Thats it in a nutshell.....as well as being at the heart of whats most wrong with human society....

Back to the old nature or nurture debate....if any of us could be bothered anymore....

Sometimes it seems, the only appropriate response is to hit them a box in the mouth....

I just can't see those percentages as reasonable. Is their definition wide or something. Is it skewed in some way. Between myself and siblings and cousins we make up 10. Or of 30 in my national school class 3 would suffer abuse. There surely is a sampling bias.

I would argue that statistically your siblings and cousins make up a much to concentrated pool, but that your national school may not. If we have learnt anything from the jimmy saville and Rolf Harris cases in addition to the above report, is that these people do things time and time again to a wide group of people once they are given access. Your siblings would have pretty much have had the same people access allowed, and your cousins not to dissimilar. But with your national school group, there would be a much wider group of people who would have been allowed access to you. So your 3 people I national school may be true, but there is very little way of you knowing.

As an aside, it's very hard to 100% remove sampling bias from a survey! And when people say that 1000 survey participants is enough to give +-3% accuracy, that's dependent on removing sampling bias. But a size of 3k people should give a decent accuracy, even with some element of bias contained in the sampling methodology.

I doubt even that 10% of altar boys who served in the 70s and 80s suffered abuse. I was never an altar boy btw.

Anecdotal but a professional in this area backed up the widespread claim to me recently (loosely and without figures). They also said that overly focussing on certain occupations (e.g. priests, Media) was too narrow and maybe blinding the public to seeing cases.

I don't know, but the article notes that the NSPCC found a similar rate in a follow-up survey a decade later. I suppose the difference could be between one-off incidents versus sustained abuse? Certainly when I was young I met multiple creepy guys who tried to get me to go somewhere with them. I was warned early by my parents to avoid this, but maybe not everyone's parents were so careful? And these creeps must've had families or extended families among whom the kids would be more trusting.
I was also given a lot of freedom to roam at an early age, but maybe that's something that's changed more recently and kids just don't meet strangers because they're never any distance from the home by themselves.

The truth is abusers will likely focus on children from weak and vulnerable backgrounds.

I grew up as a teachers son in a family, and that would immediately mean any potential abuser would steer well clear. Also growing up in the country where communities are stronger makes it harder for an abuser to operate. (Anecdotally, I've heard stories of paedophiles told to leave an area at gunpoint!).

In a big town or city, where one or both parents may have substance abuse issues, non close ties to neighbours, and little or no supervision, then abusers are able to operate unchecked. But the worst cases were always those around orphanages or care homes, where the child had no parent to reach out to. There was a reason creeps like Saville hung around hospitals and orphanages.

What I'm basically getting at is the average pinster may well have had a safe upbringing like I did, so the numbers of friends and acquaintances I/We know who suffered abuse is likely to be quite low. It's when you look at those less fortunate in society the numbers likely increase significantly.

While your and my family may have had no abuse in it. The family down the road may have. I knew of a family (a big family) down the road from me growing up whose father abused them (the girls) and then as a grandfather did the same. My wife's mates family have a similar story.

From stories I've heard families where the Patriarch has alcohol/substance abuse issues are at greater risk.

Media ‘gagged over bid to report MP child sex cases’ - -> http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014 ... abuse-ring

Not surprised at this outcome - seemed a flimsy case from the start. Hard to undo the damage done to him at this late stage. (He still lives in Clonakility, as far as I know.)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... urt-battle
The acclaimed folk musician Roy Harper has expressed anger and sorrow over a three-year battle to clear his name of allegations of historical sexual abuse. Earlier this year a jury cleared Harper, 74, of claims that he sexually abused an 11-year-old girl in the 1970s and indecently assaulted a 16-year-old girl in 1980. But it failed to reach verdicts on other charges relating to the 11-year-old and he faced a retrial. Finally, prosecutors at Worcester crown court offered no evidence on these charges on Monday.
Outside the court, Harper said he had always maintained his innocence. He said: “I have now been acquitted on all the charges that were brought. This case should never have gone as far as this, or taken so long to resolve. “The psychological and personal cost to my wife and myself has been enormous and the financial cost hugely unfair. I lost my livelihood and I spent my savings ... and more, on my defence.

Outrageous, disgraceful treatment of Cliff Richard...case now closed but the damage has been done.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36546038
Singer Sir Cliff Richard will face no further action over allegations of historical sex abuse, prosecutors say.
Sir Cliff said he was "obviously thrilled that the vile accusations and the resulting investigation have finally been brought to a close".
"I have always maintained my innocence, cooperated fully with the investigation, and cannot understand why it has taken so long to get to this point."
He criticised the "high-profile fumbling of my case from day one."
"Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged," Sir Cliff said. "I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'." He added: "Ever since the highly-publicised and BBC-filmed raid on my home I have chosen not to speak publicly.
"Even though I was under pressure to 'speak out', other than to state my innocence, which was easy for me to do as I have never molested anyone in my life, I chose to remain silent."
Last year an independent investigation concluded that South Yorkshire Police should not have released "highly confidential" information to the BBC about a planned search of Sir Cliff Richard's home.

Has he a case against South Yorkshire Police ?

Despite the daily shocking pedo story on the evening news of historic abuse in some poor family in Ireland .I'm still suspicious of the 1 in 10 figure. If it's concentrated in particular families, if you have no siblings who were abused you must have a lower risk ?

Convicted child rapist worked for BBC as chauffeur.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ne ... ro-8435411