• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
swiss_democracy_for_all

80,000 present online threat to kids in UK

Recommended Posts

On the Beeb news this morning. I'd like to see that 80,000 broken down by culture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45389937

There are up to 80,000 paedophiles in the UK who pose a sexual threat to children online, the home secretary will warn in a speech later.

Sajid Javid will set out his "personal mission" to tackle online child abuse after learning the "full horror of the scale" from the National Crime Agency.

Referrals of child abuse images to the NCA have surged by 700% in the last five years, according to new figures.

Furthermore, the images are getting more graphic, the Home Office said.

It added that abuse of babies and children under 10 is becoming more frequently documented.

The Home Office warned that live-streaming of abuse is also on the rise, enabled by faster internet speeds, smartphone technology and the growing ease of money transfers across borders.

In his speech, Mr Javid is expected to say: "One officer I met [during a visit to the NCA's Child Exploitation Online Protection Command], who had previously worked in counter-terrorism for over 20 years, told me how in all his years of working he's never been so shocked by the scale of the threat or the determination of the offenders as he is in his current job."

Separate figures indicate that police in England and Wales recorded about 23 child sexual offences involving the internet every day in 2017/18 - up from about 15 a day in the previous 12 months.

The scale of the offending has led to demands for internet giants to take more action to stop access to sexual abuse images and videos.

Technology companies doing more to remove indecent images from circulation would be a "monumental landmark" in child protection, the NCA said.

There have also been calls for tougher sentences for people who download indecent images of children.

'Increased severity'

The agency added that in one week of action in July, 131 arrests were made, including teachers, a children's entertainer and a former police officer. Only 13 of those arrested were registered sex offenders, 19 others held positions of trust.

In his speech, Mr Javid is expected to make a commitment to prioritise efforts to crack down on online child sex abuse.

It will build on a previous project that trawls the web to identify pages with suspected abuse content.

Person on a laptopImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionThe IWF says the UK is one of the "most hostile places in the world to host this disturbing material"

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), which assesses and removes online child abuse material, said it fully supported Mr Javid in his warning.

Susie Hargreaves, IWF chief executive, said it "recognises the evolving threat of child sexual abuse online and the problems highlighted by the home secretary, in particular live streaming, encryption and grooming".

She added: "Sadly, our most recent annual report showed that the severity of the images we identified were up and it appeared that offenders were becoming more sophisticated in their crime."

Ms Hargreaves added that the UK "remains one of the most hostile places in the world to host this disturbing material".

Javed Khan, chief executive of children's charity Barnardo's, also welcomed Mr Javid's commitment.

He said: "The government must now deliver its promise to make the UK the safest place to be online by forcing online companies to ensure effective safeguards are in place to help better protect children.

"Any delay to acting now could put a generation of children in danger online."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

Scare tactics. The figure of 80,000 is meant to make people think there's packs of paedos at every school corner.

If the UK population is 65 million, that's pretty much one in every thousand people who is a paedophile. Which sounds less scary.

Now what would be an issue would be if there was certain demographics forming gangs, so instead of a bunch of individuals you have groups coordinating large scale abuse together. That would be the real news story. But...that's never happend....right?

 

Without having seen the actual stats, you also need to consider the following:

Out of 80,000, does it break down into:

1,000 - people that share genuine abuse photos

79,000 - guys that browsed some pron on xhamster and it turns out one of the girls in an amateur vid looks a bit under 18 and without anything to prove their age they get done for it

 

Just the act of downloading (i.e. viewing something) 'creates' an image so people get done for 'making' it, which is very different to those who really did carry out the abuse and create the original image.

I strongly believe in tracking down and punishing those who abuse children but this feels like more powers to investigate peoples browsing habits with new laws which will soon be used for other things - e.g. anyone watching a TR video.

I'm also very keen on getting any such content removed from the internet, from the perspective of making it safer for everyone who uses it.

I think the primary aim has to be on locating these children and getting them into a safe environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, null; said:

 

Without having seen the actual stats, you also need to consider the following:

Out of 80,000, does it break down into:

1,000 - people that share genuine abuse photos

79,000 - guys that browsed some pron on xhamster and it turns out one of the girls in an amateur vid looks a bit under 18 and without anything to prove their age they get done for it

 

Just the act of downloading (i.e. viewing something) 'creates' an image so people get done for 'making' it, which is very different to those who really did carry out the abuse and create the original image.

I strongly believe in tracking down and punishing those who abuse children but this feels like more powers to investigate peoples browsing habits with new laws which will soon be used for other things - e.g. anyone watching a TR video.

I'm also very keen on getting any such content removed from the internet, from the perspective of making it safer for everyone who uses it.

