There was no child abuse before the internet.
Technology is evil. Burn it. Also IT.
A report that identified more than 16,000 British children who could be at "high risk of child exploitation" during a 12-month period has also highlighted the apparent dangers kids face when using the internet. It warned: Technology forms part of most people’s lives, especially those of young people. As a result it has been …
Technology is evil. Burn it. Also IT.
A credible argument is made that information technology and communications technology often are used on victims of sexual abuse as part of the exercise. There's also an alcohol and drugs dimension.
On the other hand, it's all too likely that they only catch the buggers when they post the video on YouTube, pay for abuse pictures online with a credit card, or work prominently in the music business and children's television and radio and marathon running for fifty years. Whereas if you just quietly interfere with your nephews, nieces, and grandchildren and don't blog about it, you'll probably get away with it for ever so long. At least they get to write a book about it when they grow up, but you'll probably be dead by then.
Truly, paedogeddon is upon us.
But it isn't just child abuse which is being facilitated by technology... in fact, modern communcation mechanisms are believed to be routinely used during crimes which we don't yet know anything about.
There has always been child abuse, and the age at which someone is considered a child keeps rising!
After 13, your a young adult, you should understand the birds & the bees, you should know what is right and wrong.
So educate the Young adults, supervise the kids...
Make sure they know if you share a naughty picture of yourself with someone, expect it to get posted online.
Educate kids that the human body is not something to be ashamed of, a nude picture is not blackmail material unless your a prude and ashamed...
And finally, ensure the kids know that there will be no punishment IF they tell a parent/guardian. They need to know they can come to you for anything...
unfortunately the rings tend to target those the system has already failed.
The kids in Rochdale were from children's homes and under social care.
These kids didn't have parents capable of taking these steps.
Schools are having the same problem.
Not to mention cars - how many children were abducted using only bicycles - but what have the car makers done to prevent child abuse?
Your post, whilst I do not argue any point, appears to predominately view abusers as adults i,e. old enough for a credit card, of working age, have nephews, nieces and grandchildren.
The list in the article references threatening to share images, harassment and/or bullying via sms, sharing numbers amongst gang members, posting images with rival gang members, distributing Blackberry pin numbers. These are often the domain of adolescents.
Technology is changing the way we communicate and exposes minors far more than ever, but it is also starting to paint a picture where abusers are no longer confined to the stereotypical aged/ageing, raincoat brigade. A pretty sad reflection upon society if there was one.
Mike, it's true that children may be mistreated by people their own age, suffer terribly, and be driven to self harm or suicide. And that children have "gangs" or may be involved as members of adult gangs. But this and the linked BBC story
seem to be talking about organised commercial sexual abuse of children, either producing records of abuse that can be sold to those credit card holders, or passing the children themselves around for abuse by paying customers or by gang members as a membership benefit. The people running it may not even be perverts themselves, they just do it for the money.
And still the real most common abuser is an adult that a child's carer somewhat trusts, or the carer - parent or other - because a responsible carer protects the child from identifiable threats, including other children whose behaviour isn't to be relied on.
If you're speaking as an abused person then I am very sorry for what you may have suffered.
"If you're speaking as an abused person then I am very sorry for what you may have suffered."
No. Not me. Thankfully.
"After 13, your a young adult"
What part of the world do you live in exactly?!
Plus other tech such as hifi's, lightbulbs, cookers and god forbid a vacuum cleaner.
Its not tech thats the problem but how some pervey bastards use it.
I am always suspicious of potential empire building by people who are "sure" that there is under-reporting of occurences/crimes/illegal downloads etc. It may well be true but anything beyond the reported figures would seem to be speculation and often too much emphasis is given to estimated figures of this nature.
One has to give full credit to the (probably now ex-) civil servant who, when asked how many illegal immigrants were in the UK, answered honestly by saying that s/he hadn't a clue.
This may have some value in arming young people with knowledge of their vulnerabilities, but that's about it. Getting cause and effect reversed will no doubt cause stupid people to suggest all kinds of stupid things.
.. eat food and drink various beverages.
Ban them all!
'We have not yet recorded a case of a paedophile who does not consume water and other water-based liquids. As such, consumption of water must be strictly monitored by the government, and imbibers banned from working with children.'
