Dear Merseyside Police,

1a. Please provide the number of arrests you made in 2019/20 regarding online sexual offences of any kind related to children.

1b. Please provide a breakdown of all the sexual offences associated with these arrests:

e.g. section 8 of SOA 2003 [insert number]; section 10 of SOA 2003 [insert number]; section 12 of SOA 2003 [insert number] section 14 of SOA 2003 [insert number]; and section 15 of SOA [insert number]; section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 [insert number].

1c. Please specify the number of these arrests that involved at least one child decoy. By 'child decoy' I am referring to an adult who pretends to be a child.

2. Please provide the number of arrests you made in 2019/20 in connection with online sexual offences against children based on evidence acquired by your own officers acting as decoys.

3. Please provide the number of arrests you made in 2019/20 in connection with online sexual offences against children based on evidence provided to you by so-called paedophile hunters.

4. Please provide the names of all so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information to you that led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual offences against children in 2019/20.

Yours faithfully,

D Moore

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

Although every effort will be made to ensure a response is provided within
statutory deadlines, due to current circumstances delays may be
unavoidable. We apologise for any inconvenience and will endeavour to
process your request as quickly as is practicable.

 

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

D. Moore left an annotation ()

Joe Purshouse (School of Law, University of East Anglia) has written a paper that seriously questions the activities of so-called paedophile hunters. It is titled: "'Paedophile Hunters’, Criminal Procedure, and Fundamental Human Rights".

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full...

"The muted response of the police, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and domestic courts to paedophile hunters is failing to deter their criminality. The article ends with suggestions for reappraisal of existing legal doctrines, law reform, and more rigorous enforcement to control and, in some cases, deter paedophile hunting."

J Roberts left an annotation ()

I see the article by Joe Purshouse was first published on 17th June 2020, a month before the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the case of someone caught by 'paedophile hunters' :

[2020] UKSC 32

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2020...

See comment dated 15 July 2020:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Story from the Independent:

"‘Paedophile hunters’ do not violate right to privacy, Supreme Court rules as convict's appeal dismissed"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr...

Predator Closure - Liverpool

Suspect admitted straightaway to speaking to under-age children. The decoy was aged 14. He said it was 'stupid' to send a picture of his anotomy to the decoy and it was alleged that he asked for pictures of the decoy's intimate parts. He admitted to receivng indecent images of children in the past. He said he changed his mind about meeting the child. He said that he was a foster carer.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gyeL8JX8X...

Predator Closure - Liverpool

Suspect allegedly turned up to meet what he believed to be a girl who had just turned 14. He allegedly asked the decoy for pictures and allegedly expressed an interest in 'tight leggings'. When it was put to him that he offered to take the decoy to a fast food restaurant before she moved to another part of the county he replied: 'What's wrong with that'.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/YnpczfesZ...

Save Our Children

St. Helens man aged 44 with 6 kids allegedly turned up to meet what he thought was a 14-year-old girl for sex. He brought with him a McDonald's meal the 'girl' had asked for, complete with strawberry milkshake. He allegedly was very interested in her underwear.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gEbD0XNCh...

More videos can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...

D. Moore left an annotation ()

"'Paedophile hunter' evidence used to charge 150 suspects" (2017)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43...

"Strategic review of Police Scotland’s response to online child sexual abuse" (February 2020)

“Almost half of the online grooming cases emanate from the activities of online child abuse activist groups (vigilante groups), who are unregulated and untrained. A more robust proactive capability on the part of Police Scotland would reduce the opportunities for these groups to operate.” (page 5)

https://www.hmics.scot/sites/default/fil...

BBC Radio 4 programme The Untold goes on a "sting" with Leeds-based hunting group Predator Exposure:

"Six of the group went on trial accused of charges including false imprisonment and common assault. They were all found not guilty and emerged from Leeds Crown Court vowing to step up the work that they do."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000hv9p

See the group in action:

https://youtu.be/_gfRmagvltk

Useful information provided by South Yorkshire Police from the Force Disclosure Log:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

Radio 4's File on 4 dealt with the issue of female sex offenders in "Women Who Abuse":

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000rcq5

The programme highlighted the case of a female groomer who was jailed in 2018. Details of her crime are available on the UK Database:

https://uk-database.net/2018/03/22/debor...

