4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 1/13

Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year OldsPosted on March 12, 2014

Matthew Hopkins reveals Peter Tatchell’s association with PIE members, his writtenassertions that paedophile abuse brought 9year olds ‘great joy’ and exposes othermisguided advocates of reducing the age of consent.

The activities of PIE and their plan to legalise paedophilia are now well known. However lesswell known are the many misguided left wingers who, whilst never members of PIE, supporttheir 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 thecampaign to lower the gay age of consent from 18 to 16 he was a Labour Parliamentarycandidate and official, currently has his own section of the Guardian website, and describeshimself 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 thesinister Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) – a book with the sole and stated goal of

Peter Tatchell—

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 2/13

abolishing the age of consent entirely, making children, toddlers and babes in arms fair gamefor 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 paedophileWarren Middleton (aka John Parratt), former vicechairperson of PIE and published in 1986,only three years after Peter Tatchell stood as the Labour Party Parliamentary candidate forBermondsey.

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 Tatchellholding a PIE sign.

So on the advice of Louise Mensch your humble inquisitor accessed a number of archivesincluding a personal visit to the British Library to be allowed access to the original copy ofTatchell’s book held there. Because the book consists only of text it is neither illegal for thelibrary 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 heldin the vaults and tied with a security band to prevent it being viewed by accident. Readersare required to view the book under supervised conditions at the restricted desks marked inred.

Having obtained the copy, the author carefully checked the claims against Tatchell. Contraryto his protestations, it seems that Tatchell was indeed a contributor to the book, BOY andthe allegations about it are broadly true.

In chapter after horrifying chapter members of PIE set out in detail the insane paedophileplan. The first chapter, entitled simply ‘Incest’ equates a child climbing into bed with a parentto be read a story with an 8 year old boy climbing into bed to have his genitals fondled by hismother.

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 ofincreasingly quaint, minority moral values left over from the Victorian era?’

The chapter just after Tatchell’s is entitled ‘Ends and Means: How to Make PaedophiliaAcceptable….?’ and opens with an account of sexual activity with two 8 year old boysbefore describing it as ‘all very normal to a libertarian, even to some openminded parents’.

Despite the book’s notoriety, the Labour Party took no action against Tatchell and allowedhim to continue as a prominent member. In 1990 Tatchell became a founder member ofOutRage! supposedly a ‘gay rights’ group which adopted a sort of halfway house policy on

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 3/13

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 interviewwith a boy ‘Lee’, who had been a victim of sexual abuse by adult paedophiles and olderchildren since he was 8 and a half. Tatchell quoted repeated claims by ‘Lee’ that he enjoyedthe abuse, ‘I liked it a lot. It was great’ .

That same year, shortly after Tony Blair’s victory, Tatchell wrote a letter to the Guardiansaying that was aware of several instances of paedophile sex with children of both sexes asyoung 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 […]”

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 4/13

Despite the tight grip the inner circle of New Labour kept on embarrassing voices in thosedays, no obvious action was taken against Tatchell by Labour or Alan Rusbridger editor ofthe Guardian.

At this time, Labour began its attempts to lower the age of consent for gays. Whilst manypeople were genuinely concerned with equality, the legislation being impelled by a ruling fromthe European Court of Human Rights, let there be no doubt about the other agenda that wasalso openly at work – OutRage! activists stood outside the House of Commons carryinghuge placards saying ’16 IS JUST A START’. Respectable ‘rights’ activists rubbed shoulders

Peter Tatchell’s revolting letter to the Guardian of 1997. What responsible

newspaper would publish this?

—

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 5/13

with Peter Tatchell and his ilk as the left wing machine steamrollered anyone who opposedreducing 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 theleft wing propaganda machine portrayed the change as a victory for Human Rights, with theGuardian reporting it under the headline, ‘Equal at last’.

In 1998, Tatchell wrote an obituary in the Independent for a man called Ian Dunn. Tatchellspoke warmly of Dunn, describing him as a “pioneer for lesbian and gay human rights”.Tatchell did not mention that Dunn was a cofounder of PIE.

In 2001, just the year after the reduction in the gay age of consent, Tatchell wrote an articlefor the Guardian calling for the age of consent to be reduced to 14 and further in some morelimited cases for ‘consenting’.

The Guardian continued to fete Tatchell, naming him a ‘Hero’ in 2004. In the same yearTatchell joined the Green Party and was selected as a Parliamentary candidate. He wasnamed a ‘national treasure’ by the Guardian in 2010. Peter Tatchell’s website still describeshim as the Green Party’s spokesperson on human rights. Only this year in 2014, theGuardian 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 thecampaign to legalise what are presently paedophile sex crimes.

In 2013 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal well known ‘progressive’ barrister BarbaraHewson proposed reducing the age of consent to 13 in order to end the “persecution of oldmen”.

