Family and Friends Forum

I've just heard this and wondered where those stats came from - Maybe I'll email "More or less", see if they can dig deeper.

She also used the world P which I find very frustrating and emotive. When else is it acceptable to use to use a "scientific" (for want of a better term) term so loosely?

Haven't heard it but I'm angry. How irresponsible to use the P word - what if you used a different terminology for people with mental health issues, gamblers, alcoholics, addicts - the balloon would go up (and rightly so) - it's bloody wrong.

It stirs up hate and prejudice.

I absolutely hate how the " p" is used so freely. It's my biggest fear that my partners case will go in the papers and they use that word. Nearly every article uses it to describe the offender and it's so wrong!.
Maybe all these politicians should concentrate on the sources of iioc and come down hard on the creators and websites. I haven't read one article about websites hosting iioc or the original abusers who take the photos getting charged!

I agree Louise....... it's much easier to flippantly use the P word, than it is to address how this behaviour starts and can develop.

Question why this crime is rife and why whole prisons for housing solely sex offenders are increasing. It must cost the tax payers an absolute fortune, all this hidden and not faced.

Its never discussed just brushed under the carpet.

80% of online offenders going on to contact offend is highly alarming, I have never seen any research that supports such figures, does anyone have a source for where she got that from? A lot of the Lucy faithful articles are also behind a paywall but on the helpline I'm sure they quoted me 2%?!

https://calio.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Internet-and-child-sexual-offending-A-criminological-review.pdf I think it must be this article/research being quoted. Depressing reading but also very old and doesn't seem to align with LFF's data

Is this Suella Braverman?

You have to set the bar very low for her, she's incredibly thick.

It sounds like the so called 'Butner Study', by Bourke and Hernandez, which has been widely discredited, but it is still quoted, particularly by politicians in America.

You can watch it on youtube if you missed it.

The correct amount of numbers is probably somewhere within that figure, I never caught the part about 80% of offenders going on to contact offend, I don't think the majority of professionals would agree with that number, even the police.

The number of men that have been convicted of possession or distribution or communication have all been convicted of seperate crimes, but have they all been included in these numbers?

It's odd that these figures were allowed to be given at all as I'm sure that social work would not agree that his amount of people in the country are a risk of causing sexual harm to children.

She needs to be made aware - hope you've pinged off a Daffy special email!

It needs to be corrected - it's basically fake news.

Sounds like she did a quick Google beforehand and came up with the study that Edel is on about. Ell oh ell.

Post deleted by user