Thirty-six police forces responded to FOI requests (5th minute). The responses revealed that between 2015-19:

- there were over 10,400 reports of women sexually abusing children

- Over 5,400 reports concerned children aged 11-17

- around 3,800 reports involved children under 11

(some forces didn't provide information on ages)

A FOI request was also sent to the Disclosure and Barring Service. I have requested a copy of the response received:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/f...

"There is evidence more female abusers are being flagged when applying for jobs with children or vulnerable adults than are being reported to the police."

The programme also referred to research by Dr Andrea Darling, who wrote this article on female teachers who abuse pupils:

https://theconversation.com/understandin...

J Roberts left an annotation ()

CPS legal guidance regarding paedophile hunters (July 2020). Paedophile hunting groups are referred to formally as online child abuse activist groups (OCAGs):

'The term OCAGs in this context refers to individuals or groups of individuals who are members of the public using on-line activity to uncover or "catch" alleged paedophiles involved in on-line child sexual abuse or interested in meeting children for the purpose of such abuse. A wide range activity may fall under this umbrella term...'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/on...

'Police are encouraged to seek early investigative advice (EIA) in all OCAG cases using the EIA process available in each CPS area. This will assist officers to address any complex evidential issues, to focus their investigation and to bring to an early conclusion cases which are unlikely to meet the required evidential standard.'

Recently published Home Office report titled 'Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy'.

'This ground-breaking Strategy sets out the Government’s ambition to prevent, tackle and respond to all forms of child sexual abuse.

5. Our goal is to ensure there are no safe spaces online for offenders to abuse and exploit children. Across the NCA, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), National Cyber Force (NCF) and wider law enforcement, the Home Office will invest in the development of new technological capabilities to bring more technically sophisticated offenders to justice and help our partners identify and safeguard more victims and survivors. This includes enhancing the use of the UK’s world-leading Child Abuse Image Database (CAID).'

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

1 Attachment

Dear  Mr. Moore,

 

Response - FOIA Application - DJ 2020 - 0006 MERPOL (please quote in all
correspondence)

 

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by Merseyside Police.

 

I note that you seek access to the following information:

 

(Paraphrased): Statistical information relating to sexual offences
committed using the internet in relation to children.

 

Following receipt for your request searches were conducted within the
Merseyside Police to locate information relevant to your request. I can
confirm that some of the information that you requested is held by
Merseyside Police.

 

 

The searches located some records relevant to your request.

 

Decision.

 

I have today been authorised by the senior decision maker in this case,
the PNC & Data Access Manager, to:

 

Disclose information related to your requests numbered 1(a), 1(b) and 3,
in full;

 

and

 

Fully exempt information related to your requests numbered 1(c), 2 and 4,
pursuant to the provisions of section 23,30, 31 & 40,Freedom of
Information Act 2000 as indicated in the response table.

 

Your request for information, in relation to the exempt information, has
been considered and Merseyside Police is not obliged to supply the
information that you have requested.

 

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) States that fact,

(b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and

(c) States (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

In respect of the requests, where appropriate, under the duty in section
16 of the Act, the duty to be helpful, I have provided information, shown
as additional information or in the response section which I believe will
be of assistance to you.

 

Please find attached information relating to your request in the schedule
above.

  

Making a complaint or an appeal

 

Your attention is drawn to the sheet attached below which details your
rights of complaint.

 

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or e-mail me, on the below address, quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours faithfully

 

D Jackson

Disclosure Analyst

Merseyside Police

Data Access Unit

PO BOX 59

LIVERPOOL L69 1JD

Fax: 0151 777 1677

E-mail:  [Merseyside Police request email]

 

Schedule(s) of disclosed information:      Attached at top of e-mail

  

 

show quoted sections

Dear Merseyside Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Merseyside Police's handling of my FOI request 'Paedophile hunters and online grooming'.

