David Cameron’s inadvertant link between homosexuality and paedophilia has sent the media into a bit of a damage-limitation exercise.
In a live interview earlier this week, This Morning presenter Phillip Schofield handed the Prime Minister a card with a list of names on it drawn from the internet, saying that they were people Mr Cameron knew and asking whether he would be talking to them.
Mr Schofield was wrong to dignify gossip in such a way and no-one being interviewed appreciates an ambush. A furious Mr Cameron, who did not look at the names, replied:
“There is a danger, if we’re not careful, that this could turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay and I’m worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now – giving me a list of names that you’ve taken off the internet.”
The media attention focused on Mr Schofield, who was scolded for the ‘schoolboy error’ of misjudging a camera angle and showing some eagle-eyed viewers the top two Tory names on his list.
Nobody in the world of media wants to talk even about the possibility of links between homosexuality and paedophilia, or to confuse the public by separating paedophiles into those attracted to adolescents (usually referred to as ‘pederasts’) and those attracted to pro-pubertal children (true paedophiles).
Uncomfortable as it is to admit, Mr Cameron was correct in his slip of the tongue. There is indeed a link between homosexuality and sexual attraction to children.
Those campaigning for the legalisation of paedophilia have always been male homosexuals. The founders of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL), the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and the New Zealand based Aotearoa Man-Boy Love Association (AMBLA) were all adult male homosexuals. Ian Dunn, who helped set up PIE, was a leading light in the Scottish Minorities Group, an early homosexual activist group. The Campaign for Homosexual Equality had the abolition of all ages of consent as one of its aims.
It all seemed wonderfully sexually liberated to these activists in the 1970s and early 1980s. PIE even published a book in 1982 called ‘Betrayal of Youth’ (BOY) campaigning against ages of consent, and edited by their Vice-Chairman. Peter Tatchell contributed a chapter to Betrayal of Youth: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’. There has never been any suggestion that Peter Tatchell was or is himself a paedophile, but he helped their cause with his expressed desire to abolish ages of consent.
But if paedophilia is a minority interest in the homosexual world, pederasty is widespread. A cult of youth is a mainstream part of homosexual culture, where magazines with names like ‘Boyz’ and websites are filled with pictures of attractive young men.
In their 1979 book ‘The Gay Report’, Jay and Young, two American homosexuals, revealed that 73% of their fellows had at some time had sex with boys 16-19 or younger. One reported “My lover and I are into many young boys 13-18 years old …” There is no reason to suppose that with lowering of ages of consent and generally more liberal attitudes to under-age sex that today’s homosexual men have suddenly become less inclined to adolescent boys.
The UK Home Office carried out research on cases of indecent assault in 1973, and were able to distinguish between ages of victim as follows. Out of 802 convictions for indecent assault on males, we find the following:
Age of victim: 0-4 5-9 10-11 12-15 16-17 18-20 21+ All 0-15
% of cases: 3.1 32.5 18.6 33.9 4.9 2.8 4.2 88.1%
It is quite common for apologists for homosexuality to assert that ‘heterosexual men are more likely to be paedophiles’, so we need briefly to examine this claim.
For the same year that the Home Office did their research into indecent assault, they also published the figures for assaults on females. There were 3,006, and the ages broke down as follows:
Age of victim: 0-4 5-9 10-12 13-15 16-17 18-20 21+ All 0-15
% of cases: 3.2 24.8 15.4 26.2 7.1 7.8 15. 5 69.6%
Leaving aside for a moment the paedophile/pederast distinction, the total assaults on under-16 males were 18.55% of all convictions (88.1 x 802 / 3808), and those on under-16 females were 54.94% of all convictions (69.6 x 3006 / 3808) . We must assume for the sake of the argument that all the assaults were carried out by men, and also assume, to be generous, that there are 1.5% of men in the UK population who are sadly homosexual.
Then we can say that the 1.5% who are homosexual were responsible for 18.5% of assaults, and the 98.5% who are heterosexual were responsible for 55%, meaning that a homosexual in the statistics was (18.55/1.5) / (54.94/98.5) = 22 times more likely to offend than a heterosexual.
But this is not the whole picture. If heterosexuality is the ability to enter into a complete loving and sexual relationship exclusively with an adult of the opposite sex, then the men convicted of the offences on girls under 16 were not up to the mark either. Jimmy Savile committed his staggering litany of abuse against pubescent girls because he was emotionally unable to form a normal relationship with a woman. He was not ‘heterosexual’ by any reasonable definition.
