Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Labour's paedophile problem is more about press regulation

If the Roman Catholic Church had forged links - even as far back as the 1970s - with something called the Paedophile Information Exchange, the political outrage and media onslaught would have been monumental. Certainly, there have been many thousands of appalling cases and a chronic culture of cover-up, but no one can pretend that this was countenanced by canon lawyers or advocated by the Magisterium. Similarly, if the BBC were found to have proven historic (= Savile-era) connections with a group which favoured easing restrictions on child pornography; advocated a more relaxed attitude to paedophilia; proposed the legalisation of incest; and wanted to lower the age of consent to 10, there would be urgent demands for a public inquiry, with immediate suspensions and assurances in Parliament that heads will roll.

But when three current Labour politicians - former officers of National Council for Civil Liberties - are confronted with documented links to something that really was called the Paedophile Information Exchange, and when it is set down in black and white that this group really did agitate for all of the aforementioned 'progressive' policies, you have to wonder why Ed Miliband has not at least instigated an internal inquiry and done a few background checks on Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and (former MP) Patricia Hewitt. Instead, he declared that he doesn't "set any store by these allegations", and that Harriet Harman in particular is a person of "huge decency and integrity".

The evidence (if it be) has been set out in the Daily Mail, even alleging that "the Labour government of the time may have helped finance the organisation". Unsurprisingly, Ms Harman has dismissed this as a politically motivated campaign - a smear, indeed, of the most despicable Dacre sort, to which depths of journalism neither she nor Labour would ever stoop.

The thing is, Pope Benedict XVI spent much of his pontificate issuing profuse expressions of remorse and repentance on behalf of his church for the heinous acts of paedophile priests and the post-conciliar hierarchical conspiracy of cover-up. And the BBC is still apologising over its 1970s "groupie" culture of misogynistic permissiveness and predatory paedophilia. Both institutions are horrified and appalled - 40 years on - that they did nothing to protect so many vulnerable victims over such a long period. But at least the perpetrators are now being held to account - one of them even post mortem.

But last night Harriet Harman refused eight times to accept that her connection with the Paedophile Information Exchange was a mistake. This is not just any Labour politician: it is the party's Deputy Leader. She didn't just deflect the question once: she side-stepped it eight times. She has 'clarified' her position this morning in a hastily-penned statement of 'regret', but that doesn't quite explain her cagey obfuscation last night on Newsnight.

It is curious how Mr & Mrs Jack Dromey are more concerned with rubbishing Dacre and berating the Mail than they are with repudiating a group which sought to take advantage of children. If it is moral and just to arrest aging entertainers and prosecute abusive priests in their 70s and 80s, how can it not be right to investigate the alleged links between Labour, the NCCL and PIE? Is the Mail's political smear agenda really more repugnant than historic matters of child abuse, rape and torture?

Or is Harriet Harman's real objective here to situate herself and her husband as latter-day Dowlers - the latest victims of vile press abuse - and thereby reinforce the need for a Leveson framework of press control to protect the poor and vulnerable (and the rich and powerful)?


Blogger John Matthews said...

I think its a bit extreme to conflate an affiliation with a group who simply paid a £15 fee to join and the institutionalised rape of young children seen in the Church & BBC.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be an investigation just to make sure nothing untoward happened however I would suggest actions speak louder than words.
Harmans record of improving standards children through the 802 & 90s is there for everyone to see.

25 February 2014 at 10:26  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Many thanks for an excellent article.

Last night's interview with the grotesquely self-satisfied Harman failed to even mention one of the key strategies that the PIE used to ingratiate itself with the liberated left.

PIE's leader, Tom O'Carroll, was a homosexual who was also attracted to young boys – he was eventually sent down for his crimes. By conflating his 'right' to seduce male children with the gay rights agenda he found a natural if naïve ally in the pro-gay left wing establishment. This is not just the ramblings of the Daily Mail, but is a matter of record – many of those involved have admitted their culpability and stupidity.

By accepting PIE as an affiliate the NCCL also inadvertently promoted the myth that male homosexuals are in the same class as paedophiles, a distortion that has done real harm to many innocent people.

Harman knows that she is in a fight for her political survival: that the press are after her blood. Not, though, because the press is vindictive or unfair, but rather because it understands the gross hypocrisy of her position and the self-serving nastiness of her caste.

For a detailed account of what happened I would recommend the following Telegraph stories:



25 February 2014 at 10:36  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

Yep, I'm sorry, I'm no fan of Harman (or what used to be the NCCL) but this is a bit rich. The links are as the above comment says...basically any organisation could "join".

It certainly suggests that they should have vetted their list of affiliates rather better but to attempt to make Harman and the other out and supporting paedophiles is low, even for the vile Dacre.

If you are correct in that this is about press regulation, then it is more that it's the Mail lashing out at people it perceives as s being nasty to the poor press.

And of course it is politically motivated! Expect more of this from our "free press" - from both sides as their masters attempt to do a "It's The Sun Wot Won It" over the next 12 months or so.

25 February 2014 at 10:46  
Blogger Flossie said...

The real scandal here is not that Harriet Harman said or did some daft things in her youth (we all do that) but that the BBC has pointedly ignored this story until now. As His Grace rightly said, had it been the Catholic Church(or indeed any non-leftie organisation) they would have been all over it like a rash.

Look what they did to Lord McAlpine, totally innocent but treated as guilty on no evidence at all.

25 February 2014 at 10:50  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said, Dr C.

We've talked about Ms Harman's case here before. Does anyone know why the Mail is bringing this up now? Is there new information?

25 February 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger Len said...

This Harriet Harman affair seems to highlight the problems a secular society has when dealing with matters regarding morality.When the guidelines have been blurred or removed altogether we have entered a moral maze (or should that be quagmire?)
The Human Rights fiasco has caused much confusion as it seems some have rights which take precedence over others rights.This is bound to happen because when there is no 'Law Giver' especially on matters of morality then everyone makes up their own 'morality' laws.

When your add' Political Correctness' to 'Human Rights 'then the amount of confusion really ratchets up.

We currently have a society in which the unborn have no rights,the rights of the victim seem to take second place to the perpetrator of the crime,and our Government pushes through legislation which legalises that which causes moral decay.

The path we are taking is a well trodden one to the disintegration of a society.

What is banned today will probably be legalised some time in the not too distant future and that is a tragic indictment of our degenerating society.

"So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance; truth has stumbled in the streets, honesty cannot enter."
(Isaiah 59:14)

25 February 2014 at 10:53  
Blogger Albert said...


By conflating his 'right' to seduce male children with the gay rights agenda he found a natural if naïve ally in the pro-gay left wing establishment.

There is evidence that, at the time, it was presented as if the taboo against child abuse was just another middle-class restriction on sexual ethics. So really PIE needs to be seen politically in the midst of the left's attack on marriage and family life. An attack which has proved hugely successful in every other respect. It's just the outworking of the attack on natural law that goes back to many more "main-stream" moral changes of the last century.

Meanwhile, oddly, the movement to condemn child-abuse seems to have come from feminism.

All of which shows just what a morally confusing age it was. It really is very foolish to ditch your moral structure, before you know what you are going to replace it with. But we are still doing that now, which probably means that in 40 years time there will be outrage at something people aren't too worried about now.

25 February 2014 at 11:00  
Blogger IanCad said...

"Man The Defences!!"

The apologists for Red Ed and Harman are already at it on this blog in the persons of Tinkles and Matthews; expect more to come.

You have their number YG.
The pesky press! Can't have that, can we?

About 8:30 into the video: She--"This is the Daily Mail aggressively trying to completely reshape the facts of a situation thirty years ago--"

More controls coming soon. Shouldn't be too hard, plenty of expenses-fiddling Tories out there to give them a hand.

25 February 2014 at 11:04  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Albert at 11:00

Yes, I would agree with you there, definitely political in its intent.

Also, even though PIE is now defunct the campaign still goes on to ever-lower the age of consent and usually on the grounds of 'liberating' sexuality.

My guess is that it will be 14 by the end of the decade, the way things are going.

25 February 2014 at 11:32  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Thank you for a good article Your Grace.

The partiality of the BBC and media are most distinct as said above. The left is so quick to attack any Church but so slow to see the "plank in its own eye".

Is the best part of the British press just too good for its own survival, attracting political attempts to prevent it exposing the follies of the famous? I think we all know that is why controls on our precious freedom of speech are being developed.

As many of us on this blog would agree, all human beings are flawed and all human institutions inadequate. Therefore we need a yardstick. As Len puts it very well in his own style, without an agreed standard a society can only drift, downwards, which is what has been happening. So sadly in a now rootless society, it will not get better, just more fragmented and spiritually vacuous, despite the naive gushing optimism of the left/liberals. By ignoring God we cut ourselves off from goodness. Trying to be our own judge doesn't work.

25 February 2014 at 11:33  
Blogger John Thomas said...

What? Just paedophilia? That's nothing! Think of the many Left Wing leaders who have committed mass-killing and engineered vast famines - and do you hear much about it? No, all the attention is given to Hitler's holocaust (actually, the smallest of such events); Hitler, of course, can be branded "Right wing" - but that attention serves to distract people from the biggies (the Left-wingers). Near where I work there's a pub sign with not one but three of the famous images of Che Guevara on it (yes, he was a mass killer) - would they publicly display images of Hitler? No! It proves one thing: to be a mass-killer is OK as long as you're Left wing. What? Paedophilia among the Lefties? That's small stuff!

25 February 2014 at 11:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The RCC didn't have a significant problem with paedophiles. The abuse crisis was overwhelmingly a crisis of homosexual priests seducing vulnerable teenage boys.


25 February 2014 at 11:44  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Anyone who spoke out against them feared being called a “homophobe”, which in Left-wing circles at the time was about the biggest insult anyone could throw at you. So they were invited into the liberal establishment.

Plus ça change...probably the most telling paragraph of the article, and the one which will be most overlooked.

For me, the most interesting aspect was Harman's 1978 letter in response to the Protection of Children Bill: ...such a law would ‘increase censorship’, and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.

‘Our amendment [to the proposed law] places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,’ she wrote.

Classic secular liberal. It's all about rights - or rather, licence - and not one scintilla of thought for the absolute right or wrong of the thing. Why not? Because if you are a liberal, there is no such thing as right and wrong; it's all relative. Yes, sure, you give lip service to the putative notion that anything is all right so long as it doesn't "harm" anyone else, but as the Harman letter shows, in the liberal mind it's up to others to prove they were harmed, and until they do, it's the Bart Simpson defence: I didn't do it, nobody saw me, you can't prove a thing.

If paedophilia is still illegal, it's not because of any contribution of secular liberals; the articles alluded to in the Magpie and the accompanying supposed scientific rationale for raping children would long ago have been accepted by the liberal mainstream if it had have been up to them, as liberals have no morality per se. No, if the law still attempts to protect children from paedophiles, it's because the disease is just about the last button issue, the final taboo, the one remaining knee-jerk moral reaction of a society steeped for three generations in realativism. When that visceral reaction is replaced by liberal "rationality", buy your three year old a chastity belt.