Editorial: The Daily Heil
Di-Hydrogen Oxide is a chemical that's known to have been used by 100% of paedophiles. It is feared that this chemical can turn ordinary people into paedophiles. Ban this sick filth now!
Radio 1 DJs
Shouldn't the headline read 'Rare for child abuse cases not to involve tech'.
Currently it suggests that plod should be arresting anyone that owns an iPhone.
An excellent suggestion
Pretty much all human activities involve some form of tech.
Oxygen forms part of most people’s lives, especially those of young people. As a result it has been rare to identify cases of child sexual exploitation where the use of oxygen has not been a factor.
I'm sure many concerned people were honestly horrified by what they found. I'm sure they put the report together as best they could and with as much honest gravity as they could. I'm sure that they did their best to convey the seriousness of the situation to those that could convert concern into action.
I'm also sure that in the past we've seen minor errors at multiple stages that have resulted in scores of kids being removed from loving homes. Tread carefully.
> Viewing of extreme or violent pornography and discussing it during sexual assaults.
How does that actually work? Do people have discussion about their pr0nz when they are performing rape?
>How does that actually work? Do people have discussion about their pr0nz when they are performing rape?
Well, I guess you would know that they are truly sick fucks if they started rambling on about windows 8 usability, their facebook status, design patents etc...
It's the rapey, child abusey alternative version of watching a dirty video while performing the act with a consenting partner - if you can both see; it's tricky.
In an episode of QI, Alan Davies said of his wife (I suppose) not that they do that, but that in a certain sexual position, he can put the TV on to watch football with the sound off. He also said something about hearing a magazine page being turned by his partner in the course of events. Mr Davies is a comedian and he may have been joking.
Pop songs by Bloodhound Gang and Blink 182 also come to mind.
Perhaps it makes a little more sense when you keep in mind that sex with a child is still "sexual assault" even if they're willing. "How about we █████████████████████████ like in that video, you little minx?"
But I'm still doubtful about the "extreme pornography" part. At least if they mean that in the legal sense of porn involving life-threatening violence, bestiality or necrophilia. That doesn't strike me as particularly good grooming material... uh, not that I'd know.
Would you like to see a video about puppies?
... on hysterical child protection nonsense... it is a very solid business model.
"... on hysterical child protection nonsense... it is a very solid business model."
Yes. I've been thinking about getting into child abuse. It looks very profitable.
I think I might have put that better.
I bet all these scum breathed oxygen too! Ban it!!
Come on guys, I want to see how many different variations we can get on "correlation does not imply causation" before 5pm. I'm guessing at least 50. You can avoid so many uncomfortable truths with that mantra.
Personally I prefer to find a convenient hole in the sand and stick my head down it while chanting "Om" for a couple of hours. YMMV.
And you can ruin so many lives and introduce so many unnecesary and unworkable laws by ignoring it.
Leaving aside the title, there's no differentiation given to the word 'gangs'. Since this could be referring to either 'gangs' in the 'street gangs' sense (which is where much of the stuff related to videos & BBM pins is from) and 'grooming gangs' of the kind seen in the recent cases in Rochdale.
Since the two represent a significant part of the report, a bit more clarity on the differences would have helped.
Also - the report doesn't blame technology for paedos, simply points out it's enabling role and how it's used, much as it points out that talking, alcohol & drugs are also used.
There's a danger here that we could all forget something rather important.
While we're all busy pointing fingers and playing blame games and "he-said, she-said"ing and trying to discredit certain organisations while securing funding for other organisations .....
There are actual human beings out there, getting hurt.
It's a bit like that "only 6% of rape cases reach a successful prosecution" which assumes that 100% of all rape accusations are a) true and b) provable. If it were stated as "94% of all rape accusations are either nonsense or have no evidence to support them" it would look a little different.
This looks like fundraising to me. They did everything except respond to all questions by saying "Paedo 9/11".
The danger is that someone will shout "something must be done" and others will take up the cry. Something is already being done, anything else will have to be carefully reasoned and appraised to avoid wasting resources or doing more harm than good.
"If it were stated as "94% of all rape accusations are either nonsense or have no evidence to support them" it would look a little different."
A slightly naive comment there, as it can be interpreted as saying that any accusations of rape that didn't result in conviction were false.
