back to article CEOP announces 'record results' in child protection battle

Child protection net-cop quango the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) centre has announced what it describes as "record results" in its fifth annual statistics. According to the agency, during 2010-2011 CEOP was responsible for the safeguarding of 414 children, the arrest of 513 child sex offenders and the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
WTF?

BRAND?!?

"...we know that we will go into that future with our *brand*, purpose and operating model intact."

WTF has a "brand" got to do with it? You're not selling soap. Reality detachment getting worse by any chance? You keep concentrating to "purpose" before you forget what it is. Or means.

</rant>

20
0
Silver badge
WTF?

thinkuknow?

Think UK Now? Presumably some sort of UK citizenship awareness programme? Why is CEOP ingvolved in pushing that to kids?

4
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

The productivity numbers for the 5-year plan are in...

Quango with "Child" and "Protection" in its title claims "record results"...

Expect self-serving political B.S., positioning for a larger role in the State Security Apparatus as well as so much hot air that you dry your hair in mere seconds.

14
0

Just a thought

The bit about "continuing to address the self-generated risk that children place themselves in"

i.e. kids snaping a shot naked in front of a mirror and texting it to whom ever

I know if I try and photocopy a banknote I get nothing but a black blob, could sometime in the future

all digital cameras including those on phones detect when a child is being photographed and replace them with a black blob?

Why not, try going to a sports day with a camera see how far you get

2
2
Silver badge
Pint

Kid's sports day? Not a problem at my kid's school.

Depends if you get a sensible head of the school or a complete anti-paedo Nazi!

The school where my kids go they allow cameras and video cameras on assembly days and sports days, so long as none of the footage or pictures that include kids other than your own, are put online. Only parents and grand-parents with at least one parent present are allowed in and allowed to take pictures.

It's not perfect and still far too PC for my liking but at least the school is trying to be reasonable without coming over like a bunch of raving anti-paedo Sun readers!

4
1
Bronze badge
Stop

I should maybe point out

...that on topics involving children on El Reg the most rabid comments tend to come from those who clearly have none, and so no REAL experience, of their own.

2
7
Silver badge

RE: try going to a sports day with a camera see how far you get

That's not for protection of children though... Just think - who would they otherwise be able to sell you some awfully edited and authored DVDs picturing your child for about 5 seconds at extortionate prices made by the nephew of the head master?

5
0
WTF?

Brand? Record?

"Record results are an excellent way to celebrate our fifth anniversary,"

You would have thought they'd be celebrating a drop in results, assuming they were doing their jobs properly. I though part of the remit of law enforcement was to reduce criminal activity, not break open a bottle over a rise.

20
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Jobs for the boys

"we know that we will go into that future with our brand, purpose and operating model intact. We have government endorsement for that and we have stakeholder and partnership support like never before – CEOP is very much open for business"

'Brand' WTF - this current mob in Downing Street were crowing about getting rid of useless Quangos. Is anyone thinking of the children or just thier own fucking pockets?

Is this like 'Over the past year numbers of terrorist suspects were arrested (but we're not telling you that only three were actually charged with anything)?

8
0

Record results?

I guess CEOP results are measured by the number of appearances on television or the national press by CEOP leadership or by the number of sites sporting the stupid CEOP red button, as a means to gain more budget and higher grades/salaries.

6
0

Small but important detail...

CEOP, whilst feverishly bigging themselves up, refer only to the arrest of 513 "suspects". Even they didn't equate being arrested with being a proven "child sex offender". Though that clearly is the inference that will be drawn by crazed mobs and lazy journalists.

15
0
Anonymous Coward

And,

"record results" is like when people say "we are a quality organisation" . What sort of quality? High? Low? What sort of results? Record high? Record low? Convictions? Arrests? Preventions?

Record results. Sounds great though doesnt it?

7
0
Silver badge

Numbers

>safeguarding of 414 children

Quite honestly this number is so small that the whole CEOP business (it is a brand after all) is hardly worth the effort. The money would be better spent on social services and protecting children in their own homes.

>the arrest of 513 child sex offenders and the disruption and dismantling of 132 child sex offender networks

These are either very small networks or they are letting a lot of offenders through the net.

7
0
Silver badge

the arrest of 513 child sex offenders

They are only sex offenders after they have been convicted. Or did they just go around to 513 convicted sex offenders houses and arrest them for putting recyclable rubbish in the non recyclable bin.

3
0
Thumb Down

Safeguarding

And how many of those children safeguarded (meaning removed form their homes I assume) were actually in danger?

2
0
Mushroom

513 Suspects?

Try supervising an internet chatroom, you could get that many "suspects" in less than week.

5
0
Gold badge
WTF?

132 *networks*?

Given the *huge*publicity of the 4 person network (including 3 women) you'd think *132* would be splashed all over the UK newspapers.

That'd be 2-3 networks a *week*.

My BS detector is redlining.

12
0
Unhappy

record results!!!!

Reminds me of a Fire Birgade presentation boasting how many more fires they had attended. I asked whether they should be really celebrating more fires, but the management twerp putting these figures forward didn't understand why his 'good message' could be a bad thing.

3
0
WTF?

Any oversight on this?

They SAY they have 'safeguarded' these kids, they 'say' they have arrested people - but how do we know any of this is valid? Is this all in the UK? Were charges brought? How many 'safeguarded' kids were kids taken off men *suspected* of offences?

I have to say, I dont' trust these people an inch. Particularly when they're as intent on talking up their 'brand' (wankers) as anything else.