25 February 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger Corrigan said...

A man speaking truth after my own mind; so who is he and what has he done with the real Carl Jacobs?

25 February 2014 at 11:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says there has been a long-standing movement to redefine the depravity of paedophilia as a "sexual orientation" or "preference" and to lower the age of consent. Children can consent to sex, don't you know, and it can help them develop into better people? Hormone Harriet, and her lefty comrades, joined in the attack on 'traditional family life' because .... well .... it was "traditional" .... and "oppressive".

25 February 2014 at 11:57  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Flossie
I wonder whether aspects of McAlpine's art collection would make you waver in your opinion. Might we start with the crucifixes (or simulacra) one with a man, a woman and a- wait for it- goat's skull, another dressed as a spiky witch, then there is the picture of him sitting posed in a chair with a goat's skull hung from it. Then there is the dinosaur penis, (straying into collectibles here), and a picture of him sitting at a table with an enormous artwork that is highly faecal. And then notoriously there is a Graham Ovenden collection. All solid evidence.

Then we go into the realm of the circumstantial. Puglia is known as a centre for the darker religious elements. There have been allegations and rumours aplenty, one at a specific site at a bonfire party with a Mayor cited as present. And questions about who were particularly frequently seen together. And the casual statements about needing to reinvent oneself every so often as a reason to end a marriage. And the Macchiavelli quotations. And allegations about the who and why of his house having been burnt down.

None of which is conclusive, but I would recommend not leaping to his defence with all these things which need explaining, as it could look a bit silly in the future.

25 February 2014 at 11:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

No, Corrigan, this is where you say "Carl is a creationist, so everything he says should be dismissed." That way I have the pleasure of seeing your logical fallacies detonate in your own hands.

You are wrong btw. Liberals do have a developed sense of right and wrong. What they lack is authority. They have no basis for making moral pronouncements. Thus their moral judgments are completely arbitrary. The claim that it is wrong to have sex with a child is to them completely equal to its counterclaim in terms of authority.. The difference may be resolved only by power. That is the moral inconsistency at the heart of liberalism.


25 February 2014 at 12:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

The purpose of eating is for pleasure. An alternative view is that it is to renew the body, and to ensure that this happens, the eating process is made pleasurable. That renewal trumps pleasure can be seen in a simple test: stop eating, and you die. Pleasure then dies, too.

In the West, we now say that the primary purpose of sex is pleasure, not renewal. You can have the pleasure without any renewal, and import immigrants from breeding nations to make up the population shortfall.

But if the primary purpose of sex is pleasure, not procreation, then surely a primary argument against paedophilia has been removed? If sexual pleasure is that fundamental to the meaning of life, why not get started as young as possible?

25 February 2014 at 12:38  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Thomas @ 11:42

I agree with the thrust of your comment but am a little perplexed with your swallowing of the leftist myth that Hitler was a man of the right.

Quite how you can wring a right-wing dimension from the Nazi Party, (NSDAP) in full: "National Socialist German Workers Party" is beyond me.

We've been here before though.

25 February 2014 at 12:44  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Ah, that's better, we know it is Carl after all. And since he is a creationist, then, like the liberals, his opinions are inconsistent, and therefore can be ignored, even when he happens upon a correct one.

25 February 2014 at 12:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Do be my guest. Tell DanJ0 he has no concept of right and wrong. He will (metaphorically speaking) stuff you head first into a wood chipper.

The result would be entertaining if somewhat messy.


25 February 2014 at 12:59  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ IanCAD

Interesting issues as to what mathematical model is best suited to map out political colours. Facebook operates a two dimensional model of a square divided in 4. One axis marks left to right and the other totalitarian through to anarchist. It is a fascinating model but if we enter other factors would instantly become redundant and a 3 dimensional model might be better.

As it is we tend to over focus on the right left axis at the expense of the totalitarian-anarchist one I feel.

I am on the libertarian side of centre, but this has nothing to do with thinking the odious people like PIE have any right to public hearing because I am rather of the Ron Paul school, which precludes harming others. Maybe right wing libertarianism is more morally aware, or maybe American and British libertarianism are slighlty different animals.

25 February 2014 at 13:01  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

For some reason I have to switch the TV off whenever Harriet Harman is on the TV...

25 February 2014 at 13:06  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


I've been wanting to ask for a while about this one. Can you explain why Carl's opinions are automatically invalidated because he is a 'creationist'. Why is taking Genesis literally so ridiculous or inconsistent when the following isn't :

You believe that a Jewish carpenter, who claimed to be the son of God, said man apparently changed water to wine and raised a guy from dead, got killed himself and then rose again himself and then went back up to heaven and is one third of the same God in one? Furthermore why is it so ludicrous to believe in a 6 day creation, but there is nothing ludicrous about drinking the blood and eating the body of said Jewish carpenter every time you go to that Mass of yours?

25 February 2014 at 13:07  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

A note to the Archbishop - your graphic/video for this post is not showing up on screen. Might be worth reloading it unless I am the only one unable to see it.

25 February 2014 at 13:08  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

A note to Ars Hendrik - the technological fail is your end.

25 February 2014 at 13:11  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


I can't see it either, so that is two of us. Thankfully for me as I have no desire to look at or listen to Harperson. Btw,interesting take on this as ever.

25 February 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, Happy Jack is pleased to see you have come out from hiding in the wood.

Jack agrees with your analysis. The 'liberal' would 'look' for evidence of 'harm' to children and base his notion of what is 'right' and 'wrong' on this. But how does one measure individual and community 'harm' in the short, medium and long term? The 'liberal' would also accept their opinion of 'the greatest amount of happiness' (different to Jack's) as the test for regulating human activities.

Paedophilia as well as homosexual and heterosexual sex with teenagers, can only be 'wrong' in their world if it is shown to be harmful. And who defines these terms, conducts the research and gathers the evidence controls the outcomes.

25 February 2014 at 13:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A man speaking truth after my own mind; so who is he and what has he done with the real Corrigan?

25 February 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 February 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

"....no one can pretend that this was countenanced by canon lawyers or advocated by the Magisterium"

How do we know it wasn't? How can we know senior figures didn't turn a blind eye? How do we know they weren't saying one thing and doing another?

25 February 2014 at 13:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thanks, Happy Jack @ David K

It's why Peter Singer says sex with an animal is okay provided you do not hurt the animal.

Accept the pleasure principle as your guide to conduct, and it's impossible to disagree with him.

25 February 2014 at 13:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The touchstone of post modern sexual morality is not pleasure but consent. Children cannot give consent to an adult. Adults may freely consent to any activity for purposes of pleasure. What is being resisted is the notion of any unchosen obligation being attached to sexual behavior such that consent is no longer paramount.


25 February 2014 at 13:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Corrigan @ 11:47

You make a very interesting point: "...for the liberal there IS no such thing as right and wrong."

1. The Postmodern liberal position, in my experience, is only that there is no FINAL arbiter: right and wrong are what the majority within a particular community decide them to be. (An immediate problem: what if the majority vote to exterminate the minority? Are they right?)

2. Most liberals will concede that (except from anything to do with sex) objective values do exist. The Nazi death camps were wrong: in fact, not just as a matter of opinion.

How, then, to account for this universal moral awareness? For Christians, it's easy: we all have God-instilled conscience whether we acknowledge God or not. (God's existence is the key, not individual belief.)

Deny God's existence, and liberals have to account for moral awareness. Is evolved sympathy enough to give them what they need?

25 February 2014 at 13:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Carl @ 13:51

1. Belgian euthanasia an interesting issue here. Children giving consent to their own death. If they're old enough o consent to that, what else are they old enough to consent to?

2. The same problem arises with bestiality. Not harming the animal may not be enough. How do you know if the sheep has given consent? It's a measure of where we're at that such things are seriously debated by the likes of Singer.

25 February 2014 at 14:03  
Blogger Theo said...

It seems that the paedophiles in this case all seem to be homosexuals. Are homosexuals such a protected species that we are not permitted to mention their other proclivities or that their seem to be an unsettling proportion of paedophiles among their number? I seem to remember that Dr Raabe lost a job because he drew attention to this phenomena.

25 February 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Corrigan said...

It's called a wind-up, David. Carl's opinions on everything else are, of course, not really invalid because he is a creationist; he does, however, seem to think his pronouncements are of momentous significance. I find this ironic in one who accepts the biblical injunction against killing, but for some reason doesn't seem to believe it applies to the state of Israel, even when it's killing his own countrymen as with the USS Liberty. That kind of double-rationality just slays me.

25 February 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Corrigan said...


to answer your question: yes.

25 February 2014 at 14:14  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

Carl @ 11.44

The John Jay report would appear to disagree with you.


25 February 2014 at 14:18  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Busy Mum, Happy Jack understood this comment:

"Certainly, there have been many thousands of appalling cases and a chronic culture of cover-up, but no one can pretend that this was countenanced by canon lawyers or advocated by the Magisterium."

It means the Church did not teach perverted sex with children was permissible and sanctioned by God. It has a moral code that holds such behaviour is immoral. The organisation and people within it failed and the homosexuals preying on boys metaphorically caught the church with its trousers down and was b*ggered by them too.

The PIE proclaimed sex with children was unharmful and should be permitted. As His Grace pointed out it wanted to ease restrictions on child pornography; it advocated tolerance of paedophilia; wanted incest legalised; and wanted the age of consent to be 10 years of age.

Can you see the difference now?

Carl, Happy Jack agrees the shift is to remove "consent" (freely given with full understanding) towards "resistance" (a voiced opposition) for children. No active resistance by a child and consent is inferred.

25 February 2014 at 14:19  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


That was just an interim post, which I've now deleted, so I can add further flesh to my initial ponderings. I'm just writing them up now.

25 February 2014 at 14:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Corrigan at 14:13: Pffffft! A pathetic lure. Sniff, sniff, no bite. Try harder.

25 February 2014 at 14:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David K, Happy Jack will try to explain.

Christians believe this "Jewish carpenter, who claimed to be the son of God" was indeed God incarnate and so was able to do whatever He willed. As God, changing water to wine and raising the dead would not be difficult at all. Didn't a Jewish prophet raise someone from the dead too? He freely surrendered and was unjustly killed for man's sins and rose again before Ascending to Heaven. Yes, amazing not for God ...?

The consecration of the bread and wine and the nature of the Eucharist, is a contentious issue in Christianity and for some held to be a miraculous act too. Again, not too tough for an omnipotent God.

25 February 2014 at 14:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Jack said: Paedophilia as well as homosexual and heterosexual sex with teenagers, can only be 'wrong' in their world if it is shown to be harmful. And who defines these terms, conducts the research and gathers the evidence controls the outcomes.

Our new governing classes define these terms; judges and social workers. Here in Canada, back in the 70s our wise judges rolled back the age of consent to 14. The reason: Social workers submitted "overwhelming" evidence to the courts that homeless runaways are far better off living with an adult lover than living on the streets.

