Doing the maths
Notifications OFF
Last night when I couldn't sleep I was doing the maths in my head. 850 arrests a month for internet offences in recent years has been published that's 10,000 a year.
Let's say that's increased from say 0 in year 2000, roughly assuming last century is pre-internet.
Let's assume, to keep it simple that the increase is linear, not exponential. This will over estimate the figures but to balance that let's say it hasn't increased from 850 a month since 2019.
So, from 0 arrests per year to 10,000 arrests per year, over 23 years. That equates to roughly 115,000 people arrested.
The population of the UK is about 70,000,000.
Lets say half of these are men (of course some will still be children and it's not only men that are involved but the number if women is small enough that I'm ignoring that)
So, if I got the sums right that means about 1 in 300 men in the UK have been arrested for internet crimes involving children.
To me that means theres a good chance that every person in the country probably knows someone who has been arrested for this. Well, we all on this forum certainly do! But I guess what I'm saying is that there are probably a lot more partners and family members out there knowing someone who has been arrested for this even though they don't know it yet. Maybe they never will, because most people don't speak of it, unless they're outed by the media or forced disclosure, or a friend/family member decides to share.
Where am I going with all this? I'm not sure , other that I think if people knew about all these arrests, the proportion of people in prison for these offences, and the number on SOR and being managed by the police, and the excessive amount of social work time, sure, many will be outraged because in their minds there is such a large number of "dangerous" people out there, but surely there would also be more of a groundswell of feeling that something more needs to be done to prevent it, and stop access to this stuff over the internet, because whatever they're doing at the moment isn't working, is it? Big organisations like Disney seem to be able to stop pirating and distribution of their stuff over the internet, iioc images themselves are identified and digitally fingerprinted by organisations to help catch people accessing them, why cant the same technology be used to identify and remove this stuff from the web? If FB and other social media can use algorithms to work out what ads to send to people surely there is AI out there that can identify distributers of illegal material.
It just seems like law enforcement is being done at the wrong end of the system, tackling the consumers, when really the problem could be much more effectively solved by removing the material. Surely just removing it as soon as it appears, even if you can't get to the people who have created it or uploaded it because they're overseas, is better than leaving it there and "marking" it, so you can see who downloads it and then arrest them?
Sorry for the long post
Let's say that's increased from say 0 in year 2000, roughly assuming last century is pre-internet.
Let's assume, to keep it simple that the increase is linear, not exponential. This will over estimate the figures but to balance that let's say it hasn't increased from 850 a month since 2019.
So, from 0 arrests per year to 10,000 arrests per year, over 23 years. That equates to roughly 115,000 people arrested.
The population of the UK is about 70,000,000.
Lets say half of these are men (of course some will still be children and it's not only men that are involved but the number if women is small enough that I'm ignoring that)
So, if I got the sums right that means about 1 in 300 men in the UK have been arrested for internet crimes involving children.
To me that means theres a good chance that every person in the country probably knows someone who has been arrested for this. Well, we all on this forum certainly do! But I guess what I'm saying is that there are probably a lot more partners and family members out there knowing someone who has been arrested for this even though they don't know it yet. Maybe they never will, because most people don't speak of it, unless they're outed by the media or forced disclosure, or a friend/family member decides to share.
Where am I going with all this? I'm not sure , other that I think if people knew about all these arrests, the proportion of people in prison for these offences, and the number on SOR and being managed by the police, and the excessive amount of social work time, sure, many will be outraged because in their minds there is such a large number of "dangerous" people out there, but surely there would also be more of a groundswell of feeling that something more needs to be done to prevent it, and stop access to this stuff over the internet, because whatever they're doing at the moment isn't working, is it? Big organisations like Disney seem to be able to stop pirating and distribution of their stuff over the internet, iioc images themselves are identified and digitally fingerprinted by organisations to help catch people accessing them, why cant the same technology be used to identify and remove this stuff from the web? If FB and other social media can use algorithms to work out what ads to send to people surely there is AI out there that can identify distributers of illegal material.
It just seems like law enforcement is being done at the wrong end of the system, tackling the consumers, when really the problem could be much more effectively solved by removing the material. Surely just removing it as soon as it appears, even if you can't get to the people who have created it or uploaded it because they're overseas, is better than leaving it there and "marking" it, so you can see who downloads it and then arrest them?
Sorry for the long post
Post deleted
Post deleted
It's worse than that. According to official figures, the number of people on the register per 100,000 members of the population aged 10 and over, was 126 on 31 March 2022, continuing an upward trend. That's up from 80 per 100,000 in 2012.
There are around 67,000 people on the register now and around 67 million people in the country. So 1 in every 1,000 people is a sex offender.
There are around 67,000 people on the register now and around 67 million people in the country. So 1 in every 1,000 people is a sex offender.
Daff I thought about that too, you could be right, I will have to think about the maths, but I think that's multiple counting. For each of us on this forum, our person is that 1 in 300 for us and is that 1 in 300 for our friends and family members too. However, I suspect the figures may be far higher than reported.
Another thing that annoys me is the lack of availability of real numbers for these crimes. I think rapists and those convicted if sexual assaults are counted separately but the rest of sex offenders just get counted in one category and don't seem to be broken down further publicly, even Freedom of Information request responses seem to say they can't provide that level of detail because of how they record it. My cynical mind says that the authorities don't want to know the huge proportion of people in jail and/or on the sex offenders register for internet offences, as they would far rather that they were all thought of as violent and dangerous contact offenders. This lack of nuance really annoys me, as it promotes ignorance and black and white thinking that fuels the fear and hatred of all sex offenders amongst the public.
Another thing that annoys me is the lack of availability of real numbers for these crimes. I think rapists and those convicted if sexual assaults are counted separately but the rest of sex offenders just get counted in one category and don't seem to be broken down further publicly, even Freedom of Information request responses seem to say they can't provide that level of detail because of how they record it. My cynical mind says that the authorities don't want to know the huge proportion of people in jail and/or on the sex offenders register for internet offences, as they would far rather that they were all thought of as violent and dangerous contact offenders. This lack of nuance really annoys me, as it promotes ignorance and black and white thinking that fuels the fear and hatred of all sex offenders amongst the public.
Blue sky sadly you are right, children sending iioc pics (even of themselves) to other children are guilty of the same crime and the police and social work do get involved
From what I have seen in this forum, I gather sometimes the police deal with it sympathetically and sensitively and it's dealt with outside the courts. I have seen one case posted here though, where it appears the police waited until the perpetrator was 18 before they went round and arrested them. This made me feel very angry. I could just imagine the police discussing it beforehand and deciding to leave it until they were "adult" so they wouldn't have to bother with chaperoning or "appropriate adult" needing to be present.
From what I have seen in this forum, I gather sometimes the police deal with it sympathetically and sensitively and it's dealt with outside the courts. I have seen one case posted here though, where it appears the police waited until the perpetrator was 18 before they went round and arrested them. This made me feel very angry. I could just imagine the police discussing it beforehand and deciding to leave it until they were "adult" so they wouldn't have to bother with chaperoning or "appropriate adult" needing to be present.
Post deleted
Post deleted
Post deleted
I just read that a large percentage of children before the age of 11 have viewed pornography. To me that's pretty damn scary!
Bitterbean...my son is one of them, his offence happened when he was 16, police came to take his devices 10 months later when he was 17. then came back to arrest him 8 months later, 4 weeks after he turned 18. The anger I feel about this is consuming my life. Xx
Post deleted
Post deleted
Am following this thread with interest, and the stats really are scary. But the true stats of the enormity of this crime will be far far greater because the stats above are the ones we KNOW about, ie the people who have had the knock, imagine how much of this is going on behind closed doors with VPNs on, the ones that won't get caught. This is an epidemic...... makes me so very sad..... not to mention angry that it's allowed to happen. As someone mentioned above, why on earth are they not going for the internet companies/platforms. Why does Kik still exist for example? For drug issues the police go after the dealers and the importers don't they, not the spliff smoking student. Makes me HOPPING MAD. Rant over.....
Definitely. This had open my eyes greatly.
Now I see it everywhere, just few months ago the football coach for my kid's team left extremely suddenly and you just *know*.