We must thank Messrs Schofield and Cameron for giving us the opportunity to talk about an issue which is too often kept under wraps, and which has implications wider than their immediate focus at a time when homosexual activists from groups like Stonewall are demanding ever more rights and acceptance.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Nice to see Cameron confronted on live tv, Philip Schofield should get a pat on the back. It’s time to oust these perverts for what they are, for to long the elite have protected their own, i’ll give you an example- do you remember the Dunblane massacre? We were told it was some lone nutter called Thomas Hamilton killed those children randomly when in fact it turned out Thomas Hamilton was a high ranking freemason who was a paedophile with lots of high ranking friends in high places and was involved in the largest child sex ring in Scotland and regularly procured young boys for the ruling elite in Scotland, but thanks to that other great snakeoil salesman Tony Blair (who was about to illegally invade Iraq), he covered it up for 100 years with the official secrets act and imposed a complete media blackout on it!. Hell won’t be hot enough for these sicko’s.
If the allegations are true, there are some very famous elite politicians, from all parties parties involved in raping boys from these peodophile rings that go right to the very top and they have been protected for years by the old boy network. Saville, amongst others is alleged to have provided boys for some of these elite pedos from childrens homes. Camerons interview with Schofield gives little hope that these alleged pedos will ever face justice, however God will judge them one day.
But only if the allegations are true.
God might judge them one day, but if those sick perverts interfere with my children, I wont be waiting that long.
The link between homosexuality and sexual offences against children/young people is well established but is something that the establishment seems determined to keep silent about and to silence those who broach it. The well established and substantial risks to mental and physical health of those involved in the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is also starkly clear but is another thing that those in power want to ignore/dismiss. I have sent my own ‘right on’ MP a link to a site detailing these risks saying that the statistics were for her consideration and that no reply was necessary, in case they don’t know, it might be worth telling them all.
http://www.ncfamily.org/FNC/0707S3.html
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html
I had a rather different gripe with Cameron, which was that he singled out ‘witch hunt against gays’ as something to guard against. In my book that is unfair discrimination. ANY witch hunt, against heterosexuals as well, should be discouraged by requiring proper evidence and due process of law. For too long we have accepted the lie that homosexuals are the only group being discriminated against. This was a blatant case of Cameron’s sympathies coming out unintentionally.
Yes, but it was for the reasons explained in the article above. Inadvertantly he was telling us (1) that there were people on the list, who may have included the Conservative politicians named on it (we don’t know the names here) who were homosexual and (2) that he realises homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to be sexually attracted to young people.
I dread to think what will happen in ten years’ time when the children “adopted” by gay “parents” become handsome pubescent boys locked in a house with (at least) two sexually incontinent perverts.
The Conservative Party is implicit in this cover up because it is loathe to be seen as outdated or old fashioned. They will happily let children be terrorised if it means they can tick the boxes for their equality credentials.
Doncaster Social Services was proud to allow a pair of homosexuals to foster children. The complaints of sexual abuse by the boys they fostered were ignored because it was not going to do the council’s ‘right on’ attitude any good at all! What a state we are in.
I appreciate that fundamentalists (of whichever flavour) aren’t especially concerned with things like evidence and objective standards of proof, and are instead content to proceed on the basis that if it’s written down, it’s immutably true.
But, I wonder if you might like to point me in the direction of the information on which you base these claims?
Certainly applies to atheist fundamentalists, who have taken what is written by people like Darwin and Dawkins as true …
But Eddie, I was going to ask you for the link to the Doncaster story myself.
A similar scandal in Wakefield has been well documented, in Pink News: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/09/06/councils-failed-to-stop-gay-paedophiles-abusing-children/ Here is the Council’s own report: http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E5BDA207-ABEC-493E-A92A-6C9FB3DF38D7/0/parrott_report.pdf
That might not convince Kat that Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32, from Pontefract, actually existed, that they were jailed in June 2006 for five and six years respectively for abusing four boys in their care, that they were homosexual, that Wakefield is a town in Yorkshire or even that the earth is round, but it’s worth a try.
I think we can extract from the Wakefield Independent Inquiry’s Report the following:
1. Ian Wathey, 40, and Craig Faunch, 32, actually existed
2. They were jailed in June 2006 for five and six years respectively for abusing four boys in their care.
3, IW and CF had been entrusted by a local authority to care for vulnerable children.
4. Their victims were among 18 (aged between eight and 14 at the time) they cared for between
August 2003 and January 2005.
5. CF and IW were same-sex foster carers.
No issue with any of these propositions – all are corroborated facts capable of withstanding scrutiny. In a different category all together to talking snakes, global floods that escaped the notice of the civilisations supposedly wiped out by them, Balaam and his talking donkey, virgin births or similarly bonkers stuff that is incapable of sustaining any serious examination.
But I’m rather more interested in what appears to be the suggestion here that IW and CF were sexual predators on young children because they were gay. As if this establishes that gay carers are sexually abusive ones. One presumes that is why this case has been cited, as otherwise it makes no sense to raise the issue at all.
Does this non sequitur carry forward into other areas? For example, does it likewise follow that the statistically high number of child rapists who are also ordained men within the Christian faith (predominantly Catholics but others too) is proof that the clergy are statistically predisposed to be child rapists?
I wonder what the response to that poser might be…
Talking of talking snakes, is that more fantastic than the notion that nothing exploded and became everything, that life arose spontaneously from slime, or that genetic mutations can amass into a new species?
As to your penultimate paragraph, what the abusing priests scandal shows is that a lot of homosexual men take great pains to place themselves in jobs which give them access to adolescent boys.
The Big Bang theory, abiogenesis, evolution are all based on evidence. When you have evidence of talking snakes, let’s compare notes.
Before you start passing comment on what you believe to be possible in the demonic realm, let us see your evidence that there was nothing before the so-called ‘big bang’, and that nothing exploded, that life has been observed to arise from non-life and that one species has ever become another by minute beneficial genetic mutations.
A response in furtherance of the logical fallacy that holds that unless one can positively prove beyond doubt the scientific theories about the origins of the universe, life, and then the diversity of life thereafter, the talking snake is true.
And therein is the sum total of Stephen’s proof.
No, the guy says he has evidence that nothing exploded and became everything, that life came from non-life, and that life forms evolved into different life forms through genetic mutations. So let him put up the evidence or shut up and admit it doesn’t actually exist.
Morning Dr Roy. I’m interested to know in what field you claim to have earned your doctorate, and from which institution.
The hyperlink associated with your user name directs one to the webpage for the British Association of Paediatric Urologists. However, your name does not appear anywhere on the GMC list of registered medical practitioners.
There is a “Roy Guyk” on LinkedIn, who describes himself as an “Amateur(!!) Paediatric Urologist”. Perhaps more about that later…
Given that some might take the attachment of the title “Doctor” to your name and post as suggestive you bring to your comments any degree of legitimacy or expertise drawn from clinical practice, I very much look forward to hearing from you.
Dear Kat,
Thank you for your comments.
I am slightly perturbed by your research efforts but given that we live in an information age it is not unheard of.
I am sure that if I were to make any comment or post on an internet website I would not offer medical advice. My views on adoption policy and the Conservative party are not in any way a clinical observation and I am sure that no reasonable person would interpret them as medical advice. I would like it if the Conservative party took my views as advice.
I have indeed a great interest in pediatric urology and in particular germ cell tumours. Is this a field you are working in? As I am now retired I retain only an academic interest in PU. I have never been registered with the GMC and registering is now very difficult indeed especially if you are not from the UK. However if you are interested there is a wealth of information on the BAPU website.
In a similary way my postgraduate work is in endodermal sinus tumors, I do not expect the vagaries of immunohistochemistry to make a difference in british social policy. This is especially because most of my work has been overtaken by developments in this area.
Peter Tatchell has never advocated adults having sex with children. He does not support this. He says adults should NOT have sex with children. He has never advocated the abolition of ages of consent. He has said that if young people of similar ages have sex below the age of 16 they should not be prosecuted, providing they both consent and there is no coercion, manipulation or exploitation.
Then you might care to explain why Peter Tatchell contributed to a book writing alongside known and some convicted paedophiles and edited by the Vice-Chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange. Did Mr Tatchell not trouble to find out who these people were? Was he hoodwinked? Or did he know full well who they were? Did he get carried away with the excitement of seeing his anti-morality views in print alongside those of Steven Smith, Tom O’Carroll and Roger Moody?
Indeed, Tatchell wrote in The Betrayal of Youth that the age of majority (sexual consent) is ‘Re-inforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era.’ The idea that they might just protect children from predatory men, men like his co-contributors, is not one that found any sympathy with Peter Tatchell.
Your comment gives us the opportunity to share all the gen on Mr Tatchell and all his fellow contributors in this article on our website: PETER TATCHELL AND THE PAEDOPHILE BOOK
What confuses me in this post is that Jimmy Savile is said not to be a ‘heterosexual’ because he abused young girls, but that men who abuse young boys are homosexual by definition. Your poisonous prejudices are showing again, Stephen.
