Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rotherham

An editor made this alteration on 15 November, with an edit summary "fixed type as per Jay report". The Jay report states at page 29: "Our conservative estimate is that there were more than 1400 victims in the period covered by the Inquiry, and an unknown number who were at risk of being exploited" (my emphasis). At page 30 the report states: "the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited." I corrected the phrase to replace the words "at least", as used by the source. The editor returned to the article and removed "at least" with the edit summary "Source states: "An estimated 1,400 children in the South Yorkshire town were sexually exploited by criminal gangs of men who were predominantly of Pakistani origin between 1997 and 2013." However, that sentence does not exist within the Jay report. It does not appear in the second source - the BBC News report - either. That report opens with the phrase: "At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found" (my emphasis). Additionally, the revert created the somewhat convoluted phrase "estimated to have involved an estimated 1400 children" (my emphasis). As the edit clearly doesn't reflect either of the 2 sources provided, and the edit summaries were somewhat misleading, I am replacing the phrase "at least". Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is incorrect, As per the Jay report "To help reach an overall estimate of the problem, we used reports to the Local Safeguarding Children Board (formerly the ACPC) and Council committees. We examined minutes of the Sexual Exploitation Forum and minutes of independently chaired Strategy meetings where individual children were discussed. These included inter-agency discussions about hundreds of children who had suffered, or were at serious risk of sexual exploitation. We also had access to lists, and sometimes summary descriptions, of many hundreds of children who were supported by Risky Business, individually or in group sessions.

"Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that an estimated 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem. We are unable to assess the numbers of other children who may have been at risk of exploitation, or those who were exploited but not known to any agency. This includes some who were forced to witness other children being assaulted and abused." The report clearly states this is an estimate of 1400 children and how they came to this estimate, not once is this "at least" I am therefore undoing your edit. Jack Coppit (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You have deliberately misquoted page 30. It actually states:

4.6 To help reach an overall estimate of the problem, we used reports to the Local Safeguarding Children Board (formerly the ACPC) and Council committees. We examined minutes of the Sexual Exploitation Forum and minutes of independently chaired Strategy meetings where individual children were discussed. These included inter-agency discussions about hundreds of children who had suffered, or were at serious risk of sexual exploitation. We also had access to lists, and sometimes summary descriptions, of many hundreds of children who were supported by Risky Business, individually or in group sessions. 4.7 Taking all these sources together, the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013. This is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of the problem. We are unable to assess the numbers of other children who may have been at risk of exploitation, or those who were exploited but not known to any agency. This includes some who were forced to witness other children being assaulted and abused.

The pdf can be downloaded and checked here. I'm at a loss for words that you would deceptively alter a direct quotation from "at least" to "an estimated" in this fashion, when it is already obvious that I also have the pdf in front of me. See you at ANI. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The report explains how it came to that figure, and explains how that conclusion is again, based on estimates. "1,400 was a “conservative estimate” "“no one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years”" "Independent investigations have been conducted over the past three years into a series of issues relating to the child sexual exploitation scandal, in which an estimated 1,400 victims were abused over a 16-year period in the town" "and how the authorities had utterly failed an estimated 1,400 victims." "The claims relate to politicians and a constable in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, where an estimated 1,400 girls were subjected to serious sexual offences over 16 years."

