Matthew Hopkins reveals Peter Tatchell’s association with PIE members, his written assertions that paedophile abuse brought 9-year olds ‘great joy’ and exposes other misguided advocates of reducing the age of consent.
The activities of PIE and their plan to legalise paedophilia are now well known. However less well known are the many misguided left wingers who, whilst never members of PIE, support their goals of reducing the age of consent in whole or in part.
Peter Tatchell is a supposedly respectable, establishment figure. A man at the heart of the campaign to lower the gay age of consent from 18 to 16 he was a Labour Parliamentary candidate and official, currently has his own section of the Guardian website, and describes himself on his website as the Green Party spokesman on Human Rights.
The reality is that Tatchell contributed a chapter to a book compiled by members of the sinister Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) – a book with the sole and stated goal of abolishing the age of consent entirely, making children, toddlers and babes in arms fair game for paedophiles of all ages. Even today Tatchell advocates reducing the age of consent, albeit now just to 14.
The book, ‘The Betrayal Of Youth’ (BOY for short) was put together by convicted paedophile Warren Middleton (aka John Parratt), former vice-chairperson of PIE and published in 1986, only three years after Peter Tatchell stood as the Labour Party Parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey.
Tatchell often makes vague statements to the effect that the BNP ‘fabricated’, ‘smears’ against him. It does appear that the BNP or its supporters forged an image of Tatchell holding a PIE sign.
So on the advice of Louise Mensch your humble inquisitor accessed a number of archives including a personal visit to the British Library to be allowed access to the original copy of Tatchell’s book held there. Because the book consists only of text it is neither illegal for the library to possess a copy nor for members of the public to view it.
Fortunately the responsible British Library authorities have ensured that the vile tome is held in the vaults and tied with a security band to prevent it being viewed by accident. Readers are required to view the book under supervised conditions at the restricted desks marked in red.
Having obtained the copy, the author carefully checked the claims against Tatchell. Contrary to his protestations, it seems that Tatchell was indeed a contributor to the book, BOY and the allegations about it are broadly true.
In chapter after horrifying chapter members of PIE set out in detail the insane paedophile plan. The first chapter, entitled simply ‘Incest’ equates a child climbing into bed with a parent to be read a story with an 8 year old boy climbing into bed to have his genitals fondled by his mother.
In Tatchell’s own chapter 9, entitled ‘Questioning Ages of Minority and Ages of Consent’ he asks ‘What purpose does it [the age of majority] serve other than reinforcing a set of increasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?’
The chapter just after Tatchell’s is entitled ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Paedophilia Acceptable….?’ and opens with an account of sexual activity with two 8 year old boys before describing it as ‘all very normal to a libertarian, even to some open-minded parents’.
Despite the book’s notoriety, the Labour Party took no action against Tatchell and allowed him to continue as a prominent member. In 1990 Tatchell became a founder member of OutRage! supposedly a ‘gay rights’ group which adopted a sort of half-way house policy on age of consent, reducing it to 14 for all youngsters and further in restricted circumstances – in some examples given by Tatchell, as young as 8 years old.
The Labour Party continued to take no action in 1997, when Tatchell published an interview with a boy ‘Lee’, who had been a victim of sexual abuse by adult paedophiles and older children since he was 8 and a half. Tatchell quoted repeated claims by ‘Lee’ that he enjoyed the abuse, ‘I liked it a lot. It was great’ .
That same year, shortly after Tony Blair’s victory, Tatchell wrote a letter to the Guardian saying that was aware of several instances of paedophile sex with children of both sexes as young as 9 and claimed it brought the children ‘great joy’. He states,
“[…] 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 […]”
Despite the tight grip the inner circle of New Labour kept on embarrassing voices in those days, no obvious action was taken against Tatchell by Labour or Alan Rusbridger editor of the Guardian.
At this time, Labour began its attempts to lower the age of consent for gays. Whilst many people were genuinely concerned with equality, the legislation being impelled by a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, let there be no doubt about the other agenda that was also openly at work – OutRage! activists stood outside the House of Commons carrying huge placards saying ’16 IS JUST A START’. Respectable ‘rights’ activists rubbed shoulders with Peter Tatchell and his ilk as the left wing machine steamrollered anyone who opposed reducing the age of consent as ‘homophobes’ and bigots.
