The U.K. has the third largest level of on line child sexual abuse in the world

David49

This is rubbish however bad it is in the UK it’s far worse in developing countries but there is so much corruption it gets covered up
The police in the UK know pretty much what’s going on, given more resources the SS and police could do a lot more but they haven’t so they can’t

Data just isn’t collected, trafficking out of Asian and African countries cannot be counted migrants are counted in millions so tens of thousands in the sex industry or slavery

Based on data from the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) THE uk has historically beed identified as one of the top countries for consuming or engaging in online child sex abuse, i.e downloading material. It is not one of the top countries for hosting the material. The Netherlands and the USA often lead in hosting child sex abuse material.

Why is the UK such a large consumer? All suggestions welcome. What can the government do to reduce such consumption? All suggestions welcome

GrannyGravy13

Whitewavemark2

What must be done is to stop these lowlife from the ability to access the children.

It is possible - people know better than me - but is not being done at present.

Because we will never stop these people with such skewed brains from carrying out their evil acts by any other means.

That’s the bit that I just cannot understand why are the internet platforms not blocking these sites?

They must have the algorithms and programs to be able to do so.

If the low life’s are paying to watch the abuse, surely their card payments can be traced?

It’s difficult now to purchase anything online as the majority of banks/card providers ask for two authentication methods.

Money, I suppose?

It's usually about money.

I think a culture change would be helpful, language is important, not child porn but child abuse images.
I would also as successive governments have promised have an enquiry into the damage that is done to all people by the watching of porn.
Excessive porn use usually figures in the background of many violent sex offenders.

I wish I had those suggestions LemonJam.
If we can work out a way to force the tech bosses to intervene, that would be a start.

Reform has pledged to immediately repeal the Online Safety Act 2023 , describing it as "dystopian piece of safe legislation that "threatens free speech". Make of the what you will.

The work to implement the Act's provisions are taking a phased approach to bring internet providers duties into effect to protect children.

Trump is known to be well in with internet provider leaders- Musk et all. Farage is well in with Trump. Political parties rely on contributions- Internet providers contribute. Musk has previously promised to contribute significant sums to Farage/Reform- subject to conditions being agreed. Make of that what you will. Reform seeks to appeal the On Line Safety Act. Make of that what you will.

Trump makes Tariff threats. Trump and Vance have made clear they do not like the UK and EU's approach to Online Safety laws. They have threatened retaliatory action.

The world is not an easy place...

Well that is an easy question to answer . Fears about free speech for adults and keeping children safe are a fine balance. The last owner of twitter banned women who raised concerns about child safeguarding in the gender debate which obviously led to children being harmed.

I didn't know that about Reform. Wonder how many of our GN Reform supporters are aware of that plan?
There is another Thread just now about Reform.

sixandahalf 16.03 "Money, I suppose? It's usually about money".

Sadly yes, it's always about the money. Those that profit from abusing children and distributing illegal images. Internet Providers that facilitate such trade.

Bit neither could profit without a willing market.

Maremia 16.14- what's the title of the Reform thread you refer to and which forum is it in?

It is an N&P Thread and is my daily top Threads just now.
'Suella leaves the sinking ship'. The Posters have moved on to discussing Reform policy.

I would like to know the details of the surveys undertaken to provide these figures. The backgrounds to these groups, , who funded them, what survey methods were used and irrefutable reputable sources that verified and published the figures.

Far to often these figures are proven to be wrong in some way, or the surveys are undertaken in a way that slants the results towards the motives driving those funding these surveys.

These uestons are not asked to dismiss these figures but if figures as shocking as these are published they must be properly verified to stop those opposing controls using the unreliability tof the figures o attack those trying to stop this behaviour

Maremia 16.27 - thanks.

GrannyGravy In the 1960s the Paedophile Information Exchange which advocated for the perversion were mainstream for a few years, as all those flower people, competed to show how liberal and open-minded they were.

this link provides very intersting reading. There are anumber of names mentioned that will surprise you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

Just passing through when I noticed this forum. As I recall, SKY tv used to have adult channels showing in late evening whereby they advertise as pay to view. I have no idea if these porn channels are still showing. It has been some years since I had SKY tv. And, no, they never interested me. Too much of a romantic.

