Peter Tatchell

  zzzz999 13:08 12 Sep 2010

Now, I am most certainly not a fan of the Daily mail. Nor for that matter am I a fan of Peter Tatchell, whom I think is an odious bully. However, he has courage and has been leading one campaign in opposition to the Popes visit, believing that he hasn't done enough to stop pedophilia within the church.

However, Mr Tatchell's words in the Guardian in 1997 in defence of a book about child sex.

‘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.’

This guy should be removed forthwith from leading this campaign.

click here

  GANDALF <|:-)> 13:37 12 Sep 2010

'Peter Adriaenssens said cases of abuse, mostly involving minors, had been found in nearly every diocese, and 13 alleged victims had committed suicide'...that should silence those deluded fools who claim that the abuse was not widespread. In my book 'found in nearly every diocese' would seem to be fairly widespread as far as Belgium is concerned. There would also appear to be a pattern here.........

click here


  Ulysse 14:28 12 Sep 2010

Are you aware of the difference between a diocese and a parish?

In case you are not, parishes are the subdivisions inside a diocese which is itself that group of parishes which are under the authority of a bishop.

There are over 1.14 billion Roman Catholics, over 400,000 Roman Catholic priests and a little under 2,800 Roman Catholic dioceses in the world.

There are more counties in the United Kingdom than there are Roman Catholic dioceses and yet if you look back, you will find that there have been cases of child abuse found in the majority of the counties of the UK.

Are you therefore claiming that child abuse 'would seem to be fairly widespread' in the UK and that therefore your remarks about every Roman Catholic being aware of what was being done by certain priests should also apply to the people of the UK in relation to the abuse happening here?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:57 12 Sep 2010

People have been aware of child abuse committed by priests for many years but the management of the RCC chose to cover it up and they still refuse to deal with this *ahem* problem in any significant way.......plain and simple.


  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:01 12 Sep 2010

...300 cases of child abuse would indicate something that was not unique or area specific (' almost every diocese and at every Church-run boarding school) yeah, widespread.


  GANDALF <|:-)> 18:22 12 Sep 2010

ps..there are 7 diocese in Belgium and 300 confirmed cases....looks very widespread to me, in fact 100% result rate, especially as the cases occurred in EVERY church run school. You may argue how many angels can fit on a pin-head but this sad state of affairs is unarguable.


  Ulysse 19:26 12 Sep 2010

Ever hear of the Whitehouse report?

It investigated only TWO counties (Clwyd and Gwynedd) in Wales and found over 600 cases of abuse between 1974 and 1990 most of them at Bryn Estyn. It reported that abuse 'seemed' to be occurring in all Child Care institutions and that in most cases the children had complained but nothing was done 'because the children were not believed'. (Wales has about 3,000,000 inhabitants and Belgium about 11,000,000 and only 2 of Wales' counties were investigated. The abuses in Belgium cover 40+ years).

You say that the church has not done anything in any significant way. Are you unaware that every parish has had a child protection officer who is independent of the clergy for a number of years?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 19:55 12 Sep 2010

'Are you unaware that every parish has had a child protection officer who is independent of the clergy for a number of years?'..Ye gods, they must have been stunningly successful...not many organisations or businesses that have to have a child protection officer in every location...still not seeing a pattern?


  Ulysse 00:15 14 Sep 2010

How silly do you intend to be?

The child protection officers were put in place as a precaution to show you and others that the church was taking things seriously. That does not mean that every parish needs one merely that they are there in case they are needed. If the church had put in less than they have, you would be claiming that they had not put in enough! How many police officers actually make an arrest? Does that mean that we should not have as many as we have?

What do you have to say about the fact that the Waterhouse Report recommended that EACH CHILD placed in care should be assigned a field social worker?
Given your statement about the church's child protection officers, what does that say about the child care system?

You have not dealt with the matter – are you really claiming that all the people of Clwyd and Gwynedd knew about the abuse?
Given that they were only 2 of the counties of Wales had 600 cases in 16 years whilst Belgium had 300 in 40+ years even though it has almost four times the population and the Whitehouse inquiry only looked into the child care system i.e. just the homes, whereas the Belgian cases are spread across churches, homes and schools, are you therefore claiming that all the people of Wales knew about it?

Given that it is not the only one concerning child abuse in the UK and that it has been known that there had been child abuse in the care system before, are you claiming that everyone in the UK must have known about such things and are therefore tarred with the same brush as you have used against the Catholic Church?

If not, then how do you justify the defamation of about one-sixth of the world's population?

  Ulysse 00:16 14 Sep 2010

Should we, to quote from my post of Sat, 28/08/[email protected]:40 addressed to you on the Claudy Enquiry thread, consider that your failure to address this point means “that you consider your strictures on “picking and choosing”, “suspicious silence” and “always like to keep silent in the hope that it will go will not” only applies to the Catholic Church and its members and that therefore you are exempt?”?

Remember that you used those expressions (or similar) on that thread either first or in agreement with someone else who used them.

Remember that it was you who took that thread off topic with your post of Tue, 24/08/[email protected]:58 in which you descended to insults – AL94's post merely mentioned paedophiles as an example – it was you who took it off course and then continued through the thread answering where you thought that you could score points and ignoring those where you could not.

And yet you still have not answered the points that you ignored. You cannot reasonably claim that it was to stop the thread going off course because it was answering what was already there and the thread has had no posts for almost a fortnight so there would be no problem. In addition it would not explain why you did not deal with them at the time that they were posted.

You cannot reasonably claim that they were in any way inane or ridiculous because everyone is aware that when you think that you say so straight away.

So I wonder just why you ignored them, have continued to ignore them and are now ignoring the matter here?

I shall have to consider that deeply (and so, I should think will other members).

  jakimo 11:19 14 Sep 2010

"You are making the mistake often made on internet forums of assuming that your argument is proved because a particular individual fails to respond"

Your words...yet you are guilty of the very charge you make against Ulysse,when I did not at first respond to your comments on "photographs at Funerals" thread 20\08\10.

Try practising what you preach

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

Creative studio Omnibus' brand identity for We Said Enough fights back against sexual misconduct

WWDC history: Apple's product launches since 2005

Espace de stockage : comment libérer de la mémoire sur votre iPhone ?