In 2000 the law went through and the age of consent was lowered. To the public at large the left wing propaganda machine portrayed the change as a victory for Human Rights, with the Guardian reporting it under the headline, ‘Equal at last’.
In 1998, Tatchell wrote an obituary in the Independent for a man called Ian Dunn. Tatchell spoke warmly of Dunn, describing him as a “pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights”. Tatchell did not mention that Dunn was a co-founder of PIE.
In 2001, just the year after the reduction in the gay age of consent, Tatchell wrote an article for the Guardian calling for the age of consent to be reduced to 14 and further in some more limited cases for ‘consenting’.
The Guardian continued to fete Tatchell, naming him a ‘Hero’ in 2004. In the same year Tatchell joined the Green Party and was selected as a Parliamentary candidate. He was named a ‘national treasure’ by the Guardian in 2010. Peter Tatchell’s website still describes him as the Green Party’s spokesperson on human rights. Only this year in 2014, the Guardian gave Tatchell further platform for his views – allowing him to host a ‘video debate’ on reducing the age of consent.
Tatchell is not alone in his views. Even today misguided left wingers continue with the campaign to legalise what are presently paedophile sex crimes.
In 2013 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal well known ‘progressive’ barrister Barbara Hewson proposed reducing the age of consent to 13 in order to end the “persecution of old men”.
That same year the BBC reported Faculty of Public Health President Professor John Ashton as having proposed a reduction in the age of consent, under the headline ‘PM rejects call to lower age of consent to 15’ whilst only this year in January 2014 Peter Tatchell was allowed to host a video debate on the Guardian website entitled, ‘Should the legal age of consent be lowered?’
At no time since he became editor in 1995 has Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger ever taken any steps to exclude Tatchell from the Guardian’s pages. Why? From deciding to publish Tatchell’s letter about the ‘joy’ sex brings to 9-year olds in 1997 to giving him a platform in 2014, the Guardian has given Tatchell free reign to promote the legalisation of what are now sex crimes against children.
There is nothing to link Ashton or Hewson to PIE, nor is there any evidence they are paedophiles, but their expressed views and their arguments bear a disturbing similarity. Where PIE members or their comrades in arms like Tatchell speak of young people enjoying underage sex, Hewson adopts similar formulations. In an article for the Independent about a barrister who described an underage girl as ‘predatory’ she says,
Barbara repeatedly and in a variety of places and ways emphasises the danger to older men instead of the danger to (say) 13 year old girls – a danger that must be remedied by lowering the age of consent. This is preposterous. Why not something more sensible like a statute of limitations? Of course some teenagers flirt and behave provocatively toward adults. The responsible adult approach is to politely discourage such behaviour and put in place appropriate boundaries.
Your author was unable to contact Barbara Hewson, but his attention was drawn to a statement from Hardwicke Chambers completely and formally disassociating themselves from her views. No response was received by John Ashton when he was contacted via email.
At a lower level, even those Labour party officials who do not advocate lowering that age of consent show a shockingly complacent attitude. In the last week and a half, Kieran Thorpe (@KieranThorpe) the leader of Labour on Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council, caused outrage when he responded to a question about what the age of consent should be by saying, “whatever it is now”.
The moronic remark by Councillor Thorpe sparked mass complaints, to which Thorpe responded with further offensive tweets about the mental health of his critics – leading to a second round of complaints from disabled people.
Thorpe is not a paedophile, nor does he condone reducing the age of consent, but his thoughtless remark caused great offence to many.
Turning back to Tatchell, when questioned in a lengthy and tedious correspondence, Tatchell admits he wrote a chapter for BOY but he claims that he did not know any of the other authors of the book, its title or its purpose. He claims he did not know they were in PIE. He claims his letter to the Guardian in 1997 was edited. Tatchell says he was never in PIE. In fairness to Tatchell, there is no evidence that he was a member of PIE, although he clearly worked with them on the book.