Consider the cases where there's a large amount of evidence, but not enough to 100% absolutely prove rape - quite often it comes down to "he said, she said" whether there was consent or not. Or the case recently where someone I know was on the jury, and another (female!) jurer said that just because the victim was saying "no" & crying doesn't mean it was rape. Or from a few years ago, when even judges would suggest that if a woman was wearing a short skirt she was "asking for it".
I sort of agree with you, but there aren't many of those anymore.
I took a look at the statistics (latest I could get were from 2009) and was surprised, pleased and very slightly disquieted to learn than of those rape cases which go to trial in the UK, 91% result in a conviction. That's higher than any other type of crime except murder, and murder in the UK is too low a sample for statistical accuracy.
It seems to me, therefore, that the conviction rate is extremely high but the prosecution rate is low. CPS don't prosecute if they don't think they can make a case and so those who trot out this particular little flawed stat are either looking for a jury to put increased weight on the evidence of those who claim to have been raped (and remember, at this stage it can ONLY be a claim) or some automagic assumption of the defendant's guilt, neither of which strike me as being particularly "just".
It IS about justice, right?
"Facebook, for its part, removes its youngest users - the 13-to-17-year-olds - from public search"
Shouldn't that be the 13-to-17-year-olds who actually used their real dates of birth, unlike all the sub-teens who claim to be 32... IIRC a few years ago FB claimed to be using context-checking to weed out the tweenies based on what they prattled on about, but I've not heard much noise about how many they actually caught...
Let's see if I can summarize the argument of these 'Child protectors'.
'The internet should be controlled.
Another thought - '16 000 could be at risk'. This does not mean that 16 000 cases of abuse happen.
If 50% of those who 'could be' at risk actually are, and one in four of those at risk do suffer abuse then the reported statistic of 2,000 cases is actually in line with the scarier higher figure.
Luckily there's plenty of evidence that we can trust those in authority to be lily-white, angelic, and totally disinterested in kiddy-fiddling themselves, so they're the ideal people to run a new PRC-like regime of censorship and monitoring.
Remember citizens - if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
> there's plenty of evidence that we can trust those in authority to be lily-white
That nice old gent in the big chair, for example. You know the one - he "fixes" it so kids can do things they've always wanted to do...
These are just the modern equivalents of hanging around school gates, taking Polaroids or introducing the victim to their pervert friends.
These type of actions are documented on a number of popular large budget films and series that cover child / sex abuse/coercive relationships. I'm assuming they have a basis in fact.
the benefits of the hi tech trend is there are undeniable trails left behind. Use them!
"the benefits of the hi tech trend is there are undeniable trails left behind. Use them!"
There is a danger there that if those doing the tracing are credulous then miscarriages can occur.
See Operation Ore
so the police were incompetent and over enthusiastic with Technology they didn't understand.
In this case the records exonerated the innocent - eventually.
The Archive, I found, had recorded what the Landslide website really looked like in 1999.
From the Archive, I retrieved a series of front pages from Landslide's beginnings in 1996 through to April 1999, just before the police investigation began. There were no 'child porn' buttons nor any place where one could be.
It's reassuring that no single type of technology was used in 120% of child sexual abuse cases.
I saw one recent statistic--Jimmy Savile prompted a lot of pontificating--which made me wonder what is being counted. I can thing of some of the things which my schoolteachers did which could be considered as abusive, even if they were essentially managerial incompetence, and I am wary of the possibility that "child abuse" is being used, and read or presented as "child sexual abuse" in a way that is conjuring up a mass of horror.
My late mother was a trained nursery nurse, and she knew what could happen, back in the 1950s. None of this is new. None of it depends on the technologies which have spread since then. She sometimes wondered how the later sexual abuse in children's homes could have ever happened, but she also said how some the kids she knew couldn't be trusted. Maybe that's part of why it could happen: the abusers picked targets who would not be believed.
The professionals got suckered by the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse scare, and did more harm than any abuser who might have been caught up in that net. They wanted to pursue some sort of outsider, and ever since I have wondered at each new set of headlines.
I believe it's quite common for T-shirts to be involved in such cases. Let's burn all T-shirts. And T-shirts wearers for good measure.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017