Lights blue touch paper and stands back!

#2
Bloody typical -- 6 months effort by god knows how many people at a few million quid to come up with the following.

"But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality"

These Quango's certainly know how to spend money - just wish they would learn about "value for money"
 
#3
Teh Grauniad Olnine said:
Of the 940, 26% of the offenders were recorded as Asian. The breakdown was 30 Pakistani, one Bangladeshi and 217 recorded as "Asian unknown", reflecting the poor quality of the data available.
The report said: "We cannot draw national conclusions about ethnicity because the data is too inconsistent.
Statistics can prove anything, so yes, 26% is a smaller number. But we're always told that less than 3% of the population are Asian, which translates as 85% of them are abusers.

Simples. :-D
 
#4
Bloody typical -- 6 months effort by god knows how many people at a few million quid to come up with the following.

"But Peter Davies, the director of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (Ceop), which carried out the research, warned against jumping to conclusions on the ethnicity of offenders because the data gathered by his investigators was incomplete, not nationwide and of poor quality"

These Quango's certainly know how to spend money - just wish they would learn about "value for money"
I think it's likely that having found this political hot potato they needed to play it down.
 
#5
All it seems to prove is that 26% of those caught were asians. This could mean "they" aren't very good at it(?).
(Isn't China classed as Asia)?
 
#7
so 74% aren't asian, does this just prove that perves come from all backgrounds
 
#9
Because everyone is racist, innit.
 
#10
#11
Statistics can prove anything, so yes, 26% is a smaller number. But we're always told that less than 3% of the population are Asian, which translates as 85% of them are abusers.

Simples. :-D
Or indeed that 74% of abusers aren't Asian. Let's lock up all those whiteys just in case I... erm, they.. they're a danger to their... ah, I mean our children.
 
#12
Why are 94% of convictions Asian then?
Better evidence against them? Stupidity or carelessness on the part of the culprit? Families less willing to cover up for a tamperer? Pixies?
 
#13
Better evidence against them? Stupidity or carelessness on the part of the culprit? Families less willing to cover up for a tamperer? Pixies?
Do you not think that somebody from a culture much different from ours is not likely to do something that we consider to be child abuse but their culture does not? I do.
 
#17
Do you not think that somebody from a culture much different from ours is not likely to do something that we consider to be child abuse but their culture does not? I do.
I think blokes who can't get any action in their own back yard are likely to go after the easy pickings next door. According to CH4 News tonight, the same survey showed 38% of those convicted were white.
 
#18
So that's 94% of convictions are Asian and 38% convictions white. I'm assuming there might be a few blacks convicted but it also says that ethnicity was not recorded in 32% of the cases. ****ing big percentages all round, then?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
From the Report: http://www.ceop.police.uk/Documents/ceopdocs/ceop_thematic_assessment_executive_summary.pdf

In relation to ethnicity, the data was often recorded to a particularly poor standard at the point of capture. ‘Ethnicity’ was often conflated with ‘nationality’ and neither factor captured according to a conventional or standardised classification scheme. Within the available dataset there was a significant difference between the groups. For groups one and two
combined, the ethnicity of 38% of the offenders was unknown, 30% were white, 28% Asian 3% Black and 0.16%Chinese. When only group one was analysed, the offenders were found to be 38% white, 32% unknown, 26% Asian,
3% Black, and 0.2% Chinese.


p. 8
The data submitted refers only to the ‘localised grooming’ model of child sexual exploitation and does not include onlinegrooming, trafficking of children into the UK, peer-on-peer abuse or other forms of sexual exploitation. It has provenimpossible, however, to neatly segment localised grooming from other forms due to the complexities and overlap withinthe offending behaviour.This assessment cannot be seen as fully representative of the nature and scale of child sexual exploitation in the U.K.,or, indeed, of the ‘localised grooming’ model. Data relating to child sexual exploitation is often partial and incomplete,​
concealed in secondary indicator data, or simply unrecorded.


The second quote is most pertinent as it highlights the fact that this report only refers to one type of child sexual expolitation, it does not address others such as the far more prevalent Familial or Incestual Abuse, which would likely show much more demogrpahically normalised percentages. Moreover only 38% of the perpretrators were classified and recorded according to race, the remainder were not. Alhtough iindicative it is worthy of more detailed accurately recorded reporatge and ananlysis. Otherwise that would be bad statistical science.

 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top