'The knock' shatters lives (Credit: Michael M. Santiago/Getty)
It took two days before Carly Peters found out why she got “the knock”, and when she did, she was physically sick. It’s been two years since Natalie Smith’s knock and still she struggles when her six-year-old daughter asks: “Where’s Daddy?” And when the knock came to Katie White’s door, she took her kids out of school and moved house as fast as she could.
“The knock” is the term given by families to the day the police came for their father, partner, husband, son or brother after being caught downloading indecent — and often violent — images or videos of children or babies. It is a moment when lives change forever, when women realise that the man with whom they have shared their life is actually a stranger, and, in some cases, a monster.
“In an instant, the life you had disappears, and you realise that nothing will ever be the same,” says Katie, a 43-year-old mother of two boys, aged six and eight. “The person you thought you knew, you didn’t know at all. Then the suspicion starts among your neighbours and extended family, because surely you must have known what was going on? Your friends melt away, and your kids’ play dates stop, and the police tell you to be careful of vigilantes attacking your house, and your children ask awkward questions. So, you give up your job and pack up and move, and you end up with nothing.… You lose your home and your friends and your job, and you have damaged children who will grow up without a father. And even though none of it is your fault, you constantly carry round this irrational sense of guilt.”
What happened to Katie happens to scores of families every month. According to the National Police Chiefs’ Council, 35% of homes raided because of online paedophilic activity include children. In 2021/22, there were 10,181 arrests for downloading indecent images of children (IIoC) — an average of 848 each month. That figure has risen from 417 a decade ago. This means that an average of 298 families with children experience the knock each month — almost 10 families a day.
This is a massive, and growing, problem in the UK. The viewing and downloading of child porn is increasing all the time. According to the Internet Watch Foundation, the number of child sex sites found by its experts increased by 1,420% between 2011 and 2020. In 2021, it found 252,000 images of child sexual abuse — up 21% on the year before. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which campaigns and provides help to encourage offenders to stop viewing child abuse content, found that “isolation, unemployment and escalating pornography habits” during the pandemic resulted in more than 165,000 people seeking help via its advisory website in 2021. That was a 107% increase on the year before.
But while the victims of abuse in online images are rightly given help when they can be found, the women and children left behind after the knock receive no special support from the state, whether financial, emotional, educational, psychological or practical. Because even though they become victims of the crime committed by the man in their life, the government doesn’t recognise them as such.
The knock came to the home of Carly Peters, a 59-year-old nurse, at 11am on a winter’s day in 2019. “You never forget it,” she says. “It’s like when people ask where you were when Diana died. For me, it came the day after a lovely evening which my then husband, Matthew, and I had had with my two sons and my daughter from my first marriage, and his daughter from his. We had been together for 11 years and had the perfect life, a great family, no money worries, a beautiful home, all of it.
“The kids — who are all grown up — had stayed over. The last time I saw the man that I thought I knew was at 8:50am that morning. I kissed him goodbye because I was taking one of my sons on an errand. When we got back, Matthew had gone into work — he owns a furniture business — and suddenly there was a knock on the door.
“Two men told me they were police officers and asked if they could come in. They said Matthew had been arrested on suspicion of ‘illegal downloading’. I had no idea what that was. Then they said he had admitted the offence at the showroom — because that’s where the downloading had taken place — and he had told them there was a computer and a hard drive in a bag under our bed. They asked whether I knew anything about that and I said no. My head was spinning.”
The police asked if there was anyone else in the house and Carly said her children were there. Visibly concerned, the officers asked how old the “children” were and she told them: in their late twenties and early thirties. The police relaxed — there were no young children at risk. The siblings were asked to gather in one room and to surrender all their storage devices, laptops, iPads, telephones, memory sticks and so on. So was Carly.
“I asked them what Matthew was supposed to have done, but they said they couldn’t tell me under GDPR [General Data Protection Regulation]. More officers came in and they took my home apart. They searched everywhere and put all our devices into black bags and took them out to unmarked police cars. They weren’t wearing uniforms, but it must have been obvious to the neighbours that something strange was going on.
“Then the most senior officer took me into our bedroom and pulled a bag from under the bed. Matthew had hidden it there. But I still didn’t know what he was supposed to have done… After two hours, they were gone, and we were none the wiser. They said Matthew would be home later, and he would explain everything, but Matthew didn’t come home.” Over the next couple of days, Matthew avoided contact with Carly, her children and his daughter. He went to the home of Carly’s father, where he tried to overdose on the father’s insulin. When that failed, he took an overdose of paracetamol and ended up in hospital.
Carly had no right to be given details of their partner’s alleged crimes unless the partner gave permission. “We had Googled ‘illegal downloading’ and seen that it could be for pirated music or indecent images of children or something else,” says Carly. This is a common problem for families in this situation, and it creates a vacuum in which offenders can lie about, or minimise, their illegal activities. These periods of deception — during which women are sometimes tricked into staying with the offender — can last for up to two years because of unprecedented backlogs in court cases post-pandemic and the time it takes to have devices examined by digital forensics experts.
“A couple of days after his arrest, Matthew told me he had a problem with pornography and it involved children,” says Carly. “I asked him how old, and he said: ‘Between three and 12.’ I’ve been a nurse for many years and so I have a strong constitution, but when he told me about the poor victims in these images, I vomited.” But it took two years for Matthew’s case to be heard at Crown Court. Only then did Carly learn the full extent of his crimes. He pleaded guilty to possessing or making more than 4,000 indecent images of children.
“The ‘making’ of indecent images charge was brought because of the way he had downloaded them and organised them into folders,” she says. “They were in age groups: three to five; six to eight; nine to 12. Most of them were ‘Category A’ images, the most serious, which means full penetrative sex. We’re talking about people having sex with toddlers.”
