Roderic O’Gorman. You probably don’t need someone to tell you, but he’s a faggot. Obviously from his face, you can probably assume he is, like all faggots, an aggressive child molester. 

I wonder if there is some reason that these homosexuals go after small children so aggressively?

Like, all homosexuals seem to be completely obsessed with targeted children.

Oh, well. It’s probably nothing.

Breitbart:

Ireland’s Children’s Minister has publicly called for “transgender issues” to be taught to children in elementary schools.

Roderic O’Gorman, Ireland’s Minister of Children, has told a newspaper in the country that elementary school children in the country should be taught about “transgender issues” in order to properly educate them about “diversity”.

A gay man, O’Gorman previously became embroiled in scandal after publicly sharing a photograph depicting him with social activist Peter Tatchell, a well-known rights campaigner in the UK who was recently accused of defending a “pro-paedophilia book”. Tatchell, for his part, strongly denies supporting child abuse over the various claims made against him.

And it took all of 15 days for my worries to be justified

Why would children of 11 years of age and younger need their lives darkened by this confusing nonsense.

Let them be children @rodericogormanhttps://t.co/xWNHTPVcUN https://t.co/Nv5htFBgT2

— Kevin Sheil (@bluebullkev) January 2, 2023

Speaking to the establishment broadsheet newspaper the Irish Independent, O’Gorman reportedly backed children in Ireland’s Primary School system being taught about “transgender issues” as part of their education on the topic of “diversity”.

“I think it’s important that primary school children as well have an understanding of the diversity of our society,” the minister told the publication, having also stated that “[t]ransgender issues should be part of [the] primary curriculum”.

The minister went on to say that he was working on the possibility of allowing those under the age of 16 in the country to legally declare their own “gender identity”, with the Green Party official attacking those who would criticise transgenderism.

“The rights of trans people in our country can’t be up for debate,” the minister reportedly said. “The discourse, particularly on social media, has become incredibly vicious towards members of the trans community in recent years.”

“No one wants to shut down free speech,” O’Gorman continued. “But I think it is really important that dialogue is respectful and based on facts, I suppose, rather than based on just mere prejudice.”

This latter statement comes as O’Gorman’s fellow ministers push hate speech legislation through the country’s parliament which could see those who utter prohibited statements jailed for up to five years.

‘No One Wants These Laws’: Ireland to Jail ‘Hate Speech’ Offenders for Up to Five Yearshttps://t.co/4aLz5U57ga

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) October 28, 2022

Roderic O’Gorman’s stated desire to see “transgender issues” taught to primary school children has led to significant public outcry, with many Irish people taking to social media to denounce the efforts of the Green party politician.

At least they’re denouncing it.

That’s more than most people are doing.

Most people, who know this is a homosexual child molestation agenda given an official government veneer, just sit by and do nothing, hoping the Eye of Sauron won’t light upon them.

They’re all going to have to pay for that.

Now that Ireland finally legalized killing babies in their mothers’ wombs, they have to start doing something about the ones that escape alive.

Can’t have any real Irish men around, because they might not like their country being turned into Nigeria.

Life Site News:

The Irish minister for children, disability, equality, and integration has said he supports proposals to make it easier for children in Ireland under the age of 16 to “change their gender,” after the government confirmed that it will introduce such laws for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The Irish government, which is currently a coalition between Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and the Green Party, released its Programme for Government last month, which pledged to “[r]emove the need for a person aged 16 and 17 years to have two specialist reports before they can apply for legal gender recognition.”

The Programme for Government document, entitled “Our Shared Future,” also promises to “deliver a framework for the development of National Gender Clinics and Multidisciplinary Teams for children and adults” and to “examine arrangements for children under 16.”

Roderic O’Gorman, the new minister for children, disability, equality, and integration, said earlier this week that experts had proposed making it easier for children under 16 to “change gender.”

“Right now, if they want to initiate a gender change, they have to get kind of high-level medical consultants to actually sign off on that. Whereas the recommendation is to make that easier to allow a GP basically to sign off to say yes,” O’Gorman said.

