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

Yes I wonder if she would have left if she'd had space to think properly. I suspect the habit (of their marriage) was too hard to break but she has made unimaginable sacrifices for her and her DS.

Oh but it was just of someone near the age of consent and cat A is just penetrative sex. So it's all ok really.

So said radio 4 reporter last night. It's absolutely sickening that the media still talk about more or less serious child abuse. Like it's on a scale. It's all illegal because it is all child abuse!

And leave very few men on the streets. But wouldn't it be lovely to live in a society where you had confidence that all the men you encountered were not misogynistic, non violent and not child abusers. As it is, unfortunately only about one in 10 aren't.

@Sethera "In whose gift is forgiveness? The children who were abused?"

Excellent point. In going public he is seeking society's forgiveness and in doing so he is looking in the wrong place.

Oh but it was just of someone near the age of consent and cat A is just penetrative sex. So it's all ok really.

This is what gets me, it's still a child being raped and the images sold on the internet.
Do these men have to pay for the images ? How does it work ?

If you have to pay then how can you say you 'stumbled on it'.

@LeavesOnTrees i was saying that in regard to Huw Edwards. I think this guardian article is pretty explicitly about very young children being raped on camera.

I don’t think that imprisoning those who do this provides any guarantee that the men remaining at liberty are not misogynistic!

Also, you said at 10:03 that women don’t find these child abuse images sexually gratifying. Sadly, some do. It’s not an exclusively male problem, although they do make up the overwhelming majority.

I think the minimisation and lies in order to make him somehow less vile annoyed me the most. He absolutely did not ‘stumble upon’ this material- it’s illegal and you have to go out of your way to install dark web software onto to your device to access it (he drops this in later).
Another lie- viewing child abuse is NOT a progression of being addicted to adult porn. The way they peddled that nonsense was ridiculous. How a parent can actually watch this stuff and get off on it makes me feel physically sick.

The wife doesn’t seem to think that it’s not just her son that’s at risk from this creep. After the five years are up is he allowed to attend his child’s school for events etc? Children allowed to go round their house for a play date? Imagine sending your child around to their friend’s house for a movie and dinner, completely oblivious that their dad has a conviction for possessing cat A child porn. Horrifying.

Reflecting further on this, and perhaps reading too much into it, I wondered whether the man never really wanted marriage and family life. He clearly has no respect for his wife, his child appears to be a kind of afterthought for him, and in his self-pity I wonder whether there is resentment about all these people who have a sort of claim on him. The wife strikes me as the kind of woman for whom marriage and family are a kind of achievement - a box to be ticked after university along with a nice house, car, holidays. She has not allowed herself to think deeply about what any of what her husband has done actually means. She loves her child, but not enough to remove him from his father. They both come across as shallow and inadequate in a way that is horrifying because of the context of the article.

I was appalled by it at face value but I also thought, if they divorced would she be forced to let her child spend time with him? If so I wondered if she’s just gritting her teeth and pretending to think all this crap because her child could be less safe if they separated. I’m not sure what the family courts would do about this but I do know they’ve let plenty of children into serious harm’s way against the mother’s pleas and often prioritised mens demands.

If it’s not that, I don’t get it all. I couldn’t look at him. I couldn’t bear to let my child near him. Let alone “work on” being prepared to EVER shag him again! I don’t bloody think so! I also think it’s really irresponsible and dodgy of the Guardian (surprise) to promote this namby-pamby acceptance of paedophilia in a sympathetic-sounding article. They might as well have a headline saying, Oh come on, exploiting sex-trafficked children and being a dangerous pervert isn’t THAT bad, chillax! As PPs say it’s basically normalising it by stealth. Absolutely gross.

Oh and the “nice twist of the knife” bit made my blood boil, I almost can’t even bear to write it down it’s so infuriating. What an ARSE. The only suitable response to being arrested for this vile crime, when you know you did it, is to be totally mortified and apologetic. Not literally depict yourself as the victim because the police didn’t put your precious feelings first. You just know what this twat would be like in an argument

Jumping slightly on this as friends relative was recently arrested and bailed due to his online activities and some supposed images. Exactly the same- plain clothed officers, all devices seized, he was taken for hours to be questioned and his bail states he can’t be along with children. He’s denying having done anything, but do the police normally have a good idea that someone is guilty by this point? Friend is being open minded that it might be a mistake, but reading this article, the lady involved seems to think it’s a pretty cut and dried if it gets to the point of police involvement and arrests. I’m trying to prepare my friend for the reality of the situation.

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.

This does seem to be true, but I don’t understand why. Surely (I’d bloody hope) most people don’t think it’s ok and would be horrified by the thought of it happening to their child. Why would being left-wing make you more forgiving of it? I know there’s a lot of boundary-pushing with the queer agenda and some overlap with fetishes of other kinds, but how can anyone not think paedophilia is an obvious line in the sand?

Glad someone has posted about this here. Read that article on Saturday and was appalled by the content. He was vile and clearly hasn’t taken any kind of responsibility for his actions. She was deluded. And should NOT be working in safeguarding given her judgement is so well and truly screwed. Why he didn’t end up in jail is beyond me. Why she stayed and supported him, ditto. Their poor DS. What a shitshow to grow up in.

@MrsWhattery there's no doubting the family courts are a hellhole and there are lots of examples of child abusing and abusive men being given continued access to their children. There's a documentary on this on Channel 4 which is quite terrifying and I imagine a large majority of parents are put off going there. Perhaps that's the point- "grow up and sort out your issues between yourselves or the family court will hand down a judgment you probably won't like".