Thank you for the helpful information that you provided. I am not satisfied, however, with your response to my fourth request:

'4. Please provide the names of all so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information to you that led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual offences against children in 2019/20.'

You engaged sections 30(1) (a) and (2) (a) (i) of the FOIA to withold disclosure.

The information I seek relates to no specific incident or incidents and the groups concerned are not confidential sources. In fact, they livestream their activities on Facebook for the whole world to see. For example:

Liverpool - Predator Closure

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gyeL8JX8X...

Liverpool - Catching Online Predators

https://www.bitchute.com/video/9eE0QTvq8...

Liverpool - Safeguarding Kids Online

https://www.bitchute.com/video/cBgl7RXHZ...

Liverpool - Net Justice

https://www.bitchute.com/video/DwYyYluWf...

Liverpool - Shadow Hunters UK

https://www.bitchute.com/video/tHpdXNYrB...

St Helens - Save Our Children

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gEbD0XNCh...

St Helens - Elite Predator Interceptors

https://www.bitchute.com/video/gZmr0ENgE...

St Helens - Children's Warriors

https://www.bitchute.com/video/XcMDQIuf8...

These are not sources that need protecting.

I contend that you have not properly considered the public interest test. The above groups are in the public domain and therefore are not sources that need protecting.

Another reason for disclosing the names of these groups is that their activities have been criticised by the authorities. Consider, for example, this report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland titled 'Strategic review of Police Scotland’s response to online child sexual abuse':

https://www.hmics.scot/sites/default/fil...

'Almost half of the online grooming cases emanate from the activities of online child abuse activist groups (vigilante groups), who are unregulated and untrained. A more robust proactive capability on the part of Police Scotland would reduce the opportunities for these groups to operate.' (page 5)

If the public knew the names of these groups, then they would know that they are 'unregulated' and 'untrained'. As things stand, the public may believe that such groups are an arm of the state and consequently approach them rather than the police for assistance. The personal details of suspects, and in some cases children, would then be disseminated to groups deemed unregulated and untrained.

The public, I contend, has a right to know the names of the groups who publicise their activities and from whom 'almost half of the online grooming cases emanate'. A BBC story from 2018 also highlighted the significance of such groups in England:

'Evidence from so-called paedophile hunter groups was used to charge suspects at least 150 times last year, a BBC investigation has found.

A Freedom of Information request, sent to every police force in England and Wales, showed a seven-fold increase in the use of such evidence from 2015.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43...

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,

D. Moore

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Your email to the Merseyside Police Freedom of Information (FOI) in box is
acknowledged.

 

If it contains an initial (new) request under FOI it will be dealt with in
accordance with section 10 of the Act which means that you are entitled to
receive a response no later than 20 working days after the first working
day* on which your request is received.

 

Other arrangements may apply if a fees notice is issued or if the time
period is extended in order that public interest considerations of our
response may take place. Section 10 also allows public authorities to
apply variations to the normal 20 working day timescale in some limited
circumstances.

 

Due to the volume of e-mail correspondence and FOI applications received,
the Force regrets that individual acknowledgement e-mails will not be sent
even if specifically requested.

 

If the correspondence cannot be dealt with as FOI, it will be forwarded
internally and you will be advised of the location. Any related
communication must be direct to the identified location and not the FOI
e-mail address.

 

*The ‘working day’ is defined as any day other than a Saturday, a Sunday,
Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday under the
Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.
The first reckonable day is the working day after the working day of
receipt.

Although every effort will be made to ensure a response is provided within
statutory deadlines, due to current circumstances delays may be
unavoidable. We apologise for any inconvenience and will endeavour to
process your request as quickly as is practicable.

 

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Internal Review reference; DJ 2021 – 0136.

 

 

Dear Mr. Moore,

 

I acknowledge receipt of your email received requesting that Merseyside
Police review its response to your request for information concerning:

 

FOI application registered as DJ 2021 – 0006, response at application
number 4.

 

I understand that you have raised a query regarding '4. Please provide the
names of all so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information
to you that led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual
offences against children in 2019/20.'

