It beggars belief that, given the scale of child sexual abuse, in 2010, according to the Ministry of Justice, only 2,135 people were convicted, although police were notified of more than 23,000 offences. Something needs to change. Jimmy Savile’s casual rapacious use of young vulnerable people meant he was called, at one point, the country’s most prolific offender. In truth, he was probably no more prolific than the next lifelong child abuser,
If child abusers commit more than one offence before conviction then obviously the number of people convicted will be smaller than the number of offences.
To conjure some near random numbers from the air. Savile is said to have abused 300. We are told by Yvonne that this is similar to other such offenders. Let us, just for the hell of it, say that “lifelong” is 30 years. Libido does at least slow down for men as they age after all.
That would mean that each such offender was abusing 10 each year. Meaning that just over 2,000 people being convicted neatly takes us to solving, as near as damn it, 23,000 crimes of abuse.
I’m not, BTW claiming that all abusers get caught, nor that all commit 10 offences a year, that there is no problem here etc. Only that, if in one and the same damn paragraph you’re going to claim that abusers abuse multiple people then you cannot, in that same damn paragraph, claim that it beggars belief that fewer people get convicted than there are offences.
I know we’re in the middle of a witch hunt here but please, a touch of logic in the newspapers please? Possibly even some numeracy?