25 February 2014 at 14:49  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Just a general observation, you folks over in fair Albion seem to be a bit cranky lately, with every issue leading to contentions. The rains and the damp cold? Spring will come.

25 February 2014 at 14:54  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 February 2014 at 15:18  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Happy Jack,

That post was not an attempt to dismiss miracles, Jewish, Christian or otherwise. That wasn't the point I was making, so I shall explain -

If Carl is wrong to believe that a God can create in 6 days because it is too fantastical and that he is inconsistent in his beliefs, why does Corrigan not believe in a 6 day creation, but is happy to believe in the things which I mentioned above, which to the outside observer seems equally as fantastical and sees this as him being consistent, but he Carl isn't being so?But anyway, Corrigan has given us the answer, so this is moot.

Oh and Corrigan, I recall a 200 word thread a couple of years ago in which Carl did argue with someone else about USS Liberty. He wasn't waving the Israeli flag

25 February 2014 at 15:18  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Thanks David, at 13:12

We are definitely not missing anything...

Avi, yep it's partly the weather and partly a national trait.

25 February 2014 at 15:26  
Blogger Corrigan said...


I did not say that a six day creation is too fantastical to believe; if God is omnipotent (and by definition, He would be), then He's quite capable of creating the universe in six days. I merely say I don't believe He did, and this belief is not contradictory to a belief in miracles.

25 February 2014 at 15:37  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Well, pleasure is an important part of sexual relationships and sometimes that gets overlooked by us religious people, probably as a reaction to how 'in your face' sex has become, but to me G-d 'owns' sex and it is something which religious people shouldn't be afraid of trying to take back onto their own turf. I make not bones about saying sex is pleasurable, indeed I am obligated to my wife to do so, but there is naturally a more complex picture.

To me it is absolutely clear from reading the Torah that the way in which we are to procreate, have sexual intercourse is within marriage and that being between a man and a woman. Despite the fact that I've often been portrayed as liberal here [not difficult when there are some very forceful anti-gay people posting venom here or because one has a lesbian sister this equates to her, me and anyone else as being a gay rights activist clone] as I've always said my outlook is conservative.

I am of the strong view that marriage provides spiritual fulfilment, support, companionship, and yes physical fulfilment & pleasure in sexual intercourse. The Torah says 'man should not be alone' (Genesis 2,18) and that he should cherish a woman in an intimate way (Genesis 2,24), furthermore there are whole ‘chapters’ in the Torah where G-d himself gives instructions in respect of marriage , if we read The Talmud, the Rabbis make strong statements about marriage and in typical polemical style to emphasise the point say ‘a man who has no wife is doomed to an existence without joy, without blessing, without experiencing life’s true goodness, without Torah, without protection, without peace’[. Yevamot 62b] and again elsewhere ‘Be careful about the honour of your wife, for blessings only come to your house because of your wife’ [Bava Metzia 59 a] .

In respect of procreation, Torah does say that it is a Mitzvah to perpetuate life (Genesis 1.28, Genesis 9,1), but by the same token in Jewish writing ,children are seen as a gift, so Torah does more than simply describing a mechanical process of pro-creation as if we were a functionary animal. Yes human being do gain pleasure out of sex, but neither is it a claim for sexual free for all, rather Torah puts sex into the context of human-human relationships and humanities relationship with G-d , from circumcision , Bar and Bat Mitzvahs, Mitzvots regarding sexual morals and of course marriage and to conclude, it is worth noting that Jewish marriage is called Kiddushin, that is sanctification.

25 February 2014 at 15:39  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Ed Miliband is quoted as describing Harridan Harmful as a person of "huge decency and integrity".

Really? Decency and integrity, huge or even unhuge, are not qualities that you would normally expect to find in the context of accusations such as these.

25 February 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 February 2014 at 15:52  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Your ability to reason is improving. Why, I wonder if when we get to the next Israeli thread, if you'll be able to come up with a better argument that 'Israel shouldn't exist because it shouldn't and I don't like the J- oops!- Zionist' stealing land. Well, we both believe in miracles, so it might happen...

25 February 2014 at 15:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K @ 15:39

Thanks for that; I agree with all of it.

Say hi to the twins and Cousin Lou for me.

25 February 2014 at 15:55  
Blogger Flossie said...

Lucy Mullen @11.58 - Lucy, you must have led a very sheltered life if you think that those items are the worst the world of art can throw up! Not stuff I would care to have in my sitting room, admittedly, but none of it illegal, or even newsworthy.

You have missed the point, though. I am not here to defend Lord McAlpine, merely to highlight the glaring difference in the BBC's treatment of conservatives (especially religious ones) and liberals.

They have been gunning for the Catholic Church for years over the very small number of priests who have abused young people (mostly adolescent boys, as Carl has already pointed out) yet cannot seem to understand that if Harman et al had had their way and reduced the age of consent, most of these so-called paedophile priest abuses would not have been illegal.

The words 'hoist', 'own', and 'petard' spring to mind.

25 February 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David said: Oh and Corrigan, I recall a 200 word thread a couple of years ago in which Carl did argue with someone else about USS Liberty. He wasn't waving the Israeli flag.

That was with me. We grudgingly dropped the matter as neither one was getting anywhere with the other. Of course I was right and I won hands-down, but I'm too polite and classy to rub it in Carl's nose.

25 February 2014 at 16:17  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Thanks and yes I will say 'Hi' to them for you. I'm seeing Cousin (once removed) Lou later this week as my daughter is moving her stuff into her uni house. I can't believe the charges for Halls , the tuition fees etc. But then to quote the great helmsman 'we're all in this together'.

25 February 2014 at 16:20  
Blogger IanCad said...

Lucy mullen wrote:

"As it is we tend to focus on the right/left axis at the exxpense of the totalitarian/-anarchist one I feel."

An interesting point and one, at first glance, that I tend to agree with.

About twenty years ago I first heard Ron Paul at a meeting in Port Townsend WA.

He made a lot of sense then and has not changed. O how I hope his son, Senator Rand Paul is of the same fibre.

As I see it there is a difference in the US/UK Libertarian strains.

Not so much on principle as on the realities of a new, underpopulated country compared to an ancient land with much history.

25 February 2014 at 16:29  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


Thanks for filling the gaps to my memory. I am sure it would have been a gentlemanly discussion, but I can't remember the details.

25 February 2014 at 16:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

The Explorer @ 13:51 wrote:

"How do you know if the sheep has given consent?"

We must assume they have not.

As with most ungulates,sheep exhibit a profound reluctance to lie with mankind and have developed acute senses, particularly hearing, to forestall such an eventuality.

We see evidence of this in the dress of the highlanders of Scotland. As sheep learned to hear zippers they invented the kilt.

25 February 2014 at 16:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Flossie @ 16:14

The examples Lucy gave would have been shocking to the Victorians.

If they aren't to us, it's because of Bacon's 'Study for Three Figures, The Chapman Brothers' 'Zygotic Acceleration', Dali's 'The Great Masturbator', and various stuff from Gilbert and George, Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano.

If a culture gets the art it deserves, those examples say a lot about Western culture.

25 February 2014 at 16:39  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ian Cad/Lucy Mullen,

The only thing I can recall about Ron Paul is that he wants to abolish the Federal reserve and to go back to a gold standard, which I'm not convinced will work or be beneficial.

Re left/right, things don't always fall well into a box. Fascism certainly had elements of both left and right wing thinking,e.g. state control of the economy and society, but also rabid nationalism. In Nazism, the more prominent feature was the vile arch anti-semitism, where Jews were regarded as pests that needed to be got rid of, along with eugenics, euthanasia and a strict racial order, but to them this was, along with the rest of their ideology :



25 February 2014 at 16:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

IanCad @16:38

Good Heavens.

25 February 2014 at 16:46  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

IanCad, Happy Jack says that was very bad!

Isn't it enough that Protestants and Catholics argue, now Jews with Corrigan, and with Len too, now you want the Scottish to fall out? Anyway, what about the Welsh? Jack has heard they are partial to a bit of lamb too.


David K, the Jewish and orthodox Christian views on sex, marriage and children are very similar.

25 February 2014 at 16:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ian Cad's story about the Scots - however plausible - is, I fear, not borne out by history.

The kilt has been around since the Sixteenth Century. The zip was invented in its modern form around 1900.

25 February 2014 at 17:04  
Blogger Corrigan said...


Not all Jews are Zionists; it therefore follows that not all steal land. While I appreciate the necessity of conflating the words "Jew" and "Zionist" in order to try to intimidate people like me into silence and buffalo conscientious Jews in behind Zionism, it really is a clumsy tactic.

25 February 2014 at 17:06  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Is that right Archbishop, the villains of this sorry episode are weighing up whether to take on the press ? Bound to backfire on them and the Labour party in spectacular fashion, don’t you think ? Let’s hope she pursues her case with gusto then. Will arrange fresh straw for the tumbrel in anticipation…

On the subject of happenings dodgy, some wallah called Cohen at the BBC has banned all male panel line-ups. Not a great disaster to entertainment it must be said, as these things tend to be unwatchable with the single exception of HIGNFY, packed as they are with outrageous narcissism and low humour. But it is a disaster in practicality. The fact that there are very few women who ride this particular entertainment circuit, understandable as it happens - they being too busy having quality time with their families, should we hope contribute to Cohen’s replacing. Bring me the head of light entertainment, as the saying goes.

So here we have another example of the BBC indulging itself in social engineering this time beyond the news room. Perhaps we could send the blighter to North Korea, where people are used to daft arbitrary commands that must be obeyed without question.

25 February 2014 at 17:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“Paedophilia as well as homosexual and heterosexual sex with teenagers, can only be 'wrong' in their world if it is shown to be harmful. And who defines these terms, conducts the research and gathers the evidence controls the outcomes.”
25 February 2014 13:16

It's already been proven to be harmful so it doesn't need re-proving again, just look back in history. The Greeks gave it up because they found out it was harmful just like they found out incest is harmful.

Of course the loony left have shut the history books. They know better!
Their ignorance beggars belief.

25 February 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi wrote:

Of course I was right and I won hands-down, but I'm too polite and classy to rub it in Carl's nose.

It's true. Avi carried the field that day just like the French Knights carried the field at Agincourt. I've never seen such carnage.


25 February 2014 at 18:05  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack would sentence this Cohen chap to a series of mandatory appearances on 'Loose Women'. That would teach him the folly of his ways.

25 February 2014 at 18:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


he does, however, seem to think his pronouncements are of momentous significance.

Project much?


25 February 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sister Tiberia

What I stated is simply fact. The vast vast majority of abuse cases involved men seducing post-pubescent teenage boys. Two post-pubescent males having sex is by definition homosexual behavior. Now, you can if you like assert that a man looking at another male with sexual desire and acting on that desire is entirely incidental to the crisis instead of essential. That (as this link you posted asserts) it's all about availability. But to do that you have to define homosexual behavior as that which occurs only in relationships of which you approve. Which is a very convenient definition.

For the record, I deny that there exists in man an ontology called 'homosexual' anymore than there exists an ontology called 'adulterer' or 'thief.' People choose their behaviors. They are not slaves to their desires. A man is a homosexual if he chooses to act upon his illicit desires. He is not a homosexual because it is his nature to desire sex with other men. That is nothing but justification of perversion.

So I will stand by my statement. The abuse crisis in the RCC was the result of homosexual priests seducing teenage boys. Remove those cases, and there is no abuse crisis to speak of.


25 February 2014 at 18:25  
Blogger Time For Tea said...

Good evening all, after a long time reading His Grace's excellent blog and everyone's most insightful comments (that should get them on-side) I've decided hurl my own thoughts in to the mixer as well. Hopefully with some regularity.

Many people have known about this story for a long time. It's just another story that goes unreported by the BBC and frankly many other mainstream media outlets isn't it. I mean if it doesn't for with their agenda, they won't publicise it right

Are we saying that we were expecting a better response from the BBC than the one we got?

Do we still have expectations that we will get something other than what they want us to consume as news from the BBC?

25 February 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Why, I wonder if when we get to the next Israeli thread, if you'll be able to come up with a better argument that 'Israel shouldn't exist because it shouldn't and I don't like the J- oops!- Zionist' stealing land.

Corrigan isn't really arguing about Israel. He is singing yet one more chorus of "Go on Home, British Soldier, Go on Home." It doesn't matter how the Jews acquired the land. he has made it about an association of a land with a people and the right of that people to not be displaced by another culture. The land was "stolen" because that land is where Arabs are supposed to live and culturally dominate.

Was Palestine an unihabited backwater? It doesn't matter. Did the Jews legally immigrate? It doesn't matter. Did the Jews legally buy the land? It doesn't matter. Does Israel have the same international legitimacy as every other surrounding state? It doesn't matter. Would the Jews have been butchered to the last infant if they hadn't won the War for Independence? It doesn't matter. Palestine for the Palestinians. Why? Because Ireland for the Irish.


25 February 2014 at 18:42  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Flossie

It is probably because I have not led a very sheltered life that I know very well what a goat's skull is imagery for; unfair on goat's really who are in reality just goats but there we are. To be pictured with a goat's skull is very rarely not a deliberate sign of where your religious sympathies lie. For them to turn up twice in your art collection....in two pictures.... In fact it is the sheltered and gullible who don't notice, and sometimes I wish I were, as looking into the abyss aint no fun at all. But it is sadly necessary.

As for the rest, well, collectors collect according to their dispositions and fascinations, do they not, whether fair or foul?

25 February 2014 at 18:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "For the record, I deny that there exists in man an ontology called 'homosexual' anymore than there exists an ontology called 'adulterer' or 'thief.' People choose their behaviors. They are not slaves to their desires. A man is a homosexual if he chooses to act upon his illicit desires. He is not a homosexual because it is his nature to desire sex with other men. That is nothing but justification of perversion."

The hoops some religious people jump through to maintain their beliefs is astounding at times.

25 February 2014 at 18:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I remember P.I.E. from my Usenet days. There was a newsgroup dedicated to it at one point, and the topic came up on alt.sex a few times. There's probably an FAQ archived somewhere that addressed the 'academic' arguments.

25 February 2014 at 19:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sister T: "The John Jay report would appear to disagree with you."

From the link: "First of all, nearly every reputable psychologist and psychiatrist, not to mention almost every scholarly study, decisively rejects the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, as well as any cause-and-effect relationship. The studies are almost too numerous to mention."

It's a pity the link in the link doesn't work. When this came up recently, I posted a couple of references to a study and some research but they went down like a pork pie at a Jewish wedding. The preference was to maintain false beliefs.

25 February 2014 at 19:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Since this is about reporting and bias it seems that the bullying by the West of Uganda has backfired.


It is also interesting Colin Freeman states in this article that gay activist David Kato was murdered in 2011.

This is reported many times and the reader is left to assume that was murdered because he was a homosexual.

Exactly right. He would not have been murdered if he was not a homosexual

What is not mentioned of course that David Kato's murder was committed by a homosexual prostitute whom he failed to pay for his services!

Not false reporting just spun to lead you to think he was murdered by e.g. the Government.

It also says that David was roughed up many times during his life. By who? More male prostitutes he would not pay?

It does not say so I filled in the blanks!


25 February 2014 at 19:27  
Blogger Sister Tiberia said...

You could try emailing Fr James Martin and ask if he has another link to the report he quotes. I've noted before that America Magazine, while having a lot of good writers could badly use some good proofreaders - a lot of their hyperlinks are incorrect, often by one mistyped letter

25 February 2014 at 19:30  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack asks if sex by an older man with a boy of 14 years of age is 'paedophilia' or is it 'homosexuality'? Or what about a boy of 12 or 13 years? It's certainly illegal - at the moment.

Jack knows the word paedophile us 'misused' and strictly should not be applied pubescent or post-pubescent teenagers. But terms like 'hebephilia' or 'ephebophilia' are tongue twisters.

25 February 2014 at 19:34  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"First of all, nearly every reputable psychologist and psychiatrist, not to mention almost every scholarly study, decisively rejects the conflation of homosexuality with pedophilia, as well as any cause-and-effect relationship"

This is rubbish and you know it.

Around 30% of men who are in prison for pedophile offenses self identify as homosexual.

So unless more homosexuals are convicted of which there is no evidence and since the homosexual population is around 2% rather than 30 % it follows that male homosexuals are many times more likely to be convicted of sexual offenses against children

No wonder Peter Tatchell wants to radially lower the age of consent,

It is a huge problems and a ticking time bomb under the homosexual community which lowering the age of consent would eliminate at a stroke.


25 February 2014 at 19:37  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

One has come to the conclusion that homosexuality and paedophilia are not just kissing cousins, but far worse...

But what is not helpful is the dearth of official statistics. Perhaps Liberty can take up the case, with Harriet as a consultant in the field, as they say...

25 February 2014 at 19:56  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ phil
Also judging by Bryn Estyn male victims often commit suicide or become drug addicts who die young. Many never got to report the crimes committed against them, and those that did were usually not believed nor taken seriously. There is a heartrending list of all those who committed suicide or took drug overdoses. Because abuse is a form of power boys in particular feel demasculinized and disempowered and shame that they were not strong enough to fight back. They are more likley to internalise and not wish to admit what happened. So there is likely to be under-reporting, as well.

25 February 2014 at 19:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sister T, I found the link on Wayback but it's not what I hoped for:


25 February 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Small boys are for cleaning chimneys, not for playing hide the sausage! The very idea...

25 February 2014 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "This is rubbish and you know it."

Actually I think what you write on the subject is simplistic and rubbish, and that what is published as research is this area supports the statement.

25 February 2014 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "No wonder Peter Tatchell wants to radially lower the age of consent [...]"

I'm not really interested in defending Tatchell as I think what he famously wrote in the Guardian was foolish. However, he has made numerous statements about his argument for lowering the age of consent and on the basis of those you are misrepresenting him. Of course, I can see why you would want to ignore the statements and run with what you want to be the case.

25 February 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs P @ 20:04

Does Slope know that?

25 February 2014 at 20:08  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Actually, Inspector, there is a scientific theory known as the "Sneaky F**ker Theory" formulated by evolutionary biologists to answer what should be an obvious question: why are there homosexuals? If you think about it, since evolution is the survival of the fittest, and since fitness is defined by the ability to pass on your genes, homosexuality is something which should have bred out of the human population aeons ago. It didn't, and the question is, why does it re-establish itself generation after generation, and seemingly always at around 10% of population when, if evolution is correct, homosexuals are supposedly at a huge evolutionary disadvantage?

According to the SF theory, there are no homosexuals; they are, in fact, actually bisexuals. They may have a preference for their own gender, but they'll take whatever's available. The theory is a disturbing one (for the gay lobby, anyway) because it implies that gays really are more promiscuous; they'll get up on anything. If that is the case, then it's not a giant leap to connecting homosexuality to paedophilia.

25 February 2014 at 20:14  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Phil Roberts:
“...since the homosexual population is around 2% rather than 30 % it follows that male homosexuals are many times more likely to be convicted of sexual offenses against children”

That sounds SO impressive and convincing – until the perpetrators of these offences are investigated. Yes, up to a third of sexual molestations of children are technically homosexual in the sense that they are same-sex molestations of boys. And yes, the perpetrators can sometimes be ordinary gay men. But they rarely are. Most often they are either exclusive paedophiles, who have little or no sexual interest in other adults (and many will also molest girls if they get the chance), or men whose sexual interest in adults is heterosexual.

For example, the Home Office report “Sex Offending Against Children: Understanding The Risk" (1998), notes that the sex of children targeted by abusers “does not appear to reflect, however, sexual orientation towards adults”, and that “Marshall et al. (1988) found, for example, that even in a group of men who had offended exclusively against boys aged five to 10, two thirds had adult heterosexual preferences.” (p. 18) We are not told what the adult sexual preferences of the remaining third were, or even whether they had any at all, but on the next page the Home Office report also cites a 1991 paper on child molesters by the same research team, which refers to “the FEW [emphasis added] who engaged in homosexual behaviour with adults.”

I would like to think that homosexual men never molest young boys, but unfortunately a small minority do. So do a small minority of HETEROSEXUAL men. What is clear is that most men, straight or gay, never molest children of either sex and wouldn’t want to, and that most of those male paedophiles who molest boys have no sexual interest in other adult males.

25 February 2014 at 20:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan: "If you think about it, since evolution is the survival of the fittest, and since fitness is defined by the ability to pass on your genes, homosexuality is something which should have bred out of the human population aeons ago".


I hope to god you're just playing at being stupid there.

25 February 2014 at 20:19  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ Corrigan 25 FEBRUARY 2014 20:14:

Yes, if only we had some bacon, we could have bacon and eggs – that is, if we had any eggs.

25 February 2014 at 20:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Phil @ 19:37

My wife and I were in a restaurant the other night. There were two same-sex couples (one of them father and son), and around thirty mixed-sex couples.

Despite Kinsey's massaging of the figures, and despite TV sitcom/soap opera representations, homosexuals as between 2% and 3% of the population seems about right. Let's be generous, and say 5% as an absolute maximum.

Either it's true or it isn't true that 30% of men imprisoned for paedophile offences self-identify as homosexual.

If it's true, there are two explanations.

1. Hetero paedophiles are better at not getting caught and imprisoned.

2. The 2-5% statistic, and the 30% statistic suggest a link that is neither simplistic nor rubbish.

25 February 2014 at 20:29  
Blogger Nick said...

Probably the most squirming political interview I've ever watched. I think the telling moment was when they discussed the recommendation Ms Harm'em made about decriminalising the distribution of paedophile pornography when there was "no evidence of the child being harmed". Mind boggling to think she believes young children can be coerced into sexual acts without being harmed.

Surely, any normal person finding their employer was in some way associated with this highly damaging form of sexual perversion would at least blow the whistle, distance themselves from it, and maybe resign.

We should also remember that this is "Liberty", and in the interest of civil liberties they allowed any organisation to be affiliated, even if it promoted the rape of young children.

What is even more sickening is Millibands head-in-sand attitude to it. Denial does not change the truth, and the truth will out in the end. The problem with telling lies is that you have to keep lying until you're finished.

25 February 2014 at 20:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "2. The 2-5% statistic, and the 30% statistic suggest a link that is neither simplistic nor rubbish."


One can lead a horse to water but one can't force it to drink.

25 February 2014 at 20:32  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ gugliemo

The Emperor (of your argument) has no clothes.

The argument relies on several semantic sleights of hand.

Any married man who abuses a boy is either predominantly homosexual or bisexual; he can no longer be described as heterosexual, and that is just a start.

I find it incredible that people can go from nature programmes where they assume that semen is for propogation, and sexual reproductive organs for sexual reproduction, and the male organ designed to fit perfectly into the birth canal, and semen for meeting and fertilising eggs, and then switch to hearing gay people saying that a male anus is equal to the birth canal, and semen for them having a pleasurable feeling, full stop. Utterly and stupidly crazy. Think across the world and down the centuries and what only a tiny weeny % of human being who have ever existed have ever thought this, and yet you think you are correct and all the rest are idiots, like the old age pensioner going down the motorway the wrong way.

25 February 2014 at 20:36  
Blogger Corrigan said...

You don't believe in God, Dan.

25 February 2014 at 20:38  
Blogger bluedog said...

Phil @ 1930, you raise a topic which intrigues this communicant.

Will we now see a trend emerging in sub-Saharan Africa that reverses the liberalisation of homosexuality? The indications are that this may happen. The Ugandan president pitched his enactment of re-criminalising homosexuality in terms of anti-colonialism. He specifically said that the promotion of same sex marriage was a form of cultural colonialism that Uganda must reject. Indeed, it seems that Kenya will shortly follow suit, while South African is deeply ambivalent about its own acceptance of SSM. Given the rapid expansion of Christianity, including Anglicanism in Africa, these rejections of SSM have implications for the Lambeth Conference.

Come on down, David Cameron, who vowed to spread the same-sex gospel as a light to lighten the darkness. Could wreck the trade mission.

Now which EU nation will be the first to reverse its policy of SSM? Spain or France?

How will the Inspector react to this African initiative?

25 February 2014 at 20:48  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said Lucy Mullen @ 20.36.

25 February 2014 at 20:51  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Greetings, Time for Tea, welcome aboard. Don't feel ignored; Cranmer's is gearing up for a bar brawl right about now, so stand by the doorway and watch out for flying glass until you know what's what and who you can pop and get away with it. :)

25 February 2014 at 20:52  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Corrigan, what you have bears out. Much is said in homosexual circles about sexuality being a fluid thing. They say there is no such thing as 100% heterosexual or 100% homosexual. Well it suits their agenda to do that, as immediately they are no longer ‘queer’ or so they would like to think. However, note the success in undermining gender roles, with female soldiers, female fire-fighters (God help us !) and male nursery care assistants.

Personally, as to the cause of homosexuality, one has found there is much mileage in negro violence being passed down the generations from an Africa where only the noble warrior got to breed. So as it is with them, one has a case that homosexuality too is the result of brain structure. This fits in well with the reality of homosexual brothers, and other closely related folk. Not so much a gay gene, but a set of genes that leads to homosexuality.

Oh good grief – Gugliemlo has appeared. Now, he is the dung beetle of threads. Once he’s on the the scene, you know you are wading though the utter shit that is depraved humanity....

25 February 2014 at 20:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 20:32

If a horse doesn't drink, it'll die. If I don't do the paedophilia research, I'll survive.

It's not a subject I know about, or am interested in researching. I'm more concerned about the general issue of fact versus opinion, and the role of fact in forming opinion.

The 30% statistic is either a fact or it isn't. If it's spurious, Phil R's case collapses. If it's true, his argument is not simplistic.

25 February 2014 at 20:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "If I don't do the paedophilia research, I'll survive."

Like Phil's beliefs, I expect.

I've led the horse to water on this particular issue already on another thread.

25 February 2014 at 21:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah feck it, believe what you will. Gods, homosexuality is a choice, pixies, six day creation, burning bushes which speak, a flat earth, tooth faeries, or whatever. If it keeps you happy ...

25 February 2014 at 21:08  
Blogger Nick said...

103 comments and 24 by / referring to Danj0. That's about 24%. I would say that's a disproportionate representation :-)

25 February 2014 at 21:13  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Lucy Mullen 25 FEBRUARY 2014 20:36:

My point is that there are men who are sexually interested in other men – what we might call “ordinary gay men” – and there are men who are interested in sexually abusing boys. They CAN be the same people but they usually are NOT. Most often either their sexual interest is exclusively in children (sometimes including girls as well) or else any sexual interest which they have in adults is heterosexual. No matter what terminology you prefer to use, it cannot alter the way that things are. I realise that this may not be what you want to hear, Lucy, but it can’t be that difficult to grasp, surely?

The dangers of simplistic views are underlined by a case in the UK a few years ago. I remember it vividly because it was made the subject of a very well-produced BBC Crimewatch documentary. A boy aged 11 or 12 went missing. His body was eventually found not far from his home, and the examining pathologist determined that he had been seriously sexually assaulted and then strangled. When the detective inspector in charge of the case briefed his officers, he instructed them to contact and question “all known homosexuals” in the area, which they did. After many months of this kind of investigation they had got precisely nowhere. Only when they ignored the matter of “homosexuals” entirely and instead concentrated simply on the men with whom (whatever their known or supposed sexual orientation) the boy was known to have been in contact did they find the perpetrator. He was a coach at the junior football club of which the murdered boy had been a member. He was unknown on the gay scene and was living with a woman in a heterosexual relationship.

Your fourth paragraph has no relevance to my point, so I won’t bother discussing it.

25 February 2014 at 21:15  
Blogger Corrigan said...

I didn't say homosexuality was a choice, Dan. Keeping it in your trousers is a choice; going for your second favourite (the opposite sex) is a choice; making a moral decision about whether or not you're going to act on your desires is a choice, but no, your basic orientation is not a choice. I get that.

25 February 2014 at 21:17  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Chin up DanJ0, don’t lose it at this stage. Remember, your bollocks made word is essential for a level debate here.

Forgot to mention about Guglielmo. One is highly suspicious that his avatar represents what he’s hoping his next victim looks like. Either that or he’s twelve and that is his own likeness. Chills the very marrow either way, what !

25 February 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Guglielmo @ 21.15 says to Lucy Mullen, 'Your fourth paragraph has no relevance to my point, so I won’t bother discussing it.'

Irrefutable, eh?

25 February 2014 at 21:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...


I've been harping on about the 30% statistic because of something I read today on another blog that stuck in my mind.

"Facts refute fiction. Exposure to snippets of reality is deadly; for just as one small pin can pop a balloon, one small fact can shatter a generalization."

Rudolph Bultmann postulated a date of around 200AD for John's Gospel, and developed a whole theology on this surmise.

Then the Rylands papyrus was discovered. Once carbon darted, it confirmed a date of around 90AD for the Greek original. Bultmann's theory duly imploded.

25 February 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Inspector General in Ordinary:

My avatar is nothing like me or anyone I know. I have now changed it to a more appropriate one. I do hope you like it.

25 February 2014 at 21:37  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says the 'research' is political.

"Published estimates of the proportion of pedophiles who offend against male children and are homosexual span a staggering range from a low of 2% (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994) to a high of 86% (Erickson, Walbek, & Seely, 1988). The methods of the authors at each extreme have been criticized, and indeed, both sides are guilty of poor methods."

(Male Homosexuality, Science, and Pedophilia; James M. Cantor, PhD)

And this article looks at paedophilia - i.e. under 12 years old. What about sex by an older man with a boy of 14 years or 13 years?

25 February 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Time For Tea said...

Fear not Avi, I'm going to keep my powder dry on this one and watch the bottles fly past and out the door.

I'll be ready to tip some tables over, get dug in and lob some bottles about the place when the time comes!

25 February 2014 at 21:42  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

It makes all the difference Guglielmo. There will be no contacting Scotland Yard as a result...

25 February 2014 at 21:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

That's a swell plan, Time for Tea. Observe how an occasional visiting piece of fluff drained its glass and met the Inspector's challenging glare. Even got up from his stool on its wobbly hind legs. It's the anticipation we all cherish.

25 February 2014 at 21:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Guglielmo Marinaro, Happy Jack asks: Are you genuine?

Why a different initial avatar here to the one you use on all other sites?

25 February 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Then there's this this and this and mustn’t overlook this

25 February 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


I am sure that we can pick up this on another discussion thread, but I've never said that all Jews are Zionists, but it is you who conflate the two, besides which via your definition anyone who

1) believes that a Jewish state should exist


2) Supports Israel

seems to be classed as a Zionist that is pretty much 99% of Jews and a healthy portion of gentiles.

Besides which we aren't the borg collective and as I am sure you will agree Israel- being the Middle East's only functioning Parliamentary Liberal Democracy, a shinning light in a dark corner - is a vibrant bastion of different views, as any Knesset debate and view into Israel civil society testifies. A pity, therefore, that you feel Israel shouldn't exist- even the Israeli left believes that, but you are in broad agreement with Hamas. Then you wonder why you are called an anti-semite...

25 February 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Happy Jack
Thanks. The poor guy is clearly plagued with self-doubt to protest that much and only have one topic of conversation. And as for an adult dressing up in a big boy's version of a little boy's sailor suit....

Stephen Fry of course did lots of research of paedophilia, months of it presumably, for his play on the subject called "Latin". I note that he is a great favourite of Gugliemo, who, I assume, approves of Uncle Stephen's research, though his overt conclusions differ.

25 February 2014 at 22:24  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Carl Jacobs,

Interesting theory there regarding Corrigan- which if it is true is quite laughable- given the pro-Arab stance of the British foreign office or that the father of the sixth President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, was know in Dublin as "the Sinn Féin Rabbi"...

25 February 2014 at 22:25  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Ars Hendrik,

No I didn't think we were missing much.

25 February 2014 at 22:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Lucy M, yes Happy Jack seems to be turning into a Father Brown since he changed his own avatar and donned a hat and coat.

Interesting play, Latin. Written by Fry in 1979. A teacher having sex with a 13 year old boy and explains that abusing this child is the only way in which he can feel young. The teacher runs off with the boy to Morocco and adopts him.

Curious themes, indeed.

25 February 2014 at 22:40  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Happy Jack-

'David K, the Jewish and orthodox Christian views on sex, marriage and children are very similar'.

Well if you will nick half of our ideas (:

But seriously,to me a 'counter insurgency' is needed to provide the positive view and not the negative view of Orthodox social views, but to win the argument on that or to validate traditional marriage, family values et al, does not require what is going on in this thread, namely,homosexual= pedophile.

25 February 2014 at 22:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


It's true that "homosexual does not equal pedophile." But it is also true that the abuse crisis in the RCC was overwhelmingly homosexual in nature. It was primarily about men having sex with post pubescent teenage boys. You can't just sweep that under the carpet by saying "Whatever those relationships were, they were not, Not, NOT homosexual." Yes, they were. That is the other half of what is going on within this thread.


25 February 2014 at 22:53  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

David K, but is that what is going on?

That homosexual men might be sexually attracted to teenage boys is really not an extraordinary claim. Let's be honest, many heterosexual men are attracted to teenage girls.

That a higher percentage of
homosexual men place themselves in situations where they have access to teenage boys and use their relationship of power to have sex with them, is what is under discussion. And, as a follow on, are all, or a majority of, homosexual men predisposed towards sex with teenage boys (not 'clinically' paedophilia)?

The research is controversial and inconclusive.

Both Judaism and Christianity (orthodox versions) see same sex relationships as prohibited - not the impulse.

25 February 2014 at 23:03  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Anyone who thinks the commie witch Harperson is of huge integrity probably can't do simple arithmetic and that you can borrow your way out of debt.

Oh dear.........and brain dead Ed is going to be our next PM.

25 February 2014 at 23:23  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ David K

I don't think anyone has made that equation which would clearly be unjust. But a sizeable minority would seem to be.

As for Gugliemo I think his frequency of posting on the one subject is probably a cry for help, and his putting forth of a picture of him dressed in what are some of the few identifiably "young boy" clothes that exist in our culture probably suggests the age at which someone or some people traumatised him, so am sorry if I was a bit strong.

If that is so the only way out for him is a forgiveness exercise, something like putting the names on paper and forgiving them, and then disposing of the paper. This does not need to preclude bringing them to justice if necessary. That way he can be free to grow into the next stage of his life, unencumbered, and the bitterness can leave though the memories stay.

25 February 2014 at 23:24  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Carl Jacobs/Lucy Mullen/Happy Jack,

I'll respond to your various posts in the morning, lest you think I'm not going to reply. It is late now and I need my sleep.

25 February 2014 at 23:40  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

“Mothers, tell you children, not to do what I have done”

No, that’s not right. That’s from the House of the Rising Sun

Ah, here we are. “Mothers, tell your male children, there are men out there who want to have anus sex with them, and are prepared to quote a load of dubious statistics to justify it”

Now, here comes the difficult bit, rhyme and meter. By the way, in case your children are grinning, that’s their anus, not his.

25 February 2014 at 23:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Lucy M, Happy Jack suspects our 'Guglielmo Marinaro' is not the real poster who goes by that name and does appear obsessed with one subject. Maybe he wants to emulate him or perhaps he has known him, if you catch my drift.

Inspector, hopefully we are agreed not all homosexuals are predators after young, teenage boys.

Jack believes very strongly that 16 years is way too young for the age of consent for homosexuality.
Boys in particular are not emotionally or psychologically equipped at this age to resist the 'charms' of older men.

26 February 2014 at 00:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

That's freaky, Inspector, about 20 minutes ago I restrung my guitar after nearly a month of leaving it idle and did a warm-up with House of the Rising Sun. It's a good one to cover the major cords with and to practice precision strumming.

26 February 2014 at 00:23  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 00:28  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Got the meter Inpector and sung correctly song lyrics don't have to rhyme.

Oh, mothers, tell your boys
Not to do what I done
Spend your lives in sin and misery
In the grip of a demon paedo

Well, there is a group amongst us
They call them 'gay' and 'queer'
And they've been the ruin of many a young boy
So God, please treat them with fear

Well, they've got a foot in our parliament
Another foot in our church
Don't go anywhere near them
They want you for their toy

26 February 2014 at 00:32  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

As in:


(Am)Oh, mothers, (C)tell your (D)boys(F)
(Am)Not to do what (C)they have (Em)done...
(Am)Spend your lives in sin and (D)misery (F)
(Am)In the grip of a (Em)demon (Am)pedo...

(Instrumental: Am, C, D, F, Am, Em, Am, Em, repeat)

Bit awkward, but doable with the right pauses. Did it from memory, so might need fixing.

26 February 2014 at 00:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Question: Are all forms of sexual expression valid?

Answer: (Modern World style). Yes; all except paedophilia.

See the can of worms that opens?

If one form of sexual expression isn't valid, why isn't it valid?

And if one form of expression isn't valid, the sneaking fear that more than one form might not be. Hence all the angst from those who wish to proclaim complete sexual freedom, and simultaneously ban paedophilia.

26 February 2014 at 07:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hence Harriet H's convoluted contortions in the interview in her attempt to square the sexual circle.

26 February 2014 at 08:09  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Explorer, a tardy reply but a reply nevertheless... Mr Slope's motivations are a mystery unto me I fear. As to Miss Harman's political weasellings, I make it an absolute rule to ignore anything she says. Once corset, stays and crinoline have been abandoned, once one has gone East of the Liberty Bodice and burnt one's shoulder-boulder-holder, Miss Harman and her moral relativism is all that is left. Mr Miliband says she is an honest and decent person, which proves he too is a master of moral relativism. Oh dear I am rambling...time for tea and hobnobs. Oh yes, I see we have some new communicants. May I welcome you to our little corner of the world and extend invitations to tea at The Palace when you are at a loose end. Mr. Slope is particularly fond of loose ends...

26 February 2014 at 09:44  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Happy Jack: Since you seem so fascinated by my avatar, I will tell you that the one which has appeared on here up to now was one of the ready-made ones provided by Yahoo! when I first signed up for one of their message boards some years ago. How frightfully interesting is that? I have now changed it to the one which I use all on all other blogs, and I do hope that you approve of it. Let me know if you don’t – and I’ll still keep on using it.

26 February 2014 at 09:47  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Happy Jack,

Children all back to school so back to my daily Cranmer treat!

A shame I missed that Lego one a few days ago - I guess little Charlotte Blackman might appreciate her pink Lego girls once the Islamic Lego series comes out complete with burka-clad mini-figures.

I can certainly see the difference between the RCC and PIE doctrines. However, the fruits appear to be the same, so as you say, it must be the organisation - i.e. the very top level of the RC hierarchy - that has failed.

Interesting reading in Jeremiah 23 yesterday:
"If they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings."

Jews and orthodox Christians have the same outlook on children and marriage, as we share the same moral law.

Wasn't it all so simple when the only universally recognised permissible sexual relations were within a real man/woman marriage?

As Explorer says at 7.56, once any other form of sexual expression is deemed OK, anything can be justified.

The whole sorry mess is summed up by that apposite Biblical word....'incontinent' (2 Timothy 3 v 3).

26 February 2014 at 09:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lovely Mrs P:

That's to say: Lovely Mrs P and Lovely, Mrs P.

Ms Harman, though, surely?

Ms H and the wish to avoid value judgements. And yet if the judgement that it is wrong to harm others is not a value judgement, then what sort of a judgement is it?

26 February 2014 at 09:52  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ The Explorer:

What you seem to be asking is, why is it all right for adults to have consensual sex with other adults, but not sex with children? I cannot see any logical inconsistency there; nor, I think, can most other people. However you, in your superior wisdom, apparently can. The members of PIE back in the 1970s obviously saw it too.

26 February 2014 at 10:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...


I think lots of forms of sexual expression are wrong, including paedophilia.

My point is, why single out paedophilia alone? You need to put that question to those who do so.

26 February 2014 at 10:21  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Explorer @ 09.52 says, '..if the judgement that it is wrong to harm others is not a value judgement, then what sort of a judgement is it?'

All of which begs the question; what is harm or harmful? Even if one judges and accepts that doing 'harm' is wrong, there is certainly plenty of elasticity in the definition of what in fact constitutes harm within contemporary society. Context would seem to be important in defining harm, for what might be harmful in one set of circumstances may well be beneficial in another. And then there is the question of transition zones between acts of harm and acts of benefit where uncertainty at a given point may require a judgement that might appear harmless at the time, but after the event and with the benefit of hindsight, may both appear and actually be, harmful. However, if an act that subsequently transpired to be harmful was done with the best intentions, it would be unjust and oppressive to deny full mitigation of any harm so caused.

In short Ms Harman still has plenty of room for manoeuvre, and this communicant is confident that within the scope of the final sentence above, Ms Harman is completely innocent of any misdemeanour.

26 February 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Greetings Carl,

As usual there is cross wires here. I can appreciate that homosexuals do and are capable , as are heterosexuals in forming an intimate relationship and in a legal, consensual manner (my own views on marriage/sex notwithstanding ) and this is what I mean by homosexual, rather than paedophiles who are either/or homosexual or heterosexual abusers of children and young adults (under the legal age of consent).

In respect of the RCC abuse scandal, I see what you say about how the victims were children and teenage boys and therefore the physical abuse on the whole in the RCC, was homosexual, which on the flip side would make the abuse of girls and teenage girls heterosexual abuse. So perhaps it would be fitting to describe these filth as, ‘homosexual /or heterosexual/or bi-sexual rapists and abusers’ in layman’s terms and leave the term paedophile for the medical professionals...

26 February 2014 at 10:54  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Happy Jack,

I think I’ve responded to the bulk of your post via way of my address to Carl, so I’ll reply to the last paragraph there : .

‘Both Judaism and Christianity (orthodox versions) see same sex relationships as prohibited - not the impulse.’

I’d agree that in Orthodox Judaism it is homosexual sex itself which is the negative Mitzvah. In fact I’ve gone further than that, by putting forward a positive case for sex, but within a heterosexual marriage, [above] so to me neither I or my religion would approve or condone heterosexual sex outside of marriage either.

As an aside, it is quite ironic in a way as in real life I've often call me ‘Victorian dad’.If I come across as more liberal than you like, it is just that whilst I cannot approve of an active homosexual relationship nor indeed the idea of religions being forced to conduct same sex marriages, it does not mean that I’d want Ugandan style laws here in the UK or that I would, say, approve of Iranian style justice melted out to homosexual people. This might infuriate some on either side of the debate here, but that’s tough as I think my position is a reasonably well thought out view and one which doesn’t contradict my own faith (& arrived at after much study and prayer).


26 February 2014 at 10:58  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

It is interesting that the two gay boy here do not dispute the 30% figure but one argues instead that they were not "real" homosexuals and try and draw a distinction between them.

Other have mentioned that many hetero men are attracted to young teenage girls (And presumably likewise it is the case that homosexual men are attracted to young boys) I don't dispute that. However, the fact of the matter is that hetero men do not as a rule do not act on this physical attraction for young girls. However, judging by the 30% in prison statistic, a far greater proportion of homosexual men do act on and seek out young boys.