I think the primary aim has to be on locating these children and getting them into a safe environment.

I do wonder if the charge of "making" child abuse is purposely obtuse. How can downloading something be "making" it in any other respect? It's crazy.

I just downloaded a copy of Adobe Photoshop CS6, does that mean I made it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A distraction: It's more chipping away at the internet itself, and freedom of speech and association.

Exaggerated fear and its perception is a powerful tool. What are parents doing.

I'm more concerned about the scam artists using the internet and phone to scam people. Or dodgy companies and rogue directors able to rise like phoenix... and of course what is going on down the kebab shop and across taxi networks.

A little context, aren't there 20,000 potential Islamic terrorists out and about. What about the million plus illegal immigrants who have penetrated our porous borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids are sending each other naked pics via Snapchat, etc. Sexualisation of childhood is happening at an earlier age that ever before. This paedo panic is just a symptom of a deeper issue and an excuse for gov to be seen to be doing something. They obviously don't really give a shit.

Kids shouldn't be on social media, they shouldn't have smartphones either. Let them be children first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

Actually, I don't believe it.  Although I'd suggest that it is fair to assume most will be male (I do think this is the case), so then it is 2 in 1000 males.  

I do also think their numbers are swelled by those looking at older girls that look a bit under 18 -- our society has protection in place for 15-18ish year olds (to protect them from themselves, mainly), but you shouldn't look at this behaviour as paedo -- it is (IMO) ecologically normal.  Beyond this I do believe that there's a decent proportion (the 0.1%) that have accessed really dodgy material, but even then I don't believe that they're a threat.  The actual threat is twofold:

  • Those paedos that actually do access and use dodgy material on an ongoing basis.  The material being pre-adolescent children.  This is absolutely abnormal and dangerous.  However, I really don't think there are many of them.  You can only hope that they aren't the sort that'll go out and do something (but even the 'supporting those generating the images' is bad enough), but it is so horrific that surely there has to be some mechanism to sort it out.  At times I think that we shouldn't vilify to the extent that we do, so that those affected will come forwards and volunteer for a course of drugs to remove their sexual urges (I don't think this would be in any way unethical), but as it stands anyone affected will internalise and use techniques to hide their activity -- which then exposes them to others of like-mind which in turn leads to 'normalisation of behaviour' (in their minds).  Anyway, it is an incredibly difficult area.
  • People who are interested in taking advantage of the more vulnerable 15-18 year old's.  These guys aren't interested in on-line porn, they're not interested in darknet or fancy international gangs.  They're local and aggressive.  And, as we've seen, they're often from communities that hold together to hide their activities even if they're found out (quite unlike the 'white paedo' problem).  The stupid thing is, these people are incredibly easy to identify and prosecute -- semen hangs around, as does other genetic evidence.  And, for a 15 year old girl, semen-inside is going to be illegal.  Now, I can allow the law to overlook the usual youthful explorations (I wish it did formally), but everything else is easy.  Yet the law has ignored for years ongoing situations where it is clearly gross abuse.  

This latter point is the real threat to our kids, but it isn't on-line and it isn't being policed (as far as I can tell); their 80,000 won't even include them.

Agree with all this, very well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

Scare tactics. The figure of 80,000 is meant to make people think there's packs of paedos at every school corner.

If the UK population is 65 million, that's pretty much one in every thousand people who is a paedophile. Which sounds less scary.

Now what would be an issue would be if there was certain demographics forming gangs, so instead of a bunch of individuals you have groups coordinating large scale abuse together. That would be the real news story. But...that's never happend....right?

I heard this about 20-plus years ago, from a bobby, in the bygone days of not only having local police offices, but of actually having staff in them.

Apparently, a woman rang the police office and said, "I want to report we've got a paedophile living on our street."

Copper replies, "What? Only one?"

That was back then.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

Kids are sending each other naked pics via Snapchat, etc. Sexualisation of childhood is happening at an earlier age that ever before. This paedo panic is just a symptom of a deeper issue and an excuse for gov to be seen to be doing something. They obviously don't really give a shit.

Kids shouldn't be on social media, they shouldn't have smartphones either. Let them be children first.

I'm not sure I agree.  

Post-puberty kids have always been sexual.  It is nature's way and is encoded in their genes.  Ecologically speaking, it is the job of every 15ish year old girl to get knocked-up.  Now, we have rules to protect them from this, so that they can gain a little maturity, which in turn can allow them to protect themselves from the real predators*.