Unsurprisingly, the more I found out the more uncooperative Tatchell became until eventually he refused to correspond further, claiming he was too busy. Fortunately I had provided Louise Mensch with the Tatchell materials from the British library and the Guardian archive at her own request. When she challenged Tatchell he gave her the same boilerplate replies he gave me. Most importantly, when questioned he repeated his astonishing claim that he was aware of nine-year olds who had enjoyed paedophile sex when they were younger –
Mensch – Although you state that in some of these cases you are just recounting the views of others, you do so in a way that never challenges their viewpoint. You state that paedophile abuse is “sex” and that being abused is “having sex” – that is your own characterization, rather than a reporting of others’ statements. You say in the Guardian letter that your friends “had sex” at nine with adults and say it “gave them great joy”. Why do you not add that you challenged this perspective of abuse survivors?
Tatchell – If happy, well-adjusted adults say that having sex when they were children was not unwanted, abusive or harmful – and gave them great joy – what right do you or I have to dispute their opinion? Do deny them their opinion is Orwellian.
Mensch quite rightly challenges Tatchell’s inappropriate use of language, yet bizarrely it is he who calls her, ‘Orwellian’ despite the obvious irony.
Tatchell constantly asserts that he does not condone paedophilia nor sex between adults and children. Technically, this is true – what he does in his articles generally follows the same formula, that is after reporting just how much some young child or children supposedly enjoyed sexual activity with an adult, he adds a formulaic disclaimer to the end of the article to the effect that he does not condone child abuse.
Tatchell was sent a copy of this article before publication and he has provided a lengthy response which is cut and paste at the bottom of this page. Tatchell’s claims his present position is that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 to ‘protect kids’ and that there should be a further policy of non-prosecution in some circumstances involving lower ages.
This blog has obtained permission to publish Tatchell’s chapter of BOY, and also under the fair dealing doctrine has published the contents page and the 2 pages after Tatchell’s chapter to put it in context. Link here (~4mb). The author also links to the complete text of Tatchell’s interview with Lee. Readers are advised to read the material in full and make up their own mind whether his explanations are acceptable. Matthew Hopkins contacted the Green Party and asked for comment. A spokesman said,
“The Green Party utterly condemns those who suggest that sex between adults and children is acceptable. Children must, at all times, be protected from abuse.
Any Green Party member who advocates adults having sex with minors will be subject to disciplinary procedures, including expulsion from the party, if the allegations are proven.”
This appears to suggest Tatchell could be expelled. Bold words that, if they are carried through, will show Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett has vastly greater will, leadership and integrity than Ed Miliband.
However, we must sound a note of caution. Tatchell has never directly advocated sex between adults and children. Splitting a hair, instead he has typically argued for its legalisation by quoting young people as saying that they enjoyed it before adding a boilerplate disclaimer that he does not endorse paedophilia. Similarly, there is no evidence that Tatchell himself is a paedophile, nor that he has ever engaged in any unlawful sex act.
Matthew Hopkins and others await the Green Party’s decision on Tatchell with interest. If they do not act appropriately, Natalie Bennett will be held accountable. Tatchell must not be allowed to escape punishment.
In contrast the Conservatives have rightly shown a zero tolerance attitude. When Patrick Rock was accused of viewing illegal pornography he was forced to resign and reported to the police. Shamefully, Labour’s Ed Miliband is not even in the game – he has yet to expel Harman, Dromey and Hewitt.
Shamefully, the Guardian were far more equivocal. When contacted, they provided the following quote –
“A Guardian News & Media spokesperson said: “Alongside thousands of others, Peter Tatchell has contributed to our Comment is Free website on numerous occasions. Comment is Free publishes hundreds of comment pieces every month across the entire political and ideological spectrum on a wide range of topics. Naturally not all of these voices – nor the thousands of readers’ letters we publish every year – reflect the Guardian’s own editorial position.”
This response is anodyne – it is shameful. Tatchell is not just some random, anonymous nobody on the Guardian ‘comment is free’ pages – the paper has previously reported him as a hero and commissioned articles by and about him.
Tatchell’s views are sick and unacceptable. The people of Britain need to wake up to the fact that in key institutions we have arrogant, unaccountable leftists who genuinely believe radically reducing the age of consent will somehow ‘help’ ‘protect kids’. We need to realise that key institutions and well known brands like the Guardian and the BBC have been tainted by this ideology.
