Well, the big question the BBC asks this morning via the pouting Suzanne Reid on Sunday Morning Live is..”Should the age of consent be lowered to 14″? Peter Tatchell was on to pontificate on this subject, hardly appropriate for a Sunday morning but the BBC seem to get excited about it.
SUNDAY MORNING LIVE
Bookmark the permalink.
Well they would – Tatchell is one of their bum boys.
14 would only be the start, I’m sure plenty of male beeboids would love the age of buggery to be 10 or lower.
Peter Tatchell’s own documentation on his vile and perverted website also call for sex between children to be legalised so long as the children are no more than 3 years apart in age.
So their future legal scenario is an adult having lawful sex with a child of 14 and that child having lawful sex with another child of 12 and that child having lawful sex with a child of 9.
That would be lawful under their vision. It is a way to lawfully wedge open and legalise paedophilia.
Tatchell and his ilk who promote paedophillia are sick perverts and they should be in prison.
Tatchell getting “excited”?
If it was up to me that would be ‘executed’ but i’m a liberal type at heart !
His line was I don’t want to bugger 14 year old boys but it should be legal for those that do.
When the age for buggery came down to 16 many people predicted that the gay lobby would sone start asking for it to come down further.
Does anybody think that they would stop at 14.
No – as Bamber Gascoigne would say”starter for ten – no conferring…”
In the world of the lefty gay liberal there should be no age of consent. Funny that when it comes to Vaseline and male bottoms the lefty liberals don’t seem to want big Government involved in regulation. Why not? The twats want everything else regulated.
Mr. Tatchell would benefit from a detonator up his arse.
or a hamster, maybe ?
NINE
Tatchell might be a tit, but at least he’s willing to get pwnt for what he believes in every now and again. He’s not afraid of standing up to the Mohammedans either.
I don’t sympathise with him or his views (my views on homosexuality would probably strike a Beeboid speechless). What I’m saying is most lefties are full of shit and hypocrisy, whereas Tatchell walks the walk.
He may walk the walk and not just talk the talk, but he is dead wrong.
I do credit him with sincerity (he got up the noses of the Comrades in East Germany as the Stasi files reveal) but I think he is an honest fool.
I agree that Tatchell is a man of principle, even if one disagrees with him. And his view on the age of consent is that consideration should be given to the age difference between those involved; eg, a 16-year-old sleeping consensually with a 14-year-old shouldn’t automatically be criminalized, but a 40-year-old doing so should be a different matter.
I, personally, don’t particularly like the man, but I can’t help thinking that if the Left (indeed the Beeb) had more people like Tatchell we wouldn’t be in such a mess.
Thing is the real reason they want the age of consent lowered is so 40 year old men can bugger young boys. We have this debate on everything, if the law is ignore then change it (so say drugs or the age of consent) yet funnily enough when it comes to the licence fee, the BBC don’t seem to want any reform there. Why not?
A 14 year old boy knows that having sex with a 15 year old girl is against the law, he should be prosecuted. Far too many excuses are made for simply bad behaviour these days.
Why the boy and not the girl?
Anyway, my point is I’d far rather somebody who has an agenda be open, vocal and active in that agenda, than someone pretend to not have an agenda, feign neutrality (claim to be ‘fair and balanced’, even), but then advance their agenda in an underhand and dishonest manner.
Yes both
“my point is I’d far rather somebody who has an agenda be open, vocal and active in that agenda, than someone pretend to not have an agenda, feign neutrality (claim to be ‘fair and balanced’, even), but then advance their agenda in an underhand and dishonest manner.”
Agreed, but Tatchell is NOT honest. He carries documentation on his own website that calls for sex between children to be lawful so long as there is no more than a three year age gap between them.
This is not solely to allow 14 year olds to have lawful sex with 16 year olds.
This is to allow 14 year olds have sex with 12 year olds whilst the 12 year old has sex with a 9 year old. A perverted 40 year old can have sex with the 14 year old whilst watching the younger children having sex. That would all be legal under the plans on his website, but he will not admit to this.
The real aim is for there to be NO minimum age for consensual sex according to the documentation on his website.
That is HIS secret agenda, which he has consistently denied, and yet it is on his website in black and white. Not proudly and openly and prominentlly displayed, of course. No it is hidden within a long document seeking to reduce the legal age of consent to 14. The real aim is to remove the age of consent altogether in small steps.
I think he is a libertine and his take on such things can come across as immature, irresponsible and dangerous to youngsters – as are the views of many such passionate ideologues. Believing and being convinced in principle is one thing but practice is something else. You need to allow for that.
I have always wondered why when the previous government forced through (remember the H of L resistence) lowering the age of “gay sex” to 16 they also needed to pass laws to make it an offence to have any sex under 18 with such as a teacher, scout or youth club leader.
If they are old enough to decide to have sex with a complete stranger surely they are old enough to resist unwelcome entreaties from someone they know.
The same arguement applies to voting at 16. If they are adult enough to elect the government surely they should be able to drink, smoke, drive, go to war, be sent to adult prison etc.
Strange double standards me thinks!
Now we know what rent boy actually means! It means perverts trying to make it legal to molest children.
At the moment these pervs have to fly to Thailand or some third world nation to get some child sex, all a little inconvenient eh? What better way to indulge their perversions at home than to get the law changed.
I’m surprised they didn’t have Weyman Bennett or Martin Smith from SWP/UAF on there, they want to lower the age of consent to 6
I am the mother of two children; a grown, married daughter and a son who was nineteen a week ago. I don’t care what consenting ADULTS do to each other, short of severe physical harm or murder, and I wouldn’t care about those except for the societal implications, for example, that these things turn coercive.
Children have no business having sexual relations. Period. Gay, straight, whatever. There is not a fourteen-year-old anywhere in the modern world who is capable of giving informed consent to sex. Sexual relations between an adult, of either gender, and a child below the age of consent is inherently coercive and should be punished severely.
I am not naive, nor ill-informed. I know that kids who believe that they love each other will sometimes start having physical relations. (I always told mine that their father and I didn’t want them to do so, but that we loved them too much to allow them to make a mistake which would have a terrible impact on their lives, so that, if they decided to become sexually active, I would help them to obtain birth control. They both remained chaste until graduation from high school at which point they were both eighteen, and yes, I do actually know.)
I do not think that the seventeen-year-old lover of a kid (boy or girl, I have no problem with homosexuality as long as it is not coercive and that the particpants have true feelings of affection for each other) of fifteen should go to prison for it. It is unreasonable.
In the United States the age difference between far too many couple is SEVEN or more years. There are thousands of girls, under the age of consent, who are becoming pregnant by men in their twenties or thirties. (You can Google this if you don’t believe me.) These adult predators, who seduce young girls of thirteen or even less, are the people the age of consent laws are meant to catch, not the teenage couple who are near in age.
Peter Tatchell, whatever his other virtues, is setting up children to be raped by adults. If there must be a change in the age of consent, it should be revised upwards – our children depend on us to protect them against all sorts of dangers, not, in the name of political correctness, to throw them to the wolves.
Absolutely the wrong direction to go in. The age of consent should be raised to 18 or even 21. Is this not the case in some US states? The same goes for Alcohol, it should be 21.
I would also like to see a reigning in of the ‘Gay ‘ lobby.