Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids

323 replies

Happypie · 09/11/2018 17:21

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.

Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids
OP posts:
RedDogsBeg · 10/11/2018 23:24

Although obviously not actively the ones in the vulnerable position, the vast majority of normal men are just as opposed as women to what the TRAs and other apologists are trying to achieve and really aren't in any way seeking to gain access women's toilets and changing rooms; and, believe it or not, most men do actually care about children's well-being and preventing them from abuse too.

So let's hear their voices then, stop standing back whilst women are abused, doxed and threatened on Social Media, in public, etc., etc. Where are their letters and challenges to politicians, councils, sports facilities, Girl Guides, et al?

PipGoesPop · 10/11/2018 23:27

Sausageroll unfuckingbelievable. You forgot NAMALT.

You can Fuck off with Tash.

NotaRealLawyer · 10/11/2018 23:27

OrchidInTheSunStar

Peter Well, I did ask nicely earlier. The silence is deafening.
Another few questions.

How are your pals from Operation Spanner? Still supporting their Human Rights to sandpaper and severely injure each others' penises? I recall you organising a Spank-in benefit to support them.

Do you do any campaigning to oppose FGM?
Speak up.
Can't hear you.

arranfan · 10/11/2018 23:28

YoutheCat wrote: I'd love to see...in these awful abuses.

Recent reports have exposed how future Labour Party MPs held key roles in the Seventies at NCCL, which effectively supported PIE’s aims.

These MPs have refused to explain or apologise. They should — because the evil legacy of that era, our lack of intelligent thinking and moral courage, still reverberates. I recovered from my failure of nerve and went on in the Nineties to expose how paedophiles had infiltrated all 12 children’s homes in Islington, north London. They did so thanks to the then far-Left council’s fatally naïve “positive discrimination’ recruitment policy. If a man wanted work with children and claimed to be gay he did not even need experience or references. Numerous independent inquiries later vindicated us.

Politicians of all hues allowed PIE to thrive. But it still angers me most when those who claim to champion the weakest in society stay silent.*

Why is saving face more im8portant than saving vulnerable children?

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653950/We-on-the-Left-lacked-the-courage-to-be-branded-homophobic-so-we-just-ignored-it.-I-wish-I-hadnt.html

DTSMUMBOJO · 10/11/2018 23:42

How about we just have due safeguarding for all children and keep proven abusers locked up and well away from children for the rest of their lives? Turning this into a female=good/male=bad issue helps nobody.*

Because no paedophile or abuser is born with it stamped on their record. For safeguarding and locking up to start kicking in, at least one (normally more because it's so underreported) child has to be abused. Jimmy Savile and Cyril Smith would both have passed a DBS check with flying colours.

Even three of the four women you name are only likely to have committed their crimes because they were under the influence of a male.

It's statistically borne out that women are much less likely to sexually or violently attack children, and when they do they're much more likely to be doing it with a dominant male accomplice than alone.

If you tell your children it doesn't matter who they approach if they're lost you're taking a stupid risk. Telling them to approach a woman, preferably with children is statistically much safer.

citiesofbismuth · 10/11/2018 23:47

Creep

Be aware that there is a low key strategy taking place that means women can no longer protect their children.

Safeguarding concerns are being ignored and swept under the carpet for fear of being branded a bigot. Children cannot consent to the things they are being encouraged to consent to. Boundaries are being dangerously pushed and will continue to be pushed.

Have the courage to stand up and tell it like it is. Don't allow yourself to be cowed, threatened or made to accept lies and coercion.

citiesofbismuth · 10/11/2018 23:54

Oh yes, and mens biggest weakness is believing that they're the superior species and that women are stupid. We know exactly where this is heading and what's going on and we will fight and fight and fight you. We're not odious, slimy little cowards who predate on children.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 10/11/2018 23:57

Sausageroll unfuckingbelievable. You forgot NAMALT.

Fair enough, then. Let's scrap all DBS checks (and make it illegal to ever give voice to any legitimate concerns) for women and automatically lock up all men - including all husbands, male partners, fathers, brothers and 18+ sons of MNers, as it seems they can all safely be assumed to be paedophiles, or at the very least in favour of it for those who are so inclined.

I've only ever seen NAMALT used before when people try to hijack issues that almost exclusively adversely affect women, but I didn't realise that protecting children was an exclusively female responsibility, from which men were automatically released and could therefore not be held accountable for.

I must have been stupid, but I thought the thread was about all right-thinking adults (the vast majority) condemning the evil minority who have any sympathies with or attempt to condone any form of child abuse.

Is it really more important to derail a thread concerning child abuse and threats to children's safety by concentrating your energies on making serious sweeping accusations against all men instead? If I were to suggest that your husband, adult son or father was a child abuser or at least not opposed to child abuse, would you just nod your head and say "Well, he DOES have a penis, so I assume you MUST be right" ?

tableandchairz · 10/11/2018 23:59

He's vile.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 11/11/2018 00:02

I find this post from @PeterTatchell very disturbing. He has used the same tactic that allowed PIE to make such inroads into society, namely obfuscating the object of debate. Their aim was to promote adults raping children. But they talked a lot - like he has done here tonight - about how it was liberating for children to be told that their sexual urges were natural.

It's a particularly sick tactic, attempting as it does to harness the innocent exploration that all children experience to a justification for them being raped by adults.

It is also, as anyone who works with paedophiles will attest, a justification that said paedophiles use for their abusive and criminal actions.