“In an area like this, you should be led by expert advice,” he added.

This O’Gorman creature is a faggot, and part of the “Green” Party.

Funny how the only thing I’ve ever heard coming from any “Green” party in Europe that is even vaguely related to the environment is that white people shouldn’t have children.

Or maybe cutting dicks off somehow helps combat cow farts in a way that a non-expert like me can’t figure out?

Irish journalist John McGuirk has pointed out that the so-called “expert advice” which O’Gorman referred to actually came from a review group made up of a number of trans activists.

“There was one Doctor on the review group — and she is a doctor of law, not a doctor of medicine. The review group did contain, however, four representatives from NGOs that advocate for trans rights,” McGuirk writes.

“How can this be said to be ‘expert advice’? It is only expert if one is seeking experts in trans rights activism, and not expertise in children’s medicine or psychology,” he continues.

“This review panel did not contain one single psychologist, one single gender specialist, or one single GP. There’s a lone nurse on it, but with respect to nurses, they’re not qualified in gender issues in children.”

I can’t even understand how chemically and surgically mutilating children can even be taken into consideration at all by any sane person…

Then again, I’m not an “expert” on anything, so how would I know?

O’Gorman has been the focus of scrutiny on social media in the past week after a picture of him emerged at a 2018 Dublin “Pride” parade with prominent U.K. LGBT activist Peter Tatchell.

A number of journalists and social media users wanted the new children’s minister to state publicly that he condemns pedophila in light of Tatchell’s 1997 letter to The Guardian in which he said “not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.”

Earlier this week, O’Gorman said the 2018 Dublin “Pride” parade was “the first and only time” he has met Tatchell.

“I had no idea about the letter. Had I read it straight before the march I probably would have re-considered [taking a photo with him]. I absolutely don’t share his views on those points,” he said in a statement on Monday.

Peter Tatchell is another “activist” parasite who makes a living trying to figure out new and innovative ways to heck up your life, and especially your children’s life.

A clip from the 2018 Pride Debate. @PeterTatchell advocates forcing parents that don't want their kids in the new Sex Ed classes to pick up their kids from schools. He says this wears them down and forces the resistance rate for the classes down to 0 😳#IrelandsPedoGate pic.twitter.com/SfDL3HjwRH

— Professor JennyQ (@jenny87797866) July 1, 2020

You know why all societies and religions that ever existed were “intolerant” to some degree or another to faggotry and other sexual deviances?

Because the ones that weren’t didn’t last long.

The most precious thing in the world is innocence. Once it is gone, it can never be brought back. While you have it, you are unaware of it and once you have lost it, the memory of how you were when you had it quickly disappears. Innocence is the target of pedophiles and predators; instead of seeking to protect it, they scheme and plot to steal it away.

One of the ways that innocence is guarded is through the legal age of consent. Before we had this legal definition of the age at which someone is capable of giving informed consent, it was down to the parents to give their consent and they decided when their child was mature enough to be married. This has traditionally been at an earlier age than it is now, but those marriages back then were marriages for life in accordance with natural law. There was little chance of the marriage taking place just to satisfy lust and the sex act was honored for what it is for, rather than desired for the short lasting side effects of it.

The idea of having a legal age for consent originally prevented parents from marrying off their children too young, but now it is there to prevent young people from being taken advantage of by sexual predators. At whatever age people are at they try to make the best decisions they can, based on their limited knowledge of life. As you get older, that knowledge expands and you become aware of variables that you had not paid attention to before, as well as long term consequences. This enables you to weigh up the outcome of an action more accurately and affects your decision-making in a positive way. This is why it was down to the parents to give their consent, they had a far better idea of who would be best for the child to marry, as they themselves had the experience of marriage to draw from.

The younger a person is, the less aware they are of all the potential outcomes of their actions. Due to their inexperience, they are more easily beguiled by the wicked among us. Counterfeit consent can be more easily obtained for actions which will have negative consequences, the younger the person is. This is why homosexuals seek to lower the age of consent, for it makes it far easier for them to seduce young boys, when they are inexperienced and unsure of life and do not fully understand the consequences of what they are doing.