However, I don't think that's the case here, as, if it were, I think she would have said so.

She has openly admitted they have cctv in the son's bedroom to protect him from his father (mind boggling just writing that). And she was reaching for every justification she could throw in to explain why she's made the utterly bizarre decisions she has - my parents are ok with it, his parents are ok with it, it wasn't his 'primary' sexual interest, he has promised not to do it again, we've installed cctv, I check his browser history. Oh but she doesn't mummy him, it's about 'accountability' 🤮

Ffs just say it, you have decided to become a parent guardian for a mentally ill manbaby who abuses children and has to be protected from suicide, and to preserve your own comfort (a warped perception of feeling safe in a traditional family set up). And in doing so, you've prioritised that over being a proper parent to your own son.

"The only suitable response to being arrested for this vile crime, when you know you did it, is to be totally mortified and apologetic. "

The only truly suitable response is to end yourself. Ideally before you cause horrific, unimaginable and life long harm to others, but certainly it is the only course of action which demonstrates any level of decency once you've been revealed.

A few PP have made me wonder if the wife is doing all this to be permanently there to stop it happening again (as much as she can) and/or to reduce the risk to her son. Perhaps she sees it as her job to prevent it - if she left he might have time with the son and would likely go back to the same habits.

Not saying that's the best choice or the right thing to do. And of course perhaps it's just easier for her to carry on like this.

I agree that the tone of it is weird and can't decide if it's a deliberate choice to let the paedophile speak his own words and sicken everyone. I doubt it.

The only truly suitable response is to end yourself.

I admit I did think for that to happen would have solved the wife’s problem but I felt bad thinking that.

Sorry OT but what was the boundary pushing in the olympics opening ceremony?

I was thinking about this article and Huw Edwards and Neil Gaiman and the issue of men’s sexual behaviour in general. I find it amazing the things so many men will do for the sake of shallow, purely physical sexual gratification. Why wouldn’t they think “ok I’d get a wank or sex out of that but it’s wrong and would hurt someone so I can go without”? It’s only an orgasm fgs.

Especially if you’re high profile and you know there’s a good chance it will come out and go public - just you know, don’t do it? I’m sure there are men who do restrain themselves but SO many like this bloke just seem to see it as some kind of need to be met however they can. But it’s not. Loads of women don’t get sex whether they want it or not and they have to cope.

i know that’s hopelessly naive but if I had a fetish or desire that would harm someone else if enacted, I’d see it as fair dos to just go without. what goes on in their heads? We’re supposed to be getting a view inside this guy’s head but it’s all “poor me, it escalated”. Where’s the bit where you explain how you considered child torture a reasonable thing to happen so you could get a thrill?

I applaud the Guardian for shining a light on how nicely spoken, polite middle class families get away with stuff that other families wouldn't.

I work in the field and have seen first hand how parents like these minimise and intellectualise online abuse. They know to be nice and compliant with professionals, professionals who let out a sigh of relief because it's so much nicer working with softly spoken Matthew than it is working with that yob over there who will chuck a chair across the room if you say something he doesn't like.

They exploit the class-based affinity bias they have with the workers around them, convincing the workers that they're just like them really. They will use well meaning research papers and data about the importance of support networks to recidivism rates so that they can all pretend the mother, grandparents, employer etc are doing something honourable when all they are doing is sweeping child abuse under the carpet and maintaining their nice middle class status quo with impunity.

Disgusting. And really bad reporting. Shouldn't even be a story. Normalising his behaviour. Making himself, and his family the victim. It's inexcusable.

i know that’s hopelessly naive but if I had a fetish or desire that would harm someone else if enacted, I’d see it as fair dos to just go without. what goes on in their heads?

You know that, as men and therefore the main characters, they're OWED it, right? Tough shit if someone else gets hurt, that doesn't affect them.

They exploit the class-based affinity bias they have with the workers around them, convincing the workers that they're just like them really.

Yes. How funny that the paedophile the Graun allowed to write this article happened to be middle-class and not a white van man type.

His main worry seems to be getting found out of course she knows and can see that he felt disgusted with himself! I only skim read but Oh the excuses and navel gazing, and not a jot about the children, men make me sick and women who carry on supporting them, I knew a couple in a similar situation, she stayed with him too. Sickko men everywhere. Im not a Tommy Robinson fan but I was reading the piece on here where the writer was saying how he exaggerates that these disturbed men are in our homes, of course they are , whenever a man walks in my house now i feel it, sadly since joining Mumsnet Im beginning to see every man as a sickko or a potential abuser, the things I read on here that women say openly about their husbands is just jaw dropping, and I guess they stay for the kids or desperation or that’s pretty much the behaviours most women are programmed to expect from men, or whatever try to change them etc, the men’s behaviour seems to be just the norm and is acceptable. That said I haven’t lived with a man in the household for over 40 years, cannot imaging living with a bloke, just YUK..

Yes when it got to him changing his name and them moving away that’s when I thought “oh come on REALLY?” You can’t both minimise the shit out of what he’’s done as if it was a silly mistake and not something he’d ever do deliberately, AND go along with him basically having to start a new life in disguise and uproot his whole family, lose your dream home and friendship group and end up massively in debt, and convince yourself it wasn’t a big deal. I’m still sorry for her if she feels it’s the only way to keep her child safe but the mental gymnastics is something else. I really hope things change for her and a future without him lies ahead somehow. Because actually I don’t get the feeling she is OK with it at all and those mental gymnastics are what’s helping her cope.