But nothing will change because society as general has to change. It's easier to point out these low hanging fruits that deal with the fact that society as a whole is sick.
The simple fact that there is an allowed section of legal porn as "teen", why is that there? "Oh but the women are over 18" so what, why is it acceptable for huge corporations to use those terms in order to sell sex?
Hypocrisy.
Now I see it everywhere, just few months ago the football coach for my kid's team left extremely suddenly and you just *know*.
But nothing will change because society as general has to change. It's easier to point out these low hanging fruits that deal with the fact that society as a whole is sick.
The simple fact that there is an allowed section of legal porn as "teen", why is that there? "Oh but the women are over 18" so what, why is it acceptable for huge corporations to use those terms in order to sell sex?
Hypocrisy.
Very much enjoying the statistical analysis here and agree that this probably underestimates the problem.
Especially as those they bother to get involved with are only the ones they can catch or are the "worst" offenders.
I think my OH was only picked up because he told someone online that he was in a position of trust.
Also, how do those viewing "legal" porn KNOW that everyone is over 18??
Facebook used to block breastfeeding groups for explicit content, I just don't understand how this can't be better policed at source??!?
Especially as those they bother to get involved with are only the ones they can catch or are the "worst" offenders.
I think my OH was only picked up because he told someone online that he was in a position of trust.
Also, how do those viewing "legal" porn KNOW that everyone is over 18??
Facebook used to block breastfeeding groups for explicit content, I just don't understand how this can't be better policed at source??!?
K4
I agree it seems anomalous that Facebook algorithms/moderators can censor breast feeding pics and pictures of breast cancer survivors etc but are unable to identify and remove pictures of child sexual abuse. Frankly, it beggars belief
Ellbee I agree about the drug user analogy. I read recently that the Internet harms bill is being amended so that Internet businesses that don't remove offending material will only be fined rather than the people running them being jailed. If you use the drug analogy, it's like simply fining the drug producers and dealers and imprisoning the users and addicts. How is that going to get the problem under control?
Blue sky re police use of decoys - I wonder if there has been any research that gives an indication of how many actual children are being groomed online? It would seem that the vast majority of people prosecuted have committed a crime manufactured by the police on platforms that are supposed to be adult only. Are the numbers prosecuted proportionate to the numbers of known cases, or cases suspected based on intelligence, involving real children? Of course, no one will tell us.
I agree it seems anomalous that Facebook algorithms/moderators can censor breast feeding pics and pictures of breast cancer survivors etc but are unable to identify and remove pictures of child sexual abuse. Frankly, it beggars belief
Ellbee I agree about the drug user analogy. I read recently that the Internet harms bill is being amended so that Internet businesses that don't remove offending material will only be fined rather than the people running them being jailed. If you use the drug analogy, it's like simply fining the drug producers and dealers and imprisoning the users and addicts. How is that going to get the problem under control?
Blue sky re police use of decoys - I wonder if there has been any research that gives an indication of how many actual children are being groomed online? It would seem that the vast majority of people prosecuted have committed a crime manufactured by the police on platforms that are supposed to be adult only. Are the numbers prosecuted proportionate to the numbers of known cases, or cases suspected based on intelligence, involving real children? Of course, no one will tell us.
Post deleted
There may be 67,000 on the sex offenders register atm but bare in mind that people are on and off of that each day. However there is A total of 193,566 sexual offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2022, which is the highest level recorded.
Helpme
That makes total sense
That makes total sense
Dragonmama
Bit presumably that figure includes all sex offenders, from the violent rapist to the person sent an unsolicited bestiality picture as a joke on a WhatsApp group.
It would be far better if there was a proper breakdown of the different types of sex offender, this would not only educate and perhaps provide some reassurance to the public but also allow enforcement activities to be prioritised.
Bit presumably that figure includes all sex offenders, from the violent rapist to the person sent an unsolicited bestiality picture as a joke on a WhatsApp group.
It would be far better if there was a proper breakdown of the different types of sex offender, this would not only educate and perhaps provide some reassurance to the public but also allow enforcement activities to be prioritised.
Yes it is all sex offences, just as the 67,000 is all sex offences.
I agree there needs to be a breakdown especially since some of those on the registry are there for things like urinating in public/ hugging a person who doesn't wish to be hugged (yep that's right that is a sexual offence) it also doesn't distinguish between adult and child so there are loads of under 18s on there too.
to be fair as there is a sex offenders register there should be various other registers for gbh/abh/murder/burglary/violence/ threats etc
so presuming (I'm rounding up slightly btw) 67 million divided by one year of approximately 200thousand for one years worth of arrests that means 1:335 are arrested in one year for sexual offences so by random guesstimating if you say each year approximately half of those arrests are re offenders over a 10 year period that works out as 1.1 million people, so now if you presume the population of the uk stays constant over that ten year period of time (it obviously won't) it works out as 1:60 is arrested for sexual offences. Given that the population of the uk that is male is 32.9million (I'm excluding the women as it's not as heard of) the ratio is 1:30 approximately is arrested for sexual offences (any type) over a 10 year period
That is both very worrying and slightly reassuring that we are not alone. What confuses me is that this subject is such a taboo subject still, and that there are hardly any supportive charities
I agree there needs to be a breakdown especially since some of those on the registry are there for things like urinating in public/ hugging a person who doesn't wish to be hugged (yep that's right that is a sexual offence) it also doesn't distinguish between adult and child so there are loads of under 18s on there too.
to be fair as there is a sex offenders register there should be various other registers for gbh/abh/murder/burglary/violence/ threats etc
so presuming (I'm rounding up slightly btw) 67 million divided by one year of approximately 200thousand for one years worth of arrests that means 1:335 are arrested in one year for sexual offences so by random guesstimating if you say each year approximately half of those arrests are re offenders over a 10 year period that works out as 1.1 million people, so now if you presume the population of the uk stays constant over that ten year period of time (it obviously won't) it works out as 1:60 is arrested for sexual offences. Given that the population of the uk that is male is 32.9million (I'm excluding the women as it's not as heard of) the ratio is 1:30 approximately is arrested for sexual offences (any type) over a 10 year period
That is both very worrying and slightly reassuring that we are not alone. What confuses me is that this subject is such a taboo subject still, and that there are hardly any supportive charities
Bitterbean thanks for starting this conversation. It has been really interesting reading :-)
Smile i saw that article on children and pornography too and it is shocking
UUntil the knock I was fairly relaxed about porn, I knew my partner viewed it online, I thought this was only occasional, I thought it was fairly harmless, a bit of steamy, or more likely trashy rumpy pumpy. But now I see online porn as a very dangerous thing, a gateway to more sinister content and activities.
UUntil the knock I was fairly relaxed about porn, I knew my partner viewed it online, I thought this was only occasional, I thought it was fairly harmless, a bit of steamy, or more likely trashy rumpy pumpy. But now I see online porn as a very dangerous thing, a gateway to more sinister content and activities.
Lois34 you are welcome, as I said it all started from some maths calculations while I couldn't keep... :)
BB I totally feel the same as you. Never used to see it as sinister at all. Now the thought of it makes me feel sick and my person isn't interested at all. I think even viewing normal adult/legal stuff now will just trigger that part of the brain again and could risk going down the road of addiction. I guess it's the same as any addiction, alcohol, smoking....you have to be completely clean of it. Just one slip up could start the snowball rolling.
Bitterbean- I totally agree with you about this changing my attitude to porn.
it also feeds my menopausal anger about the injustices young girls and women face in society.
These statistics are sobering.
it also feeds my menopausal anger about the injustices young girls and women face in society.
These statistics are sobering.
Green, I hear what you are saying, I feel like I have lost my innocence, innocence I didn't know I had. I am learning things I really don't want to know about and I feel sullied because of it
I agree entirely about the "teen" thing, it seems almost like a "tempter", doesn't it?