[* in the past villagers would have rules etc that would protect everyone from weirdos; little Annie from the bakers (15) would marry John the cobbler (18) and everyone would have a party.  We now live in complex cities where no-one knows who the weirdos are.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gordie Lastchance said:

I heard this about 20-plus years ago, from a bobby, in the bygone days of not only having local police offices, but of actually having staff in them.

Apparently, a woman rang the police office and said, "I want to report we've got a paedophile living on our street."

Copper replies, "What? Only one?"

That was back then.

  

The mums up at the school all worry about their kids being abducted. Yet never a word said about the more probable danger of them getting run over crossing the road.

I teach my kids how to cross the road safely. I teach them to only rely on themselves to know when its safe. I also teach them not to go with strangers, but not to the point of wanting to make them paranoid. As they get older, I'll teach them about watching their drinks in clubs and how to handle/avoid getting too drunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dgul said:

I'm not sure I agree.  

Post-puberty kids have always been sexual.  It is nature's way and is encoded in their genes.  Ecologically speaking, it is the job of every 15ish year old girl to get knocked-up.  Now, we have rules to protect them from this, so that they can gain a little maturity, which in turn can allow them to protect themselves from the real predators*.

[* in the past villagers would have rules etc that would protect everyone from weirdos; little Annie from the bakers (15) would marry John the cobbler (18) and everyone would have a party.  We now live in complex cities where no-one knows who the weirdos are.]

Girls are hitting puberty at younger ages now. Probably due to overfeeding and the generally sexualised environment. Also, African girls start puberty younger than white girls but we're not allowed to talk about that or why it might be.

It was striking to see some of the Manchester bombing victims were so young. Wtf were 8 year old girls doing at an Arianna Grande concert anyway? Parents are fecking clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sceptical of this plucked-out-the-air figure too.

... but it's ignoring the narrative of a real preventable source of child abuse, child RAPE, child MURDER that has taken place, and continues to do so, in certain communities.

Until that is tackled I will just continue thinking this is all fucking distraction bullshit and the priorities are completely fucked up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JFK said:

I am sceptical of this plucked-out-the-air figure too.

... but it's ignoring the narrative of a real preventable source of child abuse, child RAPE, child MURDER that has taken place, and continues to do so, in certain communities.

Until that is tackled I will just continue thinking this is all fucking distraction bullshit and the priorities are completely fucked up.

Apologies in advance to any police officers who might read this, and I may have got this wrong, but it strikes me that this is part of a process of policing going soft which has been going on for the last sixty odd years. Up until the 1960s policing involved a lot of legwork, walking or cycling in the cold and wet, often making arrests on your own and unarmed except for a truncheon. Then along came personal radios, panda cars and increased telephone usage and policing migrated to sitting in a warm car and only turning up if someone phoned for you. Now with the internet, the closure of police stations and the drop in police numbers they seem to have further migrated to concentrating on what people are doing/saying online, enabling them to sit in a warm office - take the Tommy Robinson case for example, the whole thing was done online with only the actual arrest being done in real life. 

IMO the police need to go back to being what they were set up as - a civilian unarmed local organisation with a high profile to prevent (mainly low level) crime and anti-social behaviour) not a paramilitary politicised state force sitting behind desks checking on what rude pictures people are looking at. 

 

Edited by Austin Allegro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

Girls are hitting puberty at younger ages now. Probably due to overfeeding and the generally sexualised environment. Also, African girls start puberty younger than white girls but we're not allowed to talk about that or why it might be.

It was striking to see some of the Manchester bombing victims were so young. Wtf were 8 year old girls doing at an Arianna Grande concert anyway? Parents are fecking clueless.

I certainly agree that the media (and parents) push younger girls to look like what a mature person would say is 'sexualised'.  But I don't think that they're actually thinking about the sex side of things.  Sex is bizarre and almost inexplicable to a pre-puberty person, yet, in the course of only a year or so, becomes something that they'd do without prompting.  Nature, huh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the ONS, for 2016 they estimated that 2,821 underage girls were raped and became pregnant.

So how many were raped but didn't become pregnant?

Why are the police not tackling these crimes that should be so easy to solve? Why are we not giving out harsher penalties for this?

 

I hope most you will understand the point I am making, its not that simple of course. Many of the 'rapists' will themselves be children. Some of it will be consented, some of it will be full on rape by children, some by adults. It's all a bit messy but this is where we have to rely on judges to hopefully make a sensible decision on what level of punishment should apply.

From that I could extrapolate that only 1 in 20 become pregnant and come up with the grabby headline of:

"40,000 children are raped every year, we must have tougher laws to punish male rapists"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per fucking always this is about policing the internet, not about protecting the vulnerable. All the Lib/Lab/Con have made it crystal clear that they're quite happy to sweep the mass rape of children under the rug if they feel it's expedient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, null; said:

The mums up at the school all worry about their kids being abducted. Yet never a word said about the more probable danger of them getting run over crossing the road.

