Images - Queer degenerates. No child should be forced to see such things in the streets of their community.
There is no greater hypocrite in this country than the vile paedophile supporting political queer Peter Tatchell.
He supports the right of homosexual pederasts to molest young boys and then attacks the Pope for not protecting children from sex abuse by Catholic priests.
Tatchell is not a homosexual, Tatchell is a political Queer.
http://www.petertatchell.net/Equality%20-%20Limits%20and%20Deficiencies/beyond%20equality.htm
Political Queers demand society is reformed in line with their demands, they do not want equality or tolerance - they want to dominate and control.
Any discrimination against homosexuals is immoral, illegal and vile and rightfully so, as the sexuality of any decent human being is irrelevant to their decency as a human being.
But political Queers have no respect for homosexuals in our society, they hold them in as much contempt as they hold heterosexuals.
Political Queers want to legalise paedophilia, they want society to tolerate their depravities such as the 'right' to dress up in semi-naked sado-masochistic outfits and lead their partners in the street on chains in Gay Pride Parades and they demand that society changes to cater to their political demands.
It is because of the political queers that homophobia is present in our society, as decent people find the political queers repulsive and then confuse political queers with decent homosexual people.
Decent homosexuals find the activities of political queers, such as indulging in gay sex in public toilets where children go and leaving those facilities strewn with used condoms and splattered in semen, drawing graffiti of gay sex acts in toilets that children can see, cutting holes in the walls and partitions in public toilets so they can see other men using the toilet or have oral sex via a 'glory hole' and leaving grafitti asking for children to text them their mobile numbers so they can be molested and other paedophile activities, as repulsive.
To see Tatchell attack the Pope when he has said in the past ' "Several of my friends... had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13... It is time that society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."
Peter Tatchell,
Homosexual leader/activist.
Letter to The Guardian.
27th June, 1998.
Fuck off Tatchell you sick bastard.
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press146.html
Here are some quotes from Tatchell’s website
Isn’t it time the lesbian and gay community said, loud and clear, that the under-16s also have sexual rights? Don’t we have a responsibility to defend the right of under-age queers to make their own free, informed choices about when they are ready for sex?
We should be empowering young people to stand up for their sexual rights – including the right to say “yes” to sex and the right to say “no”.
“If you consent to having sex with a paedophile, it’s fine. If you don’t, it’s not”
It’s all very well for the lesbian and gay community to call for an equal age of consent of 16, but what about the sexual rights of those who are younger?
BTW he’s not just talking about teenagers, he talking about all under sixteen year olds.
A few are ready for sex at l2; others not until they’re 20. Having a single, inflexible age of consent doesn’t take into account these differences.
The law does not force a person of 20 to have sex, it does however protect the prepubescent from paedophiles. We could lower the age of consent to 12 but the reason it is set at 16 is that by 16 everyone should have been through puberty and at 12 not everyone would.
Tatchell’s solution – a universal age of consent at 14 and a sliding scale of the age of consent for under 14s. So a 16 year old can have sex with a 13 year old and an eight year old with a five year old. But this is just window dressing, Tatchell says:
Although an improvement, even this three-year flexibility is a bit arbitrary
So if there is no harm done i.e. the child consents
punishment is inappropriate and the courts should, at most, impose a counselling order to ensure that the couple are advised about contraception and safer sex.
25 comments:
tatchell is obviously a seriously mentally ill fuck. He uses the exact same illogical reasoning as paedophiles when he comes out with nonsense such as:
"Don’t we have a responsibility to defend the right of under-age queers to make their own free, informed choices about when they are ready for sex?"
Sexual deviants such as tatchell , and paedos generally, are highly manipulative, thus they prey on younger teenagers and seek to convince them they are ready for sex, and one of their favourite gambits is to make out that their victim is somehow being denied their rights of self expression by an uncaring society - this is peado strategy 101.
How the hell can a 12 year old child make an informed decision? tatchell is a complete fucking cunt.