You are dead right society needs to change before people will change their views, but for this to happen everyone needs to be aware of the facts, ugly and unpleasant as they are, but everything is clothed in secrecy and shame, politics and vested interests, primarily of the financial kind
I can't see things changing without a major uprising of some kind. Something will happen that will bring things to a head. Maybe it will be when the police can no longer cope with managing offenders on SHPOs and SOR. There was a recent government report on this, as it's becoming a problem As usual, much of it was kept secret/redacted, but from what I could gather from a tight lipped executive summary, the proposals seem to be largely about tinkering around the edges with the SOR rather than tackling the issue of availability of child sex abuse via the Internet. No one seems to want to tackle it at source, it is seems its viewed as a bit too difficult.
I agree entirely about the "teen" thing, it seems almost like a "tempter", doesn't it?
You are dead right society needs to change before people will change their views, but for this to happen everyone needs to be aware of the facts, ugly and unpleasant as they are, but everything is clothed in secrecy and shame, politics and vested interests, primarily of the financial kind
I can't see things changing without a major uprising of some kind. Something will happen that will bring things to a head. Maybe it will be when the police can no longer cope with managing offenders on SHPOs and SOR. There was a recent government report on this, as it's becoming a problem As usual, much of it was kept secret/redacted, but from what I could gather from a tight lipped executive summary, the proposals seem to be largely about tinkering around the edges with the SOR rather than tackling the issue of availability of child sex abuse via the Internet. No one seems to want to tackle it at source, it is seems its viewed as a bit too difficult.
Dragon mama I can accept that there are people out there who are very dangerous individuals and present a threat to children. However the system we have seems to do an assessment the effectively categorises all people categorised as sex offenders as "dangerous unless locked up", "dangerous unless kept on a lead for up to a decade" , "dangerous if not kept on a lead for life".
I find it hard to reconcile the way so many varied types of offender are lumped into a category called "sex offender" and all treated the same way in a society that claims to have a criminal justice system that is supposed to help criminals rehabilitate, and give them a second chance. I'm not seeing many second chances here, not for anything approaching a normal life, and the worse of it is the punitive effect on the partners and families of offenders too, not just by the justice system but also society in general.
Sorry for the rant
I find it hard to reconcile the way so many varied types of offender are lumped into a category called "sex offender" and all treated the same way in a society that claims to have a criminal justice system that is supposed to help criminals rehabilitate, and give them a second chance. I'm not seeing many second chances here, not for anything approaching a normal life, and the worse of it is the punitive effect on the partners and families of offenders too, not just by the justice system but also society in general.
Sorry for the rant
Post deleted
Post deleted by user
@daffodil
my breakdown was based on arrests not the SOR according to figures in the year ending March 2022 the figure for arrests were nearly 200,000 (I rounded up to the nearest 100,000)
that's what's so disturbing
my breakdown was based on arrests not the SOR according to figures in the year ending March 2022 the figure for arrests were nearly 200,000 (I rounded up to the nearest 100,000)
that's what's so disturbing
Post deleted
I often think about starting a social media account or something similar, along the lines of the truth about sex offenders, to highlight the truth and debunk myths, spread awareness of how easy it is to end up committing one of these offences.
I think things are changing in relation to respect for women in general, but I've probably in my life, especially when younger, been a victim of some kind of sexual harassment or abuse. I have quite a mix of people on my Facebook and I cringe at some of the things that the older people say or post (often I think they see it as just banter or jokes), but I don't really see it from the younger generation.
I think things are changing in relation to respect for women in general, but I've probably in my life, especially when younger, been a victim of some kind of sexual harassment or abuse. I have quite a mix of people on my Facebook and I cringe at some of the things that the older people say or post (often I think they see it as just banter or jokes), but I don't really see it from the younger generation.
Bitterbean, those are terrifying numbers! I'm feeling very hopeful that this problem will be recognised. Too late for us of course, but our voices are actually being heard, i know this from personal experience.
I, for one, am very vocal on the dangers of the internet and the laws that people are unaware of, the unfairness of the justice system, and the reality of prison life. I know I was blissfully ignorant of it all and trusting of everyone in authority or positions of power. The truth is scary, and it is a huge problem touching all of society, whether we recognise it or not!
I do not want anyone I love and care for to go through this so I am prepared to air my views even if sometimes they are not well received. Of course my privacy was blown apart by vigilantes facebook livestream, so I have the ability to speak out now, after a period of being too terrified to put my head above the parapet!
The bottom line is, we know it happens so why not to me or someone I love? And if it can happen to me it can happen to anyone!
A Great, thought provoking thread! Glad I popped in and read it! Thank you! Xxx
I, for one, am very vocal on the dangers of the internet and the laws that people are unaware of, the unfairness of the justice system, and the reality of prison life. I know I was blissfully ignorant of it all and trusting of everyone in authority or positions of power. The truth is scary, and it is a huge problem touching all of society, whether we recognise it or not!
I do not want anyone I love and care for to go through this so I am prepared to air my views even if sometimes they are not well received. Of course my privacy was blown apart by vigilantes facebook livestream, so I have the ability to speak out now, after a period of being too terrified to put my head above the parapet!
The bottom line is, we know it happens so why not to me or someone I love? And if it can happen to me it can happen to anyone!
A Great, thought provoking thread! Glad I popped in and read it! Thank you! Xxx
KT I missed your reply yesterday, how awful for you and your son (you too Daffodil) . I really do think that all those who commit these crimes when under 18 should be treated by the court as they would be if they were under 18, I'm not sure if this is what actually happens, and the police also act accordingly even if they are over 18 at the time of arrest. As if an under 18 rally understands what they're doing. Or even an over 18, you d people mature at different times, and some have neuro diversity which adds more complexity.
My OH on the other hand - old enough to know better! Lol. But since the knock, I have realised that even he is somewhat emotionally immature. Doesn't excuse him though.
My OH on the other hand - old enough to know better! Lol. But since the knock, I have realised that even he is somewhat emotionally immature. Doesn't excuse him though.
SAL society has changed over the decades. I look back on the sexism, mysogyny and groping I saw and endured but accepted as the norm when I was younger and shudder.
Things have changed and mostly for the better although understanding of these crimes by experts and the public still seems limited and there is so much to learn.
I'm a fairly liberal person but I am coming round to the conclusion that allowing industries like gambling, porn and alcohol to operate unfettered is not a good thing and while I don't believe they should be banned, I do think tighter regulation is needed. It's largely been done with alcohol (although there are still problems) but porn and gambling, especially online, need to be reigned in by the government and the tech companies need to come to the party too
Things have changed and mostly for the better although understanding of these crimes by experts and the public still seems limited and there is so much to learn.
I'm a fairly liberal person but I am coming round to the conclusion that allowing industries like gambling, porn and alcohol to operate unfettered is not a good thing and while I don't believe they should be banned, I do think tighter regulation is needed. It's largely been done with alcohol (although there are still problems) but porn and gambling, especially online, need to be reigned in by the government and the tech companies need to come to the party too
Tabs I have enjoyed the discussion too and maybe once I am through the other side of this (trial awaits) I will be like you, having gone through all the public shaming I will feel I have nothing left to lose by shouting about it! Watch this space!
I too perform similar mental arithmetic - and endorse the message that any numbers we have sight of will only be the tip of the iceburg. I read (not sure how verifiable) that the age group most accessing this material is age 13-18. And their interactions with this will not be recorded in any stats as they aren't arrested (the police practice of waiting for young perpetrators to turn 18 before arrest is abhorrent). I would also be v interested to see a breakdown of communication offences (both adult-to-child and adult-to-adult) that are genuine, and not involving police decoys. I have not yet seen a single case here or in the media that does NOT involve engineering by undercover police or vigilantes. These communications would in all probability never take place otherwise. I'm sure genuine examples do exist, but I doubt they are on the open, free, legal and easily accessible social media platforms on which most people offend. My person is apparently such a monster that he's in prison. He has not and will not be receiving any form of rehab, learning or therapy during his custodial sentence, so will be released exactly as he was when imprisoned, only more bitter, depressed, disillusioned, isolated and with a reduced sense of agency and responsibility for his life. Go figure.