One of the ways these homosexuals and pedophiles work to achieve their goals is to get people to see children as ‘young people’ or ‘small adults’ instead of as innocent children. The literature of the Pedophile Information Exchange relies upon this entirely to try to gain acceptance for their vile behavior. They claim that children like it and consent to being abused, sometimes even instigating it. Homosexuals like Peter Tatchell say the same, that young people (children in the eyes of the law) are capable of giving their consent and that they like it. They use phrases like ‘sex with children,’ implying that it is possible for children to give consent when they should be saying ‘the rape of children.’ The use of the phrase ‘child pornography’ is the same, implying that the child is somehow capable of consenting to it. Pornography by definition has to be consensual, so how can it be used to refer to those who cannot give consent? Even the word ‘pedophile’ itself implies some kind of benevolence towards children as it means to love children. “Pedabominor” would be a more accurate term.

Children are not capable of giving consent as they are unaware of all the outcomes that are possible from giving it. In fact, they are unaware of the most important outcome of all until they have actually lost their innocence, and of course, once they have lost their innocence and can give informed consent, it is lost forever and they can never get it back. This is why it is important to have a legal age of consent and why it is rape and not sex if it occurs before that age.

Many people seem to think that rape is taking sex by force or through violence, but that would mean that consenting sadomasochists were raping each other. They clearly are not raping each other if they have given their consent, no matter how much damage they inflict on each other.

Young people are desperate to appear as mature as possible and the easiest way for them to do this is to copy the behavior of adults. This can include adult habits like drinking and smoking but also through adopting the attitudes towards things that they see older people having. They will often have opinions on things without actually understanding the real reasons why people have those opinions, they will just be agreeing to look older. One of these things they will have opinions about will be sex, but unless they actually have experience, their opinions will be those of the people they admire and wish to be like, they will not be informed opinions from their own understanding. They may well think they are mature and knowledgeable, but unless they have lost their innocence in season, then their judgment on the issue will not be sound. The higher the age of consent the better it prevents children’s uninformed opinions from being taken advantage of. The older they are, the more likely they are to have observed the effects of sleeping around, what traits in people to be wary of and how their friends have been treated afterward.

The issue of an older man or teacher raping an underage girl is clearly understood by people as what it is, rape. Even when the girl says she gave her consent, or the man says she gave consent, unless possibly the parents had given their consent as well, then it is rape. But if it is an older woman, then people often seem to think this is okay. One of the reasons for this is because they have forgotten what it was like to be innocent. They are judging the case through their own eyes, having lost their innocence a long time ago. The eyes through which to assess whether it is okay for a much older woman to sexually know a young man under the age of consent, is through the eyes of an innocent. Would a child think that it is acceptable for a woman teacher to do that to one of her boy pupils?

From what I see of the world, it is older women who are attracted to young boys more than older men are attracted to young girls. Just look at the Justin Bieber phenomenon a few years back. A very large portion of his fans were middle aged women who were not shy of saying how they felt about him. They were sexually attracted to an underage child in their millions, yet society failed entirely to condemn their fantasies as pedophilic. Most White men do not fantasize about bedding inexperienced virgins or wish to be in the company of childish girls. However many older women do fantasize about bedding virgins and actively pursue them. It is a purely sexual thing for them which can only leave the boy with a damaged view of sex and a warped view of women. If the age of consent were to be lowered you would not see many men chasing after very young girls, what you would see is women going after young boys and bragging about it.

Boys are highly oversexed in their teens and thanks to the promotion of promiscuous sex as being acceptable, will often be willing to sleep with just about anything to prove their vigor or to gain what they think will be a release for their desire. Middle-aged women that put it about are easily able to seduce young boys and the damage done to their ideas about sex, love and women can be considerable. However most people do not think about this because they had early promiscuous sex themselves and have not considered that it may well have been this behavior that led to their marriages breaking up when they were older, or normal sex becoming not exciting enough for them, or feeling a need to frequent prostitutes, or being unable to fully trust their partner – the list of possible negative consequences is endless.

