They mean specific, illegal files that law enforcement has already identified, catalogued, and verified as Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM).

The images are logged in police databases, like the UK's Child Abuse Image Database (CAID), and are tracked using a "hash" (a unique digital fingerprint or code). If police software or monitoring tools detect a file that matches a known hash, it immediately flags the activity.

I would say so yes.

Unfortunately, I've found through this forum as well as with my own experience that these men will lie and lie and continue to lie. Then they appear to come up with all sorts of excuses as to why they had these images. Many on this forum seem to believe the excuses.

I don't. I personally don't believe there is any reason for anyone to have or to have viewed indecent images of children. There really should be no distinction between sexually abusing a child and watching/viewing a child being sexually abused.

There's a big difference between reasons and excuses, the majority here aren't 'believing excuses' but acknowledging reasons behind offending. Also internet based offences are different from contact offences, as hard as that may be to accept

Have a look in the 'understanding why' section, there's a lot of research out there, also the Inform course is really helpful in understanding why people can offend in this way. There are lots of factors involved, and it's not always a clear cut 'sexual interest in children'.

Whatever people need to believe in order to cope I suppose.

'Cope', wow I wish I was. It's very hurtful to dismiss those trying to educate themselves with the facts, that they are somehow minimising the absolutely ****ing awful situation they find themselves in, by no fault of their own.

This is minimisation. These individuals knowingly watched children being abused, often over prolonged periods, while maintaining the appearance of respectable family lives. They concealed their offending until they were caught, and only then attempted to shift responsibility by blaming factors such as “porn addiction” or other excuses.



Many, like the original posters OH, are not taking accountability for the seriousness of what they did. Instead, they minimise their actions or outright misrepresent them. The responsibility for these choices remains entirely with them.

I hope you realise what comments like yours does to people who are literally trying to survive. Thanks for making my day worse.

It's my opinion. This is a forum for everyone to put their thoughts and opinions forward surely?

Edited to add: I am also surviving this situation that I had no part in making. You're comment trying to make me out to be a bad person for voicing very real thoughts, which many others also feel, is invalidating them also.

You're telling me I am minimising a situation for learning reasons behind online offending? That's not an opinion, it's a judgement. The Inform course highlights many risk factors for online sexual offending. This is not the same as minimising or excusing, you must be able to see that? The idea that every single person who has an IIOC conviction is a paedophile and is therefore a risk of contact offending (which a lot of people think) is just not correct. That's not my opinion, it's based on numerous studies. You're giving your judgements (opinions?) as fact, that's the issue I have.

Please re read my responses. I've never stated them as fact nor judgements. Simply personal opinion.

Its the offenders themselves who make our days worse, not someone posting an opinion on a forum.

Re porn addiction, literally millions of men in the contemporary UK are frequent compulsive porn users and / or participants in online sex chat, users of online sex workers etc. Most aren't systematically accessing IIOC. The danger of the 'porn addiction' label for us spouses is that we all so desperately want to believe it, because the alternative is so much worse. If you believe this forum 99% of the men caught are 'porn addicts who went down a rabbit hole' and I AM sceptical about that, I must admit! If a man's caught with a significant amount of paedophilic material acquired over a decent period of time, then it seems entirely logical to assume he's a paedophile. But that's obviously just a painful thing to contemplate and I worry that it's just so tempting to nod in agreement when the man starts on about 'porn addiction'. And of course its extremely extremely tempting for the men themselves - who on earth wants to self-identify as a paedophile?

In response to your question about "porn addiction" and your partner saying he had one, it's possible he used that explanation to minimise his behaviour, or it may have been something suggested or discussed during the police investigation. We simply don't know, and it's difficult to take these explanations at face value.

I agree with the previous poster. However, I haven't labelled everyone who views indecent images of children as a paedophile. Do I believe that everyone who looks at these images is a paedophile? I'm not certain. Do I believe they have a sexual interest in children? Yes, I do.

Personally, I see "porn addiction" as an excuse that can minimise personal responsibility. Millions of people view adult pornography every day, both men and women. I've viewed pornography myself, but I have never accidentally come across indecent images of children or extreme material. In my view, this content is actively sought out. I wouldn't even know where to find it, yet these men have located it through deliberate searches. More importantly, after seeing it, rather than being horrified,stopping and self reporting, many continue searching for increasingly graphic material. That isn't something I can easily dismiss as simply a consequence of watching too much adult pornography.

I'm not trying to upset or judge anyone. When I first found this forum, I was genuinely surprised by how many women had stayed with and openly supported their partners. From my perspective, it often seemed that blame was being placed on the police, social workers, or other agencies, rather than on the individual whose actions led to the situation. I appreciate that everyone copes differently, but I do feel that my own response is in the minority. I ended my relationship immediately and have refused any contact between my former partner and our young children.

