Conspiracy 'nutter' David Icke was quite openly stating that Jimmy Saville was a paedophile and necrophiliac over five years ago.



Oh how I laughed at Icke's claims of a countrywide paedophile ring consisting of high ranking members of our society, all protected from any prosecution by their masonic connections. Now I'm thinking WTF he might have been right all along!

Not sure about KF's and HWS's comments on gay MPs. At the end of the day, being gay and a paedophile are not mutually exclusive. If people are being rumoured as paedophiles they should still be investigated with rigour and not exempted because they are gay. Indeed, in the North Wales case the victims were boys, arguably making it more likely that the perpetrators were gay?

Quote Cibaman="Cibaman"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.'" A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Quote Cibaman="Cibaman"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.'" A lot of the allegations relate to events some years ago, and it's probably fair to say that things have changed a lot since – from the founding of Childline in 1986, for instance. Some of the stuff flying around on the internet at present may have roots in homophobia or simply in 'I dislike X and will try to tar them with the abuse brush'.

Oh how the rest of us laugh at someone pretending that a man who believes that the world is ruled by a secret group of giant lizards has a shred of credibility.







Unfortunately, some bigots will try to use the abuse of children and young people to suit their bigoted agenda.

Oh, how ridiculous.

Here ...

Again you're putting words in my mouth!! Show me where I said they should be exempted. I'm saying some people are assuming that because you are gay you are automatically a paedophile and I am saying thats not the case.

Nobody on this thread – from across a range of political opinions – has suggested that anyone should be 'exempted' from an investigation for any reason. Equally, nobody has suggested that homosexuals cannot be paedophiles, although in asserting that they can, Dally is effectively suggesting that people have said this – or he is at least attempting to make such a link.



As noted earlier, abuse and rape are essentially about power and that should be remembered when discussing them. Rape in prison does not occur because the rapists have suddenly become gay. Equally, rape as a weapon of war does not occur because soldiers are heterosexual.



Dally's on one of his trolling outings. As has been mentioned by various people over the years, trolls often simply exaggerate views that they do actually hold themselves for effect.

My view is quite straightforward. People's initial sexual experiences (good and bad) have an enormous psychological impact and often sub-consciously influence their actions in this area in later life. I posit that the Tory party has more openly gay MPs simply because a higher proportion of their party went to all male boarding schools, where they had their passive or actual initial sexual experiences. Those experiences would invariably with young teenage boys either consemsually or as bully / 'bullyee'. I contend it therefore makes it quite plausible (if not highly probable) that gay Tory MPs / ex-MPS may in some cases also have been abusers of teenage boys in their later life. That is not being a bigot that is thinking logically.



If you wish to mock my hypothesis, go away, conduct an experiment and provide empiral, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, suggest a more rational hypothesis.

There is no evidence that you are 'made' gay – or straight, for that matter – by some event or other. Any more than there is any evidence that you 'choose' your sexuality.



That is the reality in terms of the scientific thinking on the issue of what 'causes' sexuality these days.



And it is utter codswallop, and lacking in anything close to logical thinking, to pretend that negative early sexual experiences would only affect gay people. Unless you can find some sort of equal argument for why some heterosexuals abuse, your 'hypothesis' is simply balderdash.

No Dally, you appear to misunderstand how research works. It is up to the person proposing a theory to back it up with experiments or to provide empirical, peer-reviewed evidence in support of their theory.



Not for the rest of the world to provide evidence to disprove an unproven theory.

That's like dear old Kirkstaller saying that because no-one can prove God doesnt exist that is evidence of his existence.

If we run that theory then surely very few Tory MP's would ever procreate because they'd all be too busy having a jolly old game of Cum On The Biscuit.