10
0
Silver badge

Safeguarded

Somehow, when I think the words "safeguarded children" I have a vision of lobotomised, brain-washed, cleanly shaven kids with blank staring eyes, mumbling monotonously "thank you, Father Ceop, for our happy childhood..."

Sends shiver down my spine...

11
1
Childcatcher

Clarification required

Hmm. I send a question to CEOP on their website asking how many of those arrested were charged and found guilty of those crimes, and what the comparison was with past figures. I got the automated reply below, that says my details, not my query, have been sent to CEOP - should I expect a visit / inclusion in the next number of arrests?

Contact us

Thank you. Your details have been sent to CEOP Centre.

5
0

Missing information

Having read the full report I note that there is a lot of information missing and many terms left undefined.

There is no breakdown of the 'arrests'. How many are actually charged (this would have to be the number charged during the 12 month period which would include arrests from previous years and exclude those not charged from this year's arrests). How many are prosecuted and found guilty? How many fined? How many imprisoned? How many added to the sex-offender's register? (How many lives ruined by arrests made in error?)

No breakdown of the geography of the arrests, UK vs Europe vs Asia vs North America vs ROW?

No definition of what 'safeguarding' a child actually means. No definition of what 'protecting' a child actually means. And no split of the numbers in each category. No breakdown of the geography of these activities, UK vs Europe vs Asia vs North America vs ROW? (On page 10 there is a reference to 'safeguarding' 42 children in a Cambodian orphanage, were they perhaps 'safeguarded' as a result of the imprisonment of one offender? Or is there more to it than that?)

I note that the actual description of the category with 132 in is "The number of high risk sex offender networks disrupted and dismantled". So although the word is "and" the meaning is "or" i.e. networks that were either disrupted or dismantled. There is no definition of what 'disrupted' means, it could be as little as removing one subscriber.

Perhaps The Register could ask such questions so we might know these things?

14
0
FAIL

And next week....

...the Police announce a wonderful new record number of murders and muggings in their area, the fire brigade joyfully announce more fires and deaths than ever and the Ambulance service annouce an all time record of number of people dying whilst waiting to be helped.

All rejoice in a our new wonderful world.

5
0
Go

"Perhaps The Register could ask such questions"

Someone certainly ought to.

Some sound like perfectly valid Freedom of Information questions so if journalists aren't willing or able to get them answered, perhaps the blogosphere (well if CEOP are going to talk about branding I can BS too) can have a go.

7
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

What they don't say...

... is that, for instance, Colin Blanchard, the man who persuaded Vanessa George and three other women to abuse children, was only caught *by accident*

So despite all of their empire building and "panic buttons" and new laws making drawing illegal and so on, this man was only arrested and his "network" broken up by sheer dumb luck.

Of course that wouldn't play so well in the media, so instead we hear that 414 children have been "safeguarded" (how?) that "513 child sex offenders" have been arrested (how do you know they're "offenders" if they've only been arrested? Surely they're only offenders when they're actually prosecuted?) and "132 child sex offender networks" have been "dismantled" (what is the definition of a "network" here? How were they "dismantled"?)

In other words, a lot of hot air, but not much detail.

Oh and in other news:

"Paedophilia warning over King's Park pupil dress sense

"Parents have been advised not to dress their schoolchildren in short skirts and tight trousers amid fears they could be targeted by paedophiles."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-13601917

Perhaps they should switch to Burkhas?

9
0
Stop

Surely they're only offenders when they're actually prosecuted?)

Although the powers that be, especially Plod, would undoubtedly like your definition, they're only offenders when they have *been found guilty* of something.

Perhaps it would be better if kids were kept at home until they reach the age of 16, with no contact outside the family unit? Of course that wouldn't stop dodgy Uncle Roger...

1
0
Silver badge
Meh

@Pete B

"Surely they're only offenders when they're actually prosecuted?"

Fine, add the word "successfully" in between "actually" and "prosecuted". Ok?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

No conviction for mr paedo Plod however..

Of course, if it's Plod that is the paedo no sex offenders time for him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-13603101

3
0

History repeating itself

more or less. All this nonsense is reminiscent of the "morality movements " of the late 18th and early 19th centuries - the Society for the Suppression of Vice and the like - and look what that led to, the hypocrisy of the Victorian era.

4
0
Facepalm

Question everything

I learnt a long time ago to question everything about figures put out by self-interest groups.

I remember a shocking statistic put out by an anti-rape group that a quarter of all women had been raped. After investigation it was found that their definition of rape had included those women who did not feel like sex but did it anyway to keep their boyfriend happy.

3
0
Big Brother

Haven't this lot cleared off yet..?

I thought this lot (CEOP) had cleared off, after enjoying untrammelled license to fear monger under NuLabour's indulgence..? Didn't I see Theresa May only too happy to accept 'Big' Jim Gamble's resignation and then set about sweeping CEOP into the dusty annals of history, under the heading 'Delusional Moral Panics of the Noughties'.

Seems not. This lot have a way of resurfacing like a bad smell. A bad smell that not only refuses to go away, but insists on charging the tax payer for the privilege of hanging about. How difficult is it really to dismiss the services of a bunch of expensive, self-aggrandizing social pariahs, leeching off the proceeds of their own fear mongering and misinformation?

I despair.

0
0
Bronze badge

Careful now, say what you mean

That description might well cover the senior management of virtually every organisation I can think of, but certainly not the grunts who actually do the work, who work long hours for low pay, compared to us IT professionals.

Senior Management's knowledge of what their "Businesses" actually do, is inversely proportional to the size of their pay packets. They also like to boast about measurable results, without actually knowing what they are measuring.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums