Family and Friends Forum

First item on the programme today was "Can Sex Offenders Change?". 'Sex Offender' wasn't differentiated but they were discussing internet offences of viewing iioc mainly. Apparently there will be a documentary on this subject this coming Thursday on BBC (20/8) which I won't be able to watch as I don't have a TV. Perhaps someone could let me give me a review? Lucy Faifhfull Foundation was mentioned.

I still haven't seen the actual documentary as haven't got a telly - but my neighbour has said I can watch it on her iplayer catch up sometime this week. However I did feel inspired to write a response to Jane Garvey:

Dear Jane Garvey,

I want to thank you for featuring the report “Can Sex Offenders Change?” on Woman’s Hour, Tuesday 18th August. This is a topic that needs to be aired and talked about in public rather than hidden away. As you said, it’s hard to get people to talk about it because they get so angry. It’s a subject that’s taboo and so shameful that people who have problems find it impossible to get help.

I am in a unique and unenviable position to comment because, in the first instance, my father abused me when I was a young child – right up to my teens, when I ran away from home. Unlike Becky, my father did not go to prison nor was ever brought to account for his actions, neither was he offered help or support for his mental problems (and nor was I, for that matter- but it was back in the 70s). Secondly, my loving and kind husband of 40+yrs was arrested and ‘released under investigation’ for viewing indecent images of children online, last November. We are still waiting the outcome of that – and probably will be living in this limbo-land for another year or more at least, because the police are so swamped by these cases – a form of mental torture in itself (punishment, even).

‘How was I not aware this viewing was going on?’ you might ask. Well, for one thing I wasn’t there to spot the signs and feel vaguely guilty that I somehow set up the circumstances that facilitated the crime. When I retired (and the dog died) I went backpacking for a couple of years and the trip was all I hoped it would be - the world is mostly a welcoming place. But my indulgence left my partner alone and vulnerable to exploring very different and dark places and it all began whilst I was away.

An ‘Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse’ Report noted that the police are making at least 400-450 arrests each month in the UK. The internet accounts for this huge increase in offending as is an epidemic by all accounts (put in the shade by CV19 – but lockdown has surely led to an even greater incidence of offending). Never before have men (and to a lesser extent women) been able to have a new partner every couple of minutes – or at the click of a mouse. My husband had never really had much to do with the internet before I was absent.

The arrival of the police at around 7am to arrest one’s partner and remove all electronic devices from the house is known amongst circles of people who have experienced this as ‘The Knock’. The first week after ‘The Knock’ was horrible: I went on an adrenaline packed ride of disbelief, denial, grief, anger, and absolute emotional turmoil. My son was home the day of the knock and I remember him saying to me that I shouldn’t panic, that Dad would have an explanation. Well he did – he phoned from the police station to say (in a thick and unrecognisably choked up voice) that he was guilty of what they’d accused him, and did I still want him to come home? Think ‘death in the family’ and you get the gist. But after I had some honest talks with my partner (who has attempted to kill himself several times over these last months) and decided to stand by him, to realise that this one offence did not define him – I set out to read and understand as much about this offence as I could.

The first question that occurred to me as I listened to the report is what exactly do you mean by ‘Sex Offender’? The term encompasses a gamut of offences: violent rapists; gang members exploiting young girls; incestuous relationships; paedophiles; sexual predators and online groomers; and online viewers of indecent images of children (including manga images). There’s a spectrum from one extreme (contact offenders with violence) all the way to non-contact online first offenders (with no previous convictions of any kind) at the other end. The public tends to lump them all in together, as I would have done before my husband committed his offence and I came to understand more about where he’d been.

