WILLIAM HENKEL SHOCKS EARITH WITH CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND SEX OFFENDER REVELATIONS

In the quiet and seemingly idyllic village of Earith, William Henkel, aged 48, and his wife Sharon have long been regarded as a model couple. Residing in a bright, meticulously maintained detached home in a peaceful corner of eastern England, the couple actively participates in their local community and church activities. They sing at old age homes and William, known for his helpful nature, often assists elderly parishioners with DIY tasks.

However, beneath this veneer of normalcy lies a disturbing truth. Observant visitors might notice the absence of any computers in their home, a subtle but telling sign that this is no ordinary household. The reality of William Henkel’s life is far darker than his outward appearance suggests.

Back in June 2003, Henkel was caught in a serious criminal act—downloading child pornography at his workplace. This led to his prosecution, and in March of the following year, he was sentenced to 15 months in prison. He was released after serving half of his sentence in October. His case gained renewed attention following the recent exposure of Britain’s largest internet paedophile ring, as reported in yesterday’s Mail. Henkel’s candid account of his inner struggles and his attempts to control his compulsions offers a chilling insight into the mind of a convicted paedophile.

Once a highly skilled IT professional, Henkel has known for many years that his sexuality was deeply troubled. His wife of 17 years, Sharon, who is 40, was aware of his attractions to young girls after they experienced sexual difficulties in their marriage. Despite her knowledge, she never believed he would offend, having accompanied him to various doctors, psychologists, and therapists in an effort to address their issues. Several counselors attempted to help them, but all concluded that Henkel’s paedophile tendencies could not be eradicated. His general practitioner even told him that the only available treatment near their home was reserved for convicted offenders.

Many have questioned Sharon’s decision to remain with Henkel. As a former clerical worker, she has faced agonizing moral dilemmas—would she have stayed if they had daughters of their own? How would she have felt if he had committed an assault on a young girl? Despite these questions, Sharon maintains that she believes Henkel is fundamentally a decent man. Her support was rooted in her desire to help him cope with his urges. Yet, his conviction was a devastating blow to their marriage’s trust.

Sharon admits to feeling hurt and angry, explaining, “Of course I was hurt and angry. We’d tried to deal with the problem together for years. I’d given him all the support I could muster. My comfort was that in every other way he was a good man and a good husband. I thought he’d keep fighting his urges. I never feared he’d become an offender. That trust was shattered.”

She recounts how she was initially sickened upon discovering his crimes but chose to see his remorse as genuine. Despite her disgust, she recognized that Henkel’s determination to seek help was sincere. “In the end, it wasn’t such a hard decision for me to stay and support him. I’d been in that role for years,” she says.

Both William and Sharon are victims of childhood sexual abuse, which they believe contributed to their struggles. Both abusers were convicted and died while serving their sentences. However, Henkel refuses to attribute his issues solely to his past, instead citing a childhood infatuation with a friend’s younger sister as a significant factor. He recalls, “I was about 12 and she was about ten when we met. It wasn’t just the way she looked. She was a lovely little girl, always helping others in the street. Everyone loved her. I never got over the immense attraction I felt for her. I grew up and she grew up, and we lost touch. But in my fantasies, she remained that sweet ten-year-old girl, and gradually images of other girls of that age replaced her in my mind.”

Henkel appears comfortable discussing these issues with Sharon present. Initially reluctant about his decision to speak publicly, she was persuaded by him, providing a rare glimpse into how the digital age has created new opportunities for men like him. Henkel states, “I feel it’s almost part of my rehabilitation to say publicly that I’m sorry, that I’m doing all I can to stop myself reoffending, and here are some measures that could be taken to stop others.”

His professional background includes advising on computer safety and internet abuse prevention at an IT firm. Despite his efforts to avoid temptation—such as refusing to have a computer at home—his addiction grew. Henkel admits that viewing pornography on his work computer led to recommendations for preventative measures that were ultimately dismissed. His addiction escalated, and he would often lie to his employer about technical issues to justify returning to the computer for further viewing. His technical expertise allowed him to wipe his hard drive regularly, attempting to hide his activities.

Henkel’s obsession culminated in a tragic moment when he found images of himself and his brother as children, naked and looking miserable, online—photos taken by their abuser decades earlier. This discovery was a turning point, helping him empathize with the children he viewed online. “My thinking was distorted until then. I didn’t see children being abused. I saw them, as I believed, enjoying sexual activity. But I knew I’d been abused and I hadn’t enjoyed what had happened to me. When I saw those pictures of myself, it helped me realize that children being exploited are victims, and by demanding to see these images online, I was contributing to their suffering,” he explains.

Despite this newfound understanding, Henkel continued to access illegal material. He downloaded erotic paedophile fiction, which he inadvertently sent to a printer in his office building. He now questions whether his subconscious was pushing him to end his involvement with such material.

In the 21 months leading up to his trial, Henkel and Sharon sought help from various professionals. Their efforts included marriage counseling through Relate, which proved insufficient, and therapy with Ray Wyre, a renowned UK expert on sex offending. Wyre’s guidance was instrumental, with Sharon noting, “While I was trying to support Bill, I was still wondering why he had to do it. Ray Wyre helped me realize the highly addictive nature of computers and pornography. Those who use their computer to access porn can access a limitless supply. Fantasy after fantasy can be fulfilled. Ray had seen it with other offenders—material just sucks them in and takes over their lives. It is highly corrosive.”

Henkel also received therapy while incarcerated at Bedford Prison. He praises the support from the prison’s mental health services and chaplain, which helped him challenge his behavior and prioritize the needs of potential victims. “The support inside was first-class,” he says. “They developed an amazing insight into my problems. I was taught to challenge my behavior and to put the needs of victims before my own desires. The methods aren’t foolproof, but as long as I want to avoid offending, the strategies are in place.”

He continues, “I’ve been seeing Mr Wyre since I was released, and with his help and Sharon’s support, I feel I’m managing. For years, I believed that if I told people about my problems and fantasies, they would despise me. But talking to therapists and doctors has been my salvation. Now, I am in love with my wife and we support each other through this. I don’t claim to be cured, but I have learned to control my urges and take precautions to prevent acting on them.”

Henkel advocates for longer sentences for sex offenders, suggesting 15 to 20 years of community supervision after release. “Human rights groups might protest,” he says, “but what about a child’s right not to be abused? Which carries more weight? I know from my own experience that sentences must be longer and more appropriate. No monitoring period should be less than ten years, and if necessary, it should be for life.”

He also calls for legislation requiring Internet Service Providers to clamp down on illegal online activity. “We’ve been told it’s too big a job, but it’s not true. ISPs just need to monitor smaller servers, and if they find illegal content—child porn, drugs, dangerous chemicals—they should shut them down. It wouldn’t catch everything, but combined with stiff penalties for those promoting illegal material, it would make a significant difference.”

Despite his efforts at rehabilitation, Henkel admits he fears the future. He and Sharon enjoy a happy, full marriage, but he worries that another high-pressure job might trigger a relapse. “I’d rather work in a supermarket, earn less, and stay in control of my problems than risk slipping back into old patterns. I owe Sharon so much, and I don’t want to let her or anyone who has helped me down,” he says.

Sharon offers a reassuring smile and a gentle squeeze of his arm, but only time will tell if her faith in him is justified.