Post deleted
Post deleted
Post deleted
Surveys of children by the NSPCC in 2021 suggest that 1 in 25 primary school children and 1 in 20 secondary school children have received sexual communications or images from adults. That's about 250,000 children. They often only get counted as offences if parents find out or once it has got really serious. Even more get sexual comments made in the streets. Obviously police should follow rules on entrapment but I can see why they use decoys, even if they only pick up the tip of the iceberg. The friend of mine that got convicted of sexual communication with a decoy during a mental breakdown, blames himself and not the police, acknowledges he'd probably have kept going if not stopped and says he is just relieved that it was a decoy first.
Post deleted
Just a few points/thoughts,
The 67,000 on the register I don't think that includes people who have gone to prison I maybe wrong. but could add a few thousand to that!
my person continues to deny the offence but stated if he had done it nothing anyone has done ie fine probation unpaid work would stop him from reoffending if he was a 'sex offender'. Disappointing really as others have said I was trusting of authorities and things to make a difference do the right thing but it's really not the case.
as an onlooker I can see a man now who has some new 'intresting' 'associates' he now is working in a place where drugs is the norm prob most have convictions hence why they are working there. I can't see how any of it helps him be a 'normal' member of society although from the figures 1/300 is scary maybe this is the norm now?
my persons offence only came in in 2017 knock 2019 and now again has changed as there is now no acknowledgement of 'attempted'.
Lots of people I know didnt know it's under 18s but also lots didn't know under 18 for pics lots of page 3 in the sun back in the day were 16/17 which changed in 2003 now without a wide publication of the laws how does someone say like my dad know that this isn't allowed anymore? 20 years on and it's scary people don't really know the law, I'm not saying it was ever right but if he was sent this his would he know to report? Prob not as didn't know it was an issue.
my cynical mind tells me it all helps keep the conviction rates up we've caught all these wild sex offenders keeping the public safe keeping a register of them all which they can't even police!
The 67,000 on the register I don't think that includes people who have gone to prison I maybe wrong. but could add a few thousand to that!
my person continues to deny the offence but stated if he had done it nothing anyone has done ie fine probation unpaid work would stop him from reoffending if he was a 'sex offender'. Disappointing really as others have said I was trusting of authorities and things to make a difference do the right thing but it's really not the case.
as an onlooker I can see a man now who has some new 'intresting' 'associates' he now is working in a place where drugs is the norm prob most have convictions hence why they are working there. I can't see how any of it helps him be a 'normal' member of society although from the figures 1/300 is scary maybe this is the norm now?
my persons offence only came in in 2017 knock 2019 and now again has changed as there is now no acknowledgement of 'attempted'.
Lots of people I know didnt know it's under 18s but also lots didn't know under 18 for pics lots of page 3 in the sun back in the day were 16/17 which changed in 2003 now without a wide publication of the laws how does someone say like my dad know that this isn't allowed anymore? 20 years on and it's scary people don't really know the law, I'm not saying it was ever right but if he was sent this his would he know to report? Prob not as didn't know it was an issue.
my cynical mind tells me it all helps keep the conviction rates up we've caught all these wild sex offenders keeping the public safe keeping a register of them all which they can't even police!
Summer, very thought provoking comments and I have to say you have well articulated thoughts I have had going around my head for a while.
Post deleted
Daffodil, some people don't sign until sentenced. And then there are those who are remanded until sentencing or when arrested they don't go down the station.
So those who sign on then attend sentancing and get a custodial I would be interested to know when the Visor realises the person is in prison. Do they then get taken off? As once released they have to sign on.
Really what I mean from the above is there are no clear figures about these offences/register and I don't think they know what's what as much as they think they do.
As someone said above no one is acknowledging either this country's sick! Or actually this wasn't most men's direct intentions
So those who sign on then attend sentancing and get a custodial I would be interested to know when the Visor realises the person is in prison. Do they then get taken off? As once released they have to sign on.
Really what I mean from the above is there are no clear figures about these offences/register and I don't think they know what's what as much as they think they do.
As someone said above no one is acknowledging either this country's sick! Or actually this wasn't most men's direct intentions
Post deleted
The numbers are shocking and prolific. It still baffles me how it took ten years for my partner to be caught! It makes me wonder if there are people out there that will never be caught and ofc I wished he never did it, but I also wish he was caught alot sooner or at the very least had the resources to prevent ever doing it. By the time he was caught he was a very regular in his offending.
I'm in my 30s, and I was thankfully quite sheltered from dodgey online viral videos. But I have heard of kids when I was young watching and sharing vids (thankfully not kids) but still illegal. I dated someone who had questionable porn interests and I know he did things online with under age kids at least once- I didn't think at the time to report it as I was young and felt like even tho it was disgusting I just had the thought well under age kids were not meant to be on that site (it was a video chat room site that matched you with random people) and so didn't think my bf would be blamed....I ofc know now that it was very much illegal. But I doubt I could report it as there would be no evidence as it was a love stream over ten years ago.
My point is that there needs to be better education to prevent, and tech companies need to do better. I think the arrests are somewhat unfortunately the tip of the iceberg - or maybe my partner is a rare case that it took ten years to arrest him?
I'm in my 30s, and I was thankfully quite sheltered from dodgey online viral videos. But I have heard of kids when I was young watching and sharing vids (thankfully not kids) but still illegal. I dated someone who had questionable porn interests and I know he did things online with under age kids at least once- I didn't think at the time to report it as I was young and felt like even tho it was disgusting I just had the thought well under age kids were not meant to be on that site (it was a video chat room site that matched you with random people) and so didn't think my bf would be blamed....I ofc know now that it was very much illegal. But I doubt I could report it as there would be no evidence as it was a love stream over ten years ago.
My point is that there needs to be better education to prevent, and tech companies need to do better. I think the arrests are somewhat unfortunately the tip of the iceberg - or maybe my partner is a rare case that it took ten years to arrest him?
I am very much enjoying (with the usual caveat of how my benchmark of 'enjoyment' has shifted beyond compare!) and appreciative of this thread. I am scientifically and logically minded and very much a pragmatist. At the same time I am of course totally on board with the emotional aspects of this situation (see my 'Planet Knock' post pinned at the top) BUT the more we can provide a platform for analysis, rationale, research, data, number-crunching, statistics etc the better. What we need on this are actuaries (super genius brains who assess risk, predictions, data science and real-life context). A whole new industry beckons (and is sorely needed...)
Sort of related. Sort of not. Not worthy of a separate thread. I vigilantes sting was shared on my thread and it led to me watching a few. I want to scream at my phone, reply to comments etc.
Two things that are often asked is-
First - If you don't normally do this, why have you with this girl?
Because this is an entirely manufactured situation that is very, very unlikely to occur in reality. Whilst I've no doubt there are many men that might approach young girls on the Internet (and that is a problem in itself) I imagine the vast majority would ignore these old men and are very unlikely to continue the conversation to the depths these vigilantes do. I know there are men that will exploit vulnerable children, I just don't believe these vigilantes are actually finding them - The really dangerous ones that are more cunning, intelligent and aware of being caught.
Second thing is the vigilantes then saying we've been informed you are talking to X number of other girls. Yes because you've shared his detail and other groups have contacted them.
Is all equipment seized from these vigilantes? We are so often told not to take police matters into our own hands, yet the police seem to support this activity. Gosh I'm angry and unnerved by it all.
As InTatters has said, some proper statistical and risk data on this would be very good.
Two things that are often asked is-
First - If you don't normally do this, why have you with this girl?
Because this is an entirely manufactured situation that is very, very unlikely to occur in reality. Whilst I've no doubt there are many men that might approach young girls on the Internet (and that is a problem in itself) I imagine the vast majority would ignore these old men and are very unlikely to continue the conversation to the depths these vigilantes do. I know there are men that will exploit vulnerable children, I just don't believe these vigilantes are actually finding them - The really dangerous ones that are more cunning, intelligent and aware of being caught.
Second thing is the vigilantes then saying we've been informed you are talking to X number of other girls. Yes because you've shared his detail and other groups have contacted them.
Is all equipment seized from these vigilantes? We are so often told not to take police matters into our own hands, yet the police seem to support this activity. Gosh I'm angry and unnerved by it all.
As InTatters has said, some proper statistical and risk data on this would be very good.
