IT'S instinctive. It's a gut reaction. It's when you find yourself grimacing at the television and sucking air through gritted teeth. It's then you know programme-makers have pushed the boundaries too far.

And that's how most of society watched Brass Eye's "special report" on paedophiles last week. It showed a paedophile's eye-view of young children in their underwear, it showed a paedophile being "burnt to death" inside a 9ft high wicker phallus, it showed children singing a song urging perverts to let them grow older before they are approached. And all dressed up in a "news programme" format.

If the aim of satire is to provoke a reaction, then the programme-makers will be rubbing their hands in glee. But even they must be surprised with the backlash the C4 programme has provoked.

It sent the Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell down to the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to complain and it's got the Government thinking that, in the future, such programmes should be "regulated".

There's nothing new about satire, it's been part of the British culture for generations, and has provided useful social commentary.

But this is the year 2001, a time when, it seems, every other day a child is abducted, attacked, molested. On the alternate days a paedophile is convicted, freed, outed. And he's as likely to be a neighbour as he is a leading public figure. In an era of Sarah Payne, can a spoof documentary afford to be so insensitive?

The NSPCC would say it cannot. A spokesman for the NSPCC says: "I watched Brass Eye's supposed satire on the sexual abuse of children with growing sadness and dismay. Millions of people in the UK feel a profound sense of disgust at the rape and sexual assault of children by adults. Sex abuse can inflict terrible psychological and physical damage on children. Its effects can last a lifetime. Many survivors of child sex abuse have phoned the NSPCC asking us to give voice to their distress at how they felt this programme belittled their trauma. One woman told us 'Channel 4 was having a cheap laugh at our expense'."

A recent survey of 3,000 young adults by the NSPCC uncovered a grim catalogue of sex offences against children, ranging from sexual intercourse to involvement in pornography. A quarter of all known rape victims are children, with most offences committed by a relative. "The programme is a slap in the face for them all," the spokesman says.

"Brass Eye went out to pillory members of the public, celebrities and media reporting of child abuse. But, it went too far with its spoof scenes of paedophilia and pornographic imagery. We are particularly concerned that children were used in making the programme.The NSPCC welcomes reasoned debate about the best ways of protecting children against abuse. But this programme did not help."

It's been a common ploy, over the years, for child sex offenders to go to great lengths to convince society particularly juries that their actions are no more than a "bit of harmless fun", the spokesman says. A great deal of work has gone into revealing the serious, long-term damage that they do.

"This crude and crass programme is not avant garde. It turns the clock back 30 years. The only ones laughing here are the paedophiles who want people to take their crimes against children less seriously."

Over the past two years, hundreds of thousands of people have joined the NSPCC in trying to protect children from sex abusers as part of the FULL STOP Campaign. "They are taking positive action to make sure that no child ever again has to suffer sex abuse. They know that child sex abuse is no joke."

But Brass Eye writer David Quantick defends his controversial spoof investigation into paedophilia, saying people are complaining simply because it had "the word paedophilia in the title".

Mr Quantick, who worked on the show with presenter and co-writer Chris Morris, says critics are missing the point with many condemning the show without having seen it.

Mr Quantick says: "I think a lot of people complained because it just had the word paedophilia in the title and that a lot of complaints seemed to be related to a programme that didn't go out. It wasn't a show mocking victims of paedophilia. It was a show about media attitudes to paedophilia and the way that the media apparently exploits paedophilia."

Of complaints made by the NSPCC, he says: "I think the NSPCC has a duty to complain about these things. I think maybe the NSPCC didn't get the right end of the stick."

His comments came as Ms Jowell registered her anger with broadcaster Channel 4 and the Independent Television Commission (ITC) over the programme, which duped celebrities, including rock star Phil Collins, into fronting bogus anti-paedophile campaigns.

Quantick praised Channel 4 for standing up to the Government, saying: "I think Channel 4, like any broadcaster, has to be cautious and try to please people, especially when you have got the Government breathing down your neck. Channel 4 has been unusually brave in the situation. This was a satire of media treatment of paedophiles. Many people who condemned it didn't watch it."

Unfortunately, influential people did, and like the NSPCC, aren't happy. Mediawatch-uk, formerly the National Viewers' and Listeners' Association founded by Mary Whitehouse, has written to the Culture Secretary condemning the edition of Brass Eye. John Beyer, its director, claims the programme is "clearly in breach of the provisions of the Broadcasting Act". He says: "The Independent Television Commission is required under the act to secure that 'programmes do not offend good taste or offend public feeling'. The huge number of complaints is clear evidence that Channel 4 has caused considerable offence to public feeling."

Mediawatch-uk also urged Ms Jowell to restore the duty to preview programmes and called for the ITC's Programme Code to be redrawn.

And there's that gut feeling again, that sharp intake of breath, that this time, the programme-makers have definitely pushed the boundaries too far.