Matthew was given a two-year suspended prison sentence, and put on the sex offenders register for 10 years. Carly stopped living with Matthew after he told her the bare basics of what he had done, and she has since divorced him. She sold their house, changed her name, gave up her job and moved to a new town. After months of counselling — which she paid for herself because she wasn’t entitled to any special help — she says she is making progress.
Families of online child abuse offenders suffer mentally, physically, socially and financially, according to research conducted by Professor Rachel Armitage and her colleagues at Huddersfield’s Department of Criminology. In 2021, they interviewed 126 family members and friends of offenders. They found that all but 17.5% of interviewees had symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); 70% had symptoms that suggested they ought to have been diagnosed with PTSD, yet only 22 had received formal diagnoses and treatment for it.
The researchers also found that 65% reported symptom levels that were sufficient to suppress their body’s immune system. According to the Impact of Events Scale they used, a score of 35 would merit a diagnosis of PTSD and more than 37 would be high enough to put immune system function at risk. The mean score for offenders’ children was 55.6 and for their wives or partners it was 44.8. One of the women I interviewed said she developed rheumatoid arthritis after her husband was arrested, while her daughter’s hair fell out.
“Some of the respondents referred to experiencing relapses of disorders that were thought to have been resolved in the past — for example, eating disorders — and several also noted that the stress of the discovery had led to them developing physical illnesses such as autoimmune system disorders and irritable bowel syndrome,” the researchers wrote in their findings.
“Participants described how the psychological impacts were exacerbated by the loneliness and isolation of being in this situation where you have little or no access to agency support, where you are unable to disclose the truth to your own family and friends, where you have lost somebody that you love.”
None of the partners and professionals I spoke to was demonstrably critical of police officers who carry out the knock, but they did wonder whether it could be handled more sensitively — in ways that could protect children from the trauma of seeing their father taken away, their homes ripped apart in searches. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on child protection and abuse, Deputy Chief Constable Ian Critchley, says: “The NPCC are aware of and understand the impact policing can have on families where someone has been subject to an arrest involving online child sexual abuse and exploitation. Often there are restrictions on the amount of information which can be provided due to several factors including GDPR, which we acknowledge can be frustrating and upsetting for innocent family members trying to understand why this is happening.” He says the NPCC is working with police forces, researchers and academics to find ways to make the knock and its aftermath less distressing.
During the period between arrest and trial, wives and partners (who, remember, usually don’t know the minutiae of what their man is supposed to have done) must decide whether to allow their children to see their father — usually under the supervision of a responsible adult — or whether to cut ties completely. If they suddenly remove the father, they risk damaging their children’s mental health; if they don’t, they risk being judged negatively by friends and family. Whatever they choose to do, they can’t win.
Katie White discovered this after agreeing that her husband, Bob, a 40-year-old civil servant, could see their two boys under the supervision of Bob’s mother. Within days of the knock, the Children’s Services department of her local authority had turned up, but “once they assess that your children aren’t at risk – because the offender is no longer living in the household – that’s it; they disappear from your life,” says Katie. “You get no help from them. The only time social services get involved is if your husband applies for more access rights or if you want to change the person who supervises his visits.”
Bob was convicted of possessing more than 1,000 indecent images of girls, some aged under eight. “At first, he had told me he might have accidentally clicked on a few images of girls aged 16 or 17,” says Katie. “It wasn’t until his hearing a year later that I found out the truth. I felt sick — lied to, cheated, and utterly disgusted.”
During that time, however, she had agreed to let Bob see their children once a week, supervised by his mother. The children were missing their father – to remove him completely did not seem like the right option. Not everyone agreed. One of her closest friends cut ties with her for allowing Bob to see the boys. After that, Katie, who had already given up her job, sold the family home and moved to a new town. Life was even harder there.
“I made a real effort at the school gates to get to know the other mothers, and fairly quickly I made a lot of acquaintances, but it was hard to make proper friends because I couldn’t afford to let anyone get too close,” she says. “I told them about getting divorced and said I’d moved there for a fresh start. There would be invitations to spa weekends away, or for late nights out and they would say: ‘Why can’t the kids stay with their dad?’. And I would say things like ‘It’s complicated’ or ‘That’s a long story’ but you can only keep batting away questions for so long.”
Eventually, she told three of her new friends about Bob’s offending, but they, too, judged her negatively for allowing her boys to have him in their lives. “One by one, they told me that if this had happened to them, they wouldn’t have allowed their children’s father to see them,” she says. “They didn’t drop me straight away, but they slowly melted away and don’t call any more. Now there’s nobody. I’m isolated in the community, and I feel very lonely.”
Bob re-offended last year. One of the boys wants to cut all ties with him; the other doesn’t. For Katie, this is just the latest in a long line of agonising quandaries that will inevitably see her cast her as villain, either in the eyes of one of her boys, or Bob’s family, or the so-called friends watching from the shadows.
“Every image contains a real child — an innocent victim — being abused, and that heart-breaking fact is never far from my mind,” says Katie. “All I can do is hope that they are identified and given the support they need. But our children need some professional help as well, because this crime has life-long emotional ramifications for them. They are victims of their fathers’ crimes, and they are more vulnerable as a result.”
The Ministry of Justice decides who can legally be described as a victim of crime. Under its “Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales”, also known as the Victim’s Code, the definition is: “A person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss which was directly caused by a criminal offence; or a close relative (or a nominated family spokesperson) of a person whose death was directly caused by a criminal offence”.
Being described as a victim is important as it confers statutory rights. Among these are the right to be kept updated with the investigation and the offender’s court appearances and, crucially, “the right to be referred to services that support victims, which includes the right to contact them directly, and to have your needs assessed so services and support can be tailored to meet your needs”.
Victims also have the right to claim compensation — something that might concern ministers — yet none of the women I interviewed mentioned compensation. Instead, their priority was getting practical and psychological support for their children, at home and at school. Neither they nor their children are currently offered counselling or any other kind of help.