If we are now including online porn yes the UK would be a large consumer not the vast majority is legal Adult performance. Society permits that material to be openly available if you don’t like start a campaign to stop it.

Underage material is on the dark web get caught and you go to jail and plenty do

M0nica

GrannyGravy In the 1960s the Paedophile Information Exchange which advocated for the perversion were mainstream for a few years, as all those flower people, competed to show how liberal and open-minded they were.

this link provides very intersting reading. There are anumber of names mentioned that will surprise you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

They were the names I was trying to remember.

Thank you M0nica

Thank you for the link Monica- yes some surprising names and historical legal submissions made.

Of interest- Child pornography (Indecent images): The Protection of Children Act of 1978 made it illegal to produce or distribute indecent images of children under 18. This was extended in 1994 to include "pseudo-photographs", images that appear to be real but are not.

Explicitly, there then was and still remains the case, that there is no onus on the prosecution in criminal proceedings to demonstrate the children in the images had suffered harm. It is accepted as intrinsic.

If NYTimes is accessable, informative podcast.

Jonathan Haidt Brings New Evidence to the Battle Against Social Media

The author of “The Anxious Generation” shares his latest research about the harms social media is doing to children.

Just picked this up. I will have to listen to the TRIP podcast again to get the information everyone wants, but I’m too busy atm

The LAW thus holds individuals accountable. The government seeks to hold internet providers accountable via things like legislating for the Online Safety bill- you read the push back in the media. I don't easily see how any government of any party persuasion, can be held accountable for the exponential growth of illegal downloading and distribution of pornographic images of children and individuals that download and distribute illegally. All suggestions welcome.

What sentences are given out to people who are found guilty?

I know a younger person who was involved in quite some way in this sort of thing.
I dont know all details.
He didnt go to jail.
He was ostracised in the local Community and had to move.

But if he didnt go to jail, perhaps because jails are full[another htread topic], there are many more like him[I suspect]

That is what governments can do.
Give a lot harsher sentences. And build more jail space.

[sorry by the way to pick up on something else you said this afternoon].

Jail time or longer jail time wouldnt stop all.
But it would go some way to stopping some things.

Fancythat 17.39- by people- there are adults that create and then adults and children that then download/consume, those that circulate( adults and children) and various combinations thereof. There are sentencing guidelines on line. The judge needs to weigh up category and severity of charges proved (number of downloaded images, category A/B/C thereof, circumstances etc) then weigh up any mitigating circumstances against aggravating circumstances etc.

Plus importantly with juvenile offenders, whether first offence or repeat. If first offence is the juvenile willing and have they since police interview engaged with appropriate services?- e.g. LADS- Local Advice and Diversion services- because ideally you don't want them to reoffend and those services work with the juvenile ( if they are willing/pointless and difficult if not) from time of charge to find out why this happened and offer support.

Circumstances of offence are taken into consideration- they may have been naively groomed- e.g exchanging mildly sexual images "naked torso etc) with whom they believe to be another teenager on line, it escalates further, turns out the other teenager is an adult then they are blackmailed and drawn in the recruit other teenagers/ distribute etc. All a bit like county lines drugs grooming. Risk to the public and others is taken into consideration as well as guilty pleas, demeanour in court and any remorse expressed and accepted as being genuine.

Your teenager didn't go to jail- I don't know the circumstances. The shame can be immense and you describe them being ostracised by their local community. That also is a form of punishment and living with the shame, the criminal record and that impacting on a juvenile's future career/ job prospects maybe considered punishment enough by the court in that case circumstances. Sometimes the circumstances of a juvenile being groomed into this world are sad- but genuine, knowing adults who create, distribute, blackmail and cause great harm deserve their punishment-when identified and successfully prosecuted.

I said "a younger person"
He is in no way a teenager.

^ The shame can be immense and you describe them being ostracised by their local community. That also is a form of punishment and living with the shame, the criminal record and that impacting on a juvenile's future career/ job prospects maybe considered punishment enough by the court in that case circumstances.^

But it isnt!
No way, for what he did[i know enough].

And that is my whole point.
If people like you and others consider that his punishment is enough, no wonder soooo many people do such horrendous deeds.
[though you may be saying this because you thought he was a teenager].

And even if he was, you have still let him "off the hook".