Post deleted
I am thinking exactly the same about police decoys/vigilantes. There is a need to see a breakdown of communication offences involving decoys/vigilantes vs 'real' (not sure of the proper terminology).
Without this 'engineering of an artifical situation' the vast majority of these offences would not happen. I'm sure there are genuine cases of people communicating (either adult-to-adult corresponding about a child, or directly adult-to-child) but I yet to see one - either here, in the media or in law reports etc. And it's doubtful whether these interactions would take place on free, public social media platforms.
Of course I'm not defending, excusing or justifying any offending behaviour, but it seems that police time and energy is spent on manufacturing offending situations, rather than focussing efforts on stopping real-life offending.
When my person was arrested, about the third question I asked the arresting police was 'is the girl OK? Is she safe?' All six police just stared at me until one said 'what girl?'. even through my intense shock I was dumbstruck. It was as if it hadn't occurred to them to be concerned about the 'victim' (we didn't know this 'victim' was non-existent at the time').
Without this 'engineering of an artifical situation' the vast majority of these offences would not happen. I'm sure there are genuine cases of people communicating (either adult-to-adult corresponding about a child, or directly adult-to-child) but I yet to see one - either here, in the media or in law reports etc. And it's doubtful whether these interactions would take place on free, public social media platforms.
Of course I'm not defending, excusing or justifying any offending behaviour, but it seems that police time and energy is spent on manufacturing offending situations, rather than focussing efforts on stopping real-life offending.
When my person was arrested, about the third question I asked the arresting police was 'is the girl OK? Is she safe?' All six police just stared at me until one said 'what girl?'. even through my intense shock I was dumbstruck. It was as if it hadn't occurred to them to be concerned about the 'victim' (we didn't know this 'victim' was non-existent at the time').
InTatters
I get where you are coming from with the numbers tumbling if the police stopped using decoys to pose as young people, but the difficulty is nobody knows how many real young people are being approached online because many don't report it. I recall seeing online the results of surveys saying an alarming number of girls have been sent d**k pics, which is pretty disgusting in itself, but we are led to believe, presumably from known cases (although how many is never revealed), that some meb are very cunning in the way they lure young people in or groom them before arranging to meet up. These cases are awful but are they just a small minority of cases or are they the tip of the iceberg. We don't know, because we're not told. Maybe we're not told because the authorities don't know either, at best they are extrapolating and at worse they are probably guessing.
It does seem from what I've read here that the decoy approach by the police an vigilante groups goes in the other direction, with the decoy victim "grooming" the target.
I know it's not cool to encourage potential victims to take action to protect themselves, but I think that the work being done (and there's not enough of it) with parents and in schools on the potential dangers of the Internet and how children can protect themselves (with encouragement of them to report attempted grooming or receipt of obscene photos or messages etc) should be massively escalated.
I get where you are coming from with the numbers tumbling if the police stopped using decoys to pose as young people, but the difficulty is nobody knows how many real young people are being approached online because many don't report it. I recall seeing online the results of surveys saying an alarming number of girls have been sent d**k pics, which is pretty disgusting in itself, but we are led to believe, presumably from known cases (although how many is never revealed), that some meb are very cunning in the way they lure young people in or groom them before arranging to meet up. These cases are awful but are they just a small minority of cases or are they the tip of the iceberg. We don't know, because we're not told. Maybe we're not told because the authorities don't know either, at best they are extrapolating and at worse they are probably guessing.
It does seem from what I've read here that the decoy approach by the police an vigilante groups goes in the other direction, with the decoy victim "grooming" the target.
I know it's not cool to encourage potential victims to take action to protect themselves, but I think that the work being done (and there's not enough of it) with parents and in schools on the potential dangers of the Internet and how children can protect themselves (with encouragement of them to report attempted grooming or receipt of obscene photos or messages etc) should be massively escalated.
SAL the vigilante situation has got completely out of hand and needs dealt with as a matter of urgency. There was an article online yesterday about a couple targeted by vigilantes where one of them had been either mistakenly or maliciously identified on social media as a p****phile and had an angry mob of 300 people attacking their home. Terrifying.
The other thing about this piece that annoyed me was the reporter saying that the couple had been target because the partner had been wrongfully identified as a p****phile, with the inference that had he actually been a p****phile then this behaviour and his treatment would have been acceptable.
The police need to both stop using vigilante "investigations" as their evidence and also clamp down hard on vigilante activities, whether this is posing as decoys and the "hunting down" their targets or just generally harassing those convicted (or not) online and in real life.
The other thing about this piece that annoyed me was the reporter saying that the couple had been target because the partner had been wrongfully identified as a p****phile, with the inference that had he actually been a p****phile then this behaviour and his treatment would have been acceptable.
The police need to both stop using vigilante "investigations" as their evidence and also clamp down hard on vigilante activities, whether this is posing as decoys and the "hunting down" their targets or just generally harassing those convicted (or not) online and in real life.
Post deleted
Not to forget that vigilanties lie through their teeth about how they tracked the person to their home and don't use actual chat logs instead use screenshots which can and are doctored to suit what they need. Their reasoning behind live streaming is bs, it's so other children can come forward, yet they do this viewing for over 18s and the police would see if there are more via their divices, so it's all about the show and egos and of course there ability to humiliate the person in the sting. They make out that those stung are attracted to children yet there (in most cases) is only one decoy (don't get me wrong if it's more than on I would seriously be questioning my OHs attraction). So again all bs
Under what government department do you think this would be under for a freedom of information request?
Justice?? Home Office??
SAL
What specific information are you looking for?
In terms of arrests and convictions, I suspect if you went to a government department they would say they do not hold the information, which will probably be true, they would probably direct you to the police and you would have to contact every separate police force individually. The other likely obstacle would be for whichever organisation/department you contact to say that although they do have the information it would be too difficult / time consuming to separate it out which is a valid grounds for refusal.
I've seen online the published responses to people requesting more detail on offences and convictions for Internet based sexual offences and the responses are vague saying they can't break down sexual offences to the level of detail requested. But sure that sort of breakdown would be useful to the police, government and other service to assist them in working out where the problems lie and how best to prevent offences being committed in the first place?
Of course you would also expect that as an issue that is of major concern and interest to the public, that the authorities would collate and publicise information on numbers of arrests, charged and details and it would certainly seem that this information has been made available to people compiling official reports. For example they know that men accessing iioc are more likely to be educated, in work, married and have children if their own. So where does this sort of info come from? There must be a database somewhere.
So, I'm not sure if the detail is deliberately being kept from the public for some unknown reason, or that the police and government are just not very bothered in learning more about these crimes and those who commit them. It seems its just left to a few academics who have an interest in this area
If you're looking for date on the number of actual children known to have been groomed/contacted online, or the number of decoys used, I'm not hopeful. I'm sure both would be withheld on the grounds of confidentiality or needing to keep police activities secret.
What specific information are you looking for?
In terms of arrests and convictions, I suspect if you went to a government department they would say they do not hold the information, which will probably be true, they would probably direct you to the police and you would have to contact every separate police force individually. The other likely obstacle would be for whichever organisation/department you contact to say that although they do have the information it would be too difficult / time consuming to separate it out which is a valid grounds for refusal.
I've seen online the published responses to people requesting more detail on offences and convictions for Internet based sexual offences and the responses are vague saying they can't break down sexual offences to the level of detail requested. But sure that sort of breakdown would be useful to the police, government and other service to assist them in working out where the problems lie and how best to prevent offences being committed in the first place?
Of course you would also expect that as an issue that is of major concern and interest to the public, that the authorities would collate and publicise information on numbers of arrests, charged and details and it would certainly seem that this information has been made available to people compiling official reports. For example they know that men accessing iioc are more likely to be educated, in work, married and have children if their own. So where does this sort of info come from? There must be a database somewhere.
So, I'm not sure if the detail is deliberately being kept from the public for some unknown reason, or that the police and government are just not very bothered in learning more about these crimes and those who commit them. It seems its just left to a few academics who have an interest in this area
If you're looking for date on the number of actual children known to have been groomed/contacted online, or the number of decoys used, I'm not hopeful. I'm sure both would be withheld on the grounds of confidentiality or needing to keep police activities secret.