All these negative things could be traced back to early sexual experimentation instead of waiting and marrying one partner for life. Because they have been the way they are for so long and have completely forgotten what it was like when they were still innocent, they encourage others to do the same. I don’t think they would be encouraging others to do the same if they realized how it had really affected them and identified that the reason they did it in the first place, was because their own innocence had been eroded.

The careless attitude that we now have towards sex, separating it as we have from its main purpose, has led to so many of societies ills, which all stem from the distortion and misuse of this sacrament.

In all White cultures, virginity used to be closely guarded and if a woman was not a virgin when she got married, then the marriage could be annulled and the woman was disgraced. This is because a bond is created between lawful husband and lawful wife that will last for life. Protecting a maiden’s virginity was of the highest importance because of this. It is so much harder to make a legal marriage work and to stay together in our modern world if it was not a lawful marriage at the beginning. It is not impossible, but it will mean that obstacles are much harder to overcome together.

The encouragement of sexual experimentation as a harmless thing for youth to indulge in has done untold damage to our societies. Those who promote it have been blinded to the negative effects of it in their own lives, thinking that the bad things that happen to them are just a part of life. Instead of asking a father for his consent to marry his daughter, the State has had to step in and institute a legal age for consent. Instead of marriage being for life, people live with concubines and commit adultery all their lives, some never even seeing their natural-law wife or husband ever again. Instead of accurately identifying the source of our problems as occurring way back in the age of innocence, innocents are encouraged to join in with the adultery at an ever earlier age and are ridiculed if they listen to their intuition and instincts and wait for the right one.

To hear of a young man bedding his much older teacher is not a good thing. It shows that the young man has a warped view of sex and what it is for. The only way this could happen is if his innocence had already been lost. This will have occurred in a myriad of ways before the physical, through television, films, peer pressure, even sex education at schools nowadays strips the children of innocence and hides the real importance of sex. They think they are being mature by sleeping around and losing their virginity, but what they are really doing is showing how damaged they are already and how far we have fallen as a society.

Early promiscuity is proof of the loss of innocence and the untimely loss of innocence is a tragedy. We need to go right back to the beginning if we want to see where it is that we have gone wrong, so that we can prevent the same mistakes being made by the new generations. The way to do this is to give sex the respect it deserves and to set a good example of fidelity and morality to those who look up to you.

Written by Cigpapers-Additional material and photos by Watt Tyler

Peter Tatchell was born in Melbourne Australia on 25th January 1952, he moved to London in 1971 to avoid conscription.

In 1978, Tatchell joined the Labour Party and moved to Bermondsey, South East London.

Tatchell ran as the Bermondsey Labour Party candidate in the 1983 General Election. Despite Bermondsey being a Labour stronghold he lost to Liberal candidate Simon Hughes. In February 2000, he left the Labour Party for unknown reasons.

In 2004, he joined the Green Party and was chosen to be their candidate for Oxford East in the 2010 General Election, however for some reason he withdrew his candidacy in 2009.

Peter Tatchell (the UK’s most prominent homosexual activist and a favourite of the BBC) has done more than demand the abolition of the age of consent; he has broken the law on the age of consent in Britain at least once.

Peter Tatchell is a regular on the BBC. The BBC have refused to state whether he appears as a human rights activist, homosexual campaigner or paedophile apologist. They have also refused to state how much they have paid him for appearances.

As a gay 18-year-old Australian anti-Vietnam war draft-dodger, he came to the UK in 1971 and lived with a 16-year-old boy in London. The homosexual age of consent in England at the time was 21. Later he campaigned for lowering it to 16, and now he wants it lowered again to 14. What will he want after that?

When the age of consent for homosexuals was lowered to 16, an Outrage (Tatchell’s organization) banner said “16 is just a start” – it didn’t state what the end goal was.

Mr Tatchell criticises the age of consent laws. Here is a quotation from his own website:

“Nevertheless, like any minimum age, it is arbitrary and fails to acknowledge that different people mature sexually at different ages. A few are ready for sex at 12; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences. It dogmatically imposes a limit, regardless of individual circumstances“.

