The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is looking for your help
Notifications OFF
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation is looking for your help
Has a close family member been arrested and convicted for online sexual communication offences?
As part of our media work to deter and stop online offending, we are inviting people with a family member who has been convicted for this type of offence, to tell your story completely anonymously in order to:
- Explain the devastating impact this issue has on family members including wives/partners, parents, and children
- Educate the public about the scale of the online sexual communication offending
- Inform the public and media about the pathways that lead to offending
Why is The Lucy Faithfull Foundation looking for your help?
Most people who are involved in online sexual communication with under 16s will not be thinking of the impact of their behaviour on their family and friends when they are eventually arrested and convicted.
But also, most family members will be completely unaware that this behaviour is happening in their home and, as so many of you will know, will experience feelings of betrayal, loneliness and shock.
By telling your completely anonymous story to the public, you will help them to better understand the problem, take the right steps to prevent it, and highlight the crucial support family members need once they find out what their loved one has done.
Here at The Lucy Faithfull Foundation we do all we can to highlight the impact of the arrest of a loved one on family and friends. One vital way of reaching the public and telling that story is by talking to trusted outlets, and our team has lots of experience of using the media for this purpose.
So, this could be your chance to help spread the word and play your part in preventing future child sexual abuse.
What would working with The Lucy Faithfull Foundation look like?
This would not be a time intensive commitment.
We’re hoping to produce a few written lines from a range of family members to give the broadest sense of the experiences that people go through after their loved one is arrested and convicted for online sexual communication offences.
To be absolutely clear, your anonymity is our top priority and we will ensure at every stage that your identity is protected.
We will also ensure you are given the final sign-off before any words that you have provided go into the public domain.
If you would like to be involved, or if you are interested but would like to find out more, please email forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk with the subject line ‘’Telling my story’’ and a member of our team will be in touch shortly.
All the best,
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation
Has a close family member been arrested and convicted for online sexual communication offences?
As part of our media work to deter and stop online offending, we are inviting people with a family member who has been convicted for this type of offence, to tell your story completely anonymously in order to:
- Explain the devastating impact this issue has on family members including wives/partners, parents, and children
- Educate the public about the scale of the online sexual communication offending
- Inform the public and media about the pathways that lead to offending
Why is The Lucy Faithfull Foundation looking for your help?
Most people who are involved in online sexual communication with under 16s will not be thinking of the impact of their behaviour on their family and friends when they are eventually arrested and convicted.
But also, most family members will be completely unaware that this behaviour is happening in their home and, as so many of you will know, will experience feelings of betrayal, loneliness and shock.
By telling your completely anonymous story to the public, you will help them to better understand the problem, take the right steps to prevent it, and highlight the crucial support family members need once they find out what their loved one has done.
Here at The Lucy Faithfull Foundation we do all we can to highlight the impact of the arrest of a loved one on family and friends. One vital way of reaching the public and telling that story is by talking to trusted outlets, and our team has lots of experience of using the media for this purpose.
So, this could be your chance to help spread the word and play your part in preventing future child sexual abuse.
What would working with The Lucy Faithfull Foundation look like?
This would not be a time intensive commitment.
We’re hoping to produce a few written lines from a range of family members to give the broadest sense of the experiences that people go through after their loved one is arrested and convicted for online sexual communication offences.
To be absolutely clear, your anonymity is our top priority and we will ensure at every stage that your identity is protected.
We will also ensure you are given the final sign-off before any words that you have provided go into the public domain.
If you would like to be involved, or if you are interested but would like to find out more, please email forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk with the subject line ‘’Telling my story’’ and a member of our team will be in touch shortly.
All the best,
The Lucy Faithfull Foundation
The email address provided bounces back, saying it does not exist?
Hi SAL,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This should now be resolved, but if you continue to experience any difficulties please respond in this thread.
Kind Regards,
The Forum Team
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This should now be resolved, but if you continue to experience any difficulties please respond in this thread.
Kind Regards,
The Forum Team
Hi Lucy
I just sent a email to link telling my story and come back does not exit
Plopplop
I just sent a email to link telling my story and come back does not exit
Plopplop
Hi there,
Seems to be a problem with the hyperlink.