That same year the BBC reported Faculty of Public Health President Professor John Ashtonas having proposed a reduction in the age of consent, under the headline ‘PM rejects call tolower age of consent to 15′ whilst only this year in January 2014 Peter Tatchell wasallowed to host a video debate on the Guardian website entitled, ‘Should the legal age ofconsent be lowered?’

At no time since he became editor in 1995 has Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger ever takenany steps to exclude Tatchell from the Guardian’s pages. Why? From deciding to publishTatchell’s letter about the ‘joy’ sex brings to 9year olds in 1997 to giving him a platform in2014, the Guardian has given Tatchell free reign to promote the legalisation of what are nowsex crimes against children.

There is nothing to link Ashton or Hewson to PIE, nor is there any evidence they arepaedophiles, but their expressed views and their arguments bear a disturbing similarity.

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 6/13

Where PIE members or their comrades in arms like Tatchell speak of young people enjoyingunderage sex, Hewson adopts similar formulations. In an article for the Independent about abarrister who described an underage girl as ‘predatory’ she says,

“Perhaps unwisely, prosecuting counsel referred to her as “predatory”, […] But hang on a

minute. Supposing what the QC said, albeit using a colourful metaphor, was essentially

true?”

Barbara repeatedly and in a variety of places and ways emphasises the danger to oldermen instead of the danger to (say) 13 year old girls – a danger that must be remedied bylowering the age of consent. This is preposterous. Why not something more sensible like astatute of limitations? Of course some teenagers flirt and behave provocatively towardadults. The responsible adult approach is to politely discourage such behaviour and put inplace appropriate boundaries.

Your author was unable to contact Barbara Hewson, but his attention was drawn to astatement from Hardwicke Chambers completely and formally disassociating themselvesfrom her views. No response was received by John Ashton when he was contacted viaemail.

At a lower level, even those Labour party officials who do not advocate lowering that age ofconsent 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 outragewhen 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 Thorperesponded with further offensive tweets about the mental health of his critics – leading to asecond round of complaints from disabled people.

Thorpe is not a paedophile, nor does he condone reducing the age of consent, but histhoughtless remark caused great offence to many.

Turning back to Tatchell, when questioned in a lengthy and tedious correspondence, Tatchelladmits he wrote a chapter for BOY but he claims that he did not know any of the otherauthors of the book, its title or its purpose. He claims he did not know they were in PIE. Heclaims his letter to the Guardian in 1997 was edited. Tatchell says he was never in PIE. Infairness to Tatchell, there is no evidence that he was a member of PIE, although he clearlyworked with them on the book.

Unsurprisingly, the more I found out the more uncooperative Tatchell became until eventuallyhe refused to correspond further, claiming he was too busy. Fortunately I had provided LouiseMensch with the Tatchell materials from the British library and the Guardian archive at her

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 7/13

own request. When she challenged Tatchell he gave her the same boilerplate replies he gaveme. Most importantly, when questioned he repeated his astonishing claim that he was awareof nineyear 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 viewsof others, you do so in a way that never challenges their viewpoint. You state thatpaedophile abuse is “sex” and that being abused is “having sex” – that is your owncharacterization, rather than a reporting of others’ statements. You say in the Guardianletter that your friends “had sex” at nine with adults and say it “gave them great joy”. Whydo you not add that you challenged this perspective of abuse survivors?

Tatchell If happy, welladjusted adults say that having sex when they were childrenwas not unwanted, abusive or harmful – and gave them great joy – what right do you or Ihave 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 hewho calls her, ‘Orwellian’ despite the obvious irony.

Tatchell constantly asserts that he does not condone paedophilia nor sex between adults andchildren. Technically, this is true – what he does in his articles generally follows the sameformula, that is after reporting just how much some young child or childrensupposedly enjoyed sexual activity with an adult, he adds a formulaic disclaimer to the endof 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 lengthyresponse which is cut and paste at the bottom of this page. Tatchell’s claims his presentposition is that the age of consent should be lowered to 14 to ‘protect kids’ and that thereshould be a further policy of nonprosecution in some circumstances involving lower ages.

This blog has obtained permission to publish Tatchell’s chapter of BOY, and also under thefair dealing doctrine has published the contents page and the 2 pages after Tatchell’s chapterto put it in context. Link here (~4mb). The author also links to the complete text of Tatchell’sinterview with Lee. Readers are advised to read the material in full and make up their ownmind whether his explanations are acceptable. Matthew Hopkins contacted the Green Partyand 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

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 8/13

through, will show Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett has vastly greater will, leadership andintegrity than Ed Miliband.

However, we must sound a note of caution. Tatchell has never directly advocated sexbetween adults and children. Splitting a hair, instead he has typically argued for itslegalisation by quoting young people as saying that they enjoyed it before adding a boilerplatedisclaimer that he does not endorse paedophilia. Similarly, there is no evidence that Tatchellhimself 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. Ifthey do not act appropriately, Natalie Bennett will be held accountable. Tatchell must not beallowed to escape punishment.