Natalie Smith, a 39-year-old partner in an accountancy firm, says she is struggling with the difficult questions that her daughters, Jane, seven, and Sarah, four, are starting to ask, but she has no access to professional help or advice as to how she should answer them. She got the knock two years ago after a tip-off to the police that her husband, Brad, a 45-year-old businessman, had been sharing images of girls aged under 10 with followers on Twitter.
“After his arrest, I began to feel guilty because maybe I should have noticed something,” Natalie says. “Then you feel guilty for the children your husband was looking at, his first victims. You feel guilty for choosing this man to be the father of your girls, because now they are also his victims. And you feel guilty that this is going to affect them for years to come because they will grow up without a father.”
Natalie immediately moved out of the family home and in with her parents. She is still there, and her husband has no contact with their children. When the girls ask where he is, Natalie wants to answer honestly, but in ways that will not adversely affect them in the long term – she just isn’t sure how to do that. All she has to work with are suggestions from other mothers in an online forum set up by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation.
“Jane came home one day and said there was a boy in her class whose parents didn’t live together, but he still gets to see his daddy,” says Natalie. “She asked why Daddy didn’t come home to us, and so I told her he had looked at something he shouldn’t have looked at and that meant he wasn’t allowed home. Then she asked what he had looked at, and I told her she was too young for me to tell her, but I promised I would when she was old enough. Mothers on the forum say I should give ‘age-appropriate answers’, but I have nobody to ask what is appropriate. Recently, Jane has been asking me to get married again because she wants a daddy. She didn’t say her daddy, just a daddy.”
I asked the Ministry of Justice whether it might attribute victim status to partners and children of IIoC offenders. It replied: “The Victims’ Code stipulates that a victim for the purposes of the Code is ‘a person who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, which was directly caused by a criminal offence’. Therefore, families of offenders are not deemed victims of crime unless they were directly harmed by the offence. There are no plans to change this as it could inadvertently result in victims of crime receiving less support.”
It was a response that disappointed Professor Armitage. “At the very least, under this definition, children of online child sexual abuse offenders should be defined as victims,” she says. But Sarah Champion, the MP for Rotherham and a leading light in the fight against child sexual abuse and trafficking, not least as a result of grooming gangs in her own constituency, is the only Parliamentarian so far to back the calls to acknowledge them as “victims”. “Whenever a close relative is found to commit some of the most heinous crimes, the impact on their family is devastating, and of course they deserve our support,” she says. “But the children of online child abuse offenders become caught up in a complex and unique situation through no fault of their own. I will be doing all I can to get these children the protections and legal recognition they deserve.”
For now, this is where the story ends. This year, hundreds of families will experience the knock and its disastrous consequences — the broken homes, broken relationships and broken children — yet theirs is a dilemma borne of a despicable act that seems too difficult to talk about, too easy to ignore. “We’re a group of people that society would rather not recognise because of the horrible crime that has created us,” says Katie White. “And while I feel there is an acceptance that all of this horror is sure to have damaged my children, it seems that it hasn’t damaged them enough for anyone to care.”
Names have been changed and details withheld to protect children and families.
Steve Boggan is an investigative journalist and former Chief Reporter at The Independent. He is also the author of Follow the Money and Gold Fever.
tendollarguy 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is the most affecting article i’ve read on Unherd. Just in the UK, an average of 10 families a day, every day. Lives shattered beyond repair, and not through accidental causes. Then, those subject to the abuse which creates the downloaded images.
The internet has clearly let loose something within humans, predominantly men of course, that must have lain dormant or been confined to the very fringes of societies until recently. Is there an historical precedent for such activity, on such a scale?
It’s a very difficult subject to even contemplate. The feeling of betrayal; of having lived with, loved, and having enjoyed a sexual relationship with someone whose psyche was fixated on abuse of children. Can we ever truly ‘know’ another person, however close the relationship?
Now that such things are being discussed, and i think rightly so, however difficult – we must all ask: just what is it in the human psyche that precipitates this? Is it the primarily male need to dominate, at whatever cost? Do other animal species abuse their young? It’s no use just shuddereing in disgust, these questions and more need to be faced up to. It’s not a symptom of western social malaise, or global malaise, since it’s always been present, just hidden. The internet has brought it into the open, and i wonder whether we can bear to face up to it. But we must.
You raise some really interesting issues in your comment. Why do humans do this? I suspect, from having read about evolutionary psychiatry, that there are some people who are simply wired to be attracted to children. It has been part of societies all around the globe for as long as we can tell but, as you say, the Internet has really turbocharged it.
I suspect that many who use child porn would not have sought it out prior to the advent of the net. As porn works on our addiction centre, (whatever the technical term is), the brain becomes used to a level of stimulation and requires more and more to get the same level of arousal. Taboos are powerful sexual stimulants and so these people feed their addiction by raising the level of taboo. Had they existed in a different era, a lingerie catalogue would have sufficed.
Every sexual variation and fetish is catered to now. So they go to the transgressive for kicks. I expect they are tortured with shame about it.
I also think that power relations, as you point out, are at play. So much about sex is about power and dominance, as well as for emotional closeness. But power play in sexual fetishes are very popular.
I suspect the Internet has not been such a great idea for the human brain. Desire is flattened by endless choice, mystery has faded, taboos are now normalised. And ok, let’s be sex positive and all that, but I suspect we need boundaries and taboos, not open slather.
I think the proliferation of child porn is a tragedy and a by-product of the drive for instant everything. Personally I think any sort of porn should be much, much harder to access. What we are doing to the brains of kids is appalling and some of us are doing it to their bodies too, and then sending it out to addicted and callous men to w**k over.
These men have a problem. But actually, we all do.
Thanks for your response, with real insights into the mechanisms which drive this activity. Greater understanding of ourselves is the only way forward.