I teach my kids how to cross the road safely. I teach them to only rely on themselves to know when its safe. I also teach them not to go with strangers, but not to the point of wanting to make them paranoid. As they get older, I'll teach them about watching their drinks in clubs and how to handle/avoid getting too drunk.

I'll also add that I do my best to explain to them that when online the person you are chatting to could be anyone. And also that anything posted or shared online, even if its expected to be kept private is very likely to be shared. I ask them how many times a friend has told them something that they had promised someone else to keep a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

As per fucking always this is about policing the internet, not about protecting the vulnerable. All the Lib/Lab/Con have made it crystal clear that they're quite happy to sweep the mass rape of children under the rug if they feel it's expedient.

Yet again its about going for the easy ones and making the figures look good. I would much prefer the resources were spent catching one real life child abuser above 20 guys watching some iffy porn on hamster.

And don't forget that not all of it will be 'online'. I've not really followed it, but for those Rotherham girls weren't those guys found out because the girls came forward rather than any online activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, null; said:

Yet again its about going for the easy ones and making the figures look good. I would much prefer the resources were spent catching one real life child abuser above 20 guys watching some iffy porn on hamster.

And don't forget that not all of it will be 'online'. I've not really followed it, but for those Rotherham girls weren't those guys found out because the girls came forward rather than any online activity?

They were coming forward with absolute horror stories from the 90s onwards but South Yorkshire Police weren't interested (arguably covered it up), and only acted in the end because of pressure brought by repeated exposure by a Times journalist. The wiki page provides the barest, most sanitised version of the story and even that is absolutely fucking horrific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

 

Quote

The earliest reports of localised grooming in Rotherham date to the early 1990s, when several managers of local children's homes set up the "taxi driver group" to investigate reports that taxis driven by Pakistani men were arriving at care homes to take the children away. The police apparently declined to act.

In 1997 Rotherham Council created a local youth project, Risky Business, to work with girls and women aged 11–25 thought to be at risk of sexual exploitation on the streets. Jayne Senior, awarded an MBE in the 2016 Birthday Honours for her role in uncovering the abuse, began working for Risky Business as a coordinator around July 1999. The users were overwhelmingly white girls: of the 268 who used the project from March 2001 to March 2002, 244 were white, 22 were British-Asian, and 2 were black.

Senior began to find evidence around 2001 of what appeared to be a localised-grooming network. Most Risky Business clients had previously come from Sheffield, which had a red-light district. Now the girls were younger and came from Rotherham. Girls as young as 10 were being befriended, perhaps by children their own age, before being passed to older men who would rape them and become their "boyfriends". Many of the girls were from troubled families, but not all. The children were given alcohol and drugs, then told they had to repay the "debt" by having sex with other men. The perpetrators set about obtaining personal information about the girls and their families—where their parents worked, for example—details that were used to threaten the girls if they tried to withdraw. Windows at family homes were smashed; threats were made to rape mothers and younger sisters. The children came to believe that the only way to keep their families safe was to cooperate.

One girl who came to the attention of Risky Business was repeatedly raped from age 13–15, and believed her mother would be the next victim: "They used to follow my mum because they used to know when she went shopping, what time she had been shopping, where she had gone." A 15-year-old was told she was "one bullet" away from death. Girls were doused in petrol and told they were about to die. When she told her "pimp" that she was pregnant and did not know who the father was, one 15-year-old was beaten unconscious with a clawhammer. A 12-year-old with a 24-year-old "boyfriend" had a mother who invited the perpetrators into the family home, where the girl would give the men oral sex for 10 cigarettes.

According to Senior, Risky Business ended up with so much information about the perpetrators that the police suggested she start forwarding it to an electronic dropbox, "Box Five", on the South Yorkshire Police computer network. They reportedly told her this would protect the identity of Risky Business's sources. She learned later that the police had not read the reports she had left there, and it apparently could not be accessed by other forces.

Risky Business was seen as a "nuisance" and shut down by the council in 2011.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hail the Tripod said:

They were coming forward with absolute horror stories from the 90s onwards but South Yorkshire Police weren't interested (arguably covered it up), and only acted in the end because of pressure brought by repeated exposure by a Times journalist. The wiki page provides the barest, most sanitised version of the story and even that is absolutely fucking horrific: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

 

 

Reading your link, it all smacks of fiddling whilst Rome burns.  The establishment could not care less about ordinary people in this country.  It's almost as if they hate us and want rid of us.  Mind, that has been the position of the elite in this country since before time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.