In the mid 90s, Private Eye published a disgusting first draft, where he described abusing 13 and 14 year old boys. At the time, Stonewall told him to tone it down and we've seen what the toned down version looks like.

It makes me puke that the likes of the Guardian lionise the bastard.

@Helleofabore I think your comment, prior to its delete, asked about the date of Peter's video interview? The original twitter post was 2022 and it said it was from the previous day, although I can't find any corroboration of this.

However, he does reference the same story in a piece on his website which was written some time during or after 2010 and also appears to reference it in his infamous 1997 letter.

A timeline of the times Peter has had his views linked to pedophilia. Since poor Peter keeps having his totally benign views quoted out of context, everything below is taken from the information he has published on his own website:

1981/82 - wrote a chapter on the age of consent which was published in a pro-pedophile book. His chapter makes no mention of sex between adults and children.

1997 - letter to The Guardian in which he defends an academic book about adults having sex with children. In his words the book offers "a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people” and documents “examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike". The letter continues "the positive nature of 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". He offers justification for these views in a 2020 interview published on his website.

1997 - Interview with a 14-year-old boy called Lee. "Lee" is unusually articulate for a 14 year old, and keen to describe his sexual experiences to Peter in great detail. "Lee" says that "the paedophiles I knew always asked me if I wanted sex. They didn’t pressure me. If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it’s fine. If you don’t, it’s not”

1998 - wrote a touching obituary for PIE founder Ian Dunn. Despite several high profile exposés and their subsequent impact of Ian's political career, Peter was sadly not aware of Ian's views on pedophilia. This did not prevent him from writing his glowing obituary which he, unfortunately, did no research for.

2010 or later - he writes on his website about a friend's positive experience of sex with an adult at 9 years old. "As an example, the film-maker Derek Jarman told me that he had sex with an adult, at his initiative, from the age of nine." He calls this experience . The reference terms he uses are "inter-generational sex" and "early sexual experiences".

Derek Jarman is dead and so not able to confirm or deny this.

Also yes, all these people suggesting it's fine to keep someone in solitary all of the time - it's really not. Talk about Geneva Convention and humanity and treating people with compassion.

Not to mention it being against regulations, as I understand it.

Owen did come out yesterday to post this:

'Can we have unity around this central point:

The vast majority of women should NOT be locked up.'

Which was a relief to hear.

They aren't reverse ferreting, just covering their own arses in self preservation mode. They know its reprehensible that male rapists have been put be in female prisons, they know where public opinion is on this now (though ignored women making this point for years)

I bet both still firmly believe that men who identify as women should be allowed access to all other single sex spaces. That is until the next scandal where they will tweak their view ever so slightly again.

I thought he was envisioning a Barbie Kardashian situation where the guy was constantly accompanied by at least one prison officer. But, yeah, his whole sentence spent in solitary. Not that I care, but it's not very humane. How would he be rehabilitated? I expect access to the therapy/courses normally given to rapists would be difficult at a facility where there's usually little requirement for them.

Then there are the female guards who will be expected to search and watch him. In solitary or out. Their welfare.

This is all sucking money from a prison service that is already underfunded, so more detriment to the women prisoners.

Oh my goodness. I’ve just followed that tweet and had to laugh at that screenshot from the conversation with a journalist that Julie Bindell posted where she finished by just saying ‘he’ 🤣

I know, it's just as far as I get these days whenever I think of Tatchell I think of that video clip. He was very clear.

As I've had a few deletions overnight

🤐😤😬😡😠👿

ResisterRex · Today 10:31

All of them have been quiet as mice. But JKR has been through the LGBA / Mermaids transcript so that might wake them up:

I'm utterly incredulous at Dr Belinda Bell's laughable claim that children don't come out of the womb with a sex. She's risible.

ArabellaScott* · Today 09:27

A nine year old child cannot consent to sex.

No, of course not; why any sane person gives the Tatchell creature any credence is beyond most of us.

I think this may show some ignorance. It would surely mean this person spends their entire sentence in solitary.

All of them have been quiet as mice. But JKR has been through the LGBA / Mermaids transcript so that might wake them up:

twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1618916080298381319?s=46&t=Gifqci6O0R4lDZJYXsg8UA

‘Trans or otherwise’, actually I think he’s just grabbing at the generic ‘tHiS IS aBOuT RApIsTs’ argument.

It takes no guts at all to say, after the fact, that a rapist should not be locked up with women.

These men were nowhere to be seen in stating this obvious statement beforehand. They’re such fucking cowards.

Holy shit only yesterday he was saying it was a ‘prison safety issue’. It seems the High Coven of Gender Identity have had a meeting and decided they need to row back a little. For now.

He posted this yesterday, he wanted that rapist in a woman's prison.

So Twaw, except when they are not women, then they are men parading as women, which would never happen, but when it does happen then some twanw, which is only hate speech when women who are women say it? Okay, guess I'm up to date.

It's my tablet every time i put his name i got Maggie's. It was late I couldn't be arsed past making sure it wasn't Thatcher. He's not the sort of person who's name i want stored in my autocorrect!

It's funny though. I have been wondering for ages when the cracks would appear and what they would do. Just go with the next popular opinion, whatever it is, appears to be the answer.

Glad you saved that bit, can't remember what i said in that post but the rest of it was probably not allowed!!!! As it's gone this morning. Oops.

For the posters who roam these boards purity spiralling all over the place it is 100% jealousy.

She is exactly what a lot of them wish they could be! And that kills them.

Is LOJ on his way to a reverse ferret too? Wtf is going on

Also while we are getting sunlight on this subject in the media, any word from Stonewall or Mermaids? Are they keeping their heads down or demanding that TWAW in each and every situation.

Oh gosh how much fun would that be 🤣

Maybe The State Media or one of the other groups who do videos on this topic could stitch together all the tweets and videos of people encanting TWAW? Just as a helpful service to help jog the memories of these MPs, activists, media bores etc.