to think that in 2012 we are both enlightened and educated enough to tell the difference between a homosexual and a paedophile?

[isupposeimabitofafraud]

Hey Mr Cameron?

Care to explain your comments on This Morning?

The only thing I'm getting out of that, is his own prejudices and the whiff of a lack of leadership and yet another cover up.

If Mr Cameron wants to save his own neck and not drown in this sick sea of corruption then taking it seriously and not being dismissive of the claims and accusing people of homophobia, might be a good place to start...

Together with an overall inquiry into why there have been so many institutional failures with regard to child protection and to gather all the conclusions of the 6 million other investigations that have been started post Jimmy Savile, for their findings are scattered to the four corners of the country by the wind.

I'm fuming. I don't want crappy ill thought out warnings about a witchhunt, it wouldn't BE a witchhunt, if the government actually started to take control of the scandal and handle it properly, sensitively and starting taking it seriously rather than acting reactively.

For weeks it was obvious that the Jimmy Savile revelations were going to spread and given what the government do know, and the fact they have both the intelligence and foresight to be able to see the direction it was going to head and act accordingly. Instead they have sat on their hands and hoped it would all die down, go away and we'd all forget about it. Well I'm not forgetting about it. I want PROPER answers and an institutional change of attitude and action. Not more crap.

Isn't this exactly how we got into this mess in the first place, by officials dismissing those who did report or trying to discredit them?

Haven't they learnt ANYTHING yet?

/rant.

seriously? YABU

it is fucking obvious that if you are handed a list of suspected people who all happen to be gay, you will say 'don't name those people just because they are gay' - though of course he shouldn't have acknowledged the list at all.
it was a comment on what was happening in the public realm.

Some rent boys are children, Fanjo, just like there are underage teenage prostitutes out there too. Clearly, anyone who has sex with a child in any circumstance is a paedophile and the issue of whether money changes hands is irrelevant.

But I'm not at all sure why you've raised the issue of rent boys at all? The boys in the children's homes weren't selling sex, any more than the girls that JS targeted were.

Are you referring to a different story?

Additional complication re: the children thing is that I believe the age of consent for gay sex was 21 until surprisingly late.

Underage female prostitutes, I mean.

(I hate calling them that because it sounds like they've made a choice).

Yes, Mulled - it was only in about 2000 it was brought down to 16, I believe.

This is an interesting piece in Pink News which sort of says what I think

www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/09/comment-there-is-a-real-climate-of-hysteria/

I too do not support David Cameron, but I really think that he was worried people would -and have been so it is fresh in his mind- equating the 2. I thought he did not actually read Phil's list, but was just encouraging him to dismiss Internet gossip.

There are underage prostitutes of both genders. But "rent boys" are, at least theoretically, over the age of consent.

That is an excellent article trockodile

I suspect that Cameron knew exactly what names would be on the list, was aware that the only "evidence" against them is that they're gay & was responding on that basis.

And was right to do so.

Well he was quite right to warn against a witch-hunt because it's already happening. Lord McAlpine has had to issue a statement today to try to squash rumoursStatement Won't be the first or last. 'I belive you' is all well and good & there should be police investigations where allegations are made, but what we're getting now is mass hysteria and mob rule of the very worst kind.... about as far from justice as is possible.

IT didn't sound to me like he was justifying aqnything, regardless of the era.

I thought he was merely saying that we shouldn't vilify people because of internet rumours, but that the investigations should be carried out by the police, and that they are who people should go to with accusations/information.

By saying people should go to the correct authoirties he's hardly justifying it.

What I was trying to say was that by bringing homosexuality into the matter he could well be attempting to justify sexual acts which took place because of the way things used to be.

Although I certainly agree that that attitude is around (regardless of orientation), I have no reason to think Cameron endorses it and I certainly don't think he'd hint at it on TV because it's fucking shocking. Occam's razor, I think his reasons for "bringing homosexuality into the matter" are exactly the same as mine. I genuinely cannot see whatever it is you are reading into his words.

Be interested to know if you think you did misunderstand, JenaiMarr?

You have no clarified things one iota!

Rent boys are male prostitutes (some underage, most not).

How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then"?

Please explain rather than simply repeat a rather offensive slur on someone's character over and over again.

Fanjo you are making no sense at all - where is your evidence that DC not wanting to equate 'gay' with 'child abuser' is to do with him willingly covering up the forced prostitution of boys in childrens homes in the 80's

you are making wild unfounded accusations

"I thought he was merely saying that we shouldn't vilify people because of internet rumours"

no

he said

"we shouldn't vilify Gay people because of internet rumours"

why on earth was it relevant that he knew there were gay people on the list when the accusation is not 'being gay' but 'being a paedophile'? He should have used the words 'innocent people' or 'those who have not been found guilty'.

The article linked to a few posts ago says "There has been an avalanche of often hysterical tweets in the last 24 hours claiming Cameron?s comments show that he is a secret homophobe who was inferring all gay men were paedophiles." This has never been my concern. I don't think that is what he was inferring at all. I think he was stupid to even bring gayness into it, even if he recognised some gay people on the list. If they are the same names I have heard then he is guilty of believing rumours about their sexuality too as none of them that I know about have come out and some of them are in heterosexual relationships. Why would he see that list and mention their supposed gayness? Why would he make it an issue, unless he wants to out them because he has some inside knowledge that they have given him about their sexuality?

I actually think what DC was saying is that people often equate being gay with being a paedophile and we have to be very careful not to accuse people of paedophilia because we know them to be gay. Or think they might be gay.

One of the few sensible things he has ever said in my opinion.

Fanjo many people have explained this over and over on this thread

There where accusations of sexual abuse of BOYS by MEN

Ergo the assumption that their abusers where gay

which means if your are gay and tory you would likely find your name bandied about on the interweb

some people even think gay men are sexual predators

Being named online is not proof of guilt

Their sexuality has been brought into by the idiots naming random people online...and those taking this as fact

How, therefore, do you think David Cameron could justify the abuse of boys in children's homes as "Well, they were rent boys and it was different back then"?

Could you answer this question that I asked you, please, Fanjo.

Surely if an adult man wants to abuse little boys he is a homosexual. Or is there a new word to learn?

no he is a child abuser - not all sexual abuse is sexually motivated - much of it is about power, control and domination - it isn't always a reflection of sexual orientation

I m still with Peter Tatchell.

It has been bloody obvious when you look at many of the names being bandied about on twitter etc that many idiotspeople are far more inclined to throw around the names of people who are known or thought to be gay. Along with people who would be the most shocking - the more famous the better.

There is a witch hunt. There is a gossipy excitable atmosphere where people are speculating and suggesting and getting terribly excited about knowing who is being talked about. It's ridiculous.
And people being names are often gay.
There was already a linkage in the minds of some fuckwits via social media
He just articulated it and how damaging it is.

Philip schofield and /or the production team were pulling a cheap stunt about an important issue to try and look edgy. Wankers

Well, what do we call an adult man who wants to abuse little girls, lovely? "Straight"?

Fanjo - "Now I am happy to concede that I don't know much about DC and so I may be wrong"

Probably the only thing you've said in this thread I would tend to agree with.