Thanks to some excellent work by the NSPCC, aided and abetted by brilliant journalism on the part of The Daily Mirror, it feels like several pieces of a complex jigsaw have started falling into place. But the picture which is emerging is profoundly disturbing, verging on completely unbelievable.
The NSPCC sent out Freedom of Information requests to all 43 local police forces in England and Wales. The results form the basis of the first part of the Mirror’s story. It appeared yesterday (Monday). There is more today and I believe there will be a final article tomorrow.
Inter alia the NSPCC asked the local forces how many indecent photographs of children (child abuse images), as defined by the Protection of Children Act, 1978, each of them had seized between March, 2010 and April 2012. Five forces replied.
|England & Wales||
The population figures for each police force area and the total for all areas are based on mid-2010 estimates. We can see that between them the five forces had 4,006,600 inhabitants. This represents 7.25% of the entire population of England and Wales.
It’s hard to know why the 38 absentee forces did not reply so for now I’m going to assume the sample provided by the five that did is not significantly skewed one way or another. It understates the number of people who live in major conurbations but I don’t think one’s place of abode is going to be a major factor in determining the likelihood of one being involved in downloading child abuse images.
As you would expect, police force size broadly corresponds with the number of people living in an area. However, different police forces give a higher or lower priority to online child protection work and it is not clear why. Not all forces have a dedicated online child protection unit or team but across the whole country I think the overall picture will even out. Hyper active police forces will make up for less energetic ones and vice versa.
Anyway what we are trying to glimpse here, in a sense, is not what the police are doing but what the people living in their operational areas might be doing. What we know about the individuals who are arrested for child abuse image offences is that they come from all walks of life. Thus, assuming the demographics of the five forces’ areas combined are not massively different from the demographics of the rest of England and Wales I’d say we are good to go.
If you simply ramped up the number of seized images pro rata this would suggest that something like 360 million might have been seized overall across England and Wales in the two years in question. If you exclude Cambridgeshire’s numbers as being somehow freakish you end up with 8,837,511 images from 5.8% of the population. That still produces a potential national total in excess of 150,000,000.
I can think of no good reason why we should exclude Cambridgeshire’s numbers but in a statistical exercise like this eliminating the extremes at both ends is not an uncommon practice. If you did that here, and excluded both Cambridgeshire and Nottinghamshire, the population of the remaining three forces would be 2,130,300. That is 3.8% of the total population. They yielded 8,600,655 images to seizures by the police. This would imply a total of 226, 333,026 images being seized by all forces.
The Met, the police force for London, are known to do an enormous amount of work in this area but we don’t have a reply from them. If we assume the police in London only seized the same number of images as Cambridgeshire, but from a much larger population base, you also come out with a number in the 200 millions so maybe that is nearer the mark.
In the quote I gave to the Mirror I took an ultra-conservative line. I said I thought the number of images seized was very definitely going to be north of 100 million. Somehow that didn’t make it into the paper but given we were starting with a definite base of 26 million that had actually been seized I don’t think I was being too daring or sensationalist. Even 26 million is a troubling number so anything above that will only be more so.
What the numbers do not mean
Now at one level big numbers like these don’t necessarily tell you anything very much. I have documented a case where one man was found with 2.5 million images. I’m told that in Cambridgeshire one of the people they arrested had five million images on his machines. If that stands up it could be a world record for an individual as up to now I had always thought that was held by Canadian Arthur Sayler with four million.
In other words it is entirely possible that even if the number is as large as 360 million it could still represent the aggregated activity of a comparatively small number of people. We just have no way of knowing. Or do we? There are straws in the wind. Read on.
But first let us be clear about another couple of things. Whether the number is 26 million, 200 million or 360 million that does not mean 26, 200 or 360 million children were abused to generate the illegal images. There will be tens upon tens of millions of duplicates of the same images.
Last time I heard an estimate, and it was some time ago, it was suggested there were about 1,000,000 unique images involving upwards of 50,000 individual children from all parts of the world. However, both those numbers pre-date the “sexting” phenomenon. They could each be significantly higher now. Many sexting images have made their way into the body of illegal material now being exchanged by paedophiles and collectors.
These large numbers probably tell us something about the obsessive nature of some collectors’ habits. However, in and of themselves they don’t necessarily tell us how dangerous to children any individual collector is likely to be in the future.