Oh how about we let 12 years make informed decisions about buying alcohol, or hey shouldn't they be able to drive? We wouldn't want them to be denied their rights. No it is only when it comes to sex that tatchell is concerned.
tatchell is simply a degenerate pervert who, like all pederasts and assorted sexual weirdos, disguise their mental illness behind pathetic sophistry. A flasher conceals his filthy, emaciated flesh behind a spunk-sodden overcoat, tatchell conceals his filthy, emaciated flesh behind the words that spew from his spunk-addled diseased brain.
Fuck off tatchell you are a vile pervert, nothing more.
"Decent homosexuals..." etc etc
Would that be someone like you then Lee, a thoroughly decent guy questioning your sexuality? Cos to be honest I'd never heard of a "glory hole" until I read your piece and I'd no idea that the numbers penciled in the service stations I have the misfortune to visit were the phone numbers of men seeking men. I just thought they were pranksters setting up their mates and that. You must visit some strange places which are "splattered in semen".
I think you need to stop visiting these places Lee. You need to hold it in a bit more, have a wee behind a tree when possible and stop texting those numbers. Be safe and make sure you both wear a johnny if you are going into or taking it in the back passages. I know a very nice, but strict BNP official who could teach you a thing or two. Martin's number is .........
It has been shown [on Newsnight] how John Paul II covered up the paedo scandal. but he was overtly pro-Jewish so the media kept quiet.
Since Benedict XVI did things to upset the Jews [latin mass and Bishop Williamson] the media blamed him for the paedo scandal.
Benedict was the one who took action - as soon as he was pope.
JP2 covered up and was the bad pope.
but to the media, Jews, queers etc. what matters isn't the poor victims, it is whether the pope is a liberal or not.
Excellent Lee, completely agree with every word. Tatchell is a vile beast, a sexual pervert who is also using perverted sexuality as a weapon to destroy the West.
The perversion of sexual morality - from porn to homosexuality to paedophilia even to scat and animal sex - is yet another Marxist tactic to destroy us and it's working.
If you think it only applies to vile perverts like Tatchell, then meet Daniel Cohn-Bendit, MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT:
What An MEP Thinks Of Sex And Kids
Note the idiotic giggling as this degenerate talks about how "the sexuality of children is something fantastic".
What a desperately sick society we now live in thanks to Marxist vermin like Cohn-Bendit and Tatchell. And it will continue to deteriorate.
Chris.
Lee,
Great piece by the way, it really is amazing to see the amount of hyprocisy there is out there. Where could you start?
It is always to interesting to how much abuse is thrown at catholics and their beliefs and how not a squeek is made about Islam. The church has lots of faults but I know full well what side I would be on.
In fact the pope should really be greeted with open arms in this country just to give the liberals a shock and as a stand against Islam.
Tatchell is a filthy, disgusting, degenerate piece of vermin. These "Gay Pride" marches also disgust me. Why the hell should we be subject to looking at their vile acts of perversion on our streets.
I remember that a group of Glasgow Fireman lost their jobs because they refused to hand out leaflets in their uniforms. Glasgow City Council is awash with Homosexuals (who by the way are also Catholics - so don't know how they manage to OK that with their priests)! Steven Purcell, the leader of the Council had to resign in disgrace due to drugs and "allegations" of corruption although it was completely washed over and he was made out to be the victim. His 18 year old boyfriend committed suicide -again washed over by the media. His replacement was voted in - yet another Homosexual in a high powered, political job. Another Council just outside Glasgow has two lesbians (one the boss of the other) in a high powered job. They promote each other and discriminate against hetros - due to having political power.
I am gay (I use the stupid word because everyone else seems to) and I do not try to understand the logic behind what creatures like Tatchell do, I just know that they do not speak for me and that they endanger me by attacking the heterosexual norm, misrepresenting me and by attempting to destroy society.
They, as a response to that, will state that I am 'self-hating' and unappreciative of the sacrifices that gay men in the past made to secure my freedom.