Britain needs to enact laws to help us root out this threat. Just as Germany banned holocaust denial and Nazi symbols, Britain needs to ban the publication of materials promoting paedophilia or sympathy with its perpetrators. In particular it must be made an offence to advocate reducing the age of consent below 16.
Paedophile books and stories like ‘Lolita’ must be banned and burned and the Guardian and other left-wing newspapers must be forced to take down not just new articles but historic articles promoting a reduced age of consent. The Guardian and the Labour Party must have new leadership untainted by this scandal.
We may even need a new law enforcement agency to help protect our society from those who seek to pervert it from within. Leftists constantly demand there be ‘no platform’ for groups they diapprove of such as the British National Party. Is it so much to demand there be no platform for those who want to legalise paedophilia?
Barbara Hewson, John Ashton and Kieran Thorpe may not be paedophiles and they may not endorse the full agenda set out in the book, BOY, but their various public statements are unacceptable and they as individuals have no place in public life. Their twitter accounts are @BarbaraHewson, @FPH and @KieranThorpe respectively – readers are encouraged to let them know what you think about their views – politely of course. Or perhaps @ARusbridger, editor of the Guardian, could be asked for an explanation? Readers could also contact @NatalieBen the leader of the Green Party.
Turning back to PIE and their ilk – the paedophiles dream of a future in which every child is at their mercy. Our society does not need misguided, out of touch left wingers helping them.
Matthew Hopkins is grateful for the advice of former Conservative MP Louise Mensch who helped question Tatchell and wisely suggested collecting primary sources as well as material posted on Twitter by Ian Pace, and by Christian Voice on their website.
RIGHT OF REPLY RESPONSE FROM PETER TATCHELL
Frankly, the author doubted whether these TL;DR; responses should go in but as this is a web page thought that Tatchell’s views may as well be included. It is essential to read the book extract and the interview with Lee first so readers can judge for themselves Tatchell’s credibility. Where third parties are named, the text has been cut. Tatchell’s response is as follows –
Betrayal of Youth BookI was asked in around 1982 to write a chapter for a new book on “children’s welfare and rights”. I was told that [snip – Tatchell names a very senior Labour politician – risk of libel] and “child experts” had agreed to write chapters. I was asked to write on the age of consent and that others would write on other children’s issues. I was not told about the other contributors who eventually wrote for it. It seemed a perfectly innocent, commendable book. I believed it to be a serious book on various aspects of “children’s welfare and rights”. I had no suspicions and no reason for any suspicions. I am a trusting person. I always believe the best of people. In the case of the many books I have contributed to over the last 30 years have I never researched the publishers, editors or co-authors. I don’t have an evil, suspicious nature.
My chapter did NOT argue for the abolition of the age of consent. I did NOT argue that children can consent to their abuse. It is very unfair for you to make these false allegations against me.
My chapter queried the age of majority for ALL legal rights (ie not just sexual rights). I argued for greater rights and responsibilities for young people ie the rights of citizenship from an earlier age than 18. I criticised the discriminatory age of consent for gay men. I questioned whether 16 was the appropriate age of consent, on the basis that some people mature earlier and others later. I referenced the fact that other countries have varying ages of consent – some, like Japan, lower than 16. Are their governments pro-child sex abuse and paedophile apologists? I don’t think so.
BTW: More than 15 European countries have ages of consent lower than 16, several have 14. I know of no evidence that this has led to higher rates of child abuse.
I did not specify what the age of consent should be. I was saying there should be a discussion about it. There is nothing in my chapter that endorses or condones child sex abuse.
I wrote my chapter and heard nothing for about 4 or 5 years, when I copy arrived in the post. Until this point I had no knowledge of the contents or of the other contributors. Of course I was angry but by then the book had apparently been long published. I believe it had a negligible circulation. It was badly self-published. I doubt it had a circulation wider than 100 or 200 people in paedophile circles. So I decided it was best to not draw attention to it by kicking up a fuss. That would have just given it publicity and wider circulation.
I had no knowledge of Warren Middleton bring involved in PIE until many years later. The same goes for the other contributors. To this day, I have no idea who they are. I don’t move in paedophile circles – nor do I wish to.
