What did I just read in The Guardian?? (tw: child abuse)

[AnnunciataM]

Is it just me or is this article a bit too sympathetic towards a man who was found guilty of viewing images of child sexual abuse? The man in question doesn't seem to have much remorse - he is angry that the police made him tell his wife why he was arrested (calling it a 'nice twist of the knife'), moans that people might think he's dangerous (wonder why?) and his wife actually decided to take him back and make a go of things. They don't seem to have given much thought to the real victims here.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/article/2024/jul/27/husband-viewing-child-abuse-images

Poor poor Matthew. Quite.

it doesn’t say if this woman lost her job in safeguarding but would seem not.

absolutely abhorrent.

Seems that they had a pretty crap marriage prior to him getting caught but still they stay together. It’s a shame that in these circumstances she can’t be forced to leave him. He gets everything he wants and she gets nothing. He should have been locked up for much longer which may have given her a chance to properly get away from him.

"I knew this behaviour didn’t necessarily come from a primary sexual interest in children, but could reflect a porn addiction"

Phew! What a relief it isn't his primary sexual interest. Well that's alright then. I'll just play porn police for the rest of my life, monitor his behaviour online, and never leave him alone with our son. When we have sex, I'll always wonder what he's fantasizing about, but that's okay. It's all about pleasing him anyway. My whole life is dedicated to his "recovery" from his "addiction" because that's what mommys, I
mean wives, do. Me? My needs? Why on earth would I have needs?

🤮

Almost certain that the only reason she stayed in the marriage is because they have a son and not a daughter. He was probably caught with images of young girls and that's why she doesn't feel quite as threatened. Utterly repulsive.

Thing is, its probably a gateway to a actually going on to abuse. Theres a lot of pressure on women - mothers and wives - to take back their paedo sons and partners.

He oont do it again because he knows now that it would be a "bad idea"!!! It was a total and utterly dpressing and mind boggling read.

There is a lot of normalisation of paedophilia in the left - look at Eric Joyce the Labour MP who watched child sex abuse videos but got let off with a caution.
Remember Harriet Harman MP who was a big part of PIE in the 70’s.

We’re both secondary victims.

What? The wife, yes, but not the perpetrator; or does she mean their son - it's not clear.

I’m shocked that he just got a community order.
Children are abused specifically because of debauched and lubricious humans like him.

However it doesn’t surprise me that his dw is staying with him, he will have groomed her and her family.
That’s what these people do.

@Lacdulancelot i think the wife is entirely accountablE for her decision to stay.

I read this yesterday and felt a bit sick. I don't care that she stayed with him etc. She's made her choices (although she's also made choices for her child, let's hope that was the right call, because he's innocent).

But in that article there's next to no focus on the actual victims, the children in those images. Not from him or her. Or in any kind of commentary from the paper.

I disagree that pornography is a gateway to viewing child abuse that's just an excuse they use. It's completely different. Also I wonder if the parents and wife would have been so supportive if they had actually viewed the catagory A videos he was wanking off too because they are torture and rape of babies and children I think they have massively minimised this. His wife should be ashamed of herself for not getting shot of him straight away. Every abuse image viewed is an innocent baby or child being violated In the worst way possible he was enjoying that. By viewing this they are creating more demand for it hence more children suffer. They are the lowest of the low.

That was quite a shocking read - when she said ‘we are both secondary victims’ I’m sure she was referring to herself and her husband. And how dare he refer to the court process as dehumanising. He is obviously a deeply selfish person: asking his wife tell his parents what he’d done!

Absolutely disgusting. To say she works in safeguarding - I almost find her worse than him. She’s just excused it all away. If my DH had done the same I would be seeing a solicitor the same day.

It's telling that she speaks of supportive her parents were of him and of her staying with him. I bet they instilled in her the belief that she should stand behind her husband no matter what.
However, that doesn't excuse it, as she's a grown woman who could choose to reject their conditioning. Giving him excuses like "porn addiction" and "stress" is sickening.

I don't think she would change her mind if she saw it. She's built up a boatload of rationalizations to excuse him that would probably stand even if he was viewing snuff porn.

Reminds me a bit of Ched Evans' wife "standing by her man" when he was convicted of rape, and her dad setting up some sort of fundraiser for him.

Yes, agree 100%, was disgusted reading how he minimised what he’d done and paying lip service to acknowledging the impact on the victims as an afterthought. I thought it was a very strange article for the Guardian to publish. For balance they really should have included the views of a victim of CSA.

I don't know the case, but that's gross and infuriating.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5128902-what-does-mn-think-of-how-this-turned-out-tw?page=6&reply=137120411

There's another thread on this.

Absolutely sickening.
Regarding the wife's parents, they were shocked and against their daughter staying with him at the start. I wondered if they've remained involved to keep an eye on their grandson.

As for video monitoring their son just in case, I have no words.

I'm glad I saw this thread because I was disgusted by that article. How can anyone be happy to have their child around a paedophile let alone someone who works in safeguarding! Terrifying.

The bit that got me was when he claimed he hadn’t thought at all about the fact that viewing this stuff was re-victimising the child (he never uses the word child). How can you look at this stuff and not think about what a child was put through in the first place to obtain this material. It smacks of a lack of contrition to me. You go on a dog walk to avoid eating that piece of cake not to stop you from accessing illegal stuff.

He disgust me and frankly she disgusts me to. That man is not a secondary victim, he is propping up the CSE industry with his actions. How honest has he been “well sweetie I just really enjoy watching children be tortured” because thats what he was buying.

Piece of shit, the guardian is trash these days.

I am not remotely surprised he got a non-custodial sentence, that’s the outcome in the vast majority of these cases - or at least it was in the area where I worked. I don’t agree that the wife was groomed either. Women faced with this situation stay for all manner of reasons, even with full knowledge of what’s happened.

There's a family in my neighbourhood and some of the neighbours found out the man is a convicted pedophile who served time in prison for grooming children online. Yet he has a wife and three children. The other neighbours and I can't understand how the wife can have stayed with him and actually don't have a lot of sympathy for her. She chose to take him back into the house when she has children to protect. None of the neighbours have said anything to the man as we don't want to make life difficult for the now teenage children, but none of us speak to him or make eye contact if we walk past him in the street. We all feel he should have stayed the hell away from his wife and children upon release and let them go on to make a decent life for themselves without him.

I see Huw Edwards has been charged with making indecent images of children now. Seems this article was strangely prescient, in a way.