Of course the "what-if" argument falls flat on its face because we can always go further to create more safety, and if you first use that argument you need to justify why you stop just there.
E.g. why is terror getting this level of attention vs. child murder, which in terms of numbers of victims is a far bigger problem?
By the "what if" logic, these people ought to be prepared to go far in curtailing privacy to get at child abuse given the magnitude of the problem compared to terror.
We know how to profile the likely perpetrators very well too. The vast majority of such crimes are carried out by a few very specific groups of people, namely dads, brothers and other close male family members.
Surely if the - on average - few terror deaths are worth these types of sacrifices, the many hundred child murders and thousands upon thousands of abuse victims would justify far more extensive curtailment of privacy?
It quickly becomes very clear that the "what if" argument is rationalisation: if harm reduction was as important to them as they like to imply, they would not be spending their attention on terror.
What the "anti-terror crowd" need to be made to answer when they ask for more rights is what makes terrorism different, and why are they not spending their energy on the many problems that have far more serious effects.
My information comes from an extensive NSPCC survey, but I don't think the two contradict each other - the question is the exact definition of abuse that is being used and I should have looked it up and been more precise about that.
Without going back and digging up the exact NSPCC survey, the article you in to appears to take into account a much wider set of criteria, though it's hard to say since it doesn't state its definition either and I couldn't find its source. The wording does also seem to imply that it is looking at reported cases as opposed to use a survey, which would give different numbers.
In terms of type of abuse you consider, it will drastically shift the balance. E.g. for sexual abuse the numbers are completely dominated by male family members. Once you add in violence it shifts a lot, and other neglect will likely shift it further if for no other reason than simply because women are still more likely to be the primary carer.
Of course in any case it doesn't alter the main point.
E.g. why is terror getting this level of attention vs. child murder, which in terms of numbers of victims is a far bigger problem?
By the "what if" logic, these people ought to be prepared to go far in curtailing privacy to get at child abuse given the magnitude of the problem compared to terror.
We know how to profile the likely perpetrators very well too. The vast majority of such crimes are carried out by a few very specific groups of people, namely dads, brothers and other close male family members.
Surely if the - on average - few terror deaths are worth these types of sacrifices, the many hundred child murders and thousands upon thousands of abuse victims would justify far more extensive curtailment of privacy?
It quickly becomes very clear that the "what if" argument is rationalisation: if harm reduction was as important to them as they like to imply, they would not be spending their attention on terror.
What the "anti-terror crowd" need to be made to answer when they ask for more rights is what makes terrorism different, and why are they not spending their energy on the many problems that have far more serious effects.