Though a driver of proliferation, the internet – in holding up perhaps the first clear mirror of ourselves – could also take our understanding to a new level. We may just be at the stage of recoiling at the recognition in the mirror.
As you say, sexual abuse of children has lihely always existed. By looking straight into the mirror rather than recoiling, there may be hope.
I’m not so sure the Internet is a clear mirror of humanity. Plenty of people don’t use it, it is dominated by American interests who try to push the free speech line while actually being more interested in exploiting human psychological weakness for money. It is a device that distorts the image of those who look at it too long.
We evolved for small group interaction where communication was holistic and consequences for offence immediate. We saw clearly the hurt we inflicted, even if we chose to ignore it. Now we have trolls and abuse and toddlers being raped and we do not see the consequences of our words and behaviours. We can shut the device down and immediately return to wholesome family life, always compartmentalising, always accessing the gratification but not the consequences. Few men who view this stuff could tolerate being in the same room when it’s being done. But distanced by screens they can.
Or maybe I am too generous. The men who watch real time abuse by untraceable live video are growing in number. Perhaps this predatory sexual abuse is what we are. Slavery was a huge part of the ancient world, still is, albeit criminal. But we do it. We enslave and abuse those lower down our hierarchy. Poor, young, brown or black, female or all of the above. I read of a 4 yr old girl kept in a cage in China and used by men who paid for the pleasure they got from it.
Man is wolf to man.
And we knew that long before the Internet arrived.
Yes, that’s fair. Perhaps i should rephrase my point about the internet.
Although philosophers, writers, artists etc. have pondered on the nature of humanity throughout recorded history, it’s only now that a global awareness which the vast majority can share and become involved in has become available to us. In that respect, it’s a new type of mirror, and it really is only in its infancy.
As such, ‘everyman’ is now being reflected, and whilst the point you make about the distortions of the business model is correct, without these initial stages we can’t reflect upon where it’s taking us and how we might control it to greater effect: a bit like the Wild West.
I should also add that a huge amount of good comes from the internet too, it’s not all doom and gloom. But the kind of reflection of ourselves that i speak of – a kind of overall heightened awareness – is in my view also responsible for much of the Woke phenomenon, as part of the recoil.
Until we learn how to look ourselves in the mirror (any mirror) more clearly, we’ll continue making the same mistakes that comprise the history of humankind to date. But just look at what we’ve achieved along the way!
I was hoping we might be free of the word woke for this discussion, but no, Steve had to throw it in.
I was hoping we might be free of the word woke for this discussion, but no, Steve had to throw it in.
Yes, that’s fair. Perhaps i should rephrase my point about the internet.
Although philosophers, writers, artists etc. have pondered on the nature of humanity throughout recorded history, it’s only now that a global awareness which the vast majority can share and become involved in has become available to us. In that respect, it’s a new type of mirror, and it really is only in its infancy.
As such, ‘everyman’ is now being reflected, and whilst the point you make about the distortions of the business model is correct, without these initial stages we can’t reflect upon where it’s taking us and how we might control it to greater effect: a bit like the Wild West.
I should also add that a huge amount of good comes from the internet too, it’s not all doom and gloom. But the kind of reflection of ourselves that i speak of – a kind of overall heightened awareness – is in my view also responsible for much of the Woke phenomenon, as part of the recoil.
Until we learn how to look ourselves in the mirror (any mirror) more clearly, we’ll continue making the same mistakes that comprise the history of humankind to date. But just look at what we’ve achieved along the way!
I’m not so sure the Internet is a clear mirror of humanity. Plenty of people don’t use it, it is dominated by American interests who try to push the free speech line while actually being more interested in exploiting human psychological weakness for money. It is a device that distorts the image of those who look at it too long.
We evolved for small group interaction where communication was holistic and consequences for offence immediate. We saw clearly the hurt we inflicted, even if we chose to ignore it. Now we have trolls and abuse and toddlers being raped and we do not see the consequences of our words and behaviours. We can shut the device down and immediately return to wholesome family life, always compartmentalising, always accessing the gratification but not the consequences. Few men who view this stuff could tolerate being in the same room when it’s being done. But distanced by screens they can.
Or maybe I am too generous. The men who watch real time abuse by untraceable live video are growing in number. Perhaps this predatory sexual abuse is what we are. Slavery was a huge part of the ancient world, still is, albeit criminal. But we do it. We enslave and abuse those lower down our hierarchy. Poor, young, brown or black, female or all of the above. I read of a 4 yr old girl kept in a cage in China and used by men who paid for the pleasure they got from it.
Man is wolf to man.
And we knew that long before the Internet arrived.
Why do they do it?
Adult human female sexual characteristics are based on neoteny.
The physical attractiveness of women to men and the natural help, support and protection that men provide for women is very much dependent of the features that neoteny creates.
Abnormal desire in men is an extreme expression of their natural proclivities.
That is very insulting to men.
It’s scientific fact.
I encourage everyone to research it for themselves.
Karen Straughan has an informative video on YouTube with the title Neoteny!
Karen Straughan has an informative video on YouTube with the title Neoteny!
It’s scientific fact.
I encourage everyone to research it for themselves.
That’s speculation not fact.
That is very insulting to men.
That’s speculation not fact.
Now we don’t, speak for yourself, please.
Thanks for your response, with real insights into the mechanisms which drive this activity. Greater understanding of ourselves is the only way forward.
Though a driver of proliferation, the internet – in holding up perhaps the first clear mirror of ourselves – could also take our understanding to a new level. We may just be at the stage of recoiling at the recognition in the mirror.
As you say, sexual abuse of children has lihely always existed. By looking straight into the mirror rather than recoiling, there may be hope.
Why do they do it?
Adult human female sexual characteristics are based on neoteny.
The physical attractiveness of women to men and the natural help, support and protection that men provide for women is very much dependent of the features that neoteny creates.
