Talk:Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom

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)