 

An internal review will be undertaken surrounding our FOI response - this
will be considered independently by the Information Governance Manager.
The review will be conducted in accordance with the Merseyside Police
review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you
no later than the 2^nd March 2021, (20 working days from receipt of
internal review request, as advocated by the ICO).

 

However, if it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this
date you will be contacted.

 

Although every effort will be made to ensure a response is provided within
statutory deadlines, due to current circumstances delays may be
unavoidable.  In such a case, the Force offers an apology for any
inconvenience and will endeavour to process your request as quickly as is
practicable. The Information Commissioner has recognised that the current
situation may cause delay in being able to provide FOI applications within
the statutory time scales.

 

Please see:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

D. Jackson

Disclosure Analyst

Merseyside Police

Data Access Unit

PO Box 59

LIVERPOOL

L69 1JD

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Internal Review reference; DJ 2021 – 0136.

 

 

Dear Mr. Moore,

 

I refer to your e-mail requesting that Merseyside Police review its
response to your request for information concerning:

 

FOI application registered as DJ 2021 – 0006, response at application
number 4.

 

I understand that you have raised a query regarding '4. Please provide the
names of all so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information
to you that led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual
offences against children in 2019/20.'

 

An internal review is  be undertaken surrounding our FOI response - this
will be considered independently by the Information Governance Manager.
The review is being conducted in accordance with the Merseyside Police
review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you
no later than the 31st March 2021, as it has not been possible for the
review to be completed by the 20^th working day.

 

You will be contacted as soon as practicable with the result of the
internal review. The Force offers an apology for any inconvenience caused
by this delay.

 

The Information Commissioner has recognised that the current situation may
cause delay in being able to provide FOI applications within the statutory
time scales.

 

Please see:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

D. Jackson

Disclosure Analyst

Merseyside Police

Data Access Unit

PO Box 59

LIVERPOOL

L69 1JD

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

Freedom Of Information, Merseyside Police

Internal Review reference; DJ 2021 – 0251.

 

 

Dear Mr. Moore,

 

I refer to your request for an internal review of the application numbered
DJ 2021-0006, which when acknowledged was inadvertently identified as the
internal review reference IB 2021 – 0136. On behalf of the Force I offer
an a policy for that administrative error and confirm the correct
reference number is as shown above IB 2021 – 0251.

 

Your request was for an internal review as shown below:

 

FOI application registered as DJ 2021 – 0006, response at application
number 4.

 

I understand that you have raised a query regarding '4. Please provide the
names of all so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information
to you that led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual
offences against children in 2019/20.'

 

I have been requested by the Internal Review officer to inform you that he
has been unable to complete the internal review and will not be able to
provide the response until early April after the Easter Public Holidays.
An apology for this delay is offered and it is appreciated that
inconvenience may have been caused by the delay.

 

 

Although every effort will be made to ensure a response is provided within
statutory deadlines, due to current circumstances delays may be
unavoidable.  In such a case, the Force offers an apology for any
inconvenience and will endeavour to process your request as quickly as is
practicable. The Information Commissioner has recognised that the current
situation may cause delay in being able to provide FOI applications within
the statutory time scales.

 

Please see:
[1]https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

DJackson

 

D. Jackson

Disclosure Analyst

Merseyside Police

Data Access Unit

PO Box 59

LIVERPOOL

L69 1JD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-an...

Boyham Ian Frank, Merseyside Police

6 Attachments

Good morning,

 

Further to the Disclosure Analyst’s email of 05/02/21 acknowledging
receipt of your request for Merseyside Police to conduct an internal
review of your Freedom of Information, I confirm that I have completed my
review. Please accept my apologies for the delayed response.

 

You requested: (summary) a review of '4. Please provide the names of all
so-called paedophile hunting groups who provided information to you that
led to the arrest of individuals in connection with sexual offences
against children in 2019/20.'

 

Decision

I have decided to uphold the original decision. Please see attached
Response Table.

 

Section 17, Freedom of Information Act, 2000, requires Merseyside Police,
when refusing to provide such information (because the information is
exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a) states that fact,

(b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and

(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

Complainant Rights:

Should you disagree with this decision you have a further right of appeal
to the Information Commissioner the contact details for whom are below.