Not at all. Heterosexuality – the ability to form a permanent and exclusive relationship with an adult of the opposite sex – is the goal of human infant and adolescent development. Men whose normal development has for some reason become arrested can be perversely sexually attracted to adolescent females, to members of their sex, or in extreme cases, to small children.
There appears to be a spectrum of homosexuality from attraction to adults of one’s own sex down to childen around the age of puberty. A lot apparently depends on the age at which the person had their first erotic homosexual experience, or to put it more bluntly, the age at which they were first abused. Men in particular appear to be attracted to males in a two-year age band of the age at which they themselves were initiated into homosexual experience.
There needs to be a better understanding, particularly in the churches, of the roots of homosexuality so that the healing of the underlying pathologies can be addressed through the power of Jesus Christ.
I feel sure that you are often accused of being “homophobic”. But have you ever considered what a ridiculous word that is ? As homo-sexual relations merely means same-sex relations, then homo-phobic merely means fear (or disapproval) of sameness. It could be disapproval of homogenised milk.
It would be much better if you stood up to such allegations with a strong rebuff:
“No, I am not homophobic, I am sodomophobic”. That has a touch of the Ian Paisley about it. Stirring stuff.
Neil, Jimmy Saville is alleged to have abused both boys and girls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20081021
So does that make him a gay paedophile or a heterosexual paedophile? And how does this fit in with the pseudo statistics that Stephen has cobbled together in his main article?
‘Pseudo’ and ‘Cobbled together’ being Kat-speak for ‘drawn from official Home Office figures’, Andrew.
And the argument being put forward here is that there is no such thing as a ‘heterosexual paedophile’. Someone who is truly heterosexual is someone with the ability to form a full permanent emotional and sexual relationship with an adult of the opposite sex. Men and women attracted to children and adolescents of either sex fall equally short of the mark.
Well let’s unpack some of those “statistics”, shall we?
Let’s proceed on the basis that the Home Office stats (above) for indecent assault (from 1973!) are accurate – I haven’t checked them, but don’t need to for the purposes of this exercise.
You then allow that 1.5% of men in the UK population are “sadly” homosexual (an interesting choice of words – I know many who are indifferently homosexual, happily homosexual and / or in no way defined by their choice of adult consenting sexual partner: but that’s for another time).
What’s the source of this concession as to 1.5%? I am presuming it was the Integrated Household Survey (IHS) from 2010. Do tell me if it’s not.
That survey was produced by the ONS, and involved 450,000 participants. The sexuality question was phrased: “Would you describe yourself as heterosexual/straight, gay/lesbian, bisexual or other?”
1% of respondents self-identified as gay or lesbian. 0.5% of respondents self-identified as bisexual.
So far, so good…
But 95% of respondents self-identified as heterosexual.
What of the remainder? Well, 0.5% of respondents answered “other” and the remaining 3% said “don’t know” or else refused to answer. For my part, question whether a self-identified heterosexual would answer “other”, “don’t know” or refuse to answer the question.
Already then the exercise above of dividing the percentage of convictions against males by the percentage of the population self-identifying as gay or bisexual is shaky. 1.5% cannot be right on these figures. I think the gayers are entitled to claim the full 5%.
We must then factor in that the IHS asked after self-identification of sexuality. I wonder whether a better (or else additional) question might have been: “Have you ever had a sexual relationship with a person of the same gender?”
Do you suppose, for example, that Jimmy Saville (he’s been cited already, so he’s a convenient point of reference) self-identified as gay? I’m going to suggest that he didn’t, yet his offences apparently included those against boys.
Your analysis would apportion JS’s offences against male victims to a statistical gay man, but this would be erroneous given his self-identified sexual orientation.
The sum total of the above is that your claim, that a homosexual man is 22 times more likely to be a sexual offender against a child than his heterosexual counterpart, bears no scrutiny. It is made up, and given a veneer of respectability by sleight of hand to justify a preconception and to fool the unwary.
Therefore, “pseudo” and “cobbled together” fit the mark pretty well it seems to me.
I think a few lessons on statistics would be in order, Kat. You are getting out of your depth. No statistician just throws the ‘don’t knows’ and ‘would not says’ into another group just to make himself feel better!
I have to agree with Stephen on one point. Some of the “don’t knows” might simply not have known what “heterosexual” means. Even Stephen’s definition is not a universally accepted one.