The report says quite clearly in the executive summary that "Executive Summary

No one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation (CSE) in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1400 children were sexually exploited over the full Inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013." it also explains how it came to that estimate. The claim that "at least 1400" children were abused would mean that there is 1400 provable victims, of which there is not, hence why an "estimated 1400" is the correct statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Coppit (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you now quoting newspapers? Return to the report. Page 30. Paragraphs 4.6 - 4.7. the Inquiry concluded that at least 1400 children were sexually exploited between 1997 and 2013 That is what it says in black and white. You lied above by removing "at least" in your version of the quote. Now you're pointing to newspaper reports instead. You altered the report. That's intellectually dishonest. Its at ANI in your current ANI report. Take it there. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you not see how the report is contradicting and that the estimate is what should be used? The "Inquiry" that the Jay report is referring to explains how they came to the numbers. This is indeed in black and white.Jack Coppit (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you not see that you lied above by falsifying the quotation? Keep digging. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you not see how you have misunderstood the report without reading the entirety?Jack Coppit (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I was about to reply at the ANI but it was closed. I looked at the PDF. The 1400 figure is used 3 times; twice it is "at least 1400", the exec sum is the only place where it says "an estimated 1400", but they precede that by saying it is their "conservative estimate" meaning they know it is low. "At least 1400" is 100% accurate to the source. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to my response on the ANI how "at least 1400" refers to every single child over the 16 year period, including boys in section gender 4.19. It would be misleading to say "at least 1400 were abused by grooming gangs" as it is an estimated 1400. Once you include every other child do you get "at least 1400 children were abused over the 16 year period".Jack Coppit (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Naz Shah claim

A statistic that was first quoted by Naz Shah - "Neither is it racist to say that when it comes to wider child abuse nearly 90 per cent of those convicted and on the sex offenders register are white men" - has been added the article. As explained at FullFact, there is insufficient data to support this specific claim. Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a claim. It's backed up by a number of sources. There are now three secondary sources to support the added sentence. The newly added source is the Independent newspaper. The same source that is used for the statistics in the previous paragraph. If it's good enough in the one paragraph it's good enough in the other. Garageland66 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a claim - read the analysis linked above. It concludes "[T]hese figures don’t tell us everything about sexual offences committed against children. For example, if someone is found guilty of raping a child under the age of 16, this will appear in the figures under 'rape' rather than 'sexual activity with a minor'. Where offenders’ ethnicity was known, 81% of people convicted of sexual offences in 2014 were white, 7% were black and 9% were Asian in 2014. These proportions were similar over the previous four years. The government told us it doesn’t regularly publish information on the ethnicity of those found guilty of sexual offences so there is no more recent information." Per WP:BRD you are now edit warring. You made a bold edit, it has been reverted and a discussion initiated, and you are now edit warring to add the information again... Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Any point about the majority of child sexual abusers in the United Kingdom being white and male will be removed. No matter how reliable the source, even a report by a parliamentary select committee. This is how Wikipedia works. Garageland66 (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The select committee report's key finding on race now added with full quote including the 'widespread perceptions' point. So all editors should be okay with this. Garageland66 (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are pulling one quote out to make a point - that is orignal research -----Snowded ^TALK 13:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

(reset)The latest addition - that has been reverted now - was a good example of cherry picking with a dash of synthesis. The lines used in the article were used out of their original context and omitted important qualifying material that accompanied them. Neil S. Walker (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts to keep the findings of the parliamentary (Home Affairs) select committee out of this article. First it was removed because the source was not secondary. So a secondary source was provided. It was removed again because it was claimed that the secondary source is "dubious". Yet exactly the same source (the Quilliam counter-extremism organisation) is used for the material in the article which makes the claim that the majority of members of grooming-gangs are of Pakistani origin. If it's not dubious for that data, then it's not dubious for the select committee findings. Unless anyone can provide sound reasons why the evidence of the select committee provided by Quilliam cannot be included, then I can see no reason why the data cannot be placed back in the article. The article needs balance. Garageland66 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