As such I sincerely hope that @PeterTatchell, in light of this gaslighting tendency as clearly displayed in his message, does not work with victims of child sexual abuse.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 11/11/2018 00:04

(That was a much calmer version of my original thoughts on reading his message, which utterly horrified me for the reason I've given.)

SleightOfMind · 11/11/2018 00:07

Fekko :

’Maybe thats when you couldn't call out gay men. A bit like trans today.’

That’s spot on.
Good, well meaning people were bamboozled by activists like PIE into supporting horrific things.

Peter Tatchell and Harriet Hartman are good people. I’ve grown up watching them passionately stand up for the downtrodden but across those decades they both made a couple of mistakes.
We need to be talking to people like Tatchell and Harman.
They’ve been around the block and are not afraid of standing up against a prevailing orthodoxy.

We could win friends instead of alienating natural allies?

DTSMUMBOJO · 11/11/2018 00:07

Interesting that link says that in the 70s the left were too scared of accusations of homophobia to act. 30 years later they said exactly the same about Islamophobia and grooming. You'd think they'd learn wouldn't you?

RedDogsBeg · 11/11/2018 00:09

So I'll say again WeBuilt - where are their voices? What did they do about the GRA Consultation into Self ID which is a threat to safeguarding children and women? Where is their support for the women who have been tirelessly banging the drum and routinely being abused and threatened for it?

RedDogsBeg · 11/11/2018 00:12

SleightofMind They’ve been around the block and are not afraid of standing up against a prevailing orthodoxy. All evidence is to the contrary in the case of Peter Tatchell.

BitOfFun · 11/11/2018 00:12

This.

Peter Tatchell excusing sex with kids
HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 11/11/2018 00:12

Tatchell has spent the last 48 hours spamming twitter with issues affecting women and stating that feminists ignore these issues (they don't), in an effort to deflect attention from being called out as a pervert. The crux of his argument seems to be that the people who speak out about paedophiles are going after the wrong targets and actually feminism is to blame for all the evils in the world (as opposed to men sticking their dicks where they shouldn't). He is far from a natural ally.

peanut2017 · 11/11/2018 00:14

I'm just so shocked that this was printed in a newspaper and nothing was done about it. Same with that shitty doctors discussion where they excuse abuse of children as normal in certain cultures.

I feel like I'm in a parallel universe and the synergies to the trans debate or silencing of any debate to excusing this despicable behavior is so scary.

Anyone speak out - you are homophobic.

Anyone speak out now - you are transphobic

Fucking hell

BigChocFrenzy · 11/11/2018 00:17

PeterTatchell Did you really write "consenting inter-generational sex" ?
because that sounds like a academic's whitewash of child rape

HeronLanyon · 11/11/2018 00:20

Oh no. Peter tatchell has done so much good and i have always admired quite a bit about him. This is just all wrong.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 11/11/2018 00:21

Well, quite. There's no such thing as "consenting inter-generational sex". If an adult engages in sexual activity with a child, it's abuse.

HaroldsSocalledBluetits · 11/11/2018 00:23

I don't think the people who he spent years stalking and making public their private business for the sake of salacious NOTW stories would say he's done a lot of good.

BigChocFrenzy · 11/11/2018 00:25

re pp upthread and the danger from women:

98% of those convicted of sexual offences are men

Of course most men are decent human beings, but predators don't wear badges to distinguish them from other men.

WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 11/11/2018 00:28

Although obviously not actively the ones in the vulnerable position, the vast majority of normal men are just as opposed as women to what the TRAs and other apologists are trying to achieve and really aren't in any way seeking to gain access women's toilets and changing rooms; and, believe it or not, most men do actually care about children's well-being and preventing them from abuse too.

So let's hear their voices then, stop standing back whilst women are abused, doxed and threatened on Social Media, in public, etc., etc. Where are their letters and challenges to politicians, councils, sports facilities, Girl Guides, et al?

I completely agree with you. Because men are not the ones in danger, they mostly don't comprehend the reality of what is happening, so many would be opposed to what the TRAs desire without necessarily fully understanding what their methods and ultimate goals are.

And whilst most would not want to go in women's toilets and changing rooms (let alone prisons), simply because they are NOT women and thus it would obviously be inappropriate, they often wouldn't have thought further than assuming it was women wanting to chat with female friends (probably about them) and re-apply makeup rather than the actual real threats of rape and other violence that women have very good reason to fear if adolescent/adult people with penises are given carte blanche to use facilities that used to be set aside for those with female bodies (and accompanied young boys).

I would love to see intense campaigns to encourage men to actively understand the dangers to women - including their mums, wives, sisters and daughters - of what we now see being worked at to become normalised and forcibly 'accepted'. I just have no idea what methods and messages would work effectively, though - and I'm angry that the current mainstream 'official' paradigm seems to be based around silencing women who are waking up rather than informing and galvanising men to stand alongside women against them - the ones with this clear agenda.

PipGoesPop · 11/11/2018 00:29

Eh? Where have I said that all men are not to be trusted with children. That's a preposterous conclusion to make.

My ref to NAMALT was merely to highlight the ridiculousness of your inclusion of Myra Hindley/Rose West in the discussion we are having here which is essentially about PT and his ok-ing sex of 9-13 year olds with adults. Imo it has no place here on this thread because I see you in my head waving your hands and saying NAMALT what about the women? They abuse children too doncha know.

I think you've got your wires crossed. Nobody here isn't for safeguarding children across the board.