© By Sophie Lewis | NUJ | Journalist | The Grooming Files
A Case Study in Exposure-Seeking Behaviour
When Eddie B first contacted me, it wasn’t to confess or apologise. It was to “expose others.” He pointed to online spaces he said were “full of them,” and offered himself as a helpful witness.
At the same time, Eddie told me he is under investigation in Greater Manchester. In his own words, the allegations are receiving and sending indecent images of children, and upskirting. He agreed to answer my questions in full. What follows is drawn directly from that interview and from his written replies.
Eddie (on allegations): “Receiving inappropriate images of children, and sending inappropriate images of children. Upskirting.”
He denies being a danger. Yet across our exchange he repeatedly describes arousal at the sight of girls in school uniform, talks about punishment and humiliation as sexualised “relief,” and admits that fear of exposure is stronger than fear of prison.
This piece presents Eddie in his own words, followed by a clear, factual analysis of what those words indicate about risk and pattern. All claims are quoted or paraphrased from the interview material supplied above.
Allegations and Denials — in His Words
Eddie’s stance is simple: the thoughts exist, but he is “not attracted to children” and would “never act on it.”
- Denial: “I am not attracted to children… there [are] just thoughts I get. I would never act on it.”
- Repetition of denial under pressure: “Am not a danger to anyone. I will never act on it. It’s fantasy.”
- Claimed limit: “I don’t masturbate to them.”
Alongside these denials are multiple admissions that contradict them:
- Triggers: “Feeling can come back sometimes when I see schoolgirls.”
- Specific fetish cue: “It’s the short skirts with no leggings or stockings… some skirts are too short.”
- “Darkest thought”: “Having sex with a schoolgirl in uniform and other things.”
- Uniform arousal: “I just get aroused seeing girls in uniform.”
When asked the youngest age he has pictured sexually, he answers “16.” He also tries to displace the fixation into adult roleplay: if he wants that fantasy, he says, he would pay an adult to dress as a schoolgirl.
Exposure, Punishment, Relief
A second thread runs through Eddie’s replies: humiliation as pseudo-control.
- Punishment as ritual: “I have visited a dominatrix to be punished for having nawty feelings and wearing panties.”
- Context: “Yes, dressed as [a] sissy when she is punishing me.”
- On talking to me: Asked whether speaking to me gives a similar rush, he answers: “Yes.”
- Fear calculus: “Fear of being exposed” outweighs fear of prison.
The cycle he describes is consistent: urge → punishment/exposure → temporary relief → return of urge. He confirms the urges return; he cannot explain why.
Projection and Control of the Narrative
Eddie repeatedly reframes himself as ally/whistleblower:
- “These sites and the people running these sites need to be exposed.”
- “My head is telling me to expose the people who need exposing.”
- “They should get exposed, that’s why am helping you.”
When asked why there are multiple allegations against him if he has “done nothing,” he replies: “Can’t answer that.”
Attempt to Verify
I approached Greater Manchester Police press office for a status check based on what Eddie told me. Their reply:
“We can’t conduct searches on a name basis as per College of Policing guidance, however, if you can provide me with a DOB and a log / crime number that relates to the alleged incident in question, I might be able to access it that way.”
Without a date of birth or crime reference, GMP could not confirm or deny the details Eddie described. Eddie’s statements therefore remain his own claims alongside the allegations he himself set out.
Behavioural Red Flags (Based on the Interview Material)
What follows is an analysis of behavioural risk indicators drawn directly from Eddie’s answers. It is not a medical or clinical diagnosis.
- Persistent, cue-linked sexual ideation
He acknowledges recurring arousal at school uniforms and says the feeling “can come back.” A stable stimulus-response pattern suggests entrenchment, not passing thought. - Minimisation and splitting
He splits “thoughts” from “behaviour” and uses “I don’t masturbate to them” as a moral line. Minimisation in the face of multiple admissions is a known risk marker. - Eroticised humiliation / exposure
He links urge relief to punishment (dominatrix) and exposure, and confirms that speaking to me produces a similar rush. That places confession, punishment, and being “seen” inside the cycle—not as deterrents but as reinforcers. - Compulsive outreach under active scrutiny
Despite stating he is under investigation, he initiated contact and answered questions that could harm him. Compulsive approach behaviour under risk suggests impaired self-control. - Projection / narrative capture
The repeated insistence that he is “helping” expose others functions as impression management and a way to maintain access to exposure spaces while de-centring his own risk.
Taken together, these markers align with a pattern I have documented across two prior cases (Chris and Matt): men who seek out exposure as part of the arousal/regulation loop. In this pattern, shame is not a brake; it is part of the engine.
Why Displacement Isn’t Safety
Eddie argues that hiring an adult to dress as a schoolgirl makes the fantasy acceptable. In practice, this is displacement—a simulation that preserves the template (child-coded uniform, power dynamic, humiliation). Displacement can reinforce the cognitive and erotic script rather than dissolve it.
The Systemic Gap
Eddie’s case also highlights a practical gap. Even when an interviewee:
- sets out allegations in his own words,
- admits recurring arousal linked to a child-coded cue, and
- confirms fear of exposure over fear of prison,
verification remains closed without bureaucratic keys (DOB, log number). Survivors face a wall; the public is asked to wait. Meanwhile, individuals like Eddie can continue to enter exposure spaces and shape their own narrative.
Conclusion
Eddie insists: “I’m not a danger to anyone.”
Yet his darkest thought involves a schoolgirl in uniform.
His urges recur at that cue.
His relief comes through punishment and exposure.
His strongest stated fear is people finding out.
On the evidence of this interview alone, Eddie’s behaviour fits a recognisable exposure-seeking pattern: confession as performance; shame as arousal; punishment as temporary sedation; projection as cover.
This is not about one man. It is an emerging offender pattern we must name plainly. Until we stop mistaking confession for accountability, exposure for change, and displacement for safety, cases like Eddie’s will continue to orbit public spaces under the veneer of “helping.”
We can’t look away. We also can’t afford to be fooled by the performance.
Right of Reply
- Greater Manchester Police were approached and said they cannot confirm or deny details without a date of birth or crime/log reference.
- Eddie was invited to clarify any factual inaccuracies in this piece; his quoted replies above are reproduced from his own messages.
- Any subject named in this article may submit a formal response for publication.
The Grooming Files 
Leave a comment