Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids

[Happypie]

Peter Tatchell runs the Peter Tatchell Foundation that is currently seeking charitable status. He is also regularly consulted on LGBT issues.

I include a picture of a letter he wrote to the Guardian in the 90s about sex with children. It is deeply disgusting. A man who has these views about sex with kids should not be allowed to run anything.

I was unde the impression that more girls than boys are sexually abused by men, because most men are heterosexual, not homosexual? Or is this incorrect?

I think incest is much more common with girls.

@LikeDust unfortunately for a lot of people they are assaulted more than once and often by different people. Abusers are very good at identifying potential victims and pick up on the slightest insecurity or neediness. One a person has been abused, their self esteem is likely to be at their lowest and to other abusers its like a glowing sign above them saying " vulnerable".

@SlowlyShirnking

I was under the impression that more girls than boys are sexually abused by men, because most men are heterosexual, not homosexual? Or is this incorrect?

This is where it gets complicated. There are different types of paedophile. The person that is attracted to boys, the person that is attracted to girls and the opportunist that just likes to get a kick out of the power (and a whole spectrum of paedophiles within that area).

For example- I was abused by a friend of the family. It later came out that he had previously raped abused his own daughter and step daughter as well. He just liked girls of any age and size so for him it was more about the power and because he could.

A man that is attracted to baby boys will often get his kicks on the internet until he can find a suitable woman to groom ( or one that shares his desires but that is unusual) and that man will groom the entire family and often play a long game and even have a child of their own.

A person in power , such as an MP or Jimmy Saville is just so drunk on what they get away with that they will push the limits of what they can do just for fun as they feel invincible.

But Look at Harold Shipman. He wasn't a paedophile or a famous person at all, he was just a drug addict and a GP but people raised their concerns about him BEFORE he was arrested......and nothing happened despite his mortality rate being higher than other GPs. Why? Because he was a man, in a position of a tiny amount of power and social standing.

In regards to rape and abuse. Boys and girls are unlikely to disclose any abuse as they are often shamed and blackmailed by their abuser. Even adult women are unlikely to report rape or abuse. We see it on this group ALL the time.

Slowly I think lots of men who abuse boys are not gay, as in they may abuse children of both sexes.

I don't think it's anything to do with being heterosexual or homosexual with pedophiles mostly, except that maybe gay men will only abuse boys, I don't know. But it's not as simple as that. My abusive F only abused DSis and me; he encouraged my brother to abuse us too, but didn't abuse him.

The man we reported abused my brother as well as us, we were aged 10, 8 and 6. It sickens me that there wasn't enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute, but he was a stranger who the police managed to trace. His accomplice, the man who groomed us, was known to us and also my DM could confirm that she was suspicious of him. (Too bad she didn't suspect her own husband.)

It's about power, not sexual orientation.

These pedophile apologists always try and make out its a normal variation of sexuality. But if that's true how come we don't see the same amount of female pedophiles as we do males. And most the time when it is females they have been led by a male or are a product of past child abuse.

If it was just another sexuality surely we would get the same numbers between men and women as we do with homosexuality.

Thanks, Ptang, Ifnotnowthen, and Lizzie48. And so sorry that happened to you and your siblings Lizzie

This thread keeps popping up on 'I'm on' and I can't stop coming back to it. I just read the interview with Lee again and started to copy quotes to discuss, but there is just too much. The whole thing is fucking sick. I feel so angry about this.

You see how PT has got away with this and it makes you realise how people have got away with abusing children for so long (not saying PT has abused any children himself, but if this can be so casually swept aside, then no wonder people don't care about children who are actually abused).

NotARealLawyer thanks so much for that info I'll look at these

These pedophile apologists always try and make out its a normal variation of sexuality. But if that's true how come we don't see the same amount of female pedophiles as we do males. And most the time when it is females they have been led by a male or are a product of past child abuse.

The disparate numbers is something addressed in the appendix to the book cited upthread. PIE commented that they had approx. 500 members of whom 2 were female and they were pleased to have them as they gave them useful political cover...

I’ve just read @Petertatchell’s interview with Lee. I’m fascinated how he found it reassuring that a boy who’d been sexualised from an incredibly early age and who was in the care system could be a great example for lowering the age of consent. Seriously it’s beyond belief. It is not normal for a boy of 8 to be engaging in sexual activity even if it’s with another child. It should not be seen as normal. Lee is a victim. Plus why would a man in his 20s want to go out with a 14 year old boy!!!! Ridiculous interview

..just read the interview with Lee again and started to copy quotes to discuss, but there is just too much. The whole thing is fucking sick. I feel so angry about this.

Snap.

This from Beatrix Campbell is excellent

MNHQ deleted insecure link

Click link for Beatrix Campbell (above one didn't work for me):

www.beatrixcampbell.co.uk/peter-tatchell-women-and-children-why-are-we-so-disheartened-and-worried/

I'm unimpressed by the weasel worded explanation Tatchell proffers for some of his more infamous phrasing. For me, this is a variation of that implausible defence years ago when David Willets argued about the meaning of want, purporting he'd intended 'lacks' rather than 'has requested' :

It is true that my Guardian letter said paedophilia “may be impossible to condone” but I used “may” in the sense that I concurred with the view that it is impossible to condone. To give a different example of the use of the word may in concurrence with a viewpoint: The Earth may be round but in everyday life it appears to be flat. The “may” in that sentence concurs with the view that the Earth is round. It does not dispute or contradict the Earth’s roundness. That is the sense in which I said paedophilia “may be impossible to condone”. My use of the word may was not intended as a qualification or an ambivalence but as a concurrence with that view that sex with children is impossible to condone. To avoid doubt, I should have used “is” impossible to condone. That is what I meant. My apologies for that inadvertent error, which has created confusion and doubt.

The David Willets' linguistic conjuring: www.theguardian.com/politics/1996/nov/17/conservatives.uk

Yep, totally agree that if paedophilia were just another 'sexuality' then there would be about even numbers of men and women for starters.

#HidingInPlainSight

And everyone's too woke to see it.

It's exactly like Rochdale; people don't want to state the bleedin' obvious for fear of being branded bigoted.

Wouldn't it be nice if failing to stand up for the rights of women and children, were the thing that our society considered bigoted, rather than questioning the sexual rights of adult males.

Yep, totally agree that if paedophilia were just another 'sexuality' then there would be about even numbers of men and women for starters

So why don’t we see that reflected currently even close to the numbers of Male sex offenders and abusers vs the numbers of women doing it?????

It's the same with any sex offence, it's not about orientation, it's about power. Men abuse women and children because they want to exercise their power over them.

It's the same reason why DV is usually perpetrated by men on women and children. (Yes, I know there are exceptions before anyone jumps on me.)

@Abso agree entirely, the fact is men a FAR more likely to abuse than women. No idea why. Don’t really care. The fact is men need to check themselves more than women

I am still waiting for a reply from fflag. Has anyone recieved a response from them?

Happypie no response from Fflag re Tatchell to me either. Speaks for itself really.
And locally, I appear to have been missed off their Christmas social invite.

This is horrendous. Well worth bringing up in light of this monster ‘s recent attack on The Times article about whistleblowers in Tavistock. Whose interest is he defending? It certainly isn’t childrens’.

I read some of this thread last year and just caught up with rest of it. Did either of you eventually get a response from Fflag, Happypie & NotaRealLawyer? (Sorry, I don’t know how to tag your names properly)