I've never felt judged by the people who know about my circumstances or the decisions I've made, but it's clear that many members here do feel judged, and continue to experience that. What I struggle to understand is that if you've researched the issue, made an informed decision, and accepted your partner's explanation for their offending, then I would have thought you would also feel more confident in that decision. Many posts mention hiding the offending from friends and family. If those people are reasonable and open to discussion, could you not explain the research and reasoning behind your decision?

Rather than so much emphasis being placed on understanding, researching, and rehabilitating offenders, I think there should be far greater focus on the people who have been harmed. The primary victims are, of course, the children who were abused to create these images. Beyond them, there are also secondary victims—partners, children, and families whose lives are turned upside down by these offences.

To me, this reflects a patriarchal pattern in society: we instinctively ask how we can understand and rehabilitate the men who have caused harm, while the children they exploited and the families left to deal with the aftermath receive comparatively little attention.

Dear Forum Users,

Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts so openly on this subject – I can really hear the strength of feeling on different sides, and it’s clear that people are coming at this from a place of care and concern.

It also feels important to acknowledge that some users may be experiencing strong emotions as part of this discussion. Given the nature of the topic, and the harm and hurt that many individuals and families have experienced, these feelings are understandable. Creating space to recognise these emotions, while also supporting respectful dialogue, is an important part of conversations like this.

It feels important to acknowledge that there isn’t a single “right” perspective here. Some of you are highlighting the importance of accountability, responsibility, and the impact of harm, while others are emphasising understanding, support, and the complexities that can sit behind someone’s behaviour. Both of these viewpoints matter, and they’re not necessarily in opposition – they can sit alongside each other.

It’s also important to recognise that individuals may engage in online sexual offending behaviour for a range of underlying reasons and pathways. For some, this may be associated with problematic or compulsive use of pornography, where patterns of use escalate over time and become increasingly difficult to regulate. It can also relate to factors such as loneliness, unmet emotional needs, curiosity, poor decision-making, or difficult life circumstances. For some individuals, there may also be aspects of sexual interest that require careful acknowledgement, clear boundaries, and appropriate support to ensure risk is managed safely. In many cases, it’s not just one factor but a combination of influences over time, alongside opportunity and access to technology. This does not excuse the harm caused or lessen its impact, but it helps explain why a one-size-fits-all response is often not effective when it comes to reducing risk and supporting change.

More broadly, offending behaviour is often complex and cannot be understood in simple or binary terms. Individuals may experience internal conflict, minimise or insufficiently recognise the impact of their behaviour, or struggle to regulate thoughts, emotions, and actions effectively. Patterns of secrecy, shame, and avoidance can further reinforce behaviour and delay help-seeking. Engaging with this complexity can feel uncomfortable, but it’s an important part of understanding both harm and how it can be prevented.

I’m also mindful that for some, this topic can connect closely to personal experiences or values, which can make discussions feel particularly charged. It’s completely understandable that people might respond differently as a result.

From an Inform programme perspective, we try to hold a space that recognises harm and its impact, while also focusing on reducing risk and supporting positive change. That balance can feel difficult at times, but it’s a key part of the work.

Please continue to contribute thoughtfully, even where there are differences in opinion. Being able to have these conversations respectfully is important, as it helps create a space where people can reflect, challenge, and learn from each other. As the discussion continues, I’d encourage everyone to keep engaging with curiosity and respect - recognising differing views, avoiding personal judgements, and helping to maintain a safe and supportive space for all.

If this discussion has brought anything up for you, please take care of yourself and don’t hesitate to reach out for support. You can continue to connect with others here on the forum, speak to someone you trust, or access support through the Stop It Now helpline (0808 1000 900) and resources, which are available if you need to talk things through.



The Forum Team

Framing rehabilitation as if it is done out of compassion for the offender, is to misunderstand what the process is trying to achieve.

The research done by criminologists, into why men do this, always has one focus and that is preventing further offending. They want to know why the men do it, so they can stop them, or other men, doing it in the future. It is to stop the creation of further victims.

A lot of work was done in the early days, to see if there was a link between viewing these images and going on to commit contact offences. All of the research was concentrated on that one question. Again, it was all about preventing future victims. The conclusion of all that research was that most of these men, though not all, would not commit contact offences.

So it was always victim focussed. But what also came out of the research was something else and that was the connection between porn addiction, mental health and very often childhood trauma. The current estimates, by Lucy Faithful themselves I believe, are that around 75 to 80% of the men are porn addicts and about 20 to 25% can accurately be described as the p word. There may be some who fall into both camps as well.

As for what are rather unfairly considered "secondary" victims, namely the partners, and other family members, you are right that this has been overlooked for many years and the research into that area is only just beginning. There could be many reasons for this and it does seem to reflect the myths that remain common in our society around partners somehow being complicit in the offending. The idea that they "must have known" for example.

Related to that is the suggestion that partners who stay are somehow accepting or making excuses for their OH behaviour. That is a very contentious issue on this forum.

The attitude of social workers in particular seems to compound the problem. Many partners feel as if they are being judged for their decision to stay, although the social workers themselves would probably argue that they are just trying to protect the children from harm.