Peter Tatchell’s Glowing Review of Paedophile’s Book

[PretzelKnot]

He also contributed to the book but claims it wasn’t him. He says he didn’t write this review. He also says the attached letter to The Guardian about the positive nature of child-adult sexual relations was edited and that’s not what he meant.

Man has a lot of bad luck.

Quite. If I were him, I'd be utterly furious that someone was putting that out under my name. That's quite serious. He should ask the police to investigate.

Exactly!

Why isn't he suing the Guardian?

Agreed. If someone wrote in my name that “Society would remove a lot of sexual fear, anxiety and guilt if, instead of repressing children’s sexuality, it acknowledged the fact that many children have sexual desires at an early age and accordingly educated children so they are able to make free, informed and responsible decisions about when and with whom they have sex” I would be furious and would be suing the hell out of them.

Also, if I wrote to the Guardian and my letter was edited so I didn’t actually mean “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to no -Western cultures” and “While it may be impossible to condone paedophillia, it is time society acknowledged that not all sex with children is unwanted, abusive or harmful”, well I would be suing The Guardian to kingdom come.

I mean, so, so unlucky that all of this pro-paedophillic writings have come to light. I’m sure Mr Tatchell will be providing copies of the legal actions he commenced against the true author and the editor when these were published.

Or man’s had a lot of good luck that media people haven’t noticed what’s in plain sight

Possibly Mr Tatchell will claim this is a deep fake video. I mean, the man says he doesn’t believe these things and is misquoted and has his name placed to reviews he didn’t write. So, so unlucky.

It’s amazing isn’t it? There’s someone who looks exactly like him, sounds exactly like him, and using the same name who states in that video that because a traumatised adult claims the “sex” rape he had at 9 years of age wasn’t too bad, maybe it isn’t always bad?

I would be livid if someone was claiming that was me who thought that.

Well I for one sat in a room with him in the 90s and he was defending these ideas. I don’t for one minute think his views have changed

I guess if he didn't write it then he might sue them? Wait and see what he does next?

The bigger sin is that he appears to have an invisibility shield about him, some Marvel Comics type superpower that means he never gets quizzed by the MSM about this inherent part of him.

Linehan could have given this to Rosanna Lockwood at Talk TV, and she'd have looked thru it like it wasn't there.

And over and over again as his number is on speed dial for every media producer in the land.

I can't think of any scandal or seismic societal change where the MSM (with prominent exceptions like Shelagh Fogerty) are MIA, complicit, disinterested in doing basic checks and probity. And worse still, children.

Coincidentally(?) Peter Hitchen wrote a column today about Tatchell and the drubbing he got as the Labour candidate in Bermondsey.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12424329/PETER-HITCHENS-faded-cutting-famed-gay-rights-campaigner-Peter-Tachell-attic-left-pondering-catalogue-ifs.html

Tatchell was subject to nasty, homophobic campaigning.

But, while the subject is fresh in Hitchen's mind, comments are open and he might be on the app. formerly known as Twitter, formally known as X.

I really respected Tatchell back in the day. The smears against him were a big low in British politics, and he seemed to go onto a life of selfless activism, going to Russia and Zimbabwe to have his head kicked in supporting gay rights.

Akin to a feminist going to Afghanistan or Iran to protest women's rights.

But this revelation of his enthusiasm for something beyond the pale, and his complicity and activism in the destructiveness of trans radical ideology and its fallout, means in my eyes he's one of the bad guys.

And like Farage, his influence politically is so much deeper and wider outside parliament than it ever would have been had he won that seat in the 80s.

He also had that tremendously bad luck to conduct that interview with a teenage boy who had ended up in underage prostitution after a background of abuse and homelessness where one might conclude, after his praise of the boy's sophistication and maturity, that the teenager was making his own good decisions and his lifestyle wasn't so bad.

The interview that is still available on his own website to this day?

Placemarking

I didn't know he was Australian, came here to avoid being drafted to Vietnam. Don't blame him.

He's had so much bad luck. Guy can't catch a break.

That must be why he doesn't sue. Yeah, definitely....definitely.

The interview I mentioned above is referenced and quoted in this Reduxx article. With double misfortune for Peter, it was reprinted in a pro-paedophile publication.

Reduxx

This 1997 interview still on Peter Tatchell’s personal website under the ‘age of consent’ section?

https://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/im-14-im-gay-i-want-a-boyfriend/

“Lee is 14. He’s been having sex with boys since the age of eight, and with men since he was 12. Lee has a serious problem. He wants a steady relationship and has been going out recently with a guy in his mid-twenties, who he met at the hairdressers. But in the eyes of the law, Lee’s partner is a paedophile and Lee is a victim of child abuse. That’s not, however, the way Lee sees it: “I want to have a boyfriend. It’s my choice. No one’s abusing me. Why should we be treated like criminals?”.”

There comes a time when bad luck is just...bad judgement.

Like a lot of people, Tatchell and his ilk, hyper liberal attitudes aren't tempered by age and experience and thinking of the community and the greater good...those attitudes instead get baked in, reinforced as others fête you and fawn over you...and then sometimes you hit the lottery, as in this era's total divorce from material reality, the social barriers and civic mores that once told Tatchell that these barriers on underage sex are there for good reasons no matter how much you feel your freedoms are curtailed, now vaporised as queer theory has swept the land.

Meaning adult sex workers invite kids and mothers into their spaces and they come into ours, any pushback is shunned as prudish and phobic, and a whole sex class, those pesky XX chromosomes majority of the whole population, are relegated behind a fraction of the population who are defined on superstition and other kinds of magical thinking.

Tatchell has come a long way from being smeared four decades ago to for the last decade pretty much leading the conversation on "civil rights".

But his time is up. He knows it. And the Arrow Of History is now starting to arc a different direction.

Jarman was only 52 when he died in the early 90s. PIE was still going strong until the mid 80s and I had gay male friends in the early 80s who also believed that sed between men and boys wasn't always wrong.

As far I know, their views have changed radically over the years and yet Tatchell has never wavered from his position.

I often wonder whether Jarman would have continued to say it was positive had he lived. It's very convenient for Tatchell that he's not around to counter the narrative

In 1988 Peter Tatchell wrote Ian Dunn’s obituary for the Independent.

Ian Dunn was the co founder of PIE (‘Paedophile Information Exchange’)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/obituary-ian-dunn-1151494.html

1998! Oh for an edit button!

(or my mislaid reading spectacles)

He is very interested in sex ed in schools and has created a foundation especially to share his "insights" He argues amongst other things that adults should teach children in classrooms how to give and receive sexual pleasure. In his own words:

“We are proposing a restricted parental opt out, the promotion of safer alternatives to intercourse and overcoming sex shame to tackle abuse. As well as warning pupils about the risks of sex, lessons should also inform older pupils about sexual pleasure and how to achieve it for both themselves and a partner, with the aim of helping them secure mutual sexual happiness,” said Peter Tatchell Foundation Director Peter Tatchell"

I'm not sure how aware he is of the terms of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 including:

10.Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
12.Causing a child to watch a sexual act
14.Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence.
15A.Sexual communication with a child

I could have written your post. I had so much respect for him as a political activist early in his career. Now, I think he is a self-serving amoral creep. What part of the word 'children' does he not understand? A child is not emotionally equipped to understand or have autonomous control over their sexual desires, if they have some.

A paedophile could and would easily manipulate such feelings, confusing and gaslighting the child to their own advantage. If he can't see that this alone is reason enough to protect children from their own desires until they have matured emotionally, then I suspect his moral and emotional blindness is self-serving at root.

I've just checked the Tatchell Foundation. Quite the setup.