Look, all I know is that of the dozens of male boy children I’ve seen who were victims of abuse, in EVERY case there was a predatory homosexualist involved.
Just a second, Stevo!!
You can hardly take poor Kat to task for what you assert is her lack of statistical rigour – in taking the “don’t knows” and “would not says” into the gay sample group when you did exactly that yourself.
You might remember in the original article proceeding on the basis that the heterosexual population was 98.5%. You can only get to that figure if you include the “don’t knows” and “would not says” in your group.
If you now claim they can’t be subsumed into the gays, as Kat proposes, they can’t by the same logic be subsumed into yours.
A little intellectual integrity here would be a start! The above double standards make you look like a Carnivale charlatan.
No, the calcs are based on Tom Smith’s Chicago survey, who found 98.5% of his large sample to be exclusively heterosexual. You can look at BMRB and at NATSAL. The latter had 1% of males as homosexual and 0.25% of females. We are being very generous by allowing the male homosexuals to be 1.5%. See here: https://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/4351-2/
The calcs would come out to be 30 times more likely to offend against children if we took the 1% figure. On Kat’s ONS figures of 1.5% homosexual, and 95% heterosexual, homosexual men are still 21.4% more likely to carry out child sexual abuse than ‘heterosexual’ abusers.
But as I say, that is only if you accept that true ‘heterosexuals’ can be sexually interested in children, and I am saying that by any reasonable definition of ‘heterosexual’ they cannot.
Homosexuality can reasonably include sexual interest in adolescents, where boys only just in puberty are considered fair game or at least worth initiating, but heterosexuality cannot. Note that I do actually have sympathy with such people; society – as in children – needs to be protected from them, but their unnatural desires are deep seated. I do believe Jesus Christ can heal the underlying emotional traumas which have led them to be as they are and I wish there was more understanding of sexual healing in the church.
A shame you didn’t feel able to cite the source of your statistics sooner, Stephen. You were asked. Rather than answer, you came back with some half-smart response about my lack of understanding of statics conceptually.
But I’m interested you ought to rely on the NATSAL study. Why are you depending on results from 1990? Your figures are over twenty years old!
That is not to say there aren’t more current ones for the asking. A NATSAL survey was undertaken again in 2000, and another has been completed, with results expected next year.
Looking for now at the 2000 results, we see the following:
* In answer to the question, “Have you ever had a sexual experience, not necessarily including genital contact, with a partner of the same sex?”, 5.3% of male respondents answered yes in 1990. That figure had increased to 8.4% in 2000.
* In answer to the question, “Have you ever had sex with a same sex partner, including genital contact”, 3.7% of male respondents answered yes in 1990. In 2000, the figure was 6.3%, and
* In answer to the question, “Have you had a same sex partner in the last five years?”, 1.4% of respondents answered yes in 1990. 2.6% answered yes in 2000.
Now I fully expect you will want to dance around the definition of homosexuality applied, but however you cut it your figures from 1990 are just wrong, and in any event are out of date. The new data set shows us that either same sex behaviour is on the increase, or respondents are more willing to report it.
What’s not immediately clear is whether your citing both the wrong figures, and also out of date figures, out of ignorance or because they can be more easily misrepresented to support the contention you want them to.
As for the claim that there are paedophiles and there are gay paedophiles but no heterosexual paedophiles…
The Home Office stats are from the 1970s and the sexuality stats are from the 1990s.
It would be interesting to know what the Home Office would turn up if ran the stats again today.
I can quite well believe that with the prevalence of family breakdown and child sexual abuse today there will be more men ending up homosexual. It very much supports the ‘nurture’ argument for the origins of such unnatural affections over the ‘nature’ argument, so thanks for that.
But in any case, what is your point? Even if you double the number of homosexual men available to commit the offences against boys, you still end up with them being over ten times more likely to molest than the ‘heterosexual’ molesters.
I am clear that the word ‘paedophile’ can only properly be applied to men – and it is men overwhelmingly – who molest children under the age of puberty.
Men preying on boys of 10 upwards are part of the homosexual spectrum. I don’t know what you call someone who is sexually interested in pubertal girls, but I suggest ‘heterosexual’ is not a reasonable description.
Men, or older boys, who are interested in “pubertal girls” are often called “cradle-snatchers”. It is not very uncommon, and they are not usually very different from other heterosexual young men . They tend to grow out of it as they and the pubertal girls grow older.
But if they don’t, it’s pathological.
[…] Cameron’s ‘gays’ to paedophilia link […]