In theory the stats should be easy to obtain. Anything with a decoy will be Attemped - Surely they must hold data on the number of convictions under each offence.
What might be harder to identify is the number of people with convictions as a result of a decoy /vigilant AND where there were also convictions related to really beings or where there were also images.
What might be harder to identify is the number of people with convictions as a result of a decoy /vigilant AND where there were also convictions related to really beings or where there were also images.
I have raised a request with the MoJ and CPS - Let's see what they come back with.
Post deleted
Sal, good on you and thank you for submitting the FOI requests - will be very interesting to see what comes back!
Unfortunately, I don't think a filter/breakdown by 'attempted' will be workable - the 'attempted' charge doesn't exist/isn't recognised any more.
My person communicated (adult to adult) with a police decoy, but was charged and sentenced as if a 'real' person. I just know the vast majority of communication offences involve decoy/vigilante. The prisons are rammed full of people who would never have engaged in that correspondence otherwise. Of course, they shouldn't have continued the correspondence, but had it never started, they (and we) wouldn't be in this hellish situation.
My person has told me that when he was 'admitted' to prison, the prison officer asked him (with an eye roll) 'so, was it police decoy or vigilante?' as if these were the only two options. This implies the default is for those sentenced to have been engaging in correspondence with 'actors'. It fries my brain.
Unfortunately, I don't think a filter/breakdown by 'attempted' will be workable - the 'attempted' charge doesn't exist/isn't recognised any more.
My person communicated (adult to adult) with a police decoy, but was charged and sentenced as if a 'real' person. I just know the vast majority of communication offences involve decoy/vigilante. The prisons are rammed full of people who would never have engaged in that correspondence otherwise. Of course, they shouldn't have continued the correspondence, but had it never started, they (and we) wouldn't be in this hellish situation.
My person has told me that when he was 'admitted' to prison, the prison officer asked him (with an eye roll) 'so, was it police decoy or vigilante?' as if these were the only two options. This implies the default is for those sentenced to have been engaging in correspondence with 'actors'. It fries my brain.
Intatters
what's really concening is our people are serving sentences (filling up spaces) when people who have done far worse get away with a slap on the wrist
what's really concening is our people are serving sentences (filling up spaces) when people who have done far worse get away with a slap on the wrist
That doesn't surprise me. I still search offences to see sentences - Silly I know. Part bitter at the length, part interested to see if any involve actual children, they are few and far between.
Was his charge attempted? I know they are dealt with the same in terms of sentencing but I thought the charges still had attempted.
CPS have responded to clarify the request - I'm surprised, but hopefully they'll come back with the info.
Was his charge attempted? I know they are dealt with the same in terms of sentencing but I thought the charges still had attempted.
CPS have responded to clarify the request - I'm surprised, but hopefully they'll come back with the info.
SAL
It will be interesting to see what information /data you get back
It will be interesting to see what information /data you get back
Firstly I want to say say some of the language used below might be slightly triggering.
I listen to the BBC podcast Bad People. It's a light hearted discussion which a scientist and comedian, they talk about many angles of crimes and the people that have committed them, often touching on moral aspect related to the perpetrator, victims, law and science. In the latest episode they talked about vigilantes. Some of the language used I don't think was as accurate as it could have been but they did discuss some of the points that are so often discussed on this forum about vigilantes, but unfortunately not the angle that these are manufactured situations.
Anyway, they did mention that over half of all cases the Scottish justice system relate to vigilantes - which relates to what we discussed earlier.
I have had confirmation from both MoJ and CPS that they have my rest. I should have a response within 20 days. I'm not holding my breath that I'll get the information.
I listen to the BBC podcast Bad People. It's a light hearted discussion which a scientist and comedian, they talk about many angles of crimes and the people that have committed them, often touching on moral aspect related to the perpetrator, victims, law and science. In the latest episode they talked about vigilantes. Some of the language used I don't think was as accurate as it could have been but they did discuss some of the points that are so often discussed on this forum about vigilantes, but unfortunately not the angle that these are manufactured situations.
Anyway, they did mention that over half of all cases the Scottish justice system relate to vigilantes - which relates to what we discussed earlier.
I have had confirmation from both MoJ and CPS that they have my rest. I should have a response within 20 days. I'm not holding my breath that I'll get the information.
Interesting thread. The whole decoy thing concerns me, especially when they start on adult hookup sites. Are the decoys not "creating a market"? An adult creating a profile where they have to state they are 18 or over and then pretending they are younger. Surely that is a dangerous tactic. The decoy responding to their target and by simply being online they are signalling that children are interested in adults. That doesn't sound like the right message. I notice that these cases often say that the target made the first approach, but really the decoy created a profile and going online, that is a clear signal that they want to talk to someone. I agree anyone should stop communicating with such a decoy for sure, and report them.
I wonder if we would think it was acceptable for a decoy who is 18 and perhaps looks younger to go to some sex club, and then claim they are 15. Somehow I doubt that a prosecution would get very far in those circumstances. But maybe I am wrong.
I wonder if we would think it was acceptable for a decoy who is 18 and perhaps looks younger to go to some sex club, and then claim they are 15. Somehow I doubt that a prosecution would get very far in those circumstances. But maybe I am wrong.
Zack
Interesting point and yes it isn't a stretch to suggest that decoys posing as children could be stimulating a sexual interest in children.
On a similar note, I was listening to the radio while gardening today and was listening to Britney Spears singing Hit me baby one more time and remembering that video that went with it. Could that video be classed as Category C iioc?
Interesting point and yes it isn't a stretch to suggest that decoys posing as children could be stimulating a sexual interest in children.
On a similar note, I was listening to the radio while gardening today and was listening to Britney Spears singing Hit me baby one more time and remembering that video that went with it. Could that video be classed as Category C iioc?
When my son was first arrested he had only just turned 16 ,he told me underage porn is rife in schools ,upskirtibg being a prime example .At school children are taught about online abuse TO THEM ,not about watching it ,the consequences ,or the abuse behind images .I was told by the police that certain images have tags which flag up to the police .WHY NOT REMOVE images,rather than tag them !Why are children allowed to have social media accounts without showing I'd first ?you can't go into a pub if you look young but you can be groomed online !!! Snapchat being a prime example ,why is there no control .Because of the internet the problem is just growing ,and yet there are no real support groups for addicts like alcoholics anonymous or gamblers anonymous.The problem is growing at soead and nothing is being done except for more and more arrests ,lives being ruined and all sex offenders being labeled the same ,someone who was sent a file on their computer and opened it ,being treated in the same way as someone who physically abused a child.Its all wrong,but noone is taking responsibility for the easy access of child porn ,instead people are just jailed instead of being offered helo like any other addiction .prevention and education is just not available
Can I just say as well that my son who is 19 ,did genuinely speak to a child .He made a false snapchat account pretending to be a child himself ,and is now rightly so in prison ,because the poor girl was brave enough to tell her father .My son wasn't checked on Snapchat ,and the girl was only 10 so clearly she wasn't
Djmichelle
Totally agree, it seems entirely possible for the movie makers to get pirate movies and websites that share them taken down, I cannot understand why they can't do this with indecent images. I guess with movies they feel they are losing too much money whereas with theindecent images there is not the same money involved, or maybe there is not the appetite for taking down some of the porn sites or the big social media giants for fear of legal action?
Totally agree, it seems entirely possible for the movie makers to get pirate movies and websites that share them taken down, I cannot understand why they can't do this with indecent images. I guess with movies they feel they are losing too much money whereas with theindecent images there is not the same money involved, or maybe there is not the appetite for taking down some of the porn sites or the big social media giants for fear of legal action?
Daffodil I expect the lack of awareness among children lies probably in their innocence - they may be thinking if its illegal I wouldn't be able to do it?
Ironically, I believe that it is the regulation of other platforms that drives children onto KiK. They like to watch streamers but if streamers swear and things then I think twitch regulates it, so the streamers have all gone onto KiK.
I had very stern words with my own children about using KiK.
it all seems so dangerous and unmanageable and desperately upsetting.
I had very stern words with my own children about using KiK.
it all seems so dangerous and unmanageable and desperately upsetting.