Abnormal desire in men is an extreme expression of their natural proclivities.
Now we don’t, speak for yourself, please.
What of the minds of the thousands of people who legally sift through the millions of these images? Police officers and other agency staff whose full-time job is to scrutinise the confiscated devices. Are any strict psychometric tests used to screen and select those specialised investigators? What specific training is given for such a harrowing job? Can healthy minds be corrupted and if so can rehabilitation be given? And then there are courts; judges, lawyers, juries, journalists, etc exposed to the trauma of extreme disgust.
Great point.The ripples from this aspect of the internet (of ourselves) spread ever outwards.
This article, and discussion, are also a counter-ripple, however small as yet. But the fact this can openly be discussed is, i feel, a significant attempt towards an understanding of our humanity.
Or a step towards a better understanding of man’s inhumanity to man.
Or a step towards a better understanding of man’s inhumanity to man.
You mind find this answers your questions: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-police-officers-battling-online-child-abuse-there-are-things-you-cant-unsee-r2xzmg3r8
My brother is a policeman who is on a sex offender supervisor team. Some of the stories he hears are horrific.
But, he says for the first time in years (he’s been in the police over 20 years) he actually feels like he’s doing something to protect the community, which is what he joined for, and I think that helps him to cope with what he has to deal with.
Your brother is a hero. Tell him THANK YOU from a survivor of child sexual abuse.
Your brother is a hero. Tell him THANK YOU from a survivor of child sexual abuse.
My brother is a policeman who is on a sex offender supervisor team. Some of the stories he hears are horrific.
But, he says for the first time in years (he’s been in the police over 20 years) he actually feels like he’s doing something to protect the community, which is what he joined for, and I think that helps him to cope with what he has to deal with.
There are articles and interviews with these people out there online. I’ve read some. Sifting through this material takes a terrible toll on those paid to do it. Even seeing a wholesome picture of a father embracing his kids can be triggering after so long. They generally don’t last long in that job.
Actually there are many judges who are into child pornography as there are pedaphile pedatricians, teachers, priests etc. So, yes, one wonders what qualifications the legal viewers of pornograpy have, and why they would want to do it.
Great point.The ripples from this aspect of the internet (of ourselves) spread ever outwards.
This article, and discussion, are also a counter-ripple, however small as yet. But the fact this can openly be discussed is, i feel, a significant attempt towards an understanding of our humanity.
You mind find this answers your questions: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-police-officers-battling-online-child-abuse-there-are-things-you-cant-unsee-r2xzmg3r8
There are articles and interviews with these people out there online. I’ve read some. Sifting through this material takes a terrible toll on those paid to do it. Even seeing a wholesome picture of a father embracing his kids can be triggering after so long. They generally don’t last long in that job.
Actually there are many judges who are into child pornography as there are pedaphile pedatricians, teachers, priests etc. So, yes, one wonders what qualifications the legal viewers of pornograpy have, and why they would want to do it.
4 or 5 years ago I was listening to a barrister talking about his career on Radio 5. The interviewer finished by asking him what was the biggest change he had seen in 25 year at the Bar.
He responded the huge increase in sexual offences. He said that when he started out as a barrister he would have to defend the very occasional criminal offence, but it had reached the point where the largest number of criminal offences of any category coming before the courts were sexual offences.
I suspect that’s because more sexual offences are being prosecuted and there’s more of us.
I suspect that’s because more sexual offences are being prosecuted and there’s more of us.
You have said everything I was thinking as I read this article, so i won’t repeat it. But what the hell is this epidemic of child pornography all about. So many questions, and as you say it must have been there all along.
You raise some really interesting issues in your comment. Why do humans do this? I suspect, from having read about evolutionary psychiatry, that there are some people who are simply wired to be attracted to children. It has been part of societies all around the globe for as long as we can tell but, as you say, the Internet has really turbocharged it.
I suspect that many who use child porn would not have sought it out prior to the advent of the net. As porn works on our addiction centre, (whatever the technical term is), the brain becomes used to a level of stimulation and requires more and more to get the same level of arousal. Taboos are powerful sexual stimulants and so these people feed their addiction by raising the level of taboo. Had they existed in a different era, a lingerie catalogue would have sufficed.
Every sexual variation and fetish is catered to now. So they go to the transgressive for kicks. I expect they are tortured with shame about it.
I also think that power relations, as you point out, are at play. So much about sex is about power and dominance, as well as for emotional closeness. But power play in sexual fetishes are very popular.
I suspect the Internet has not been such a great idea for the human brain. Desire is flattened by endless choice, mystery has faded, taboos are now normalised. And ok, let’s be sex positive and all that, but I suspect we need boundaries and taboos, not open slather.
I think the proliferation of child porn is a tragedy and a by-product of the drive for instant everything. Personally I think any sort of porn should be much, much harder to access. What we are doing to the brains of kids is appalling and some of us are doing it to their bodies too, and then sending it out to addicted and callous men to w**k over.
These men have a problem. But actually, we all do.
What of the minds of the thousands of people who legally sift through the millions of these images? Police officers and other agency staff whose full-time job is to scrutinise the confiscated devices. Are any strict psychometric tests used to screen and select those specialised investigators? What specific training is given for such a harrowing job? Can healthy minds be corrupted and if so can rehabilitation be given? And then there are courts; judges, lawyers, juries, journalists, etc exposed to the trauma of extreme disgust.
4 or 5 years ago I was listening to a barrister talking about his career on Radio 5. The interviewer finished by asking him what was the biggest change he had seen in 25 year at the Bar.
He responded the huge increase in sexual offences. He said that when he started out as a barrister he would have to defend the very occasional criminal offence, but it had reached the point where the largest number of criminal offences of any category coming before the courts were sexual offences.
You have said everything I was thinking as I read this article, so i won’t repeat it. But what the hell is this epidemic of child pornography all about. So many questions, and as you say it must have been there all along.