Trying to tease out the strands in my head, especially as I’m so intimately involved, is confusing – but one thing has become clear to me: I believe my husband when he says he is NOT attracted to children. 3 years of compulsive internet abhorrent viewing does not wipe out 60 years of exemplary behaviour as a human being and a son, brother, husband, father, neighbour. Previously the worst thing my husband has ever done is to get a parking ticket! It’s a measure of the man that we have disclosed his offending to all of his and my families and everyone has stood by him and are supportive – because this criminal behaviour is so out of character. The one person who has had some difficulty is our son who remains on speaking terms with his father, but it hurts that they no longer have the easy and close relationship they once enjoyed. In your report Professor Belinda Winder stated that “The men are just as disgusted at their behaviour as the public are with them”. Too true: my partner has tried to commit suicide four times that I know of since ‘the knock’ – such is his remorse and shame. He truly believes his removal from the world would be easier on the family – as we would then avoid prosecution and the subsequent media attention.

After reading lots of articles and books like “the Porn Trap”, “Your Brain on Porn”, “In the Shadow of the Net” and viewing the three excellent documentaries made by the US anti-porn movement “Fight the New Drug” namely ‘Brain’, ‘Heart’ and ‘World’, I understand more than I did. it seems to me that the evidence that internet pornography is causing sexual dysfunction and apparent ‘paedophilia’ and leading men to breach barriers they would never normally cross is compelling. You asked in your report if this behaviour CAN be progressive – online, yes it can. Crossing the BIG barrier from fantasy viewed onscreen to REAL life child abuse is a big step – and is much less likely it would seem. (Similar to the debate around violent video games causing real life violence – many more play those games than go on to do the same in reality). So the question of whether Sex Offenders can change? The answer depends very much on the Sex Offence and the factors that led to the offending.

Viewing indecent images of children online is anonymous, it’s private, it’s free and it’s a dirty secret and they can be easily found on mainstream search engines and social media such as Google, Bing, Instagram, twitter. It’s scary to realise that all the social media sites appear to be riddled with porn. Take away any ONE of those factors and I believe the majority of offenders WOULD step away. It’s such a shame that the law that was on the verge of being passed in the UK last year, that would have made internet users prove their age before accessing porn sites, was abandoned in October. Having to register to view would have stopped my husband in his tracks – and perhaps many other men too. I’m sure that tech savvy people would have found ways to circumvent the process but many children (and technologically ignorant men like my partner) would have been protected.

I fear for the next generation – many of whom are being exposed to internet porn at a young age, whilst their brains are still developing. IN 2016 a study carried out by the NSPCC found that 53% of 11-16yr olds had viewed sexually explicit content online. There are neural pathways already hard wired to sex that on viewing this stuff onscreen then connect with the same areas as are stimulated in heroin addiction. Tolerance does develop – and therefore escalation to view abhorrent images does happen. As Dr Julie Newberry (A StopSo therapist specialising in treating internet porn offenders) says in her essay entitled “Viewing child Abuse Images – Paedophile or Internet Porn Addict?”:

“…while seeking and searching for pleasure, dopamine, a neurochemical, rises with the anticipation. Dopamine reinforces the reward circuitry of the brain which is where we experience cravings and pleasure and where we get addicted.

Research has shown that dopamine declines with habituation and surges again with novelty. (I think this is known as the ‘Coolidge effect’). For some porn users, as each new experience becomes boring, they seek out more unique material, even to the point of wanting something that is way beyond what they would find acceptable normally. Dopamine also increases with shock and anxiety; hence a heterosexual male may well look at porn that isn’t consistent with their sexuality or their value system. With an endless supply of images and videos, porn sites provide a difficult environment for addicts to escape from.

To add to the problem, our brains record what turns us on. When a person masturbates to the images, the pleasure of an orgasm will be unconsciously linked to that imagery. Our primitive reward circuitry becomes associated with the events associated with sexual excitement (orgasm linked to certain stimuli). It doesn’t consider the type of porn or whether society approves of it. It merely responds to a dopamine spike and in turn to the accumulation of a protein called DeltaFosB, a molecular switch that initiates lasting brain changes.”

