Didn't seem like that to me. I think he was trying to make the point that people that spread rumours on the intent that certain people are paedophiles are more likely to that if those people are gay or rumoured to be gay.



It does seem that most of the Tories that are subject to the current internet allegations have also being subject to rumours in the past about their sexuality.

Maybe we should ban same sex boarding schools? One strongly suspects that the issue with these Establishment figures is that their first sexual experiences involved other boys / younger boys at their boarding schools. Read Stephen Fry's autobiography for an insight.

No, he was hit with the equivalent of a baseball bat across the face live on daytime TV and he spoke off the cuff, unscripted and needing to fill a gap in the way that all politicians seem to think they have to.



I have a little sympathy for him but not too much, I'd prefer a politician to be honest and not speak from a prepared sheet of stock answers and if Schofields editing team (he didn't really find that list himself did he) had informed the PM's office of what was going to happen then they'd either have refused to answer or prepared a short speech - Camerons reaction was pretty good for a live response although my first reaction was that he'd put his foot in his mouth by linked homosexuality with a paedophile question, albeit accidently - however a half a gold star to him for giving an answer at all.



Quite honestly it would have been acceptable for him to tell Schofield to f*** off with his question (yes literally) being that he was there to speak about dementia and I would have given a full gold star for that.

As Lord Grantham said in Downton Abbey just last Sunday, "Good god if I'd been given a shilling every time a boy tried to kiss me at Eton then I'd be a very wealthy man by now"

This is what is`wrong with our country. People thinking the PM should be given time to prepare a scripted response to every question. Surely our leaders should have their own convictions and have integrity and thus not be afraid to answer any candid question? Especially, when he himself has saw fit at every opporunity to make soundbite comments (a la Blair) that he thinks the public want to hear on Savile, etc. Schofield has just demonstated, in my opinion, the dichotomy between vacous comments for public consumption and an apparent lack of will to do anything about the matter.

Personally I'd love to see a much more open discussion on everything within politics, including profane language to make a point, would make PMQ's a lot more entertaining than the script led bawling that passes for debate these days, even the BBCs Question Time works to a script for which pre-prepared answers are handed out like crib notes that accompany a powerpoint presentation.

I am not sure this is quite right - just because you are not believed or you cannot provide evidence that is greater than your word against someone else's doesn't mean you haven't received justice. In many of the cases the alleged victims couldn't say when or where the abuse occured - if you were a defendant how do you deal with that?



We should be very careful when naming people without real evidence. Dave Jones the soccer manager is a classic example of high profile individual who will be forever blighted by a false accusation of this nature.



I have no idea and nor do any of us on here as to exactly what went on in Wrexham - if it can be proved correctly that abuse of minors did occur those responsible should have the full weight of the law thrown at them, regardless of their social status.

The nature of one's first sexual experience is not a synonym for abuse or becoming an abuser if it's a same-sex experience in a same-sex environment, any more than it is if it's a heterosexual experience in a non same-sex environment.



And let's remember: the abuse that has been alleged in recent weeks is not just abuse by adult males on juvenile males.



I would suggest that what might be more relevant is whether the situation where some children and adolescents are given (or take for themselves) the role of enforcing 'discipline' in some schools gives rise to bullying and abusive behaviour, which may (or may not) continue in adult life.



So for instance, Andrew Mitchell was apparently known as 'Thrasher' at Rugby because he was such a stern disciplinarian. Giving children or adolescents such authority/power seems a pretty much guaranteed way to cause problems.

I completely agree about not just naming people casually.



The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence.



There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.

On the Cameron/Schofield incident the problem is that a number of the internet rumours about senior Tories being paedophiles are pointing at people who are either known to be gay or are openly gay, and Cameron will know this like anyone else who has really been paying attention. It may surprise some people, but I read a quote from Stonewall fairly recently which pointed out that the Conservative Party has more openly gay MPs than all the other parties put together, and there are plenty of other high profile figures who are openly gay. So when Cameron says he’s worried about a witch hunt against gay people in particular, it’s not because he is linking gay people and paedophiles, it is because the rumours flying around, consciously or not, appear to be doing this. So I think some people today criticising him in the media for linking two separate issues probably haven’t worked this out and see it as an easy opportunity to put the boot in.



On the related subject of public inquiries It’s become something of a political fad to call for public inquiries into just about everything and anything, and the public is now buying into this rather hollow form of gesture politics as a serious response. It’s almost a stock call to every issue that arises now, and if authorities don’t do it immediately then critics claim they’re hiding something. What most people don’t understand is that public inquiries cost massive amounts of money, even small ones cost millions, with all the consultants, lawyers, researchers, professional quangocrats etc… and if you rush into them to show something is being done ( covering) then same critics who wanted a knee jerk inquiry will claim they’re flawed or a whitewash and demand yet another inquiry, all the while the consultants and lawyers rub their hands together. So having inquiries is fine if they are carefully considered once the initial heat dies down, but the knee-jerk “we must order an inquiry” line is an expensive token gesture.

I've mentioned exactly the same today elsewhere. I think everyone on here knows I'm not Camerons biggest fan

but I do think he's getting some unfair stick over this. Anyone with half a brain could understand what he was trying to get at. It would be quite easy for me to jump on the bandwagon and call him like some are as its been quite easy to do over the last 2 years, but in all fairness it wouldn't be right in this case. I can't believe I'm about to say this but ... cut him some slack people!

Quote Mintball="Mintball"I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.'" The Regan report is shocking, but this www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.

Quote Mintball="Mintball"I completely agree about not just naming people casually. The Waterhouse Inquiry reached a conclusion that abuse had occurred, but (IIRC) it was decided that names would not be published or prosecutions made in order that people would be more ready to give evidence. There are some interesting things [url=http://pebpr.blogspot.co.uk/p/scallywags-simon-regan.htmlhere[/url, in a letter from 2000, by Simon Regan, the (now deceased) co-founder of [iScallywag[/i, which did it's own investigation into the issues. One of the points he made is that prosecutions are difficult, not least because victims tend to be unreliable witness, simply because they're so damaged emotionally and mentally and, when faced with rather good QCs, are unlikely to be able to 'compete'.'" The Regan report is shocking, but this www.innocent.org.uk/misc/carers2.html also shows what can happen when the pendulum swings too far the other way. In the wake of the Savile disclosures there appears to be a collective feeling of guilt that accusations by abused children have not been taken seriously. Its quite right that cases should be re-opened where the evidence justifies it. But there does seem to be a risk that innocent people will be villified simply because in the current climate its not the done thing to doubt the accusers.