In contrast the Conservatives have rightly shown a zero tolerance attitude. When PatrickRock was accused of viewing illegal pornography he was forced to resign and reported to thepolice. Shamefully, Labour’s Ed Miliband is not even in the game – he has yet to expelHarman, Dromey and Hewitt.

Shamefully, the Guardian were far more equivocal. When contacted, they provided thefollowing 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 previouslyreported 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 factthat in key institutions we have arrogant, unaccountable leftists who genuinely believeradically reducing the age of consent will somehow ‘help’ ‘protect kids’. We need to realisethat key institutions and well known brands like the Guardian and the BBC have been taintedby this ideology.

Britain needs to enact laws to help us root out this threat. Just as Germany bannedholocaust denial and Nazi symbols, Britain needs to ban the publication of materialspromoting paedophilia or sympathy with its perpetrators. In particular it must be made anoffence to advocate reducing the age of consent below 16.

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 9/13

Paedophile books and stories like ‘Lolita’ must be banned and burned and the Guardian andother leftwing newspapers must be forced to take down not just new articles but historicarticles promoting a reduced age of consent. The Guardian and the Labour Party must havenew leadership untainted by this scandal.

We may even need a new law enforcement agency to help protect our society from thosewho seek to pervert it from within. Leftists constantly demand there be ‘no platform’ forgroups they diapprove of such as the British National Party. Is it so much to demand therebe no platform for those who want to legalise paedophilia?

Barbara Hewson, John Ashton and Kieran Thorpe may not be paedophiles and they may notendorse the full agenda set out in the book, BOY, but their various public statements areunacceptable and they as individuals have no place in public life. Their twitter accounts are@BarbaraHewson, @FPH and @KieranThorpe respectively – readers are encouraged to letthem 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 isat 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 LouiseMensch who helped question Tatchell and wisely suggested collecting primarysources as well as material posted on Twitter by Ian Pace, and by Christian Voice ontheir website.

RIGHT OF REPLY RESPONSE FROM PETER TATCHELLFrankly, the author doubted whether these TL;DR; responses should go in but as this is aweb page thought that Tatchell’s views may as well be included. It is essential to read thebook extract and the interview with Lee first so readers can judge for themselves Tatchell’scredibility. Where third parties are named, the text has been cut. Tatchell’s response is asfollows

Betrayal of Youth BookI was asked in around 1982 to write a chapter for a new book on “children’s welfare andrights”. 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 onthe age of consent and that others would write on other children’s issues. I was not toldabout 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’swelfare and rights”. I had no suspicions and no reason for any suspicions. I am a trustingperson. I always believe the best of people. In the case of the many books I have contributedto over the last 30 years have I never researched the publishers, editors or coauthors. I

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 10/13

don’t have an evil, suspicious nature.My chapter did NOT argue for the abolition of the age of consent. I did NOT argue thatchildren can consent to their abuse. It is very unfair for you to make these false allegationsagainst me.

My chapter queried the age of majority for ALL legal rights (ie not just sexual rights). Iargued for greater rights and responsibilities for young people ie the rights of citizenshipfrom an earlier age than 18. I criticised the discriminatory age of consent for gay men. Iquestioned whether 16 was the appropriate age of consent, on the basis that some peoplemature earlier and others later. I referenced the fact that other countries have varyingages of consent – some, like Japan, lower than 16. Are their governments prochild sexabuse and paedophile apologists? I don’t think so.

BTW: More than 15 European countries have ages of consent lower than 16, several have14. 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 adiscussion about it. There is nothing in my chapter that endorses or condones child sexabuse.

I wrote my chapter and heard nothing for about 4 or 5 years, when I copy arrived in thepost. Until this point I had no knowledge of the contents or of the other contributors. Ofcourse I was angry but by then the book had apparently been long published. I believe ithad a negligible circulation. It was badly selfpublished. I doubt it had a circulation widerthan 100 or 200 people in paedophile circles. So I decided it was best to not draw attentionto 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. Thesame goes for the other contributors. To this day, I have no idea who they are. I don’t movein paedophile circles – nor do I wish to.

Contrary to what you say, I was NEVER asked to write chapter about abolishing the ageof consent. That was never mentioned when I was given my brief. And I did NOT argue forits abolition.

I was not paid for my contribution to the book and received no royalties.

Ian DunnI did not know about any links between Dunn and paedophile advocacy until long after Iwrote the obituary.

I don’t keep tabs on these people. Do you? Do you know every paedophile in Britain? Ofcourse not. And it is unreasonable for you to be expected to know them all.

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 11/13

I have never had any knowing association with a paedophile. But most people in the UKare in contact with paedophiles unwittingly, because there are so many of them. Theycannot be blamed for this innocent, unintended association by de fault. Nor can I.