No one is keeping the findings of a select committee out, but you are not inserting those findings, you are cherry picking one sentence from the end of the report to make a point. That is not how things work. You have also been edit warring. Note that no other editor has agreed with you here. If you insert it again with gaining consensus you will be reported for editor warring. You've had two six month blocks the next one is likely to be unlimited -----Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It clearly is being kept out. The sentence at the end of the select committee report is appropriate because it directly challenges the preceding paragraph. Presumably editors do not want rebuttals and do not want balance. It's self-evident that editors simply don't want balance because four different excuses have been used to keep it out 1. it was supported a secondary source (dealt with) 2. it's a "dubious" source (no it's the same source that's used in the preceding paragraph) 3. it's cherry picking (well then the grooming-gangs issue cherry picking one minority example of child sexual abuse) 4. it's being included just to make a point (no it's being included because it's a direct response to the previous paragraph). If it's appropriate to include such a large paragraph on just one example of child sexual abuse, then it's appropriate to provide a legitimate rebuttal by a respected parliamentary select committee in order to achieve balance. Garageland66 (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion, but please stop making accusations as to the motivation of other editors. You are not addressing the points made just asserting your original position. Until you can address those issues you are unlikely to get consensus for the changes. -----Snowded ^TALK 22:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not questioning motivation, I'm asking why editors do not want to balance the article with a rebuttal. This is customary on Wikipedia. When a claim is made a counterpoint can be provided, if a reliable source is provided. Could someone explain why the reasons for keeping this out have changed from the source being primary, to the source being "dubious", to the extract being "cherry-picking". It is not cherry-picking if it's directly related to the claims about child-grooming in the preceding paragraph. Garageland66 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You say The sentence at the end of the select committee report is appropriate because it directly challenges the preceding paragraph. And the sentence you added does challenge somewhat the preceding paragraph - but only because you cherry picked small parts of the report and omitted their context and qualifiers. The edit added this line: The report went on to say that there seems to be a "widespread perception" that the majority of perpetrators are of Asian heritage, yet it concludes that "there is no simple link between race and child sexual exploitation." The "widespread perception" quote is taken from ¶ 108 (p.52) which goes on to say "This would certainly seem to be the case from the major grooming prosecutions which have gone to court so far", but that the data is inadequate; it links to a CEOP report that explains that the police offender data is "too inconsistent", with some offender ethnicities not recorded or incorrectly recorded or recorded only as "British". In a sample set of 1217 offenders, the report shows, 464 offenders are of "Unknown" ethnicity because it was never recorded.

The next clause of your addition is taken from ¶ 120 (p.57). In its original context, it reads very differently: There is no simple link between race and child sexual exploitation. It is a vile crime which is perpetrated by a small number of individuals, and abhorred by the vast majority, from every ethnic group. However, evidence presented to us suggests that there is a model of localised grooming of Pakistani-heritage men targeting young White girls. This must be acknowledged by official agencies, who we were concerned to hear in some areas of particular community tension, had reportedly been slow to draw attention to the issue for fear of affecting community cohesion. (my emphasis). That isn't a "rebuttal": it is an admission that there is no "simple link", and an admission that there is evidence that "suggests that there is a model of localised grooming of Pakistani-heritage men targeting young White girls." You have taken two phrases from separate parts of the report and linked them to push a particular POV.

As for the use of the quote The vast majority of convicted child-sex offenders in the UK are single white men as a rebuttal to the preceding paragraph... The preceding paragraph is concerned directly with grooming gangs; but the quote you picked refers to all child sex offences. That is such a broad brush stroke that you surely don't need me to say that it is comparing apples and oranges. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The article is actually very poor in general. It needs some brutal restructuring. It needs to be clear, for example, whether it is talking about all child sex offences (such as the - indisputable - quote about the majority of convicted offenders) and where it is talking about grooming gangs. It needs to explain the data better. I'm not trying to stop you adding material, I'm just objecting to material being added to push a POV that isn't supported by its original sources. I also think we might all agree that proposed changes at this stage should be discussed on this talk page instead of being boldly added directly to the article. Nobody wants an edit war on the namespace. Neil S. Walker (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