From a public policy perspective this is very bad news. If we could find a reliable guide which would allow us early on to separate out the more dangerous from the less dangerous it could help the police, the courts, the prisons and the probation services to target their efforts much more effectively. Kent police are leading an EU-wide and EU-funded study which looks extremely promising in that regard.
Nonetheless, at least for now and until we know more, it remains the case that on first encounter anyone found in possession of one image could easily be as dangerous or even be more dangerous than someone found with millions of them.
Yet I think there is nonetheless a kind of macabre poetry in these mind-boggling figures. They definitely send out the message that something has changed within society, something big and bad has happened and I’m not sure we have properly understood or come to terms with it.
Not long before the internet arrived in our midst Interpol claimed to know of only 4,000 unique images of child abuse across the entire planet. The UK police say they knew of 7,000. A few hundred children were depicted. That’s in the whole of recorded history up to that point, about 1995. In Greater Manchester the police seized the grand total of 12 images that year. Writing in 1997 Sir William Utting in “People Like Us” described the production and distribution of “child pornography” as a “cottage industry”, meaning it was small scale and highly localised. That year 184 people were convicted for offences relating to the possession, making or distribution of child abuse images. Convictions are now approaching 2,000 per annum and last year 2,312 people were arrested. We are in an entirely different place.
The sheer volume of child abuse images now in circulation, and the number of people involved in collecting them, has altered beyond all recognition. And let us not forget, to lapse into Rumsfeld-speak for a moment, so far this blog has based itself on and used only numbers that we know or think we can estimate. The numbers we don’t know about…….
A network of abuse
I now want to put another piece of the jigsaw in place. Having thanked the Mirror for their part in drawing this matter to the attention of the wider public, and hopefully policy makers who are in a position to do something about it, here I must acknowledge the part played by The Sun. Although the police reconfirmed the same information to the Mirror, it first appeared in an article in The Sun on 1st July, 2012. I do not know how I missed it. Actually I do. It appeared on page 21 and was not promoted by them or picked up by any other parts of the media. It’s amazing the story didn’t spark a riot.
I said earlier we don’t know how many people in total might be involved in collecting child abuse images and I also referred to the current level of arrests and convictions, both hovering around the 2,000 mark.
Now sit tight. The Sun’s article features Peter Davies, Head of CEOP, the UK’s lead police agency for online child protection. Peter acknowledges for the first time in public something insiders have known for a while. The police have the technical capability to monitor the number of people exchanging child abuse images over Peer2Peer networks. And they have been using it. If you want to know more about how they do it watch Prime Time Investigates on Irish TV. We use the same techniques.
On 1st July the British police revealed to The Sun that their estimate of the number of people involved in exchanging child abuse images over Peer2Peer networks in the UK is
50,000 to 60,000
I do not know if the 50-60,000 number derives from only one Peer2Peer network or if it is culled from several. For the moment let’s assume it is several, or even all of them though that is rather unlikely.
Down from 80,000
Originally I had heard unconfirmed reports the number of people in the UK using these networks to exchange child abuse images was around 80,000. I now understand that on further analysis, to eliminate possible duplicates and other potential errors CEOP shaved off 20 to 30 thousand. I’m guessing some of these calculations are a bit rough. We could be plus or minus several percentage points but not an order of magnitude.
Seven times larger than Operation Ore
Think about that for a moment. Let’s take the lower number and make 50,000 the baseline. As we have seen, we have yet to break the 2,000 barrier in terms of convictions in any year and the number of arrests is not much higher. And 50,000 is roughly 7 times larger than the 7,200 names that formed the basis of Operation Ore. Operation Ore nearly brought parts of our criminal justice system to a full stop.
The arrests and prosecutions that were made under Ore were spread over the best part of three years and not everyone on the list of 7,200 received a knock on the door never mind got arrested. Not by a long chalk.
I have heard various estimates of how many Ore suspects were “unvisited”. According to Ore’s Wikipedia entry about 3,000 of the 7,200 Ore suspects never heard a dickie bird from the police. That number is disputed in some quarters. The suggestion is “only” 2,000 suspects remained “unvisited”. Nobody says the number was small. In other words between 60% and 70% of the suspects received a visit from the police. 30% to 40% did not.
Returning to the 50,000, Peter Davies tells us
We can zoom in on the street they live in. They have no idea we are watching them.
Peter goes on to say these guys should know they
….have nowhere to hide. We will hunt you down.
That’s fighting talk
I’m afraid there is nothing in the article to give us any reason to believe the bulk of the 50,000 will be “hunted down”, at least not any time soon.
Peter Davies reassures us the police are engaging in a range of operations to apprehend perpetrators, and I know that is true, yet I picked up no sense whatsoever that our police service as a whole is equipped to tackle the problem on the scale suggested by CEOP’s revelations. CEOP’s staff resources are low and appear to be getting lower. It’s the same with many local forces. I think a lot of people would take an enormous amount of convincing before they believed CEOP’s transition into the new National Crime Agency is in any way going to compensate.
If it took the police the best part of three years to knock on the doors of the Ore suspects they decided deserved a visit, and upwards of 30% were never seen at all, what do we imagine is going to happen facing a number like 50,000?
None of this is the fault of the police. I believe the police have never been given the right level of resources to do the job that needs to be done. What I find slightly disappointing, though, is that the police service does not make more of a fuss about it. If a Cabinet Minister swears at one of the boys in blue it is headline news for days with the Police Federation calling for a resignation. Chronic under resourcing of child protection which leaves children at risk struggles to get air time. It’s a funny old world.
It gets worse
If you read the article in The Sun you will see Peter Davies also quotes a figure which was originally published at paragraph 20 of a CEOP Report that came out earlier in the year.
Around 55% of the people who view (child abuse images) go on to commit child abuse.
Of course viewing the images is itself a form of child abuse. What is being said here is that 55% of people who view child abuse images will commit a contact offence involving a child.
Some very knowledgeable people in the child protection space do not accept that 55% is a reasonable proportion. They say it is way too high. Indeed, moving from the quote in The Sun to the CEOP Report where it came from CEOP makes clear there are other possible outcomes. These indicate proportions that could be much higher or much lower and they make clear all they are establishing is a correlation, not causation. That’s as maybe. For now let’s just accept that 55% reflects the police’s own assessment of the situation. However, we should also note the following statement which appears in paragraph 24
The link between viewing (child abuse images) and contact offending, identified but not yet quantified by research, highlights the need to consider each possession offender as a potential contact offender to some extent.
I have often wondered what the public outcry would be like if any of the Ore “unvisited” had gone on to commit offences which resulted in a child being harmed and it emerged that the perpetrator had previously come to the police’s attention because he was on the Ore list but the police had done nothing.
By the way, as I understand matters it would almost certainly be inaccurate to say that 55% of the “Ore unvisited”, which would be between 1,100 and 1,650 people, were likely to have gone on to commit hands on offences against children.
The reason for that is the police first carried out a triage exercise. They analysed all the data they could collect about the 7,200 and prioritised visiting and arresting people who were in a position of trust or had access to children through their work (priests, teachers, youth club leaders and the like), who had previous convictions for child sex offences or where it was known children were living in the same house. The 2 to 3,000 Ore unvisited were therefore not a random cross section of Ore suspects. They were the ones judged least likely to be any kind of risk to children.
Matching Ore will not be good enough
In the un-sifted, non-triaged 50,000 Peer2Peer users, if CEOP’s meta-analysis is to be believed, there could be up to 27,500 child abusers in amongst them. It beggars belief.
Even if the police were only to repeat the same proportion of arrests they managed in Ore, we are still talking about them visiting between 30,000 and 35,000 people in order to find the 27,500 future or current child abusers. I wonder if anyone thinks that will happen either at all or within any sort of reasonable time scale?
And just to depress you thoroughly and put this in some sort of context, here’s an interesting factoid. On 12th October, 2012, the operational capacity of the prison system in England and Wales was 91,000, and it was pretty much fully taken up. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. What would we do with 27,500 newly convicted child abusers? Could that daunting number be in any way influencing the police’s or the CPS’s operational policies or priorities?
As a society we are going to have to look again at the role of preventative measures. As a police officer in The Mirror article mournfully accepts
We cannot arrest our way out of this
If it is beyond us to arrest these guys when they commit offences, what are we doing to divert them or help stop them getting involved with child abuse images in the first place? How much more do we need to do to reach out to children to help them resist abuse or report it as soon as it happens? How do we get major institutions to put in place better safeguarding measures? Shades of Jimmy Savile and his 40 year reign of abuse at once spring to mind.