If you email forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk the team will receive your email.
Seems to be a problem with the hyperlink.
If you email forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk the team will receive your email.
Same here won't send
Dear Forum Users
We would like to acknowledge the fact that sharing your story and contributing in this way could be stressful. However, it should also be noted that for some, the ability and opportunity to share their story can be empowering. It goes without saying that we will ensure those who choose to work with us are fully supported at every stage of the process.
If you are keen to share your story with us, but feel concerned about your anonymity or how we tell your story, or if you have any questions about the process, then please raise this in your email to us. We will of course be more than happy to discuss any concerns and answer any questions that you may have. We would also just like to remind you that you can withdraw your consent at any time.
As always, thank you for posting on the forum and providing such helpful and thoughtful support.
Kind Regards
The Forum Team
We would like to acknowledge the fact that sharing your story and contributing in this way could be stressful. However, it should also be noted that for some, the ability and opportunity to share their story can be empowering. It goes without saying that we will ensure those who choose to work with us are fully supported at every stage of the process.
If you are keen to share your story with us, but feel concerned about your anonymity or how we tell your story, or if you have any questions about the process, then please raise this in your email to us. We will of course be more than happy to discuss any concerns and answer any questions that you may have. We would also just like to remind you that you can withdraw your consent at any time.
As always, thank you for posting on the forum and providing such helpful and thoughtful support.
Kind Regards
The Forum Team
Post deleted
Dear Forum Users,
We acknowledge the strength of feeling regarding the term ‘non-offending’, and want to assure you that this is something we are taking very seriously and reflecting upon as an organisation. We are also considering this with our partners within the wider sector.
As an organisation, we always have and always will provide support and services to partners, ex-partners, family members and friends who have a loved one who has committed an online sexual offence. This is something we take very seriously. To that end, we are always happy to receive feedback from our forum users, and would invite you to share this with us via our email address forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk , or by contacting the Stop It Now! helpline on 0808 1000 900.
We acknowledge the strength of feeling regarding the term ‘non-offending’, and want to assure you that this is something we are taking very seriously and reflecting upon as an organisation. We are also considering this with our partners within the wider sector.
As an organisation, we always have and always will provide support and services to partners, ex-partners, family members and friends who have a loved one who has committed an online sexual offence. This is something we take very seriously. To that end, we are always happy to receive feedback from our forum users, and would invite you to share this with us via our email address forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk , or by contacting the Stop It Now! helpline on 0808 1000 900.
LFF, perhaps it would be helpful if you could clarify and explain what on earth there is to 'reflect on' and 'consider' in stopping using the appalling stigmatising and judgemental label 'non-offending'. Doing so would give us bearing the consequences of this label the context to view from your perspective.
Otherwise, the impression you give is that you agree with and are complicit in this labelling, and promote the stigma, judgement and cruel prejudice we will live with for ever more.
I'll repost my previous download on this:
______________________________
To LFF and anyone with any influence or in a position to be a driver for change, please please take this on board and spearhead the change.
By using this form of words those purporting to support and empathise with us persist in building on the scars of stigma, shame and 'abnormality' that we are already suffering to a huge degree. It perpetuates the sense of our guilt by association.
There is strong, growing and determined pushback against the term by all of us labelled as ‘non-offending partners/families/friends’. It is an offensive, stigmatising, prejudicial, judgemental, divisive, belittling, insulting, demeaning and unnecessary form of words. We are innocent, and no further clarification or qualification is necessary.
Use of this prefix implies a default position of guilt, and that the words ‘non-offending’ are needed to qualify our 'not guilty' status. For those of us already suffering appalling levels of shame, stigma, isolation and trauma, this term only serves to remind us at every mention of our association with distressing and offending behaviour – through absolutely no fault of our own.
There is no other crime/offence in which anyone associated with an offender is automatically labelled as ‘non-offending’.
If the pre-fix was valid in relation to this type of offence, then in the interests of parity and fairness, it should be used to consistently label every entirely innocent individual who has any association with an offender of any kind (in relation to any offence, not solely those in the scope of our experience).
