NSPCC: Two nonces nailed by cops every day

The really interesting study might be ten years away when somebody finally wonders whether not looking at horrible shit online (most of which is apparently ancient, according to IWF) left the nonces with more time for actually doing horrible shit to children.

Two per day over two years = 100?

Wait... what?

Statistics, Numbers and headlines

Looking at the original press release from the NSPCC and there are two sets of questions that spring to mind.

Does the press office posses a calculator and the ability to use it? There are a lot of SPLASH numbers such as 49 years in prison - across 101 people that's less than a 6 month average.

As previously pointed out 2 a day over 2 years just does not add up. There are as a rule 260 working days in the year.... 101 convictions is closer to 2 a week - but that's not as punchy a headline.

The press release uses ambiguity to link 1000 court cases to child abuse.

our analysis of national and local newspaper stories reveals at least 1000 court cases involving offenders with abuse images, which frequently show children being assaulted and raped.

The presence of "frequently" in the above text is used to imply that the majority if not all 1000 cases are child related. If the NSPCC can count all the other statistics then they could have accurately stated what percentage of the cases were child related.

The NSPCC should be held to higher account - the work that it does is too important and making such glaring mistakes does its reputation little benefit.

Add this to the recent fuss over the NSPCC commissioning flawed polls and they are in danger of becoming their own greatest liability.

The second set of questions: Why did El Reg not feel the need to critically assess the press release before posting this story? Anything to do with page impressions perhaps?

Nonce?

Broad prison slang term which covers sex offenders in general (not just offences against minors) and also people who turn Queens Evidence.

In the past may also have been applied to homosexuals.

So possibly not a good and accurate choice of term,.

Not only is there a maths problem with the NSPCC'S assertions, because I'm not entirely sure how 2 per day over two years equals 101. But also how is the implementation of a adult content filter, that the last stats said that basically everyone except talk talk users turned OFF relevant to this?

Shurly if they possess the images it shows that the filter does not work, since they managed to get the images anyway even with it enabled and the whole point of the filter is to stop the images.

There is a lot wrong here, in multiple different ways!

Hmm

As far as I could see the smut filter was to be a register of people wanting to access legal online content, make bad parents feel better and make loud puritans shut up about the topic. I didnt see anything suggesting it was about stopping child abuse images as that is illegal and so already prosecuted/pursued/blocked.

"The NSPCC states that one in three convicted sex offenders held positions of trust, or occupied roles that allowed them access to children."

I think I am more shocked that its only 1 in 3. Maybe a few who are trying to keep themselves out of temptation, I dont know. I think I read something recently about Germany trying to provide help to people with such urges regardless of any offences carried out.

"Langford explained that the IWF is working with the internet industry to develop new technology which will speed up the identification and removal of online child sexual abuse images"

This sounds like the kind of development that should have been the priority over the 'puritan' filter.

Come to Scotland, you'll get a Government Appointed Guardian (who's not a family member) to "look after you" if you're under 18. That's not just vulnerable children, that's every child.

Is Alexander J Martin a professional?

Only in the sense of making money.

Gutter journalism.

El Reg - a GOOD article on this matter would be welcome.

Lies, statistics and people who just can't count

"Two years on from the launch of David Cameron's smut filter... two offenders are being convicted every day... 100 criminal cases taken to court, which saw 101 offenders imprisoned"

101 in 2 years? That's less than 1 per week, or a 30th of what the NSPCC are claiming.

But hey why tell the truth when its FOR THE FREAKING CHILDREN!!!!

First, define child pornography properly. The legal definition is vague and much wider than just pornography.

Second, count photographs properly. Number of photographs seized includes legal photographs as well. A single picture of a child in a paddling pool,can result in every photograph in the house being seized and destroyed.

Third, the NSPCC has a conflict of interest. They are part of an industry.