Peter Tatchell wrote the chapter “Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent” for a book openly advocating paedophilia and finding ways “to make paedophilia acceptable“.

This book, published in 1986 and called The Betrayal of Youth (B.O.Y.), was edited by Warren Middleton, then vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange, Britain’s number one paedophile advocacy group.

Stephen Green, anti-paedophile campaigner wrote: “The book was part of a campaign to abolish all ages of consent,  destroy the responsibilities of parents for their children, deny any ill-effects on children of interference by paedophiles, and withal to make it easier for paedophiles to gain sexual access to children.“

In The Betrayal of Youth Tatchell wrote that the age of sexual consent is “Reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era“.

Tatchell often ambushes public figures who don’t support the homosexual/paedophile agenda. The MSM and especially the BBC usually give him great publicity for these stunts.

He was not on his own in this belief. Many of his fellow socio-communists and homosexual activists thought the same:

Campaign for Homosexual Equality chairman Michael Jarrett was identifying paedophiles as an oppressed group, and the CHE list of “demands” included the complete abolition of minimum ages for sexual activity. The Labour Gay Rights Manifesto of 1985 said ‘A socialist society would supersede the family household. … Gay people and children should have the right to live together. … It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

Feminists like Beatrice Faust contributed to The Betrayal of Youth, as well as other homosexual activists besides Tatchell, including Jeffrey Weeks and Eric Presland, who “related his first paedophile experience with an Asian boy of thirteen, and boasted of interfering with a little boy of six“.

The book is considered so toxic that Amazon doesn’t sell it and you cannot search its content in Google Books.

Tatchell is well aware of how much all this is bad publicity for him and keeps rationalizing and adjusting his positions, but only the ideologically blind or pathologically naive cannot see through his self-excuses.

He has prepared a standard self-defence, which can be found on his own website and has been repeated verbatim on many outlets. It used to also be on the site of his friend militant atheist, Richard Dawkins, but it’s not there any more. Maybe even Dawkins draws a line at what is morally allowed, even though his motto is “There’s probably no God – now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

In this article that supposedly should serve to exculpate him, Tatchell has nothing better than this: “The critics also cite Warren Middleton’s 1980s book, Betrayal of Youth, to which I contributed a chapter. I had no idea that he was involved in child sex abuse matters when I was asked to write.”

Considering that Warren Middleton was co-founder and vice-chairperson of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a prominent group promoting paedophilia, it was impossible for Tatchell not to have known his propensities.

In addition, both Tatchell and Middleton were part of the Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade, a neo-Marxist revolutionary group of radical students at the London School of Economics, thus making Tatchell’s protestations of ignorance verge on the ridiculous.

Are you aware that Tatchell contributed a chapter to this book?

THE BETRAYAL OF YOUTH

The contents and contributors of The Betrayal of Youth:

Chapter 1: ‘Incest’ by Clive Coliman: Described as “An ardent supporter of the children’s rights movement.”

Chapter 2: ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’ by Richard Green: Illustrator for the Paedophile Information Exchange magazine under the pseudonym “Dominik”

Chapter 3: ‘Child Prostitution’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 4: ‘Gender Differences’ by Liz Holtom and Kathy Challis: both from the anti-Christian Peace News.

Chapter 5: ‘Power and Consent’ by Eric Presland: Homosexual activist. Contributed also to the American paedophile book “The Age Taboo.”

Chapter 6: ‘Love and Let Love’ by Tuppy Owens, Editor of the Sex Maniac’s Diary, and Tom O’Carroll: ex-Chairman of P.I.E. who was convicted in 1981 of conspiracy to corrupt public morals by sending out a paedophile contact list.

Chapter 7: ‘Children and Sex’ by Fr Michael Ingram: Catholic priest, defender of paedophilia.

Chapter 8: ‘The Paedophiles’ by Beatrice Faust: militant feminist & civil libertarian.

Chapter 9: ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’ by Peter Tatchell.