Playing devil's advocate, by extension and following this logic, if there is a need for this definition, the following should be equally applicable, e.g.:
- Non-offending employer
- Non-offending arresting officer
- Non-offending probation officer
- Non-offending neighbour
- Non-offending therapist
- Non-offending solicitor/barrister
- Non-offending friend
- Non-offending son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father/aunt/uncle etc.
- Non-offending social worker
- Non-offending vigilante or police decoy (although there may be scope for debate on these)
We are just ‘partners’, 'parents', ‘wives’, ‘husbands’, ‘friends’ or ‘family members’. No tag or label is needed to give assurance of our ‘non-offending status’.
It is of no benefit to anyone for us to be cruelly reminded at every mention that we are inextricably associated with an offender. It is impossible for us to forget.
Please can you take every opportunity and use every platform to turn this tide and educate those who need to know of the inappropriateness of this term. Change for the better on the root causes of these terrible offences will only come when those of us living this pain can speak out and raise awareness without fear of being punished purely for being entirely innocent and collateral damage who society does not currently recognise.
Is it any wonder that we are shunned by former friends and family just because of our 'guilt by association', as if the ability to be a perpetrator is transferable just by connection to an offender.
We are the invisible victims, and have no voice. By perpetuating the shame and judgement around us, you silence us further.
Otherwise, the impression you give is that you agree with and are complicit in this labelling, and promote the stigma, judgement and cruel prejudice we will live with for ever more.
I'll repost my previous download on this:
______________________________
To LFF and anyone with any influence or in a position to be a driver for change, please please take this on board and spearhead the change.
By using this form of words those purporting to support and empathise with us persist in building on the scars of stigma, shame and 'abnormality' that we are already suffering to a huge degree. It perpetuates the sense of our guilt by association.
There is strong, growing and determined pushback against the term by all of us labelled as ‘non-offending partners/families/friends’. It is an offensive, stigmatising, prejudicial, judgemental, divisive, belittling, insulting, demeaning and unnecessary form of words. We are innocent, and no further clarification or qualification is necessary.
Use of this prefix implies a default position of guilt, and that the words ‘non-offending’ are needed to qualify our 'not guilty' status. For those of us already suffering appalling levels of shame, stigma, isolation and trauma, this term only serves to remind us at every mention of our association with distressing and offending behaviour – through absolutely no fault of our own.
There is no other crime/offence in which anyone associated with an offender is automatically labelled as ‘non-offending’.
If the pre-fix was valid in relation to this type of offence, then in the interests of parity and fairness, it should be used to consistently label every entirely innocent individual who has any association with an offender of any kind (in relation to any offence, not solely those in the scope of our experience).
Playing devil's advocate, by extension and following this logic, if there is a need for this definition, the following should be equally applicable, e.g.:
- Non-offending employer
- Non-offending arresting officer
- Non-offending probation officer
- Non-offending neighbour
- Non-offending therapist
- Non-offending solicitor/barrister
- Non-offending friend
- Non-offending son/daughter/brother/sister/mother/father/aunt/uncle etc.
- Non-offending social worker
- Non-offending vigilante or police decoy (although there may be scope for debate on these)
We are just ‘partners’, 'parents', ‘wives’, ‘husbands’, ‘friends’ or ‘family members’. No tag or label is needed to give assurance of our ‘non-offending status’.
It is of no benefit to anyone for us to be cruelly reminded at every mention that we are inextricably associated with an offender. It is impossible for us to forget.
Please can you take every opportunity and use every platform to turn this tide and educate those who need to know of the inappropriateness of this term. Change for the better on the root causes of these terrible offences will only come when those of us living this pain can speak out and raise awareness without fear of being punished purely for being entirely innocent and collateral damage who society does not currently recognise.
Is it any wonder that we are shunned by former friends and family just because of our 'guilt by association', as if the ability to be a perpetrator is transferable just by connection to an offender.
We are the invisible victims, and have no voice. By perpetuating the shame and judgement around us, you silence us further.
Hello Daffodil, Blue Sky, InTatters, and all forum users,
Firstly, I want to genuinely thank you all for being so honest and candid with your feedback and thoughts around what you think we here at LFF should know and consider, as well as your specific thoughts on my recent media appearance on Women’s Hour.
