And what is the solution?

Children from good homes are at the same risk of sexual abuse as less fortunate children due to their activities on the internet, a major new report has warned.
Youngsters who would never previously have been considered “at risk” because they are bright and from stable family backgrounds can fall victim to online abuse just as easily as youngsters in care or abusive homes, it said.
The study by Barnardo’s and the Marie Collins Foundation also said it had found British children as young as eight being targeted by paedophiles online.

My word, that is terrible, isn’t it?

So, what’s the solution?

“A greater emphasis needs to be given to training professionals working in the police, social work, health, education and voluntary sector so they can better protect children from online abuse.”

My word, that is a surprise, isn’t it? We should give more money to the nice people at Barnardo’s and the Marie Collins Foundation.

I would never have guessed that that’s what the report would say. Really, never.

12 thoughts on “And what is the solution?”

  1. Does anyone know what percentage of charities money now comes from the tax payer? For some reason I have the figure of 50% in my head but I am not sure if that is correct.

  2. I suppose expecting their parents to do some bloody parenting, rather than leave them in the tender care of the Internet, would be foolish?

  3. The interesting part of this to me is: ‘Youngsters who would never previously have been considered “at risk” because they are bright and from stable family backgrounds’

    I thought these wankers had spent the last twenty-odd years telling us that this sort of thing was just as prevalent in ‘families’, with lots of nods and winks about suburban perversion? I must have imagined that.

  4. Wait a minute. The point of these charities is not only to prevent children from being abused but also prevent it happening in the future.

    But now said charities are saying that the abuse is increasing and that they need more money from the tax payer to meet the new level of abuse.

    So basically the charities have completely failed in theit stated mission but they still want to be given yet another chance to try and achieve success.

    Why do I have the feeling that these charities think that I am a complete ignorant idiot.

    If they have failed so fucking miserably then surely we should be telling then to fuck off and find an alternative solution to the problem.

  5. Wait, what? Their point boils down to children from stable homes avoiding supervision online, and therefore being just as vulnerable as children not supervised because their family is unstable.

    Fine, but it’s a heck of a stretch to having the same risk of abuse overall. Are they really trying to suggest that some middle-class kid posting ‘naked rolypolies’ after being brought home from some after-school activity is at similar risk of sex abuse than some kid whose choices boil down to spending the day on the street or hanging around dad who drinks too much, and may not have anyone they can trust to talk to?

  6. “Children from good homes are at the same risk of sexual abuse as less fortunate children”–ie very little.

  7. I seem to recall seeing that something like 90% of all child sexual abuse is carried out by a family member, with the majority being by a parent.

    So what they’re actually saying is that people from “good” homes are equally at risk from internet predators, which make up at most 10% of all abuse. So still significantly less at risk of abuse than those from homes that are not “good”

  8. “because they are bright and …”: did they really intend to let that slip? It sounds rather anti-PC. In fact, even considering that some children might be bright, with the implication that others aren’t, seems anti-PC.

  9. Shouldn’t we distinguish between being buggered daily by a social worker and being chatted up by a creep on Skype though?

    Or is that getting dangerously close to “rape” versus “rape rape” territory?

  10. I seem to recall seeing that something like 90% of all child sexual abuse is carried out by a family member, with the majority being by a parent.

    Step-parent, mostly. This came up on another forum some time back, the easiest way for a guy to get access to children is to start dating a single mother who is overworked (not difficult to find), gain her trust (not difficult) and wait for the time when she is so desperate that she will turn to practically anyone to look after her kids for a couple of hours while she does something urgent and unexpected. I think most child abuse cases are perpetrated by the mother’s “boyfriend”, who is probably only a boyfriend in order to access the kids. Single mothers need to be pretty damned careful who they’re dating.

  11. The kids’ school is pretty hot about social media and on line abuse. And a lot of the kids think facebook is NUL so aren’t signed up.
    Online games concern me a bit more. But if you can set up a rape date while doing a car chase on multi-player Grand Theft Auto…

  12. My kids have been taught to always use a pseudonym and never reveal their age on the internet. No Audio or Video comms to give the game away either.

    Although my youngest lad being promoted to superadmin of a global server for one of the most popular games on the planet was somewhat problematic for a while. They never did find out he was still at primary school…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *