A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Friday, April 13, 2007
Exclusive - 18Doughtystreet.com intend allowing suspected paedophile his own programme
Last night on 18doughtystreet.com, during the End of the Day Show, Iain Dale announced he was to be given a show on the internet TV station. He sees nothing wrong with having sex with a 14 year old boy. I ask you. Whatever is Iain Dale thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Bit of a strange one, that Tatchell. Tends to bang on about simple rights and freedoms (ie the ones he wants for himself) whilst simultaneously wanting to restrict the rights of others.
Having undergone a brief spell of psychological torture myself, courtesy of the Joint Services Interrogation Wing (I've had a chequered life), it's not something I'd wish on anyone for the day, let alone for weeks and months on end.
If I'm honest, there are circumstances in which I can see the benefits of what we might euphemistically call Extreme Measures, but they'd have to involve a lots of Knowns rather than Suspecteds before I'd find them appropriate. (ie Known terrorist, Known bomb planted, location not known.... or Known nonce, seen earlier with child now Known missing. I'm sure I'd be tempted to push the boundaries of good taste with either of them, but once you've crossed the line, where do you stop? Known fare dodger, Known to have travelled on Tube today, apply testicular twists until he tells you where he hid his ticket? )
Back to Tatchell though - I'm not sure I'd flag him as a paedophile, although it's a bit of a semantic argument. Do we split hairs and say that a paedophile goes for children (pre-pubescent) whilst someone with an eye for adolescents is a non-specific child sex offender? Sadly, comments like those attributed to Tatchell blur whatever distinctions there may be, leaving himself wide open to speculation as to where his own boundaries are. If 9 is too young, does that mean 10 is fine for him ?
For not taking the opportunity to make it clear what is right and acceptable, he makes it clear what he is. Not a paedophile necessarily, but certainly a fool. As such, I wouldn't advocate nailing him to a plank and sending him off down the Thames just yet. Give him a chance to explain himself - but keep the hammer handy just in case he goes near the kids.....
For my part, I should confess that, at 14, I was a busy lad, blissfully ignorant of the potential seriousness of being caught at the crease. I had good times and bad times, but only with girls in my own age bracket. (Most of whom were well-developed enough to make it difficult for anyone to regard them as children - there must have been something in the air back then.) It's worrying to think what effect one wrong word in the right place could have had on our lives. Even worse is the knowledge that two kids in the same circumstances today would risk getting each other labelled as child sex offenders. If for no other reason than that, I'm afraid I shall be the worst kind of hypocrite once my kids come of age, dispensing two forms of advice:
1. Don't do as I did, do as I say.
2. If you see that Peter Tatchell, run down the building site and ask the lads for a scaffold board and a handful of four inch nails. (Just don't ask the one with the droopy moustache - he's a wrong 'un)
maneatingcheesesandwich: Good comment. Yes, its a esoteric point. I'm just asking a question. It's open to debate. I know what I think. I have only said what I saw and heard and read. Questioning him further might be a good idea.
He can be a bit of a ranter, especially when casting stones abroad, but this old article might clarify things a little. In part, given my own experience, I'd agree with the principle. I say "in part" because it's the selfish part of me that wants what I did to have been legitimate. The bigger part of me finds the whole idea abhorent, as it would leave less streetwise 14 year olds, both male and female, very vulnerable to predators.
Must dash - working weekend.
Whoops - forgot the link
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01aug02a_tatchell_guardian.htm
Again, whoops - end of link line missing.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/01aug02a_tatchell_guardian.htm
Sorry - not having much luck - I'll split it.
http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/
and
01aug02a_tatchell_guardian.htm
hopefully that will at least show the possible source of part of his comment
Man-eating cheese sandwich - why not use TinyURL or a html link?.
Anyway. Peter Tatchell is being rather misrepresented by our anti-paedo host here. What he was saying - and it was clear enough - was that 14 year olds in some countries and of all genders and preferences are legally allowed or practically tolerated HAVING SEX with one another with a narrow band of similar age. NOT Tatchell screwing 14-year-old boys. 14-year-old boys and girls screwing other 14-year-old boys and girls.
There is a huge difference between that proposal which is de facto law anyway and the smear being presented for the prosecution.
You may not agree with freedom for 14-year-ols in this regard, or perhaps you do. But that's another question.
Chris: I am not misrepresenting Peter Tatchell at all. You are basing your accusation on an article, which was not the subject here. Mine is based purely on the 18DS interview, and the accusations made of which Peter Tatchell only responded to one and left the other open to question or speculation if you like.
In the same vein, it is not a smear campaign, I leave that up to the likes of Iain Dale going after Ken Livingstone.
It's like a Guido/Michael White thing, although Tatchell generally tends to handle himself well in the media spotlight. On this occasion, he fluffed it twice and I picked up on both of them. The moral of the story is don't leave it hanging. It was not as though he had been cut off from answering by the interviewer. He just did not answer it well.
John - Apolgies first of all to you, for cluttering your comments with failed links.
Chris - Thanks then, to you, for your pointers. I was trying to make an html link, but my brain was obviously failing me. The TinyURL tip will be handy. You wouldn't believe I work with computers every day - but then they don't expect me to be too creative...
Oh - and please feel free to miss out the hyphen. If you keep referring to me as a man-eater people will get the wrong idea. I am simply an unimaginative individual, who happened to be eating a bread and cheddar combination as he set up his blog account.
maneatingcheesesandwich: That's quite a mouthful. Gingersnaps has said that it is one of the funniest names she has heard. She might be interested to know how it came into your head.
No apology necessary. At least you managed to work out the Tiny URL, I had a look and a go and it did not work!
Mine often gets shortened to JHL. Let's see what happens to yours. MECS?
P.S. I wouldn't say that you were unimaginative.
Names can be entertaining. I have a habit of filling out those warranty cards you get when you buy a kettle/iron/toaster. It's fairly obvious that the information will be used to send you the right sort of junkmail, but that's where the sport begins.
One of my previous incarnations was as a 76-yr old mother (of six children under 18), whose husband was only 34, and whose hobbies were gardening, reading, scuba diving and hang gliding. Her name was Mrs Esme Hatonstrate. Her husband was in the Army and was Sgt Getya Hatonstrate. Music Hall humour, yet some poor soul sat and typed it into their database, generating superb selections of Special Offers. In one bundle, there were offers on stairlifts, football coaching, marital aids and off-road driving courses.
Honestly, the things we do to keep our posties busy....
maneatingcheesesandwich: I like having fun with that sort of thing. I think we share the same kind of humour.
Post a Comment