This is the most affecting article i’ve read on Unherd. Just in the UK, an average of 10 families a day, every day. Lives shattered beyond repair, and not through accidental causes. Then, those subject to the abuse which creates the downloaded images.
The internet has clearly let loose something within humans, predominantly men of course, that must have lain dormant or been confined to the very fringes of societies until recently. Is there an historical precedent for such activity, on such a scale?
It’s a very difficult subject to even contemplate. The feeling of betrayal; of having lived with, loved, and having enjoyed a sexual relationship with someone whose psyche was fixated on abuse of children. Can we ever truly ‘know’ another person, however close the relationship?
Now that such things are being discussed, and i think rightly so, however difficult – we must all ask: just what is it in the human psyche that precipitates this? Is it the primarily male need to dominate, at whatever cost? Do other animal species abuse their young? It’s no use just shuddereing in disgust, these questions and more need to be faced up to. It’s not a symptom of western social malaise, or global malaise, since it’s always been present, just hidden. The internet has brought it into the open, and i wonder whether we can bear to face up to it. But we must.
One of the many things I find so worrying about all this, is the sheer number of men looking at this stuff. In the past of course these images didn’t exist in any significant volume (yes, I know, Lewis Carol) but with the internet as a distribution system par excellence, supply seems to have created demand.
One of the many things I find so worrying about all this, is the sheer number of men looking at this stuff. In the past of course these images didn’t exist in any significant volume (yes, I know, Lewis Carol) but with the internet as a distribution system par excellence, supply seems to have created demand.
This article raises all sorts of moral questions about human behaviour. Why is it not a criminal offence to watch videos of beheadings and other lethal and violent incidents? Clearly we regularly view fake violence in films and TV dramas – would it be acceptable to watch CGI child porn where no real children were harmed? Would such viewing lead to actual child abuse or would it substitute for it and become a harmless outlet for a base obsession?
Indulging in secret obsession tends to be destructive of any relationship. A friend of my son’s broke up with her boyfriend because he could not conquer a gambling addiction and consistently lied about it. Unlike the wife of a child porn addict she could talk about it and receive sympathy. Much of the destructive effects on the partners of child porn addicts seems to arise because they can’t talk about it and receive a sympathetic hearing. The destruction of trust is similar in both cases. Is this a problem of the reaction of people to the wives of porn addicts?
Most of us are disgusted by child porn and yet many of the taboos of the past that caused disgust such as homosexuality, sadism and masochism have become acceptable and indeed celebrated.
Terrible things happen in life are we all to be entitled to victim status and publicly financed victim support? I certainly don’t have easy answers to such questions but perhaps they need considering.
You just compared homosexuality to child porn, sadism, and masochism.
Do you understand the difference between child rape images and homosexuality? Can you explain the difference? I hope so.
Sadism and masochism involve the sexualization of violence. Can you see the difference between that and child rape images? Can you see how there might be overlap between the two? Are some taboos necessary for a healthy society?
Can you see the difference between a gambling addiction and an addiction to images of child rape?
Would CGI images of child rape lower a pedophile’s inhibitions or enforce those inhibitions? I’m guessing the former.
Would you feel safe having your child taught by a teacher who watches CGI child porn? Why or why not?
Men who enjoy watching images of child rape are extremely dangerous – and so are men who enjoy watching images of people being beheaded. I think those images should be banned from the internet and I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who enjoyed watching those videos – especially if they masturbated to them.
Our priority should always be to protect the vulnerable, not those who prey upon them.
Protect the kids. Lock up those who prey upon them. No child’s safety should ever be sacrificed to protect the freedom of a grown man.
Penny, I am a man of my time and I know you to be a survivor of childhood sexual abuse so you will certainly not find me defending child porn.
However, what disgusts and appalls is not fixed and different times have had different approaches. Few would today support the hanging of two men for an “act too horrible to speak of” only 190 years ago. Today that act is celebrated with multicoloured flags in the streets. Most of us are rightly appalled that men could be hanged for it just a few generations ago. Child prostitution involving girls of 12 and 13 was rife in late Victorian England and it required William Stead to publicise this so that the legal age of consent was raised in 1885 from 13 to 16. I suspect most in Victorian times would have been more shocked by a gay father than one consorting with 13 year old girls.
What concerns me most is the failure of the police on an international level to concentrate their fire on those involved in the production of the original images. How often do we hear of savage sentences being meted out to the originators of these images – the real abusers and rapists – as opposed to those who merely view them like the perverted voyeurs of beheadings? The argument that viewing child pornography perpetuates it would be more compelling if all these knocks actually diminished the supply. It seems that too often the efforts are concentrated on individual consumers rather than the pernicious originators of child porn. In the article none of the wives whose whole life is torn apart by the knock actually suggests that their husband has in fact sexually interfered with their children. Is there research as to whether child porn viewers do in fact invariably go on to commit offences against their or other children?
Will future generations view our approach to consumers of child porn as the most effective and humane way of dealing with the production of child pornography or consider it to be as perverse as we consider our forebears approach to child prostitution and homosexuality.
Penny, I am a man of my time and I know you to be a survivor of childhood sexual abuse so you will certainly not find me defending child porn.
However, what disgusts and appalls is not fixed and different times have had different approaches. Few would today support the hanging of two men for an “act too horrible to speak of” only 190 years ago. Today that act is celebrated with multicoloured flags in the streets. Most of us are rightly appalled that men could be hanged for it just a few generations ago. Child prostitution involving girls of 12 and 13 was rife in late Victorian England and it required William Stead to publicise this so that the legal age of consent was raised in 1885 from 13 to 16. I suspect most in Victorian times would have been more shocked by a gay father than one consorting with 13 year old girls.
