 million that's relatively low but when you see the actual translation of the statistic, to me it is significant.

I haven't framed it in any way I've just translated it to really numbers which if it makes you uncomfortable is probably because it's alot more real looking than the statistic.

That is what the OP was originally asking about and actually this forum is designed for people to post there experiences and this one is mine and how I feel about it just as some of you have posted that you have found reasons to stay. I don't want to start a new thread because I don't feel my opinion really strays outside of the original debate it just talks about a perspective that is maybe hard for some to look at, but it might also sometimes be hard for me to look at your perspective on staying. It translated the figure the OP asked for from a statistics to a number.

If you truly mean that this forum is to be used to support and guide others then that's to support them with both sides of the coin, give them perspectives from all women that have experienced this?

Too often I see wide spread validation for one view point here and anger and rejection if any other view is bought up not in the frame of 'im sorry for feeling this way'.

I genuinely feel set upon by a mob if I post anything outside of the illness, mental health, accident, non sexual perspective. It's actually been really nice to see some support for the other perspective on this post so thankyou to those that have been brave enough to risk incurring the angry posts by others to express your own valid perspective.

So I totally get why that is the most popular opinion on here and why it is difficult for women form the other side to post. I also would encourage you to think about how much guilt can be given from this hero perspective for staying, a few months into the journey I had a woman say to me that she stayed because she 'really valued her wedding vows' as if by leaving that meant that I somehow valued mine less, it once again shifts the blame to the woman and can cause intense feelings of guilt and it can be alienating it feels as though there is no place on this forum for someone to feel something different for fear of upsetting others. I never frame my posts in any way other than my genuine feelings, I never pass judgement on others but whenever I discuss my feelings it sparks a sudden influx of accusations about uncomfortable feelings among others.

Is there any way to turn the bold italics off on this post Lucy Faithfull? It makes it very difficult to read and follow the discussion, which feels like it's an important one

The research reporting the statistic that 7% of British men in their sample admitted to online offending against children relates to self reported survey data and is not a prevalence estimate of convicted offenders. Official conviction rates are much lower than what self reported survey figures would imply. If 7% of adult men were convicted in the UK (26 million adult males) it would mean 1.8 million convicted men. But there are nowhere near that many convictions in official data.

According to recent official and policing data:

In 2023/24, there were 7,371 convictions for sexual offence cases involving children in England and Wales.

That includes both contact offences and indecent images, based on official Ministry of Justice and Crown Prosecution Service reporting.

A significant portion of those convictions (about 44 %) related to indecent images of children (IIOC) and related online offences, but not all of those convicted will be male, adult offenders (some are juveniles).

Annual convictions (~several thousand per year) are orders of magnitude smaller than would be needed to reach even 1 % of the male population over many years.

Over a decade of convictions for online offences would still fall far short of hundreds of thousands, because the yearly figures are in the low thousands(e.g., ~3,000–4,000 total child sexual abuse convictions in recent years including contact offences).

These statistics show that;

The percentage of men convicted of online child sexual offences is far below 1% of the male population.Among those convicted, roughly 1–4% are later convicted of a contact offence within typical follow-up periods.But that does not translate into tens of thousands of inevitable future contact offenders.

In answer to the original question a frequently cited research is Michael C. Seto et al. (2011)

LRF I can't scroll by without saying I hear you! Thank you for putting your perspective out there so bravely.

There are about 70,000 men on the SOR right now. But the police categorise 50% of them as low risk.

If it were my person, I would be more concerned about their individual risk factors than the overall stats.

[img]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-sex-offenders-estimate-nca-b1853513.html?test_group=lighteradlayout[/img] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-sex-offenders-estimate-nca-b1853513.html?test_group=lighteradlayouthttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/child-sex-offenders-estimate-nca-b1853513.html?test_group=lighteradlayout



Are we disregarding men that haven't yet been caught and might never be, because they definitely wouldn't be a risk to children ....... Both sets of figures included those and tbh I think the NCA are pretty well qualified as are child light.org. the problem is that this offence is often undetected. And 7000 odd is a year, and the research that your quoting from 2011 is from 15 years ago so .....

I think it's totally fine if you want to go by individual risk factors im not saying how anybody should decide there level of risk that's valid for you, but for me it seemed pretty risky all round, which is also a valid opinion.

I'm not saying any of your people will contact offend just that it does happen and that 2.7 percent in my opinion (as said before) is significant to me a d maybe others.



Anyway I will not post anymore as I see the running theme that I'm ruining your group 'we no longer gel' I would say this is not a super welcoming place for anyone outside of your viewpoint.

Hi Lrf,

As you quite rightly say the risk that 2.7% of online offenders will go on to contact offend is a real concern and one I don’t think anyone is trying to disregard, it’s something that affects all of us deeply, and one we’re each trying to process in our own way.

I completely agree that everyone is entitled to decide what level of risk feels acceptable to them. What feels manageable for one person may feel overwhelming for someone else, and both responses are valid.

Your voice and perspective are just as valid as anyone else’s and I’m sorry if the different perspectives have felt unwelcoming. I don’t think that’s anyone’s intention. I think sometimes when topics are emotionally charged, tone can get lost and people can feel unheard even when that isn’t what others meant.

Dear Forum users,

We’d like to step in and acknowledge that this thread might have caused some discomfort for some people. We wanted to share a gentle reminder that this forum is intended to be a safe, supportive space for everyone—regardless of their experiences, decisions, opinions, or journeys. We also recognise that the decisions people make and opinions people have in these situations are personal and sensitive, and come from difficult reflection.

We are sorry that one of our members has decided to step away because of how things felt during this thread. This forum is meant to be a safe, supportive environment for all. It’s important to note that users come here carrying very different experiences and perspectives, and healthy difference in opinion is absolutely allowed. However, we ask that everyone communicates with care, especially if emotions are high or when responding to someone who may hold a different opinion.

Please remember that tone can be hard to read online, and sometimes what we intend doesn’t land as we hoped. It’s okay to take a pause before replying and consider how a response might be read by someone else, if needed. Please be kind and considerate in the words you choose. We know from experience that language matters, and even small changes in how something is phrased can make a big difference to others.

Thank you for being part of this community and for helping us maintain a supportive and inclusive environment.

Kind regards,

The Forum Team

Thank you LFF admin, also thank you for sorting out those italics which I seem to have caused by copying amd posting something which wasn't originally in italics!!