So ‘YES’ to your question ‘is there a progression?’ – but rarely, I believe, from non-contact abuse to contact abuse – but from legal pornography online to illegal porn.

I think what I’m trying to say is that there is a world of difference between the Sex Offender who is a contact abuser – and the Sex Offender who has been compulsively viewing internet images and has NOT stepped over the line to contact abuse. I read in one newspaper article that a County Prosecution Court Judge said he was fed up with men using the excuse that they had ‘accidentally’ found indecent images of children online – but what if they are saying this because it is actually true? Millions of these images are in circulation worldwide – and can be reached from mainstream search engines in just 3 clicks of the mouse. My husband’s experience was that he searched for images of ‘moss gardens’ on Bing. At the bottom of the page full of thumbnails was a picture of Kate Moss – naked (full frontal) – so he clicked on it and liked the results. ‘More images like this?’ – and he clicked on that too and was able to see even more naked pictures of women – including those of younger girls. He knew it was wrong and tried to stop many times and is filled with remorse and shame. Internet online offenders are 200 times more likely to commit suicide then the general population (a fact noted in the Justice Working Party Report – ‘Prosecuting Sexual Offenders’ June 2019 – chaired by HH Peter Rook QC).

I hasten to add that I am not minimising the offence of viewing images of child abuse at all – I know that the children in those pictures are real children – and that they are revictimized every single time their picture is seen online. My husband had the choice not to look, and there’s no doubt he continued to look and that he knew it was wrong when he did so.

Only 2% of non-contact Online Sex Offenders with no previous offences will reoffend (treatment or no treatment) – the Knock is often a rude enough awakening to the reality of what they’ve been doing. However, in the case of Contact Offenders with previous convictions the likelihood of reoffending rises to 30-40%. Professor Belinda Winder says that 86% of offenders won’t go on to reoffend. It is clear that different types of Sex Offenders have different rates of recidivism. It is also clear that many sexual offences STILL go unreported – especially rape.

The other question raised in your report was “Can Sex Offenders Change with treatment?”. Dr Julie Newberry states (in the same essay as cited previously) that, in her opinion, many online internet offenders are not paedophiles in that they are not attracted to children sexually. Yet the treatment programmes offered by the State in the past were aimed at Paedophiles. I know of one man convicted of viewing indecent images of children back in 1998 (I ‘met’ his current partner on the online support forum hosted by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation): he was put on a treatment programme the sum result of which he remembers as being told to ‘avoid children’s playgrounds’.

As far as I’m aware there isn’t that much treatment available, unless one pays for it privately. There are practically no NHS services for those who have or might commit sexual offences. My husband has been seeing a therapist found via StopSo – the specialist Treatment Organisation for Perpetrators and Survivors of Sexual Offending. Paying for this is expensive and not easy on a limited income but we think it’s worth it to prevent reoffending. The Lucy Faithfull Foundation (LFF) is another charity doing excellent work. They host a helpline for offenders, would be offenders AND as support for partners and people affected by online offending. The counsellors (many of whom are retired probation officers) on the end of the telephone listened to my ranting patiently for hours in those first weeks post knock and offered sensitive and sensible advice. (By the way – the BBC haven’t put their helpline number on the BBC web page following the “Can Sex Offenders Change” documentary – it really SHOULD be there!). LFF offer a 10 week course for online offenders which costs £900 currently I believe – but is available in limited locations. I attended half of the course with similar content for partners and family members – sadly interrupted by Lockdown restrictions – that proved very supportive and informative and was free. (LFF don’t believe partners should have to pay any further for their spouses’ misdemeanours). Professor Belinda Winder is instrumental in setting up and running the ‘Safer Living Foundation’ to offer treatment and support to Offenders, but seems to be based in the Midlands only. I found a Ministry of Justice Report dated 2010 that states ‘Low risk sexual offenders show negligible benefits and probably do not require intensive treatment’.