What concerns me most is the failure of the police on an international level to concentrate their fire on those involved in the production of the original images. How often do we hear of savage sentences being meted out to the originators of these images – the real abusers and rapists – as opposed to those who merely view them like the perverted voyeurs of beheadings? The argument that viewing child pornography perpetuates it would be more compelling if all these knocks actually diminished the supply. It seems that too often the efforts are concentrated on individual consumers rather than the pernicious originators of child porn. In the article none of the wives whose whole life is torn apart by the knock actually suggests that their husband has in fact sexually interfered with their children. Is there research as to whether child porn viewers do in fact invariably go on to commit offences against their or other children?
Will future generations view our approach to consumers of child porn as the most effective and humane way of dealing with the production of child pornography or consider it to be as perverse as we consider our forebears approach to child prostitution and homosexuality.
” … many of the taboos of the past that caused disgust …” were also illegal back then: making some taboo activity legal might be celebrated by its participants but still causes disgust to the rest of us.
My thought as I read the article was that support groups like that for grief might be helpful for the families of child pornography abusers.
You just compared homosexuality to child porn, sadism, and masochism.
Do you understand the difference between child rape images and homosexuality? Can you explain the difference? I hope so.
Sadism and masochism involve the sexualization of violence. Can you see the difference between that and child rape images? Can you see how there might be overlap between the two? Are some taboos necessary for a healthy society?
Can you see the difference between a gambling addiction and an addiction to images of child rape?
Would CGI images of child rape lower a pedophile’s inhibitions or enforce those inhibitions? I’m guessing the former.
Would you feel safe having your child taught by a teacher who watches CGI child porn? Why or why not?
Men who enjoy watching images of child rape are extremely dangerous – and so are men who enjoy watching images of people being beheaded. I think those images should be banned from the internet and I would seriously question the sanity of anyone who enjoyed watching those videos – especially if they masturbated to them.
Our priority should always be to protect the vulnerable, not those who prey upon them.
Protect the kids. Lock up those who prey upon them. No child’s safety should ever be sacrificed to protect the freedom of a grown man.
” … many of the taboos of the past that caused disgust …” were also illegal back then: making some taboo activity legal might be celebrated by its participants but still causes disgust to the rest of us.
My thought as I read the article was that support groups like that for grief might be helpful for the families of child pornography abusers.
This article raises all sorts of moral questions about human behaviour. Why is it not a criminal offence to watch videos of beheadings and other lethal and violent incidents? Clearly we regularly view fake violence in films and TV dramas – would it be acceptable to watch CGI child porn where no real children were harmed? Would such viewing lead to actual child abuse or would it substitute for it and become a harmless outlet for a base obsession?
Indulging in secret obsession tends to be destructive of any relationship. A friend of my son’s broke up with her boyfriend because he could not conquer a gambling addiction and consistently lied about it. Unlike the wife of a child porn addict she could talk about it and receive sympathy. Much of the destructive effects on the partners of child porn addicts seems to arise because they can’t talk about it and receive a sympathetic hearing. The destruction of trust is similar in both cases. Is this a problem of the reaction of people to the wives of porn addicts?
Most of us are disgusted by child porn and yet many of the taboos of the past that caused disgust such as homosexuality, sadism and masochism have become acceptable and indeed celebrated.
Terrible things happen in life are we all to be entitled to victim status and publicly financed victim support? I certainly don’t have easy answers to such questions but perhaps they need considering.
“Bob re-offended last year”
How was he free to re-offend, one wonders?
The Sex Offender’s Register is not fit for purpose.
People who enjoy watching the abuse of children should be removed from society forever.
The only thing that makes me pause is the possibility of miscarriages of justice. It’s easy to imagine evidence being planted, to bring down an enemy of the state, or just a personal enemy.
I agree 100%. But children are powerless so law makers who seek power don’t care enough to truly protect them.
That line jumps off the page. I took it to mean that he had once again looked at illegal pictures. Hard to believe the police can prevent an offender from gaining access to the internet’s dark corners. They would need to constantly monitor his computer, phone, and library access. (Do internet cafes still exist?)
Well that’s a risk when any crime is prosecuted
I agree 100%. But children are powerless so law makers who seek power don’t care enough to truly protect them.
That line jumps off the page. I took it to mean that he had once again looked at illegal pictures. Hard to believe the police can prevent an offender from gaining access to the internet’s dark corners. They would need to constantly monitor his computer, phone, and library access. (Do internet cafes still exist?)
Well that’s a risk when any crime is prosecuted
“Bob re-offended last year”
How was he free to re-offend, one wonders?
The Sex Offender’s Register is not fit for purpose.
People who enjoy watching the abuse of children should be removed from society forever.
The only thing that makes me pause is the possibility of miscarriages of justice. It’s easy to imagine evidence being planted, to bring down an enemy of the state, or just a personal enemy.
I am glad to see this article raising the profile of the suffering caused to partners and families of sex offenders. There is another area of offending which is increasingly being pursued by the police and that is historic abuse. The knock can come 40 or 50 years after the event, an event which took place before the offender and his current partner had even met. Teenage boys can sometimes do incredibly stupid and utterly wrong things with a younger family member. It is recognised that young people are not fully neurologically developed until their mid twenties and often the offence is not repeated in adulthood and the teenager becomes a kind and loving partner and father. Nevertheless, society requires that such offences are punished with the result that the partners and family are punished as well.
Partners of an offender in this situation are devastated. A whole married or co-habiting life: 20, 30 40 years becomes meaningless. It is impossible to create a new future for the reasons explained in the article but in particular, where the knock comes when you are in your 60s, there is no time left in your life to turn anything around. There are financial issues too. Crown Prosecution costs and defence costs run to tens of thousands and the partner’s resources are taken into account even though they are also victims.
How can you decide whether to remain with someone you have loved and cared for for decades in such desperately stressful circumstances? And what are the emotional, practical and financial consequences of separating?