John Pitts quote

I've removed this as it may contain a significant error. The source states: [I]f the cultural determinants of street grooming are as powerful as [Quilliam] believe, we have to ask why only a tiny fraction of the 2.5 million or so South Asian men in Britain, most of whom have been exposed to similar cultural beliefs, do not perpetrate these crimes. (my emphasis). The more I re-read it, I'm convinced that Pitts meant to write: why only a tiny fraction of the 2.5 million or so South Asian men in Britain, most of whom have been exposed to similar cultural beliefs, perpetrate these crimes; the original version does not make sense in its original context. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully uncontroversial edits

I've added the 2016-17 figures for recorded offences in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I've added a sentence - sourced from Full Fact - that the majority of convicted sex offenders are white men. I don't believe these are controversial edits but please revert me if you object. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to provide the recognised categories of child sexual abuse to try and make this article a bit more comprehensive. I hope it's not controversial. Indeed I hope it might be a template to which editors can add even more material. I've placed the Asian grooming-gangs paragraph in the "contact child sexual abuse by group offenders and offending associated with street gangs" category. Neil S. Walker So I hope this is okay. Garageland66 (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see data on breakdown of sexual abuse by ethnic group on the other category. Please stop cherry picking this one item and inserting it. It is not OK, you have been told several times to reach agreement here first. I'm not 100% sure of the relevance of the 'majority are white men' either by the way as this is about the UK, most of the population is white and most child abuse is by males but I will leave that to Neil S. Walker -----Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with the idea of no ethnic breakdowns. To be fair to Garageland66, they didn't add the breakdown; it was added in March 2018 here, and Garageland66's position was that if the Quillam etc material about localised grooming gangs was included, it should be balanced with the "majority" information also. Neil S. Walker (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A rare outbreak of consensus on Wikipedia. Neil S. Walker I don't think there's a problem with including the Asian dimension per se. However, there needs to be a lot more added to outline the complete picture of online grooming, lone predators, paedophile rings and street gangs in order to contextualise the Asian group abuse and to make clear the relative size of the street gang problem. Snowded My inclusion of the Asian dimension in my recent edit was not a case of cherry picking, it was an attempt to gain consensus and to not incur the wrath of Neil S. Walker. I also anticipated that removing it would result in further accusations of edit-warring by Snowded! Lastly, can I suggest that in addition to ethnicity there probably ought to be something on gender; child abuse is an overwhelmingly male problem. Garageland66 (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to understand that if insertion of material is contested you then seek agreement on the talk page before inserting it yet again. You have been edit warring on this as well which should make you extra cautious. If you propose a balanced text HERE, I'm happy to look at it, but the insertion you made was not acceptable; having creating two types of abuse you chose to illustrate one with a cherry picked item relating to a single ethic group. Please address this.-----Snowded ^TALK 11:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Snowded You need to understand that I did not cherry pick the single ethnic group; instead I deliberately left it in, even though I'm not supportive of including it. I left it in precisely because Neil S. Walker had reverted my previous attempts at removing it. In other words, I was trying to avoid edit-warring. This is incredible. Even when I try to be consensual, try not to edit-war and try to improve this page Snowded STILL keeps having a go at me. I despair. Can I suggest there is a better attempt to WP:AGF. Garageland66 (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please address the question as why you want to associate an ethic grouping with one type - its a simple question. You need to address edits within the context of way wikipedia works and stop trying to personalise issues -----Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please try to understand that I don't want to associate an ethic group with one type. Nor do I want to associate an ethnic group with one type. This is getting beyond ridiculous. Go back and read the edits on this page. I was the editor that was trying to challenge the targeting of just one ethnic group. Indeed things have panned out better than I might have ever expected! Yet you, for some reason, keep trying to get at me. I despair of some editors. Snowded it's time to WP:STICK Garageland66 (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me know when you are prepared to answer the question -----Snowded ^TALK 00:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The answer is I don't want to. The clue's in my words above: "I don't want to associate an ethic group with one type. Nor do I want to associate an ethnic group with one type." Now WP:STICK Garageland66 (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)