Organizations like the NSPPC and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation have been speaking about this for years and have had woefully insufficient recognition and support from the authorities, local and national.
Improved technical measures are essential
Thanks to the IWF and the approach of the internet industry as a whole in relation to blocking access to Newsgroups and web sites containing child abuse images, that part of the challenge has been substantially dealt with. But as we have just seen we are nowhere near solving the problem of Peer2Peer networks. The IWF has no remit to tackle Peer2Peer. It is an altogether different kettle of fish. Improved technical measures will have to be part of the answer. To return to those haunting words
We cannot arrest our way out of this
Part of a new approach?
Now we go back to The Daily Mirror and the final bit of the jigsaw. As I understand things in tomorrow’s edition The Mirror will bring into the public domain information which, hitherto, had again only been shared within a limited circle.
The Metropolitan Police confirmed to the Mirror that they had run a small experiment. During it, instead of going to arrest people whom they suspected of some level of involvement with child abuse images they sent them letters. Seemingly the letters did not renounce the possibility of police officers going to arrest the addressees at some later date. They were meant as a warning shot.
The Met did a risk assessment before they sent the letters to the individuals. The circumstances in which they were dispatched appear to be quite limited. Only 11 letters went out and the experiment is now over. I believe at least one other local police force is doing or has done the same thing, perhaps on a larger scale or on a more sustained basis.
At first sight this practice will strike many as bizarre or dangerous or both. I don’t think anyone should try to pretend or dignify it by saying it is the best possible outcome in the best of all possible worlds. This is a response by part of the police service to the overwhelming mismatch which exists between the level of resources available to them and the number of cases piling up. They are managing a crisis.
These crimes will only be solved, children rescued, perpetrators apprehended, through a combination of technology and people sitting at a desk looking at computer screens. This is not “visible policing” or “Bobbies on the Beat”. Some of the victims or perpetrators that might have to be investigated or located may not even come from your police area! In some forces that alone can make a case fall to the bottom of the list.
Chief Constables do not get Brownie points with the Home Secretary for delivering on online child protection. Online child protection, indeed child protection generally, is not a national policing priority against which a Chief Constable’s performance is measured. It should be.
However, with the letter strategy, the Met seem to have concluded it is better to do something which might result in a person ceasing to engage in criminal activity than it is to do nothing in order to maintain the manifest pretence that they are on top of things, completely in control.
I have spoken about this issue to a number of professionals who work with child sex offenders with convictions for downloading child abuse images. They claim to be 100% certain that if some of the people they are now dealing with had at any stage received a letter of the kind I have just mentioned it would have given them such an almighty scare it would have instantly jolted them out of their illegal conduct. As a result fewer children would end up being abused to create images for them to consume, it would have pushed several potential offenders away from a course of conduct which would otherwise lead them to engage in the hands on abuse of their own or other people’s children.
I attended a meeting at Interpol’s global HQ in Lyon not that long ago. I raised the question of these types of letters. The idea went down like a lead balloon. Some overseas police forces made clear that in their countries it would, in fact, be a crime to send an epistle of that sort. It would be tantamount to warning a possible criminal of a potential arrest, giving them an opportunity to abscond and destroy evidence.
I get that. I sympathise. Sending warning letters to potential suspects is used in other parts of policing so it is not a wholly unheard of notion, although I can see that when it comes to protecting children people will worry it is a step too far.
However, I do not sympathise with or get, in effect, deceiving the public into thinking all is well when it plainly isn’t. Policing has to be about more than finding new and ingenious ways of managing an Inbox without alarming anyone. We’re talking about children, not public relations.
Returning to the UK I refuse to believe, for example, that if our Ministers were fully seized of the current situation they would simply say “Carry On”. Somehow, somewhere, this problem needs to be debated openly and honestly with all the interested parties. Even if austerity means our options are limited for a while the ad hoc nature of policy making up to now is far from satisfactory.
The internet is not to blame for this state of affairs. People do bad things, not otherwise inanimate machines. But what undoubtedly is the case is that whatever we have all been trying up to now to deal with this problem it ain’t working. Government, police, the internet industry, NGOs, must think again. Either we need to redefine the problem or we have to come up with new and convincing strategies for dealing with it as it is.