26 February 2014 at 10:59  
Blogger John Thomas said...

No, Ian Cad, read my words again: "Hitler can be branded "Right Wing" - if you have the inclination to do that, as Leftiwingers do. I fancy he started out as thoroughly left wing ("Nazi" - the clue is in the meaning of the word (the full version, that is)). Later, I suspect he just went with anything that seemed to prolong/ensure power - but I'm no expert on Hitler.

26 February 2014 at 10:59  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Lucy Mullen,

Very well, I accept that there were more nuisances, hyperbole and distinctions that commentators were using rather than asserting the simplistic line of homosexuality equals paedophilia . My bad.

26 February 2014 at 10:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The Africa Revolt Against Imposed Western Morality

I find it interesting that they are willing to stick two fingers up to the west.

Persecution for sexual orientation is acceptable for asylum purposes. So we shall soon see quite an influx of homosexual and "homosexual" Africans seeking asylum in Europe

The electorate will not care perhaps for a while but there are at least two bombs ticking away. One is the increasing incidence homosexual pedophilia which is well documented and is highlighted above.

The other is the increasing devaluation of people's pensions as they are forced to provide dependants' pensions for gay spouses.


26 February 2014 at 11:12  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ The Explorer:

Have you considered the possibility that some people, might – just conceivably might – not find sexual activity between consenting adults, whatever their views about it, comparable to sexual activity between adults and children? That even people with decidedly traditional views, who believe, for example, that it’s wrong for an engaged couple to have sex before their wedding night, might still consider that adults having sex with little girls or little boys is – pardon the cliché – a very different ball-game?

26 February 2014 at 11:30  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Phil @ 11.12
I hadn't thought of asylum seekers as a result of Uganda's stand on this - thankyou! Though maybe this is Obama's ulterior motive, as increasing the number of homosexuals in the West will make enforcing any gay rights legislation easier.

Don't you think it odd that if you or I were to pronounce what we thought best for Africa, we would be denounced as colonialists, racists etc etc by the 'liberals'. However, those very liberals think they have every right to impose their own values on the African nations.
I think that the decadent West is in many ways,financially and morally, the 'Black Man's Burden' nowadays.

26 February 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"which on the flip side would make the abuse of girls and teenage girls heterosexual abuse"

To be honest, I think that there is A HUGE difference here.

Many girls are seeking relationships from the age of 14. Sexual relationships of a 14 year old with say a 17 year old boy is at least natural and so does not have the same degree of guilt that Lucy describes above that a boy would feel.

Most boys are not seeking sexual relationships at 14. Seriously how many boys do you remember compared to girls were interested in sex at 14?

For me and most of my friends motorbikes and fast cars were the main interest in teenage years. Girls seemed to understand that they came a poor second to the car or bike and so many looked to older guys.

A good friend of mine had a steady girlfriend from the age of 17. We thought him weak and manipulated (which he was). It is not that we did not like girls it is just that we thought that they were mostly pretty boring, only good for one thing (which they seemed happy to oblige) but it was understood that cars, sport and mates etc came first.

I think this highlights the differences between the sexes and illustrates healthy growing up for both sexes. Indeed this is the sort of pattern of behaviour seems to have been the norm throughout history.

It also protects boys from gay sexual advances. Any gang of boys would not have tolerated a homosexual advance for a millisecond. If any of my friends had indeed been susceptible, any older gay would not have been able to get anywhere near him, we would have turned on him and I am sure they knew that.


26 February 2014 at 11:44  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Busy mum

I once worked on a road with around 40 or so Africans

They kept on holding hands and I said don't do this in the West they will get the wrong idea

To which they were puzzled. I explained and they laughed and laughed and went on to explain to me that there as no word for this in their language, as no man would be so stupid as to want put his dick up another guy's arse!


26 February 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Guglielmo Marinaro, or should that be William, Happy Jack says use whatever picture you like. But why not use your Google profile here as that's what its for?

Jack finds it interesting you chose a young boy (a 'chicken' as your 'friends' might say) as your initial avatar. Now you are all 'grown up' you wear a little boy's pretend costume of a sailor.


So back to the topic. Given your apparent interest in youth, do you think it is okay for older men to have sex with 16 year old boys? And what about 14 year old boys? Where they are "willing" of course.

And what about Stephen Fry's insight that men having sex with younger boys is a way in which they can feel young again?

26 February 2014 at 12:08  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Phil Roberts:

The point is not whether men who sexually molest young boys count as “real” homosexuals, any more than it is whether men who sexually molest young girls count as “real” heterosexuals. Those are simply matters of definition.

Argument based on the percentage of same-sex molestation cases is fallacious, as the facts demonstrate. The sex researcher Kurt Freund and his team at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto, who did an enormous amount of research into paedophilia, found that about a third of child molesters were “homosexual pedophiles”, i.e. attracted to CHILDREN of the same sex, but they did NOT find that those men were also “homosexual teleiophiles”, i.e. attracted to ADULTS of the same sex. They explicitly said so, and noted that their own research had discredited the myth that ordinary homosexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children (Kurt Freund, Robin Watson & Douglas Rienzo, “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference”, Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, Feb., 1989, pp. 107-117). In his paper “In search of an etiological model of pedophilia” (Sexological Review, 2, 171-84), Freund concluded that “pedophilia has little in common with homosexuality or heterosexuality in males who prefer physically mature partners.”

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of gay men, who would never dream of molesting a child, should be blamed for the crimes of those men who do?

26 February 2014 at 12:14  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Phil Roberts,

The specific context there was the RCC abuse scandal, so no I'd don't think there is any difference between a male Priest raping and abusing a girl/teenager than a male Priest raping and abusing a boy/teenager : both are wrong in my book.

But if you want to discuss normative hetrosexual relationships between people in their teens, I am surprised that an apparent Evangelical Christians thinks it is OK for a couple of teenagers to have sex before marriage.

For myself, I fully understand that part of growing up is for teenagers to start dating members of the opposite sex (other Jews follow a concept called 'Shomer Negiah', which I'll leave for you to look up).

That does not mean that I would be condoning of teenagers or specifically any of my children, having sexual intercourse before they were married, whether it was 14 year old and a 17 year old or two teenagers both aged 16. As I said above in my religion, marriage is the place for sexual intimacy, joy and family creation.

26 February 2014 at 12:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil R, let me inform you Happy Jack for one was very interested in girls from age 14 years upwards (so to speak), especially the older girls! He fondly remembers Pan's People strutting their stuff too. The problem, as Jack experienced it, was that girls of his age were more interested in the older boys and, at this age, there is a certain shyness to be overcome.

This, Jack thinks, may make adolescent boys vulnerable to advances from adults - both male and female. However, in his experience, men do tend to be more predatory than women.

26 February 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Happy Jack:

Do I think it is okay for older men to have sex with 16 year old boys? No, I don’t, any more than I think it is okay for older men to have sex with 16 year old girls. Not that I think that it should be a crime in either case. And what about 14 year old boys? The same as for 14 year old girls: definitely not okay, whether they are “willing” or not, and should remain illegal.

What about Stephen Fry’s “insight”? No, as with girls, not okay, whether or not it makes someone feel “young again”.

26 February 2014 at 12:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


But your response still leaves open the question that dare not be answered. Why was the RCC abuse crisis so fundamentally rooted in the desire of certain men to have homosexual sex with teenage boys? Because it undeniably was so rooted. Homosexual desire is central and not incidental to the question - no matter how many people want it to be otherwise.


26 February 2014 at 12:26  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Thomas

If, as it seems, I misunderstood your post then please accept my apologies.

Perhaps in the economic field it would be rash to define the Nazi's as irremediably Left-wing.
They were, if nothing else, opportunistic brigands.

Socially, we need look no further than their enthusiastic adoption and expansion of the eugenics movement, so beloved by the left in its day

26 February 2014 at 12:28  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, do you have any answers to the question "Why was the RCC abuse crisis so fundamentally rooted in the desire of certain men to have homosexual sex with teenage boys?"

Jack thinks it may have been the sexual licentiousness of the times and the failure of the Catholic Church to be more selective in who it admitted to the priesthood. Add to this the failure to address known homosexual activity in the seminaries and a problem was bound to occur when these men were sent to parishes on their own.

Really we don't know how far back homosexuality in the church goes and whether boys down the centuries have been abused.

26 February 2014 at 12:37  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Ps .... why is it a question that dare not be answered?

26 February 2014 at 12:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Happy Jack

Because to answer the question is to tacitly admit that homosexual desire is central to the crisis. It is not an accident that the crisis has been framed around pedophiles. That framing isolates homosexual desire and keeps the discussion away from homosexuality.

I don't have an answer, but I know an answer will not be found by intentionally looking in the wrong place. Your answer about seminaries only makes sense if:

a. Homosexuals have a higher tendency to offend.

b. Homosexuals with a higher tendency to offend self-selected themselves into the Priesthood.

c. Something in priestly formation or life lead to the emergence of this higher tendency to offend.


26 February 2014 at 12:57  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

So, if Happy Jack is right, the “sexual licentiousness” of the times meant that heterosexuals decided that they didn’t have to wait till they were married to have sex, homosexuals decided that it was all right for them to have gay relationships – and Catholic priests decided that it was all right for them to molest altar boys (although that rightly remained a serious crime). Yeah, that makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

By the bye, since Happy Jack seems for some reason to be fixated on my avatar and to have some fantasy about its significance, I suggest that he look at it again carefully and then at the name “Marinaro”. If he really puts his mind to it, he might – depending on his intellectually capacity, of course – eventually “tumble” to it.

26 February 2014 at 13:10  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 13:13  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Happy Jack, Carl.

Don't ignore the fact that abuse was not uniform across the Catholic Church, but was centred in certain diocese and parishes.

Which ones? Well, unsurprisingly those with the most 'progressive' attitudes around sexuality; namely the ones that had most radically departed from orthodox teaching, especially in certain seminaries.

I think this is more important than in trying to prove one way or another if most of the offending priests were gay, ephebophile or just plain indifferent.

Up until the 1960s those entering the seminaries were rigorously vetted to weed out undesirables. From then on this was relaxed with now historically disastrous consequences. Mark Dooley wrote about some of the things that went on in the Irish seminaries in his book 'Why be a Catholic?' – an obsession with sexuality and the traducing of traditional belief poisoned the well. Note that this had nothing to do with a change in church teaching – these were localised aberrations.

The church has recovered itself admirably in the interceding years and now has child protection policies in place that are more rigorous than in any other organisation. The one lesson it has learnt – painfully – is that only by applying church teaching, especially in the training of tomorrow's priests, can it guarantee its own future.

Interestingly, the seminaries which turned out priests who went on to abuse children were run by people who would have queued to listen to the NCCL's utterances on liberation, socialism and equality. They were, to put it bluntly, mugs.

26 February 2014 at 13:31  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Guglielmo Marinaro, a "Seafaring Willy" from Liverpool it is then.


