Irish Minister for children appears to be mates with Peter Tatchell

Whyou am I not surprised?

m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/new-childrens-minister-to-make-it-easier-for-under-16s-to-change-their-gender-39346464.html

This article is behind a paywall unfortunately, I haven't come across it in any other publication as of yet.
Hopefully it's a light shining on what the new governments intention is in relation to transing children. I doubt the majority of people would have delved into the PfG to find it there.

There are a lot of very worried parents around at the moment, and this is a lightning rod for that anxiety.
Good leadership would understand this, and be on top of the issue.

ROG has had a lot of character references online in the last few days. Great.

But, abusers are master manipulators.

For professionals working with children, collusion is the one theme that is always referenced.
We have to be so careful that we are not drawn into the warped world view of abusive people (and I am talking about DV, paedphilia, financial abuse, bullies etc.)
cf the abuse of the little girls in the Traveller family in Tipperary.

In his position, he should be very very aware of this.
And, he has not 'got in front of' this story. Possibly due to political naiveté.

I don't really use SM, the way I heard about this was through friends and colleagues getting in touch. Normal people, many of whom would have voted for the Greens. Some of whom had previously heard of the controversy surrounding PT through their line of work.

I read his statement today and thought it said nothing of substance. I saw a newspaper article in which he talked about how upset his parents would be by all of this. He can appreciate how a scandal would affect the parents of a 30 something year old man but not why parents of young children would seek clarification on ANYONE's connection with someone who has a controversial past when it comes to views on paedophilia.

An immediate statement would have garnered some trust. But I get the impression that the opinion of the common folk matters little.

I'm wary and going forward, I'll be keeping an eye on hate crime legislation, the age of consent and the programme of RSE the new department advocates for. Is there anything else to be aware of?

It worr me that people like Tatchell are weasling their way into positions where they can influence gov policy.

It's becoming very difficult to know who really is looking out for the best interests of children.

Louise Raw previously posted the letter that Tatchell wrote. He's saying that it was edited and not what he intended to say. It's at the very least minimising pedophile behaviour. If he believed he was misrepresented in what he wrote then why not ask for an apology /retraction.

The statement reminded me of Damian Barr''s response to those tweets that emerged. Damian Barr tried to divert blame to those that unearthed the tweets by labeling them as transphobic. Similarly, I felt that R O'G was diverting attention towards those that highlighted the issue, by labeling them homophobic. While, I feel he genuinely didn't know of PT''s views I found his response somewhat arrogant.

Exactly ForeverFaithless you said it much better than I did.
He's completely minimised it.

I can't read or see anything about this individual without thinking about JS.
The way the BBC positively fawns over him and promotes him at every opportunity is very worrying. It is depressingly familiar.
On a separate note, many years ago I volunteered with a charity for the homeless.They helped a lot of men who had been abused as children.
The vast majority had been abused by monks or priests.
The priest in my area who was found to be involved in similar behaviour was simply moved to a different parish. This was about 10 years ago.
I don't understand why there is not more outrage and publicity about this kind of behaviour. I can only assume it is because the people involved know too much.

I'm not at all happy with the complete whitewash reply he gave, which to me is a completely separate issue to the trolls and bigots attacking him on FB - I haven't seen these, only what's on Twitter.

Bindel pointed out that Tatchel was buddies with Ian Dunne, one of the founders of PIE.

ROG makes it out like he didn't really know Tatchel, and anyway Tatchel explained to him that he didn't really say all that paedophile validation stuff, so it's all lovely, no need to worry at all 🙄

There are some very offensive things flying around fb about him. Genuine concerns are lost in all of that.

there is reference to Tatchell on Renua Facebook page.

And bananabix I am sorry to hear what happened to you
Predatory men have always managed to seek each other out.

I'm not really on sm much, but apparently he (RoG)has been accused of being a paedophile himself by some on twitter and fb.
What annoys me is that he paints everyone that queried the twitter pic and connection to PT with the far right homophobic brush, while there were plenty of concerned parents reasonably asking him to explain.
He says he was "surprised" to read of PT remarks in the 90s, (which he finds abhorrent) and is glad that he clarified and explained what had been alleged isn't his view... how can he say that when it's all there in black and white what PT said. Has PT actually clarified that any where? Not that I can find.
He's surprised rather than shocked or disgusted? It doesn't sit right with me.

All upstanding, lovely men unless you were a child.

of not if

What had been clarified?PT has done a good job of honing in on the "may be impossible" part of that letter to said it was edited.Regardles he still said this:
"The positive nature if some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to Western cultures,several of my friends gay and straight,male and female had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13.None feel they were abused."
"it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

I am glad that O'Gorman has clarified his position but find it irritating that he considers it homophobic that he was put under this scrutiny.

the liberal party candidate won, ironically it was Simon Hughes who was in the closet at that time and has spoken of his guilt at having won the seat in that way in the interim

Simon Hughes' behavior was despicable. The Lib Dems produced leaflets describing Hughes as "the straight choice"

O'Gorman has released a statement on fb, going to try attach it. He blames a far-right homophobic hate campaign and says Tatchell has clarified the remarks he made.

Speaking generally of course, many people in history have the alibi of being an “upstanding member of the community” for all their good work that makes it harder for people to believe evidence to the contrary.

The Wikipedia page on Peter Tatchell is fairly clear and unbiased, surprisingly.

I remember him from the GLF at the beginning of the seventies; I thought he was one of those people who simply has to be campaigning for something, anything, all the time. I still think it; I just feel that his choice of causes to lay down his sanity for is sometimes misguided at the least, perverse at worst. Often he has done no good at all for the people he had wanted to help: the armed forces were really not all that grateful for his interventions, for instance. Doing things for other people's good without consulting them often doesn't quite work.

But there are quite a few things I would say he was right about, all the same. Rights for Aboriginal Australians. Opposition to the Iraq war. The dangers of climate change. Musical lyrics inciting hatred and violence against gays. Civil partnerships for opposite-sex people as an alternative to marriage.

It's just that he often seems to end up being right for all the wrong reasons, or starting out right and ending up in some mad cul-de-sac of his own making striving for something that is as daft as a brush, or dangerously blinkered as an outlook.

tatchells interview with the 14 year old boy showed a child who has been abused and groomed, he speaks of staying with a paedophile while homeless, prostituted out to men who tied him and raped him and yet Tatchell sees this child's views as worthy to support his argument to lower age of consent. Why did Tatchell not ensure this young boy had access to counselling and support rather than advocating that he needed a boyfriend… it shows how distorted Tatchells perception of normality is, his views are very dangerous. I wonder how that boy is now.

I found this interview on his website very upsetting. It’s about a neglected and abused child.

He used this child’s story of homosexuality, homelessness, pedophilia to push the narrative of reducing the age of consent.

So a 14yo having sex with a 11yo or a 12yo having sexual with a 9yo would be ok.

www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/im-14-im-gay-i-want-a-boyfriend/

“ The idea of a sliding-scale age of consent is something that OutRage! is promoting. In addition to supporting an age of consent of 14 for everyone (gay and straight), OutRage! argues that sex involving young people under 14 should not be prosecuted providing both partners consent and there is no more than three years difference in their ages.”