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.

Is not blue...ffs

He didn't condemn the no-platforming of Julie Bindel at that Free Speech cafe last month cometoawall

Rachel,Peter himself keeps saying that article was edited but won't say what he actually said ...so if you can remember, could you please tell us?

Where are all these 9-13 year olds now? If it was such a great experience for them why don't they speak out and fight for the rights of their "inter generational partners"

They don't fucking exsist. Because being abused as a child fucks you up. You may not realise until years later, but you won't find anyone that in the end is happy with what happened to them.

My god this makes terrifying reading.
I've had several discussions over the past few months about the speed of legislative changes being made to the whole trans movement and how society is being made to blindly accept all this as normal.
Each of these discussions has touched on the fact that paedophilia is the "last taboo" to be pushed forward.

And now I read this.

Horrific

Peter, I assume you came here to defend the apology for paedophilia that you wrote?

If this is not something you stand by state clearly:

1. That 9-13 year olds cannot get "great joy" from sex with adults.
2. Child sex abuse (As you call it inter-generational sex) is ALWAYS wrong.
3. Explain why you wrote a glowing obituary for the co-founder of the Paedophile Information Exchange.
4. Explain why you contributed a chapter to a book that promotes child sexual abuse.

This is what you need to do to start working towards re-establishing your reputation, not just saying that you were edited badly. You are an intelligent man, cut the bullshit and start explaining yourself.

Yesterday 19:39 LucilleBluth

This is why women have to remain the gatekeepers to children. They are trying to demonise feminists in order to break down barriers and access spaces reserved for women and children. It's becoming very obvious.

This is what I am seeing. There are lots of activists on Twitter trying to say the state knows better than parents how to care for children. A lot of activists saying they don't have any intention of having their own kids (don't want the sacrifice/inconvenience) yet criticise parents for 'denying' their children's 'autonomy' to make massive lifechanging choices which affect their future sex lives and fertility.

We need more women led orgs for children instead of Savile helping launch Childline and directors of NSPCC buying Savile's property for summer homes. Women need to be the protectors of children and should really loudly when men (or anyone) try to remove safeguards or become senior figures in children's charities.

Happypie wrote: If this is not something you stand by state clearly

Happypie 's post is a good summary list and I'd like to see the answer. Like other posters, I've read your links and they're not sufficiently clear because they address what so many legal systems categorise as Romeo and Juliet scenarios and they're based on your specific talks rather than our understandable questions and concerns.

I understand the arguments about undue criminalisation of sexual activity in a Romeo and Juliet scenario but that is not the trans-generational sex you were celebrating in your letter.

I'm sure too many parents here are aware of the wretched rate of sexual offences including rape that happen within our schools.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3364183-To-think-the-DfE-doesnt-care-that-girls-are-being-raped-in-schools

And, I'd rather like to sort out the sorry mess in our schools and implement some adequate and appropriate PSHE before we have a public discussion about legal proposals to amend the age of consent. (The consultation around RSE finished a few days ago.)

There are many people here with a default admiration for your civil rights history and achievements, Peter Tatchell , and it would be a kindness and wholly appropriate use of social media to reassure them when it would be so easy to do this.

Peter has done one.

He's a cowardly plopper.

There's a surprise. Not.

He's in full swing with Operation Damage Limitation c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p no time to stop and chat.... c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p c+p

He's a cowardly plopper.

O Tempora, O Mores. Social media makes ploppers of many a brave SJW with distinguished SJW records.

A man who attempted to arrest Mugabe and he's too busy C+P 'ing to engage with dignity and courage on Mumsnet? shakes head

Holy shit. I have spent years admiring Peter Tatcher's work for gay rights. I had NO IDEA he was an associate and apparent apologist for PIE. I thought his recent lack of support for GC feminists was more about being an "I'm alright Jack" gay man, but now I'm looking at his position in a very, very different way.

I feel like I need a sit down.

A clock tells the time correctly at least once a day.

Just because he got some stuff very very right does not negate the fact he got this very, very wrong

He claims he doesn't and has never supported PIE yet there's a photo on Twitter of him holding a large PIE placard (with Unison flags in the background "not all sex with children is unwanted"). Why lie?

Presumably it's not photoshopped?

*sorry something went wrong with my brackets there

What a sick bastard. And the disgusting nerve to come on here and lie about what he clearly stated. You scum. I hope mumsnet call the police and have you locked up.

1983 was the first time in PIE’s nine-year history that a handful of members carried a PIE banner at the London Gay Pride march. The banner read simply: ‘Adults Loving Children loving Adults’ – a bisexual extension of the famous BODY POLITIC caption.

Quoted from an appendix in the book to which Tatchell contributed a chapter:

ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/betrayal-of-youth-1986-including-the-contributions-of-middleton-owens-faust-tatchell/

That link, and the book is available to look at there, is eye-opening in a way that you might regret and I don't say that lightly.

He claims he doesn't and has never supported PIE yet there's a photo on Twitter of him holding a large PIE placard (with Unison flags in the background "not all sex with children is unwanted"). Why lie?
Presumably it's not photoshopped?

^I'd check that Twitter out Gareth. UNISON was formed from a number of public sector unions in the early 1990's. PIE supposedly was disestablished at least ten years earlier, about 1984/5.

So the time line does not fit as far as I am concerned.
I really do hope that it is a photoshop, but without a link can't tell.

( bold fail for some reason re your quote)

Arran, I've never seen that book, thanks for the link. Still getting more and more jigsaw pieces after all these years.
I'm bracing myself for the Twitter photo being genuine if Gareth is able to verify. Then I will go and puke up.

Thanks NotaRealLawyer - I'm fairly certain now the placard was photoshopped, silly me.

This thread is very illuminating, I hope it doesn't get pulled.

This is utterly disgusting. How has he got away with it for so long??

The placard is photoshopped fake. Let us challenge him for provable things he has done, instead of giving him easy straw-men to knock down.

Absolutely Happypie Please stand down everyone

This is so disgusting. Awaiting his return to see if he has anything genuine to say.