From the off, I want you to know that LFF would be all the poorer without this forum and it’s conversations like these that help us to learn and improve how we communicate to the general public (and others) about these issues.
To be absolutely clear – we have listened and fully take on board all of the comments about the use of the term “non-offending partner”. As discussed already, it is a term first used by Social Services and one the sector has got used to using also. I hear what you’re saying – and want to assure you we are exploring the use of this language.
But what does this mean in practice? This includes hearing views from multiple sources. For example, we recently worked with affected families in Scotland to host an exhibition showcasing the impact The Knock had on them. In addition to showcasing powerful photographic images, the event featured a dramatization of one woman’s story – the story being that she was a mother who wanted to continue to support her husband. It was a powerful exhibition, and we are now looking at how we can support taking it into the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the families we worked with opted for the exhibition to be called: ‘Knock NOC’ – the Knock (as we understand to mean the moment a warrant is executed), and NOC meaning ‘non-offending carer’ – a term used by some statutory service in Scotland. It was their choice, and the name they were comfortable using for their exhibition. You can read more about this here: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/home/media-centre/news/exhibition-shines-a-spotlight-on-the-experiences-of-non-offending-partners-and-children-affected-by-online-sexual-offending/
So, we are listening to all views on this language issue and are also discussing with sector partners its use more generally. However, all that said, I have heard you, and will seek not to use the term in media interviews in the future. The team will also not use the term on this forum, and we have already been discussing the use of it internally.
Regarding Women’s Hour more generally, I took the opportunity, when asked, to speak on one of the BBC's flagship radio programmes to highlight to a mass audience the devastating impact that an arrest has on loved ones. We were not part of the planning process and did not have any say over what the programme did before my appearance on the Friday, or what audio they used. I wasn’t aware there are concerns about that and I want to be absolutely clear – we had no control of the editorial decisions made by the programme’s producers.
For me, I need to look at the bigger picture. We work hard to tell a complex and, all too often, tragic story to the general public, most of whom will not have given thought about these issues before. We speak in the media to raise awareness of the many issues around child sexual abuse and to ensure that there is the vital support needed for all those affected in the future. There are few better ways of achieving this aim than by talking in the media. I also regularly advocate in meetings with government, law enforcement and others to keep this issue on the agenda. I am on your side.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
I completely understand your reservations and your lack of trust for the media, but I hope you understand why we will continue to work with the media in the future and do our best to influence how they cover these complex and sensitive issues.
Finally, on the point about not having lived experience within the team. I can assure that we do have it within the Foundation, and in relation to the forum specifically, we are currently looking at how we can best engage those who use the forum in its future developments. We want the forum community to be part of its future development, and its success.
I can also assure you that here at LFF, we have a team that is experienced, professional and, above all, totally dedicated to supporting all those who have been affected by this issue. This is something we all have in common.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. For anyone wanting to explore this further I would be more than happy to have a conversation, just let me know by emailing forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk .
Deborah Denis
CEO, Lucy Faithfull Foundation
Firstly, I want to genuinely thank you all for being so honest and candid with your feedback and thoughts around what you think we here at LFF should know and consider, as well as your specific thoughts on my recent media appearance on Women’s Hour.
From the off, I want you to know that LFF would be all the poorer without this forum and it’s conversations like these that help us to learn and improve how we communicate to the general public (and others) about these issues.
To be absolutely clear – we have listened and fully take on board all of the comments about the use of the term “non-offending partner”. As discussed already, it is a term first used by Social Services and one the sector has got used to using also. I hear what you’re saying – and want to assure you we are exploring the use of this language.