Chapter 10: ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable?’ by Roger Moody of Peace News: “One of the most outspoken advocates of children’s rights in Britain .” Well-documented as a ubiquitous paedophile intellectual.

Chapter 11: ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’ by John Lindsay: “ardent supporter of children’s rights.” Member of the Socialist Workers’ Party. Homosexual activist, hates the institution of the family.

Chapter 12: ‘Childhood Sexuality and Paedophilia: Some Questions Answered’ by Warren Middleton of P.I.E.

Chapter 13: ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’ by Jeff Vernon: Involved in Gay Youth Movement and Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

Appendix 1: “P.I.E., from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985″ by Steven A. Smith: ex-chairman of P.I.E. Fled to Holland in 1984, became “active in the Dutch crusade for children’s rights,” was deported back to the UK in 1991 and sentenced to 18 months for sending indecent articles through the post.

Appendix 2: “The Uranians” by Timothy d’Arch Smith: Bookseller. Author of “Love in Earnest.”

Peter Tatchell’s self-defence begins with:

“Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their crimes.”

These are blatant falsities. It wasn’t many Catholic clergy, it was an extremely small minority. And, as shown in Lies About The Catholic Church Child Sex Abuse Scandal, there is no reason, except bigotry and prejudice, to single out Catholic clergy who in fact have committed fewer of these crimes than any other pedagogic institution, religious or secular.

Peter Tatchell and his homosexual/paedophile allies often attacked the Christian Church for having Christian values. There is no record of him bursting in to a synagogue or mosque to protest against their religious values.

Saying what he does about the Pope is a criminal act, it is slander. The Pope has never covered up for anyone. Tatchell and his friends in the mainstream media (especially the BBC) think that if you repeat a lie enough times your audience will start to believe that it’s true.

But blaming the Church whenever you’re in trouble is a good way to distract the public from your own deviations from the norm. It’s worked so far so why shouldn’t it work now? Maybe because people have started calling your bluff, Pete.

The above should tell you how trustworthy and credible Tatchell is, but there’s more.

Look at his defence of the book Dares To Speak:

“Dares to Speak was an academic book published in 1997, authored by professors, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, a Dutch senator and a former editor of a Catholic newspaper. It discussed the age of sexual consent and whether all sex between young people and adults is necessarily unwanted and harmful, based on what it said was objective research with young people.

The book does not endorse or excuse sexual relationships with young people that involve coercion, manipulation or damage. The authors queried, among other things, the balance between giving young people sexual rights and protecting them against abuse. These are entirely legitimate issues to discuss.”

Leaving aside the irony (probably lost on humourless Tatchell) about his using a “former editor of a Catholic newspaper” as a guarantor of the morality of a book while he constantly treats the Catholic Church like a den of abusers. The book Dares to Speak, that Tatchell praises so much as an academic achievement, was edited by Joseph Geraci, who was also the editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia. The book is a collection of articles from the journal.

Before it was quietly removed, this was Wikipedia’s entry for the publication:

Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987–1995) was a journal published by the Stichting Paidika Foundation whose purpose was to promote the normalization of paedophilia. Its editor was Joseph Geraci and the editorial board included articles by writers Frits Bernard, Edward Brongersma, Vern L. Bullough, and D. H. (Donald) Mader, some of whom campaigned as pro-paedophile activists.

After the normalization of homosexuality, we’ll have the normalization of paedophilia.

Here is Tatchell’s letter to the Guardian dated 26th June 1997 (a few weeks after Labour’s General Election win) which he denied writing when I asked him about it. However, I can find no record of a complaint to the Guardian, the Press Complaints Commission or any lawsuit for libel:

Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.

The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.

Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.

The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.

While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

Peter Tatchell.

Peter Tatchell has often claimed he lives a monk-like existence living on a mere £9,000 income per annum. When I challenged him on this, he changed his claim to £29,000 plus expenses.

However, he has refused to disclose his payments for his numerous mainstream media appearances or disclose how much his yearly expenses are.

Peter Tatchell has declined to be interviewed for this article, however I will leave him the option of the right of reply in the comments section.