This cannot be the best solution for the victim either. All that happens is that more victims are created. You cannot pile the blame for all the misery that follows onto the shoulders of an 18 year old boy who is effectively long gone. As a society we need to think about better ways of addressing this that recognise the needs of everyone concerned. Why not, in suitable circumstances, some kind mediation that enables the victim to hear the remorse of the offender, provides for the offender to agree to appropriate measures being taken for example, to have no contact with the victim but pay for the cost of therapy for the victim, and gives everyone a chance for some kind of life after the knock?
I don’t get the thing about teenage boys doing “stupid” things with younger family members. Sounds like minimizing something very creepy.
I don’t get the thing about teenage boys doing “stupid” things with younger family members. Sounds like minimizing something very creepy.
I am glad to see this article raising the profile of the suffering caused to partners and families of sex offenders. There is another area of offending which is increasingly being pursued by the police and that is historic abuse. The knock can come 40 or 50 years after the event, an event which took place before the offender and his current partner had even met. Teenage boys can sometimes do incredibly stupid and utterly wrong things with a younger family member. It is recognised that young people are not fully neurologically developed until their mid twenties and often the offence is not repeated in adulthood and the teenager becomes a kind and loving partner and father. Nevertheless, society requires that such offences are punished with the result that the partners and family are punished as well.
Partners of an offender in this situation are devastated. A whole married or co-habiting life: 20, 30 40 years becomes meaningless. It is impossible to create a new future for the reasons explained in the article but in particular, where the knock comes when you are in your 60s, there is no time left in your life to turn anything around. There are financial issues too. Crown Prosecution costs and defence costs run to tens of thousands and the partner’s resources are taken into account even though they are also victims.
How can you decide whether to remain with someone you have loved and cared for for decades in such desperately stressful circumstances? And what are the emotional, practical and financial consequences of separating?
This cannot be the best solution for the victim either. All that happens is that more victims are created. You cannot pile the blame for all the misery that follows onto the shoulders of an 18 year old boy who is effectively long gone. As a society we need to think about better ways of addressing this that recognise the needs of everyone concerned. Why not, in suitable circumstances, some kind mediation that enables the victim to hear the remorse of the offender, provides for the offender to agree to appropriate measures being taken for example, to have no contact with the victim but pay for the cost of therapy for the victim, and gives everyone a chance for some kind of life after the knock?
This was so sad – my heart goes out to these women and their children.
This was so sad – my heart goes out to these women and their children.
What a painful, deeply depressing read, utterly tragic. Through no fault of their own, the mother’s and children’s lives are torn apart in unimaginable ways. They have my full sympathy and I can imagine almost no greater betrayal than this to suffer. Tainted by the sins of those you think you know.
As much as many porn-purveyors will deny it, this abomination begins with a porn addiction. That’s the first stop on your way to ending up with a knock on your door and your life torn apart.
It seems like a large chuck of the British population are pedophiles
It seems like a large chuck of the British population are pedophiles
These women do need and deserve support. However, I don’t think I could maintain a friendship with a woman who gave her pedophile ex husband access to her small children. I would sincerely doubt her sanity and sense of responsibility.
That’s too simplistic. Children love their parents and can have no conception of the flaws which revile other adults. How do you explain to small children that you are are forbidding them from seeing a father they love when you can’t explain why? These women are in an impossible dilemma, no wonder they are so lonely when they get this kind of reaction if they are honest.
I am not defending these offenders, but many of them seem to be able to compartmentalise to the extent that they are loving decent fathers to their own children. The Internet allows them to distance themselves from the abominable crimes being committed upon other people’s children. It ‘s not logical or clearly supportable but it is possible to understand this. Our revulsion stops enough public discussion for them to suppress what they must know to be true, that these are real children being exploited and damaged.
I think that you are on to something when you say that these men are able to distance themselves via the internet; perhaps without thde ‘net they may never have been involved. Another negative aspect of the internet, for all the positive uses I still wonder if the negatives out-weigh them. If only we could put the genie back into the bottle.
That’s a really good point – these women really are in a very tricky situation. I also think you’re right about the internet distancing the viewer from the crime. I think it is unlikely that most of the men who view this stuff would ever act it out in real life – but the authorities need to act, as they can’t know who will or will not offend in real life. I also think that a substantial portion of them had those desires ‘woken up’ by general porn watching – after a while the endless vanilla does not excite so much and so more extreme images are required for the same dopamine hit.
I think that you are on to something when you say that these men are able to distance themselves via the internet; perhaps without thde ‘net they may never have been involved. Another negative aspect of the internet, for all the positive uses I still wonder if the negatives out-weigh them. If only we could put the genie back into the bottle.
That’s a really good point – these women really are in a very tricky situation. I also think you’re right about the internet distancing the viewer from the crime. I think it is unlikely that most of the men who view this stuff would ever act it out in real life – but the authorities need to act, as they can’t know who will or will not offend in real life. I also think that a substantial portion of them had those desires ‘woken up’ by general porn watching – after a while the endless vanilla does not excite so much and so more extreme images are required for the same dopamine hit.
That’s too simplistic. Children love their parents and can have no conception of the flaws which revile other adults. How do you explain to small children that you are are forbidding them from seeing a father they love when you can’t explain why? These women are in an impossible dilemma, no wonder they are so lonely when they get this kind of reaction if they are honest.
I am not defending these offenders, but many of them seem to be able to compartmentalise to the extent that they are loving decent fathers to their own children. The Internet allows them to distance themselves from the abominable crimes being committed upon other people’s children. It ‘s not logical or clearly supportable but it is possible to understand this. Our revulsion stops enough public discussion for them to suppress what they must know to be true, that these are real children being exploited and damaged.
These women do need and deserve support. However, I don’t think I could maintain a friendship with a woman who gave her pedophile ex husband access to her small children. I would sincerely doubt her sanity and sense of responsibility.