But what does this mean in practice? This includes hearing views from multiple sources. For example, we recently worked with affected families in Scotland to host an exhibition showcasing the impact The Knock had on them. In addition to showcasing powerful photographic images, the event featured a dramatization of one woman’s story – the story being that she was a mother who wanted to continue to support her husband. It was a powerful exhibition, and we are now looking at how we can support taking it into the Scottish Parliament. In this case, the families we worked with opted for the exhibition to be called: ‘Knock NOC’ – the Knock (as we understand to mean the moment a warrant is executed), and NOC meaning ‘non-offending carer’ – a term used by some statutory service in Scotland. It was their choice, and the name they were comfortable using for their exhibition. You can read more about this here: https://www.stopitnow.org.uk/home/media-centre/news/exhibition-shines-a-spotlight-on-the-experiences-of-non-offending-partners-and-children-affected-by-online-sexual-offending/
So, we are listening to all views on this language issue and are also discussing with sector partners its use more generally. However, all that said, I have heard you, and will seek not to use the term in media interviews in the future. The team will also not use the term on this forum, and we have already been discussing the use of it internally.
Regarding Women’s Hour more generally, I took the opportunity, when asked, to speak on one of the BBC's flagship radio programmes to highlight to a mass audience the devastating impact that an arrest has on loved ones. We were not part of the planning process and did not have any say over what the programme did before my appearance on the Friday, or what audio they used. I wasn’t aware there are concerns about that and I want to be absolutely clear – we had no control of the editorial decisions made by the programme’s producers.
For me, I need to look at the bigger picture. We work hard to tell a complex and, all too often, tragic story to the general public, most of whom will not have given thought about these issues before. We speak in the media to raise awareness of the many issues around child sexual abuse and to ensure that there is the vital support needed for all those affected in the future. There are few better ways of achieving this aim than by talking in the media. I also regularly advocate in meetings with government, law enforcement and others to keep this issue on the agenda. I am on your side.
While media appearances are sometimes unpredictable, and nobody is ever in real control of what is ultimately aired or used, we do know they can make a genuine and lasting difference.
Since the Women's Hour piece aired, we have seen a high volume of people contact the helpline who had previously been unaware of our organisation or that this kind of support exists. And we have been able to signpost these people to the support that we and our others provide.
Had these people not heard the programme, they would not currently be receiving the support they so badly need.
This illustrates why working with the media is vital to our work. But, also, it explains why we are keen to include the voices of those affected by these issues, to ensure that the public hear from the people most effected.
I completely understand your reservations and your lack of trust for the media, but I hope you understand why we will continue to work with the media in the future and do our best to influence how they cover these complex and sensitive issues.
Finally, on the point about not having lived experience within the team. I can assure that we do have it within the Foundation, and in relation to the forum specifically, we are currently looking at how we can best engage those who use the forum in its future developments. We want the forum community to be part of its future development, and its success.
I can also assure you that here at LFF, we have a team that is experienced, professional and, above all, totally dedicated to supporting all those who have been affected by this issue. This is something we all have in common.
I hope this goes some way to answering your questions. For anyone wanting to explore this further I would be more than happy to have a conversation, just let me know by emailing forum@lucyfaithfull.org.uk .
Deborah Denis
CEO, Lucy Faithfull Foundation
I don't come on a lot but I disagree on the issue of lived experience. I accept as all have different views but just as some may not agree or see my decisions, there are opinions which I can not not Will I ever understand.
I want someone with the skills of empathy but ultimately advice which is trained. The Samaritans give support for those considering suicide so do we need them to have lived experience? For homeless advice lines do we want them to be homeless
Just another opinion.
I would like to thank the forum and leaders. This subject is emotive, it is personal and painful and we are picking up pieces from those who have lied and hurt us, and for some children, in many ways. I would like to see a leave section of a remaining section but some of us feel that would be helpful.
There are assumptions which may not always be the case for all. Weshou!d be campaigning for more information for us to make informed and well considered decisions which keep us and the children safe and protected. Some of us have to wait until court to hear things and realise the extent of lies. For me that is more important
I want someone with the skills of empathy but ultimately advice which is trained. The Samaritans give support for those considering suicide so do we need them to have lived experience? For homeless advice lines do we want them to be homeless
Just another opinion.
I would like to thank the forum and leaders. This subject is emotive, it is personal and painful and we are picking up pieces from those who have lied and hurt us, and for some children, in many ways. I would like to see a leave section of a remaining section but some of us feel that would be helpful.
There are assumptions which may not always be the case for all. Weshou!d be campaigning for more information for us to make informed and well considered decisions which keep us and the children safe and protected. Some of us have to wait until court to hear things and realise the extent of lies. For me that is more important