OK, I'm picking this thread up again, as in addition to the example of the Britney 'Hit me baby' video, I'd like to raise some further examples of mainstream media that I think normalise underage attraction:
1) 'Bad Education' - BBC series set in a school. There is one girl schoolgirl (under 16 in early series) whose entire character was built on her constant attempts to seduce her teacher. The suggestions she makes, things she says, actions she performs are obscene, and show her taking the lead in craving and expecting sexual activity with her adult male teacher. So wrong.
2) 'World's End' - movie with Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Pierce Brosnan. Lengthy scene set in a nightclub, with 'School disco' theme. Features women dressed as school girls offering sexual activity - with their attraction based entirely on presenting themselves as schoolgirls.
3) 'Ellie and Nastasia' - comedy series. When I watched this a little while ago, I could not actually believe that one sketch was being performed, and seemingly that throughout production, not one person had questioned it. The sketch involves both female comedians dressed as babies, complete with nappies, bibs, dummies, cutesey socks etc. And they sing and perform a song called 'I'm a sexy baby'. Yes really. The lyrics, dance moves and undertying messaging and implications are obscene... (including 'come and change my nappy, daddy'), And this was a prime time, mainstream comedy series. Well, I'm not laughing.
1) 'Bad Education' - BBC series set in a school. There is one girl schoolgirl (under 16 in early series) whose entire character was built on her constant attempts to seduce her teacher. The suggestions she makes, things she says, actions she performs are obscene, and show her taking the lead in craving and expecting sexual activity with her adult male teacher. So wrong.
2) 'World's End' - movie with Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Pierce Brosnan. Lengthy scene set in a nightclub, with 'School disco' theme. Features women dressed as school girls offering sexual activity - with their attraction based entirely on presenting themselves as schoolgirls.
3) 'Ellie and Nastasia' - comedy series. When I watched this a little while ago, I could not actually believe that one sketch was being performed, and seemingly that throughout production, not one person had questioned it. The sketch involves both female comedians dressed as babies, complete with nappies, bibs, dummies, cutesey socks etc. And they sing and perform a song called 'I'm a sexy baby'. Yes really. The lyrics, dance moves and undertying messaging and implications are obscene... (including 'come and change my nappy, daddy'), And this was a prime time, mainstream comedy series. Well, I'm not laughing.
OK, I'm picking this thread up again, as in addition to the example of the Britney 'Hit me baby' video, I'd like to raise some further examples of mainstream media that I think normalise underage attraction:
1) 'Bad Education' - BBC series set in a school. There is one schoolgirl (under 16 in early series) whose entire character was built on her constant attempts to seduce her teacher. The suggestions she makes, things she says, actions she performs are obscene, and show her taking the lead in craving and expecting sexual activity with her flattered adult male teacher. So wrong.
2) 'World's End' - movie with Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Pierce Brosnan. Lengthy scene set in a nightclub, with 'School disco' theme. Features women dressed as school girls offering sexual activity - with their attraction based entirely on presenting themselves as schoolgirls.
3) 'Ellie and Nastasia' - comedy series. When I watched this a little while ago, I could not actually believe that one sketch was being performed, and seemingly that throughout production, not one person had questioned it. The sketch involves both female comedians dressed as babies, complete with nappies, bibs, dummies, cutesey socks etc. And they sing and perform a song called 'I'm a sexy baby'. Yes really. The lyrics, dance moves and undertying messaging and implications are revolting... (including 'come and change my nappy, daddy'), And this was a prime time, mainstream comedy series. Well, I'm not laughing.
1) 'Bad Education' - BBC series set in a school. There is one schoolgirl (under 16 in early series) whose entire character was built on her constant attempts to seduce her teacher. The suggestions she makes, things she says, actions she performs are obscene, and show her taking the lead in craving and expecting sexual activity with her flattered adult male teacher. So wrong.
2) 'World's End' - movie with Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Pierce Brosnan. Lengthy scene set in a nightclub, with 'School disco' theme. Features women dressed as school girls offering sexual activity - with their attraction based entirely on presenting themselves as schoolgirls.
3) 'Ellie and Nastasia' - comedy series. When I watched this a little while ago, I could not actually believe that one sketch was being performed, and seemingly that throughout production, not one person had questioned it. The sketch involves both female comedians dressed as babies, complete with nappies, bibs, dummies, cutesey socks etc. And they sing and perform a song called 'I'm a sexy baby'. Yes really. The lyrics, dance moves and undertying messaging and implications are revolting... (including 'come and change my nappy, daddy'), And this was a prime time, mainstream comedy series. Well, I'm not laughing.
In Tatters
Have not seen any of these but the media and TV is full of this hypocracy. Is it any wonder that there appear to be grey areas as to what is "legal" and what is "not legal"? And there are inconsistencies in other areas of life too. The age of consent in the UK is 16 but as I understand it communcating or viewing indecent pictures of 16-18 year old is not legal. Adult style sexualised children's clothing can be found in shops. There needs to be a good hard look at all of this and perhaps a national conversation and/or clearer and consistent messaging to the public about what behaviours are not only morally unacceptable but also illegal. I think Lucy Faithfull does a good job but people only get sigh posted to them or hear about them after the damage has been done.
Have not seen any of these but the media and TV is full of this hypocracy. Is it any wonder that there appear to be grey areas as to what is "legal" and what is "not legal"? And there are inconsistencies in other areas of life too. The age of consent in the UK is 16 but as I understand it communcating or viewing indecent pictures of 16-18 year old is not legal. Adult style sexualised children's clothing can be found in shops. There needs to be a good hard look at all of this and perhaps a national conversation and/or clearer and consistent messaging to the public about what behaviours are not only morally unacceptable but also illegal. I think Lucy Faithfull does a good job but people only get sigh posted to them or hear about them after the damage has been done.
Post deleted
Post deleted by user
I thought very much about what is deemed illegal and what is shown on TV. Most recently when watching South Park and Shameless. From what I understand, anything which has passed approval for view on TV or production in UK by the regulators is fine, even if out of the context of TV viewing it could be construed as illegal. I believe though, that say for example an image of a naked child on TV was then photographed it could then be construed as illegal.
I can't remember the exact wording or where I read it but it was definitely legislation somewhere...
I can't remember the exact wording or where I read it but it was definitely legislation somewhere...
I have had the exact same conversations recently regarding the whole 16/18 consent thing, why is there no consistency, how can you have actual sex with someone at 16 but not talk to them about it or look at a picture of them after. Although I know thats not usually what our situations are about, there should still be better clarification. And the not knowing about the organisations that help before it gets to the crime stage, its like they don't want anyone to know about them till its too late. You get bombarded with adverts for all sorts of rubbish, why not support and help for this. this situation is so out of control, but so easy to get in to, something has to change in the future, too late for our people now.
I've got a response back from the MOJ - They cannot provide the information requested. See their response at the bottom of this post. In short the cost to gather the requested data is above the threshold and even if it wasn't the data is held in the court record which are except from FOI. As InTatters had said the attempted convictions are not recorded as attemped meaning they would have to look into each case to determine the data required.
I did however look at number beyond the scope I'd initially hoped to get data on (how many of the offences are related to decoys).
Don't quote me on these figures but between 2017 and 2021 the CPS proceeded with 21,420 convictions of which 91% were convicted (19,151). This figure includes communication convictions and those related to images.
41% recieved suspended sentences, 24% community sentences and 28% immediate custodial. Comparing statistics from 2017 and 2021 (they have the most comparable number of convictions - There is a huge drop off in 2020) the % of community sentences, suspended and immediate custodial are very similar in both years. When looking at communication offences though there is an increase in the % of people received suspended sentences over community orders (from 20% to 27%) and custodial over suspended (from 58% to 62%)
Of the above about 14, 000 were related to IIOC or extreme pornography. There seems to be a drop in custodial and an increase in community sentences for these crimes.
Of the above it's important to remember these are numbers or convictions not number or people. Some people will have more than one conviction.
As I say, don't quote me on this, I am familiar with work with data and stats at work, but it want to be more diligent than I have been and for someone to review my works if I wanted to begin quoting these. When my personal laptop is repaired I will likely spend some more time on this.