26 February 2014 at 13:35  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


I'm bemused here as I can't see where I've deflected or not addressed the issue of homosexuality in respect of the abuse. I did in my second paragraph.

In respect to your question, in all fairness you only just asked that one so of course I couldn't answer it!

Like yourself, I don't know why so many abusers be they pedophiles, homosexual child abusers or hetrosexual child abusers ended up getting to be Priests- presumably the perpetrators of these crimes did so to 'get access' to their victims, but of course that doesn't explain how the Church failed to filter, detect or deal with these people.

26 February 2014 at 13:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Guglielmo doesn't deserve this abuse. It doesn't make any difference what he chooses for an avatar. You can't make any inferences from it. And the crude vulgar humor not only hurts your case. It will eventually get you into trouble. Again.


26 February 2014 at 14:15  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Why do people keep on saying that PIE merely paid a subscription.

They joined, sat on committees and had NCCL promote their aims for relaxing the age of consent and de-criminalising incest.

There was also a hookup between PIE and Gay Rights activists.

NCCL and its senior officers know all this, took part in it and did not expel PIE

This will not end well.

26 February 2014 at 16:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"But if you want to discuss normative hetrosexual relationships between people in their teens, I am surprised that an apparent Evangelical Christians thinks it is OK for a couple of teenagers to have sex before marriage."

Even evangelical Christians were young once David

They happen to also live in the real world!


26 February 2014 at 16:39  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Guglielmo Marinaro

"Are you suggesting that the vast majority of gay men, who would never dream of molesting a child, should be blamed for the crimes of those men who do? "

No of course not.

"The point is not whether men who sexually molest young boys count as “real” homosexuals, any more than it is whether men who sexually molest young girls count as “real” heterosexuals. Those are simply matters of definition.. Those are simply matters of definition."

The safest course is to assume that both are true. That is men who sexually molest young boys count as “real” homosexuals and men who sexually molest young girls count as “real” heterosexuals.

The 30% who of convicted paedophiles who self identify as homosexual is an issue however, whichever way you look at it


26 February 2014 at 16:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "It is interesting that the two gay boy here do not dispute the 30% figure but one argues instead that they were not "real" homosexuals and try and draw a distinction between them."

We're using the research by people renowned in their field to shed light on the issue, unlike you who is using the resources of the notorious Family Research Council. Moreover, from past exchanges you don't even bother checking their 'references' let alone dig out the primary sources to check whether the references actually do the work they claim. I note also your use of "gay boys" for the future when you dispute the claim of your homophobia.

26 February 2014 at 17:51  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 17:53  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 17:54  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...


How right you are and what a pain in the arse humourless religious drone I am for trying to act consistently with my religion and thinking that my kids can have fun in relationships without bonking their boyfriends and girlfriends every night;you know our Friday Sabbath meal is such a dour affair in which we eat a simple raw turnip and have grave expressions on our faces, without laughter, singing or enjoyment.

I don't live in the real world, it's not perhaps that I may have to live there, but not cater to every modern social idea and our course my observance isn't based around the day to day, but wondering how many Angels could fit on the top of a pin! Incidentally I also live on a spike Sunday to Thursday.

I've always been forty something and have never gone out into the big, bad horrible world, as it is just too big and bad.

Life in my household is just awful I tell you, awful!

26 February 2014 at 17:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 17:57  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Thank you /Carl.

Happy Jack wasn't being 'abusive', just curious about his name and avatars and slightly naughty about his name - which does means "William Seafarer" in Italian.

Apologies Guglielmo Marinaro if you felt offended by Jack.

26 February 2014 at 17:58  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0 “I note also your use of "gay boys" for the future when you dispute the claim of your homophobia.”

Ah yes, homophobia. Let’s have a definition then of this interesting and all encompassing slur from you...

26 February 2014 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "2. The 2-5% statistic, and the 30% statistic suggest a link that is neither simplistic nor rubbish."

I'll have another bite at this, I think.

It may be that someone throws up a fact that the crime statistics show that more attacks on homosexuals identified as hate crimes were reported than before. Now, the simplistic interpretation might be that there are actually more attacks [1] of that sort on homosexuals. But is that it?

Well, one might also note that the police have been regarded as institutionally homophobic in the past by homosexuals in general, and that this has changed dramatically in recent years following guidance and training.

The more nuanced interpretation may well be that there are similar number of attacks but homosexuals are more likely to report them now. How could we valid that? Well, we could use alternatives to the official crime statistics such as the British Crime Survey.

[1] Perhaps wrapped up in obvious bias, such as "This is a reaction to same-sex marriage and gay boys deserve it, and more. Such as being hanged from cranes in Iran, imprisoned for lengthy periods in Uganda, or beaten up in Athens as available scapegoats for austerity. Praise Jesus! God is love! Etc"

26 February 2014 at 18:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, the abuse in the Catholic Church was probably a combination of all of the three factors you identified:

a. Homosexuals have a higher tendency to offend.

(not really proven but a possibility

b. Homosexuals with a higher tendency to offend self-selected themselves into the Priesthood.

more likely men with a homosexual tendency entered the priesthood

c. Something in priestly formation or life lead to the emergence of this higher tendency to offend.

possible the temptation to offend proved too great to men with a homosexual tendency and with liberal attitudes and also who thought they would get away with it

Particular situations may have been different. Add to these the factors identified by Ars Hendrik @ 13:31 and one is probably near a fuller picture.

26 February 2014 at 18:13  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Guglielmo @ 11:30

Yes I have.

26 February 2014 at 18:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 10:40

Sorry for delay in replying. Have been out until now.

Your post was much profounder than mine. Ms H says in there somewhere that any group that paid £15 could be affiliated, provided they were not harmful, and I was just musing about that proviso, and that led me on to the statement I frequently hear that it is wrong to be judgemental.

1. That statement is itself a judgement, offered as an objective fact not as an opinion.

2. It is judging those who are judgmental and saying they are wrong when the whole point of not being judgemental is not to criticise the opinions of others.

If everything is a matter of opinion, is that itself simply a matter of opinion, and so on?
Sorry it's been a long and wearing day.

26 February 2014 at 18:57  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. No definition of homophobia from you as yet. Do allow the Inspector...

There is a nice story of when Berkow went sweeping down a corridor in Westminster, in such a manner that it was clear that he expected all before him to make way. An MP witnessed this, and called out to him “Oi ! You’re not f_____g royalty !”

So, when your crowd sweep down the corridors of society, expecting all to get out of your way, and shouting ‘homophobe’ to those that either won’t or are not quick enough, remember this, you are NOT f____g royalty. Quite definitely, AND DON'T BEHAVE AS IF YOU WERE...

26 February 2014 at 19:03  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 18:06

Yes, good point. Won't do justice to it - it's been a wearing day - but your comment deserved the courtesy of a reply.

I appreciate figures can be massaged, and I did say the 30% figure might not be reliable.

Three immediate examples of dodgy data occur to my tired brain.

1. The skewed sample Kinsey used to get his bestiality data.

2. A university department with a 40% pass rate. Funding implications etc. Two solutions. a) Improve the quality of the teaching (or the intake). b) Lower the pass mark until 50% of the candidates succeed. (Same teaching quality, same low-calibre candidates, but great departmental improvement.)

3. A drop in crime figures needed. Easy. Burglary no longer a crime. Theft increases, but the crime rate is dramatically reduced.

2 and 3 are hypothetical examples, you understand, of how data could be manipulated.

26 February 2014 at 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector {horses whinny}, I expect there's a potential joke about queens to be had in there somewhere but I'll just say that I call homophobes "homophobes" and racists "racists".

26 February 2014 at 19:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Turnips are good for you

Sitting on pins is not recommended



26 February 2014 at 19:38  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"I note also your use of "gay boys" for the future when you dispute the claim of your homophobia."

Sorry I thought that this described your orientation.

So what is the new PC word for Gay if calling someone who is homosexual gay is now homophobic!


26 February 2014 at 19:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil, it's like talking to Alf Garnett when I talk to you about stuff like this, but hey.

So, back to this 30% figure you're parading. What study are you citing there? I must have missed the reference.

26 February 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger The Explorer said...


To amplify my answer to your question:

1. Do I think there is a variety of attitudes within the gay community? Yes.

2. Do I think some gay men are attracted only to adults? Yes.

3. Do I think some gays would consider sex with children wrong? Yes.

4. Do I think some gay men are attracted only to boys? Yes.

My general point was about paedophilia from any sexual orientation. Sexual liberationists say it is wrong. So do I. Their reasons will not be the same as mine. I want to know what their reasons are.

26 February 2014 at 19:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Tell me and the Inspector first why calling you gay (when you are gay) is homophobic


26 February 2014 at 19:59  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 February 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


As parents we always want our kids to behave differently to the way that that we behaved sexually.

Tell me would it really damage you relationship with them if they told you that they were not the pure people that you thought they were?

They could tell you worse things.

Like they are same-gender-inclined/ attracted to the same genital group (gay-- except we cannot use that word any more) for instance!


26 February 2014 at 20:05  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. Ah yes, ‘homophobic’s brother, racist.

Very popular amongst the gay crowd of late. Apparently, any African nation who doesn’t go along with Big Gay’s wishes are to be reminded that “you were yourselves slaves once”, even countries that thrived under colonialism and where slavery never existed. To be followed by instant capitulation and hopefully cries of “Yes master, our bottoms are yours” . You see, Big Gay cannot appreciate why blacks are not eternally grateful to white folk for their freedom. and gay white folk at that, because as we all know, it was the gays that freed the slaves.

Such is Big Gay’s appreciation of African culture, one that is quite definitely racist, is it not ?

26 February 2014 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That's okay Phil, I don't mind if you decline to provide the reference for the figure you've been parading around. I invite other people to guess why. Heh.

As for describing someone gay as "gay", that's not homophobic as far as I am concerned. Even using the phrase "gay boys" is not necessarily homophobic, despite its common use as such. Heck, describing someone as a "paki" is not necessarily racist either.

The thing is, you have a history of homophobic stuff. Similarly, so does the Inspector {horses whinney}. Is there anyone here that doesn't think the Inspector is homophobic? Really, I mean, game playing aside.

26 February 2014 at 20:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil (10 February 2014 21:12): "DanJo usually vigorously disputes this without actually giving any hard evidence to the contrary Wait for it....!"

*whistles a cheerful tune*

26 February 2014 at 20:26  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Just why is the Inspector against Big Gay. Yes, you sir, over there...

Is it because you see homosexuality endorsed by society as evil as the men prey upon the young, as is their wont

I say, that’s damned accurate. Well done sir !

So we need to find a word to describe that. The current definition of homophobia just doesn’t do it. “A FEAR of homosexuals” ? Bah ! This man will not only go up to them fearlessly, but shout into their face, at extremely short range, in the manner of senior NCOs in the UK forces.

Are there any Latin or Greek scholars out there who can come up with a word that combines homo behaviour with disgust ?

26 February 2014 at 20:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older