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.

That is not the job of a school teacher 🤢

Holy moly, thank fuck us Gen Xers had More magazine for that!

I can’t imagine the horror of a PSHE lesson on shagging for fun taught by Mr Wilkinson (and that’s without the boundary erosion safeguarding breach) 🤬🤬🤬

and he seemed to go onto a life of selfless activism

But there’s always something from all of them isn’t there? Charity work, good deeds, diversion, building a character reference, “lots of valuable work in the community”.

He is still campaigning to lower the age of consent mixed in with his campaign to tackle sexual abuse in schools.
https://twitter.com/PeterTatchell/status/1692879129253671022?t=kM2FgMNsBch8_EYDGL0O4A&s=19

We see you

I'm sure I read that back in those dark days, he really talked the talk and walked the walk. His life was nearly destroyed by the media onslaught (The Sun really had it in for him, weaponised by Thatcher and S28). He was persona non grata, with when the caring sharing Liberal Party trashing him. This was all pre-Stonewall, I think.

He lived as basically as you could imagine, zero financial benefit from any of his early activism (which included the guerrilla like party crashing of Mary Whitehouse inspired Festival Of Light in the 70s). His bedsit was as basic as you could imagine.

The next I heard about him was his putting his body in the way in Russia and Zimbabwe. This was the time I was varying my politics allegiances and finally shedding some long term prejudices I'd held. Tatchell wasn't instrumental, but I looked on him with admiration as a principled guy with a hard head.

Then as my interests widened a decade ago as intersectional politics and trans madness frothed over into the mass media, I got to know about this side of Tatchell and queer politics in general. And my previous respect has been absolutely scuppered.

I can see why he remains a hero, and I'm sure his work on gay rights in the worst countries is still groundbreaking.

But I'm very much aware that there are so many supranational bodies trying to railroad the trans and Queer activist agenda, and his Foundation will be working hand in hand.

Now, he goes from rebel to establishment figure. And this establishment deserves a bloody nose from women everywhere.

It's time for the LGBA to become the voice of sanity and change, and relegate Stonewall and Tatchell to irrelevance.

If there is an Arrow Of History, his hand on the bow needs to be prised away.

Tatchell wants to reduce child abuse in schools by moving the boundary between what is sexual abuse of a child and what is legal sex with a minor?

Reminds me of the time the Tories reduced child poverty by changing the definition of poverty!

100%

Yet how long before this thread is deleted. It always happens. It's in front of our eyes yet we are silenced and he continues to get airtime.

His twitter / X thread - he wants to reduce the age of consent: 😡

"..Parliament rightly seeks to safeguard against abuse. It sets the age of consent at 16. But by denying the under-16s the right to consent to sex, it reinforces the idea that they have no right to make their own sexual choices. Isn’t this also what child sex abusers believe? That teens have no right to decide?.."

He really is in plain sight isn't he?

Denying them the right

Kids are "denied the right" to drive, own a gun, or to buy knives. Should we invert those situations as well?

Damn right I deny my kids the ‘right’ to drink booze, get tattoos and ‘consent’ to sexual activity with adults!

I've worked in various charitable organisations.

There are many people in there whose motives were not charitable.

That's all I am prepared to say on the matter.

Like all those kids in Rotherham and elsewhere were treated as though they had the right to consent to how they were treated?

I don't think sexually active children are treated as criminals. It would be a safeguarding issue. It's the people they are having sex with who may be criminalised. That's who Tatchell is really advocating for.

Of course, he may not realise that! Definitely.....definitely....?

Is this one of the reasons the press are reluctant to investigate

It's always disappointing that Tatchell is never asked why he repeatedly calls for the age of consent to be lowered? Especially when he spends so much time commenting on sex education for children.

It's long overdue that journalists started probing why he's so insistent on this.

And long overdue that shows such as GMB stop inviting him to speak as an authority on child safety matters in Schools. It enrages me every time and I do write in expressing so.

I don't know why the media - tv companies in particular - keep giving him a platform. All this stuff is publicly available and has been well aired on Twitter. I it just laziness? They need someone who's gay, and Tatchell is articulate and outspoken, so they're not going to look too closely into what he's said in the past.