As far as my own situation goes, I am a secondary victim – as is my grown up son – as we are still suffering the fallout of my husband’s offending. I feel so strongly for those partners and younger children of online offenders who are scrutinised by Social Services. Many Social Workers do not seem to be very informed about this offence at all – pressuring couples to split up (despite family support being one of the key factors in preventing reoffending) and assuming until proved otherwise that all Sex Offenders are contact abusers and high risk. Of course they have to take this stance initially – but their heavy handed approach seems damaging to the very children they are supposed to be protecting and is often cited as the most painful part of the whole sorry episode for families affected by online offending. Secondary perhaps to intrusive media attention and/or vigilante groups - but their involvement is maybe more short-lived (‘yesterday’s chip wrappers’ as a friend who is going through a similar experience said to me). Adverse media attention also affects the family greatly – particularly as the act of downloading an illegal image by clicking on the thumbnail is referred to as ‘making’ an image in law. To me, and I’m sure to the rest of society, ‘making’ conjures up the image of someone actually taking the abusive photographs of children. There is also the emotional harm caused to young children who don’t understand what Daddy has done and are unable to see him for months, possibly years following the knock as well as suffering the vilification secondhand by the community.

My hope for us is that the recommendations of the Justice Working Party Report ‘Prosecuting Sexual Offenders’ published in June 2019 will be acted on – and these are strongly supported by the Police Force:

1:24 “We are recommending that a conditional diversion scheme be piloted in respect of those found in possession of indecent images of children. The scheme would be offered to those who commit first time offences or who have no relevant convictions. Currently these cases amount to a vast number of prosecutions. Most of those convicted do not receive immediate custodial sentences. The rate of re-offending is very low whilst the risk of suicide is far higher than average. A Conditional Diversion Scheme (CDS) would involve attendance upon an awareness programme (sometimes referred to as a psychoeducational 10 programme) with structured sessions. There would be no prosecution if the participant successfully engages with and completes the scheme. The WP is strongly in favour of this measure (which enjoys significant police support), but recognises that there will be criticism from those who maintain that this type of offending leads to contact offences. However, the evidence does not support this contention. The police would still carry out a thorough investigation before the option of joining the scheme would be offered. We believe that this measure has the capacity to take a substantial number of cases out of the Criminal Justice System, thereby lightening the overall load upon the Crown Prosecution System and the courts. It may also reduce the pressures that cause some individuals to take their own lives.

AND

1:23 we consider more can be done to ensure that internet companies safeguard children and prevent child sexual imagery being uploaded onto their platforms. “

However, I don’t hold out much hope. There appears to be a postcode lottery in the way these offences are dealt with – particularly when the cases get to court, with many judges ignoring the recommendations made by the Police. We don’t have young children (thank goodness), but sadly this also means that my husband’s case is not prioritised. It’s not unheard of for these investigations to take years (and we’ve already been ‘on hold’ for 8 months) because the backlog of devices needing examination is so great. Isn’t it ironic that men deemed to be a risk to children are left in the community for years until their case is dealt with – when suddenly they are deemed to be dangerous and dealt with accordingly? I digress.

I look forward to getting the opportunity to see the documentary on TV.

Thanks once again for getting the conversation going in public. Writing this has been cathartic – I’ve been wanting to shout from the rooftops! Keeping this secret seems to be a necessity (even the Police at the Knock advised me to tell no one) but I feel the secrecy has a corrosive effect in the long run, eating away at trust in a community and society as a whole. With the explosion of internet offending, this is a conversation we need to be having.

Wow - kudos for slogging through that my long post - and thankyou so much for your response Lizzy 2.0. I hope there's going to be lot MORE in the media - we need to do what 'Fight the New Drug' are doing in the States HERE in the UK...

Thank you so much for your comments Lizzy 2.0, Tabs, Confused.com, Snowdrop. Made my day. I have been thinking about how I can adapt this to forward to Simon Bailey, and MP (who's a twit - but heyho - he's my official rep!) but I will do it.