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.

(I've just asked MNHQ to delete my post just then because I wish I hadn't posted it - I wanted to explain to people further down the thread who weren't clear why rent boys had anything to do with this issue, but it's pretty unedifying - apologies.)

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

Nope. Paedophile is the word you are looking for- if the abuse you are talking about is sexual in nature.

Often paedophiles don't really care they attack a boy or a girl. They may have a preference but often not. So paedophile is the term you need really

I think the paedophile issues are referring to 30 years ago so that is 1990 roughly.

Was thinking about back then and remembered the Satanic abuse scares (1986). Families on Orkney were accused of satanic abuse of their children and children were taken into care, one father was jailed. Also came across another in Ayr where children were taken into care.

This is a link to an article but haven't read it right through and don't have time to now
www.whale.to/b/rooum.html

This demonstrates that there was social workers looking out for abused children, unfortunately they were barking up the wrong tree in many of these satanic abuse cases. In these cases often the children's voices were ignored when they stated nothing had happened.

Just making the point that it wasn't all wicked pedos and society ignoring innocent children in those days.

"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"?"

My opinion is that there is a certain attitude, which David Cameron could have, that sex with young boys was not really a crime back in the days when it's what a lot of people were doing and the boys in question were basically willing and being paid.

I personally don't think it justifies abuse, I do think there are a lot of people who think like this and that David Cameron and politicians of a certain ilk may share this kind of opinion.

Exactly Seeker and Mulled-peodophilia is about many things (generally power) sexual orientation-gay/straight is not one of them.
I have never been a Tory supporter but David Cameron is on record as being a supporter of Equal Marriage and gay rights generally.

So you don't know his actual opinion, but are perfectly prepared to make suggestions that are quite inflammatory and dangerous?

You really are quite outstanding.

that was in response to Fanjo

"There where accusations of sexual abuse of BOYS by MEN. Ergo the assumption that their abusers where gay"

That assumption is not one I would make. Many men who abuse boys would not identify themselves as gay. Sexual abuse is about more than just sexuality, just like rape is not about sex, it is about power.

Why make an assumption that sex with boys is about being gay? Is that what DC just did?

suggesting that David Cameron is the sort of bloke who might turn a blind eye to child abuse is ridiculous.

Based on what? The fact he went to public school?

I honestly can't think of anyone who seriously thinks that using children as rent boys is fine. Or that the fact that it may have happened a long time ago is fine.

I am quite unsure as to how anyone could just assume that another person would hold such a view particularly as it seems to be based upon anything other than his politics.

Private eye wrote quite a detailed piece naming a liberal mp. Do we think that mps in the lib dems would hold 'but does it really matter?' views ?

I posted when the Saville thing broke that if this became an issue for petty party political sniping then the victims might as well forget it.

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

Yea gods. Someone's living in the distant past and it isn't DC.

Fanjo you have absolutely NO justification for suggesting, repeatedly, that David Cameron could/may have such an attitude. I'm no fan of the man, but really, it's people spouting this sort of drivel that drives the typical Daily Mail reader into a frenzy.

Look. I will try to put this in simple terms.

Homosexual men are sexually attracted to men.
Heterosexual men are sexually attracted to women.
Paedophiliac men are sexually attracted to children.

That's it.

But paedophilia is not a type of sexuality. To name it as such is to say it's justifiable.

And some of the views expressed on this threat underline the fact that David Cameron's warning was apposite.

yep, probably is inflamatory. It's an internet forum. The internet is full of opinion and some of it is inflamatory. I am not the PM I am just a poster on a forum getting a bit ranty about what I think might institutionally be behind the reactions of our current PM and the government he is heading.
Hopefully he will prove that they can now look at these allegations clearly and without a cover up. Hopefully times have moved on from previous governments.

I am in agreement with the OP

"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."

My opinion is that there is a certain attitude, which David Cameron could have

Fair enough.

My opinion is that Fanjo could be a shoplifting, drug taking, alcoholic brothel keeper who kicks her cat for fun every morning.

I have no evidence for this, but it could be true.

(God, never have I ever wished that MN had a rolling eyes emoticon than now. It's called for).

I am not a DC fan at all - but I think your suggestion that he would dismiss paedophilia on any grounds is absolutely disgusting & unless you have evidence you should take it back.

Mayisout What?

it will be a witch hunt if people persist in using homosexual and paedophile as synonyms.

And think that rent boys are necessarily children.

fanjo - can you please produce evidence which backs up your belief that the Govt aren't taking this seriously?

"But paedophilia is not a type of sexuality. To name it as such is to say it's justifiable."

paedophilia is a type of sexuality. Abhorrent, but real. Naming something does not justify.

that's fine. You tell me that I am not allowed to opine that there is a general attitude towards sex with boys (historically and in certain cultures) which excuses it. it's fine. you don't agree. that too is fine.

I don't agree that most people think men who sexually abuse boys must be gay, I don't agree that people on PS's list maybe being gay is in any way relevant to these accusations. I don't agree there was any good reason for DC to make an issue of their supposed gayness. You disagree. fine.

I agree with Peter Tatchell and that piece in the Pink News too.

I think Cameron is at least partly thinking of the generation of MPs and ministers who were around before homosexuality was decriminalised - I think that some of the allegations date back at least as far as then. There is a danger that MPs believed to have been gay at that time may get dragged into this by virtue of the fact that by engaging in homosexual acts pre-decriminalisation they were acting illegally. So the mob, not always being overly blessed with intelligence, may assume that being involved with one form of illegality in that period may make you more likely to have been involved with another.

I would say that this hysteria is super highly likely to turn against gay men based on how deeply homophobia is engrained in all patriarchal societies.

Philip Schofield is a knob who is flailing around trying to make up for his original disgusting reaction to the scandal.

I don't believe it is actually a recognised sexuality.

Or is that what the "other" box for sexuality on job application forms is for?

I was under the impression that it was a recognised psychiatric disorder.