Everyday Victim Blaming

challenging institutional disbelief around domestic & sexual violence and abuse

Letter of complaint to Channel 4 regarding ‘The Paedophile Next Door’ documentary

Channel 4 Enquiries
PO Box 1058
Belfast BT1 9DU

29th November 2014

The Paedophile Next Door

I wish to complain about the so called documentary, The Paedophile Next Door, broadcast on Tuesday 25 November 2014. This was a totally inappropriate programme to broadcast on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women given that the programme is tantamount to child abuse propaganda, reminiscent of this piece of apologia that appeared in the Guardian two years ago.

The term ‘paedophile’ in itself obscures the element of choice, the motives of power and control and pathologises the sexual abuse of children, as outlined in this piece, written by Professor Liz Kelly, a feminist researcher in the field of male violence against women and children. The voices of women who have worked in this field for 40 years were totally absent from this documentary. Where was Rape Crisis, for example? Rape Crisis has over 40 years’ experience of working with survivors of childhood sexual abuse, who are overwhelmingly girls.

The programme was totally biased. Whilst it opened with the man posing as a 13 year old girl in a chatroom, highlighting the prevalence of child abusers online, it then went onto attempt to contrast this with men like Eddie, who purports to be a ‘virtuous paedophile’ as he claims not to harm children. This is a highly manipulative juxtaposition. Eddie revealed later on in the programme that he realised he was a ‘paedophile’ through the use ‘of pornography’, which went unchallenged. I assume he means what is commonly referred to as ‘child pornography’, a term also used by the narrator, which Tim Tate at least addressed and defined as the ‘visual record of sexual assaults on babies and children’, and I would add, a crime scene.

The premise that somehow ‘paedophilia’ is an immutable sexual orientation is not one that many of us who work with survivors subscribe to, especially as it was pointed out in the programme that many ‘paedophiles’ are able to have sex with adults. It was also totally offensive and inappropriate to compare ‘paedophilia’ to diabetes and there was no counter-analysis of this view. Sex offenders will often use this notion to justify their behaviour as this places the responsibility on victims, implying that they somehow provoked the perpetrator to offend. Furthermore, adding insult to injury, as a friend of mine observed, ‘paedophiles’ are co-opting the language of lesbians and gay men, framing their honesty (which we are expected to applaud) in terms of ‘coming out’, a linguistic sleight of hand to conflate criminal acts of rape and abuse with consensual sex between same sex adults.

There were no helplines listed at the end of the programme for viewers affected by it, which is grossly irresponsible. And whilst you listed Stop It Now in your credits, why were they not referred to when Eddie and others complained how there was no help or support available to them when there is?

Last but not least, to then blame the general public for the poor ‘paedophiles’ who are forced underground and driven to offend as a result of stress this causes, is beyond belief (incidentally, this is an excuse many abusers use for their behaviour). Erasing all responsibility for their sexual abuse and rape of children and placing it on the public is effectively trying to groom us to be more tolerant lest our lack of acceptance force men to rape children.

Your programme was as manipulative as child sexual abusers themselves. The only thing to the programme’s credit is that you did not allow Tom O’Carroll a platform, despite interviewing him for it, although having involved him is indicative of the aims of this ‘documentary’.

I also resent the fact that I had to pause ‘ad block’ on Google Chrome to watch this on 4 on Demand and was then subjected to a soft pornographic pop up ad for an Asian Girl Dating Agency.

Yours sincerely

Alison Boydell

Download this post as PDF? Click here Download PDF

, ,

Comments are currently closed.

7 thoughts on “Letter of complaint to Channel 4 regarding ‘The Paedophile Next Door’ documentary

  • Jo says:

    Well thought out response. Measured and incisive
    It’s representation is so unhelpful it’s practically gonzo
    I join you in your anger and protest
    J

  • A Daunas says:

    Agree wholeheartedly with previous comments. Perhaps if we stopped using the word paedophiles and started calling them child abusers, there would be fewer efforts to ‘ come out’ excuse or legalise what they do.
    Some people, and I’m sure there are more than the one I am going to mention, who claims that he is doing no harm because he only looks at pictures and he’d NEVER DO anything like that. The fact that abuse has to take place in order to produce the pictures is totally missed by his blinkered view.

  • Hecuba says:

    Thank you Alison for highlighting this latest evidence of male supremacist lies concerning males who choose to sexually prey on female and to a much lesser extent male children. Male sexual predators and their male apologists have always promoted the lie that males who sexually prey on female children do so because they supposedly suffer from a medical disorder which predisposes them to sexually prey on female children. However, most male sexual predators who sexually prey on female children do so because they can and our Male Supremacist system condones and justifies their male sexual predation.

    Paedophilia is a rare medical disorder but male sexual predation on women, girls and to a much lesser extent boys is common.

    Radical Feminists have analysed mens’ porn industry and how this male created industry reinforces male socialisation and belief that females are dehumanised mens’ masturbatory objects. Radical Feminists found that males who view the male created porn swiftly become bored with the porn they are watching and these male buyers demand more and more sadistic filmed male sexual violence against women in order that the male viewer can achieve ‘sexual pleasure.’ This is why males seek out child pornography because viewing filmed male sexual violence against female children provides the male viewer with heightened feelings of male sexual dominance and sexual power over what he views as ‘dehumanised disposable objects who only exist to give him those wonderful (sic) feelings of male eroticised sexual power and sexual dominance.

    It has been proven that males can be taught to sexually eroticise anything including something as mundane as wellington boots and this is why mens’ pornography is a huge profitable industry.

    Once again males are claiming ‘males who sexually prey on female/male children are the real victims because these male sexual predators suffer from a medical syndrome!’ Lies all lies which neatly erases male choice and agency.

    I too will be sending a letter to Channel 4 holding them to account for televising a vile propaganda programme justifying male sexual predation upon women, girls and boys.

  • Alison says:

    Thanks all for your comments. Hecuba, the more complaints the better.

  • Jacky says:

    I think we’re being groomed to think there are harmful men who abuse children, and harmless men who abuse children, because there are too many men who abuse children to put them all in prison.

    • Alison says:

      I think you’re absolutely right, Jacky. The criminal justice system would rather pass them onto the NHS or some voluntary sector organisation to “treat them”. They pose a dangerous risk to children and it is an absolute disgrace, not to mention serious safeguarding issue, to not acknowledge this.

  • […] have had a number of troubling comments submitted to our site following the publication of a letter of complaint to Channel 4 about their documentary “The Paedophile Next Door”. These comments follow the same pattern and all seek to minimise the crime of viewing images of […]