 

The Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

More information is available from the Information Commissioner's website

[1]http://www.ico.org.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ian.

 

 

Ian Boyham
Information Assurance Coordinator
CSD Information Security

Direct Line Tel: +441517778317
Mobile Tel: +447966651121
Email: [email address]
Website: [2]www.merseyside.police.uk

[3][IMG]    [4][IMG]    [5][IMG]    [6][IMG]   

P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this
email?

For more information about the use and disclosure of personal data, see
our [7]privacy notice

============================================================
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender as soon
as possible. This footnote confirms that all reasonable steps have been
taken to ensure that this email message has been swept for the presence of
computer viruses. The views expressed in this communication may not
necessarily be the views of Merseyside Police. All communications,
including telephone calls and electronic messages to and from Merseyside
Police may be subject to monitoring and recording.
============================================================

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.org.uk/
2. http://www.merseyside.police.uk/
3. https://www.facebook.com/merseypolice
4. https://twitter.com/merseypolice
5. https://www.youtube.com/merseysidepolice
6. https://www.instagram.com/merseysidepolice
7. https://www.merseyside.police.uk/hyg/fpn...

D. Moore left an annotation ()

ICO contacted

D. Moore left an annotation ()

Useful information:

Home Office counting rules - sexual offences (effective from April 2021)

'Sexual grooming

General Rule: One crime for each child.

Examples

1: A 60 year old male posted photographs of his teenage son on internet chat rooms and posed as his son. Following frequent internet chats with two 13 year old girls he encouraged them to travel to a London Station to meet him for sex.
Two crimes (class 88/1-88A).

2: A sports coach arranges for his 14 year old star pupil to meet up for a winter training week in Spain with him. He is arrested at Heathrow in possession of condoms and lubricants which he admits were for a sexual use on his star pupil.

One crime (class 88/1 –88A

'Principal Crime Example: see General Rules Section F and Annex C.

If a person has sexual activity with a child following grooming, record the substantive sexual offence only. A 40 year old male posted photographs of his teenage son on internet chat rooms and posed as his son. Following frequent internet chats with two 13 year old girls he encouraged them to travel to a London Station to meet him for sex. He has sexual intercourse with one of them and is arrested meeting the other girl.

One crime (class22/12 -22B) and one crime (class 88/1 -88A).'

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk...

BBC News (13/5/21)

'The body overseeing criminal sentences in England and Wales is proposing treating paedophiles who are caught in stings the same as abusers who harm real children.'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57095465

Impact Assessment, The Home Office
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Sex offender management (g/h pages 6-7/16-19/24-25/31-34/49-59/75-76/80)

Information on polygraphs (49)

'Government intervention is necessary to address this gap in criminal law and ensure that those that arrange or facilitate child sex offences targeting children under the age of 13 are sentenced considering the additional vulnerability of the intended victims.'

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bi...

D. Moore left an annotation ()

'Your complaint has been accepted as eligible for further consideration and will be allocated to a case officer as soon as possible.

....

Cases are currently being allocated in around four-six months.'

J Roberts left an annotation ()

You may be interested in this:

'National Police Chiefs’ Council Responding to Online Child Abuse Activists

2.2 Analysis of incidents of activism has revealed a mixed picture. Some activist groups have amended their mode of operation such that they pass packages of information to the police without having real world contact with the person suspected of offending behaviour. Whilst this is a positive development many groups continue to insist on carrying out a physical intervention and only notify the police post or concurrent to the event. This is less desirable for reasons that have been previously articulated. There is an increased prevalence of direct criminality where purported activists have no intention to notify the police but use the opportunity of an encounter to extort or rob.

2.3 The complex, nuanced and often overlapping nature of activism and volunteering make it difficult to be prescriptive as to the approach to be taken. It is not legally practicable for policing to develop memoranda of understanding or protocol of operation with activists without risking claims of abuse of process. Where the state is seen to circumvent statutory regulation by sub-contracting work to public volunteers it is highly likely that criminal prosecution will be stayed.'

https://www.npcc.police.uk/2019%20FOI/NP...