The McCarthyitestyle smear of guilt by association is unwarranted and a low tactic.

Only this week it emerged that [snip – allegations against unrelated thirdparty] 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 heresearch [snip]? I don’t blame [snip] and you should not blame me. I don’t have my ownprivate research and police force to discover and expose secret paedophiles.

Ian Dunn kept his paedophile associations hidden from me and many others. When I knewhim, he always had adult partners. I did not know he had any links with PIE or any otherpaedophile organisation or publication. We were not close friends. I only knew his gayrights 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 thatI am talking about teens of SIMILAR ages, yet some people persist in insinuating that Ihave 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 goodsummary of my position. It repeatedly makes the point about protecting young peopleagainst abuse – whether by adults or peers.

See here:

http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/anageofconsentof14.htm

You appear to have not read it or have ignored the points and policies it makes aboutchild protection and reporting abusers.

I am one of the very, very few people in Britain who has been arguing for twodecades in favour of schools educating pupils about consent and abuse issuesand encouraging and empowering pupils to report people who seek to abusethem. For many years, I was (as far as I know) the only person making thiscase.

Guardian letterMy letter does NOT praise paedophilia. The thrust of my letter was to oppose calls tocensor the book Dares To Speak and to argue against calls to close down debate on the

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 12/13

issues it raises. I was defending academic freedom to research and discuss these issues. Iwas reporting the academic’s findings. The writers were academics, not paedophiles.Reporting their research does not amount to endorsement. I believe in free speech. Thisincludes the right of people to say things that many other people find objectionable. That’swhy I have defended the free speech of homophobic Christian street preachers and defendedthem against prosecution.The academics in the book presented what they say is evidence based on their research. Isee nothing wrong with citing their evidence. This is what an open society is all about: freeranging inquiry and looking at the evidence.

If a journalist interviews a murderer on death row, this does not mean he or she isendorsing murder. Citing something or quoting someone is not the same as approving orcondoning.

Based on the academic evidence in the book and the experience of friends I said “it is timefor society to admit that not all sex with children is unwanted, abusive or harmful.” I don’tthink it is right to ignore evidence and opinions just because we find them distasteful. If theacademic’s research shows no evidence of harm it would be unethical and dishonest toclaim that harm had been caused. I believe in evidencebased assessments.

The same with the other quotes you mention: “The positive nature of some childadultsexual relationships…..several of my friends, male and female, gay and straight, had sexwith adults from the ages of nine to thirteen. None say they were abused. All say it gavethem great joy.”

I was citing THEIR views, NOT my views. They are the views of now happy, welladjustedadults who, when they were children, had sex with adults (ie persons over 18) and whofound the experience positive, nonabusive and joyful. I was making a statement of whatTHEY said to me – as adults reflecting on what they did 30+ years previously. Who areyou or I to say that they are mistaken, wrong and not to be believed? We don’t know thedetails. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should accept a person’s perception oftheir experiences.

I do believe that adults who have sex with children SHOULD be prosecuted. Contrary toyour opinion, this is not inconsistent with evidence that SOME underage sex may not,according the victims, be unwanted, abusive or harmful. It is possible to accept thevictim’s views that they weren’t abused AND to also think that adult abusers should beprosecuted.

Obviously, most people who have sex at an early regret it and feel they were abused. Iaccept their viewpoint – and sympathise with them.

ENDS

4/17/2015 Peter Tatchell – Sex Brought ‘Great Joy’. To 9 Year Olds | Matthew Hopkins – The Witchfinder General

http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436 13/13

2 THOUGHTS ON “PETER TATCHELL – SEX BROUGHT ‘GREAT JOY’. TO 9 YEAR OLDS”

This entry was posted in Conservative, Green Party, Labour, Law, Louise Mensch, PeterTatchell by Matthew Hopkins. Bookmark the permalink[http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=436] .

British Classicson March 25, 2014 at 12:55 am said:

Why do you give Tatchell such a long and tedious “Right of Reply” when he has hisown website and gets almost weekly exposure in the Guardian, the Huffington Postand in Pink/Stink News?People who want to read his lies have plenty of other opportunities to do so. Leftwingand queer websites do not give conservative or moral writers any “right of reply”.They regularly ban, exclude, and censor any views apart from their own. People whooppose the extremist queer agenda are now excluded from teaching, virtuallyexcluded from the all the media and are being driven out of jobs. Yet you give morespace to the people who are pushing the evil tyrannical queer agenda.

Matthew Hopkinson March 25, 2014 at 6:56 am said:

I agree that left wingers in general and in institutions do act with hostility topeople who oppose their views. However, we are better than them and in anycase Tatchell’s reply has done him little good. To paraphrase somethingLouise said to me, the facts speak for themselves.