It would make my day if the go-to contributors from the gay POV wouldn't be Tatchell, but instead Malcolm Clark or Dennis Noel Kavanagh.

However I suspect we'd need a bit more Stonewall self-immolation before that day.

Maybe in the meantime, an interviewer could ask a transplaining Tatchell "First Peter, can I get your opinions on this piece you wrote justifying underage sex..."

and he seemed to go onto a life of selfless activism

This by now should surely be a red flag.
Happens so often.

Tatchell has had such bad luck.

I mean, he wrote this letter too about Sarah Cook’s underage marriage back in 1996! Gosh, he has had bad luck.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-why-destroy-young-love-1326015.html

”Sir: Your thoughtful, compassionate editorial ("Sad tale of a modern- day Juliet", 25 January) on the hounding of the 13-year-old child bride, Sarah Cook, was a much-needed corrective to the hysterical, heartless reaction of the Turkish and British authorities. Although her marriage may be unlawful, there is no evidence that Sarah was coerced into, or harmed by, the relationship with Musa Komaegae. Indeed, she appears to have been very happy - until the heavy-handed intervention of officialdom.”

”Why the authorities should want to (or be allowed to) break up the love between these two teenagers is beyond my comprehension. Isn't there enough emotional unhappiness in the world without adding needlessly to it? Moreover, in an era when youth promiscuity is widely condemned, one would expect society to welcome Sarah's and Musa's love and fidelity, rather than seek to destroy it.”

“The authorities claim that they have Sarah's welfare at heart. However, it's hard to envisage that her welfare is best served by forcing her to undergo the humiliation of a so-called "virginity test" and by charging- the man she loves with rape, despite the evidently consensual nature of their relationship.”

“Astonishingly, even though Sarah has talked of suicide if she is kept apart from Musa, officials seem prepared to risk the possibility of such a tragedy. Yes, there is real harm being done to this young girl, but it's not being done by her boyfriend.”

Yours faithfully,
Peter Tatchell
London, SE1

This is in response to :

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/mother-of-bride-13-faces-turkish-police-1325484.html

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12284074.turkish-waiter-remarries/

The mirror did a follow up in 2000

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+the+child+bride+grew+up...%3B+SHE+WAS+A+NAIVE+TOURIST+OF+13+AND+HE...-a068111728

It is a horrific story. Yet Tatchell’s bad luck to have yet another letter published that pleaded that this 13 year old was never coerced and it was true love and how terrible it was that there was this investigation. Notice Tatchell has reduced the man’s age which was known to be 18, to ‘they are both teenagers’….

I wonder if he even remembers this.

Such bad luck!!

Thirteen! My DC is 13 and nowhere near mature enough to understand the consequences of any of that. How on earth have the media ignored all this?

That is bad luck Helleofabore - for him to repeatedly speak in favour of children having sexual agency to have sex with adults (I'm defining an 18 year old as an adult). I note he suggests this as a mantra for sex education

"It’s my body. It’s my right to decide".

I wonder how he weaves that in to the sex education his foundation provide for school? And I wonder whether teachers and parents are aware of his long and unlucky history of promoting the "rights" of even very young children to have sexual relationships with adults?

I know MrsO! It is bad luck that he keeps having his view published on this and it seems to maintain a consistent activism. No matter how he doth protest.

To misquote John Mclane

“How can the same shit happen to the same guy repeatedly”

🤔🙄

Here’s a link to his website articles on lowering the age of consent to 14.

https://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age-of-consent/

And what a remarkable thing to be advocating for, lowering the age of consent, considering the ramifications of Foucault and his group of intellectuals getting the age of consent lowered in France?

Gosh, it really seems bad luck that Tatchell is a keen advocate of gender identity theory which we know Foucault was hugely instrumental in forming and the harm to the children of this age of consent change were silenced by powerful men in France. Because obvs Tatchell never heard of these harms. Maybe Tatchell never knew of Foucault’s alleged sexual interests. Yet, Tatchell remains unwavering in support of many things Foucault wrote about or successfully campaigned for.

Hmm, threats of suicide as a reason to do whatever the person making the threats wants. Where have I heard that before..?