Contrary to what you say, I was NEVER asked to write chapter about abolishing the age of consent. That was never mentioned when I was given my brief. And I did NOT argue for its abolition.
I was not paid for my contribution to the book and received no royalties.
I did not know about any links between Dunn and paedophile advocacy until long after I wrote the obituary.
I don’t keep tabs on these people. Do you? Do you know every paedophile in Britain? Of course not. And it is unreasonable for you to be expected to know them all.
I have never had any knowing association with a paedophile. But most people in the UK are in contact with paedophiles unwittingly, because there are so many of them. They cannot be blamed for this innocent, unintended association by de fault. Nor can I.
The McCarthyite-style smear of guilt by association is unwarranted and a low tactic.
Only this week it emerged that [snip – allegations against unrelated third party] stands accused of (as yet unproven) paedophile charges. Is [snip] culpable? Should he have known? Why didn’t he know? Why did he employ him? Why didn’t he research [snip]? I don’t blame [snip] and you should not blame me. I don’t have my own private research and police force to discover and expose secret paedophiles.
Ian Dunn kept his paedophile associations hidden from me and many others. When I knew him, he always had adult partners. I did not know he had any links with PIE or any other paedophile organisation or publication. We were not close friends. I only knew his gay rights work. He may have been exposed prior to my writing his obituary but I never saw it.
I wrote the obituary in good faith, unaware of things we now know.
My arguments on the age of consent for over 30 years have consistently made it clear that I am talking about teens of SIMILAR ages, yet some people persist in insinuating that I have advocated or endorsed adults having sex with children. I have NEVER done so.
I previously sent you my 2010 Sex and the Law conference speech which is a good summary of my position. It repeatedly makes the point about protecting young people against abuse – whether by adults or peers.
You appear to have not read it or have ignored the points and policies it makes about child protection and reporting abusers.
I am one of the very, very few people in Britain who has been arguing for two decades in favour of schools educating pupils about consent and abuse issues and encouraging and empowering pupils to report people who seek to abuse them. For many years, I was (as far as I know) the only person making this case.Guardian letterMy letter does NOT praise paedophilia. The thrust of my letter was to oppose calls to censor the book Dares To Speak and to argue against calls to close down debate on the issues it raises. I was defending academic freedom to research and discuss these issues. I was reporting the academic’s findings. The writers were academics, not paedophiles. Reporting their research does not amount to endorsement. I believe in free speech. This includes the right of people to say things that many other people find objectionable. That’s why I have defended the free speech of homophobic Christian street preachers and defended them against prosecution.
The academics in the book presented what they say is evidence based on their research. I see nothing wrong with citing their evidence. This is what an open society is all about: free ranging inquiry and looking at the evidence.
If a journalist interviews a murderer on death row, this does not mean he or she is endorsing murder. Citing something or quoting someone is not the same as approving or condoning.
Based on the academic evidence in the book and the experience of friends I said “it is time for society to admit that not all sex with children is unwanted, abusive or harmful.” I don’t think it is right to ignore evidence and opinions just because we find them distasteful. If the academic’s research shows no evidence of harm it would be unethical and dishonest to claim that harm had been caused. I believe in evidence-based assessments.
The same with the other quotes you mention: “The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships…..several of my friends, male and female, gay and straight, had sex with adults from the ages of nine to thirteen. None say they were abused. All say it gave them great joy.”
I was citing THEIR views, NOT my views. They are the views of now happy, well-adjusted adults who, when they were children, had sex with adults (ie persons over 18) and who found the experience positive, non-abusive and joyful. I was making a statement of what THEY said to me – as adults reflecting on what they did 30+ years previously. Who are you or I to say that they are mistaken, wrong and not to be believed? We don’t know the details. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should accept a person’s perception of their experiences.
I do believe that adults who have sex with children SHOULD be prosecuted. Contrary to your opinion, this is not inconsistent with evidence that SOME under-age sex may not, according the victims, be unwanted, abusive or harmful. It is possible to accept the victim’s views that they weren’t abused AND to also think that adult abusers should be prosecuted.
Obviously, most people who have sex at an early regret it and feel they were abused. I accept their viewpoint – and sympathise with them.