Unfortunately, I am not able to suggest any refinement to your request which will allow it to be responded to within the cost limit. The information you have requested is also exempt from disclosure under section 32 of the FOIA because it is held only by virtue of being contained in a court record. Therefore, even if the scope of your request were reduced to the extent that it would come within the cost limit, section 32 would become engaged, and the information would be withheld under that exemption. Outside of the scope of the FOIA, the MoJ routinely publishes data on sexual offences, which can be accessed in the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterlydecember-2022 Select the Offence group classification to find the offences and the codes you are interested in then select the Outcomes by Offence data tool. In the data tool, click on the prosecutions and convictions tab and open the pivotable field, enter the codes into the HO offence code filter ensuring you have checked the ‘select multiple items’ box. Drag this field down to the rows area in order for the data for each offence to be displayed. For guidance on how to structure successful requests please refer to the ICO website on the following link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf
I did however look at number beyond the scope I'd initially hoped to get data on (how many of the offences are related to decoys).
Don't quote me on these figures but between 2017 and 2021 the CPS proceeded with 21,420 convictions of which 91% were convicted (19,151). This figure includes communication convictions and those related to images.
41% recieved suspended sentences, 24% community sentences and 28% immediate custodial. Comparing statistics from 2017 and 2021 (they have the most comparable number of convictions - There is a huge drop off in 2020) the % of community sentences, suspended and immediate custodial are very similar in both years. When looking at communication offences though there is an increase in the % of people received suspended sentences over community orders (from 20% to 27%) and custodial over suspended (from 58% to 62%)
Of the above about 14, 000 were related to IIOC or extreme pornography. There seems to be a drop in custodial and an increase in community sentences for these crimes.
Of the above it's important to remember these are numbers or convictions not number or people. Some people will have more than one conviction.
As I say, don't quote me on this, I am familiar with work with data and stats at work, but it want to be more diligent than I have been and for someone to review my works if I wanted to begin quoting these. When my personal laptop is repaired I will likely spend some more time on this.
Unfortunately, I am not able to suggest any refinement to your request which will allow it to be responded to within the cost limit. The information you have requested is also exempt from disclosure under section 32 of the FOIA because it is held only by virtue of being contained in a court record. Therefore, even if the scope of your request were reduced to the extent that it would come within the cost limit, section 32 would become engaged, and the information would be withheld under that exemption. Outside of the scope of the FOIA, the MoJ routinely publishes data on sexual offences, which can be accessed in the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterlydecember-2022 Select the Offence group classification to find the offences and the codes you are interested in then select the Outcomes by Offence data tool. In the data tool, click on the prosecutions and convictions tab and open the pivotable field, enter the codes into the HO offence code filter ensuring you have checked the ‘select multiple items’ box. Drag this field down to the rows area in order for the data for each offence to be displayed. For guidance on how to structure successful requests please refer to the ICO website on the following link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf
The CPS had incidently also just replied with a similar response.
Post deleted
Yes that's correct. It was a fairly broad scope though - From grooming to incite/facilitating sexual activity in all categories and both child and minors. I imagine within this there is a fairly broad range in differences in sentencing.
Gonna come in as the pedant here. If you're looking at offical stats, given the numbers you are talking about, you may only be looking at figuers for England, or England ans Wales. Policing and therefore the SOR is devolved, and Scotlands SOR opperates slightly differently.
Thee will be subtle differences that may change stats in each of the devolved nations. For instance parts of Scotland have really poor connectivity and getting online can be patchy and a problem maybe reducing the figuers. But conversly there is also some of the least populated areas of Europe and while some people thrive in isolation not everone does and that could be a hot bed for problematic porn use.
NI also has a vastly different culture when it comes to policing and in some areas sorting problems out is something the locals would deal with because no one trusts the police.
I think on the whole you are probably right. Everybody probably knows at least one person this has happened too and I worry thst number will be siper-high in younger generations. Which means from a policy point of view it makes sense to view this as a public health crisis rather than a crime issue.
Thee will be subtle differences that may change stats in each of the devolved nations. For instance parts of Scotland have really poor connectivity and getting online can be patchy and a problem maybe reducing the figuers. But conversly there is also some of the least populated areas of Europe and while some people thrive in isolation not everone does and that could be a hot bed for problematic porn use.
NI also has a vastly different culture when it comes to policing and in some areas sorting problems out is something the locals would deal with because no one trusts the police.
I think on the whole you are probably right. Everybody probably knows at least one person this has happened too and I worry thst number will be siper-high in younger generations. Which means from a policy point of view it makes sense to view this as a public health crisis rather than a crime issue.
PickledHerring, yes you are absolutely right. This is just data for England and Wales.
It also doesn't capture or represent the number of people on the Sex Offenders Register.
Looking at the offences mentioned about it seems around 4,000 people a year are convicted of these crimes. The number was about 1,000 less a year during Covid.
It also doesn't capture or represent the number of people on the Sex Offenders Register.
Looking at the offences mentioned about it seems around 4,000 people a year are convicted of these crimes. The number was about 1,000 less a year during Covid.
I am struggling to digest that 4000 a year actually being charged by the CPS! If 600 to 1000 people are picked up by the police every month, that is a ferocious backlog! I know there are peopl on here who are a couple of years in and still no CPS. That seems so so so unjust.
I know some cases might be NFA or cautions, but that must only count for a very small % of the 6 or 8 thousand people each year who are making no progress on their cases.
does this compare to other offences?
I know some cases might be NFA or cautions, but that must only count for a very small % of the 6 or 8 thousand people each year who are making no progress on their cases.
does this compare to other offences?
There is a 87% conviction rate across all sentences when looking at the average for the years.
I don't know where the figure that is often quoted for arrests come from - I have heard it many times, but I don't recall seeing the source though.
I don't know where the figure that is often quoted for arrests come from - I have heard it many times, but I don't recall seeing the source though.
The arrest figures seem to have gone up a lot recently. It was around 450 a month, but then jumped to 850 a month and maybe that was related to the pandemic.
Not all of those would result in a charge though. I expect that each police force would keep a record of how many arrests were made and how many went to charge, while the CPS and MOJ only record the number that are charged? Is that right?
Another thing to bear in mind, is that many of those arrested during the pandemic haven't been charged yet. There are some people on the forum saying they had the knock 3 years ago, which would have been June 2020 (first lockdown) and they are still waiting for devices to be checked.
The figures for the register are always a year behind. The most recent data only goes up to March 2022. So if the 850 arrests figure is correct, I would think that there are a lot of people going to be added to the register, over the next year or two, in order to fully reflect the impact of the pandemic.
Not all of those would result in a charge though. I expect that each police force would keep a record of how many arrests were made and how many went to charge, while the CPS and MOJ only record the number that are charged? Is that right?
Another thing to bear in mind, is that many of those arrested during the pandemic haven't been charged yet. There are some people on the forum saying they had the knock 3 years ago, which would have been June 2020 (first lockdown) and they are still waiting for devices to be checked.
The figures for the register are always a year behind. The most recent data only goes up to March 2022. So if the 850 arrests figure is correct, I would think that there are a lot of people going to be added to the register, over the next year or two, in order to fully reflect the impact of the pandemic.
Post deleted by user
Post deleted
OK, another example of society/media normalising the exact same scenarios that some people are convicted for. Watching the modern version of 'The Canterbury Tales' on TV (2003). Character player by Julie Walters says "Why is it that no one bats an eyelid when some fat old bald old 60 year old man is shagging some skinny 12 year old bimbo?"
I have so many questions...
I have so many questions...
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/about-us/news-opinion/2022/online-grooming-crimes-rise/
NSPCC has just published some data on communication offences, showing that the numbers have increased by more than 80% in the last few years and taken from FOI requests. Interestingly there is no mention of decoys.
It might be worth writing to them and ask if they know how many of these cases involved real children?
NSPCC has just published some data on communication offences, showing that the numbers have increased by more than 80% in the last few years and taken from FOI requests. Interestingly there is no mention of decoys.
It might be worth writing to them and ask if they know how many of these cases involved real children?
Post deleted by user