I am not sure that this is the main issue.
The main issue is the disgusting displays of heterosexual obscenity which have already become acceptable.
The opening of the gay closet was preceeded by, and made possible by, the normalisation of heterosexual obscenity.
Most gay people find overt displays of heterosexuality disgusting. I know that I do.
As a gay man, it is a great relief to visit countries, such as India, which still have anti-obscenity laws.
I can go about my daily business there, knowing that I will likely not be visually accosted by images and displays of sexual obscenity.
However, closing the closet door on heterosexual obscenity in Britain will prove very difficult, because we have a heterosexual majority which, having been brainwashed by the 'liberal' media, thinks that it is very zenith of high culture.
Poor little buttercup makes a lot of very interesting points that are not of the slightest interest to anyone with a brain cell.
Because Lee may know a few things about hang gliding doesn't mean he indulges in hang gliding himself but even if he does that is for him to decide upon and as long as he doesn't land on anybody, then that's ok.
Why can't people constructively comment on articles instead of resorting to personal abuse. It makes the person doing it look a complete plonker.
I do not like the views of Tatchell and do seriously think he has mental problems.
I'm sure you are ok tho' and before you accuse me of having mental issues,I can assure you that I do caused by a tumour I have in my head and I'm sure you'll find something funny to say about that too.
Why can't people grow up and act like adults for f***s sake.
Hi Lee, I dont know if you have seen this , but it always makes me laugh, the Tatchell gets satchelled along with gaylord fred. Dont screw with the ruuskys!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8pi6o2Uo2c&feature=related
PART 1-
Lee is back to what he is the best at :O)
But I must say, I now have more of a understanding of your anger..I have a burning desire to expose a fascist, brought up by marching Commie's Paul Morris !!
But all in good time I suppose .
I have made lots of enquiries over the past few days, it is unbelievable how many loyal activists he has forced out of the BNP, by telling/bullying them who to speak or bother with and what they can do.
What a real Cunt he is.
As you know, he tricked me deliberately for his own ends, to use my voice against you, that was the last fucking straw and swiftly brought it to a head.
As you are also aware Lee, I have deliberately maintained my status quo over all disputes between any Nationalist, because I have the experience to know full well, it can backfire on that person taking sides big time ! It's so funny how even the so called worst enemies can make up, then divert their attention to the real perceived trouble maker , generally the one who originally made all the noise !!
There have been countless occasions where he has willfully and deliberately squashed Loyal activists and publicity for the party, just so that he can maintain his own appointed position, to wallow in his own self delusion of grandeur .(GA)"it wasn't my idea, so we are not doing it"
This includes young talented individuals, to seasoned activists who has been deliberately squashed not to divert any attention from himself. Fucking sickening...
ONE Example-
Clive Whitley, The 70 year old man who was pulled out of the Black Range Rover and savaged by 3 Police Officers, is a good friend of mine, he lives 4 miles away in Usk.
This was on Sky news every single 10-20 minutes for 2 days, it was World Headlines, covered by every paper Nationally.
I immediately called Paul Morris (GA) and explained the full story and basically said the following- "Paul, what do you think mate, what if we arrange an interview with that man/my friend and use it for publicity for the BNP, it will be fantastic coverage for the Party (Paul snapped), "I am not interested, I don't want to fall out with you", I thought WTF, why Paul, why don't you want to help me sort it. He repeated what he said and cutting it short , he hung up !!
I sat there absolutely gob smacked and bemused !! I decided to call him again, he barked at me again and slammed the phone down..I called him back again and I asked what have I done to upset him, he said look Topmarques,.,it is not you, I am just not interested, it is not for my Blog...
I then tried to call the Wales boys who do the vids over a period of hours and but couldn't reach them at that time.
After a few hours I then decided to call Brian S W organiser, he was immediately revved up and ready for go. I then called Clive Whatley back, he said "sorry mate UKIP has just asked me, I cant go back on a deal"
I was so fucking angry, we lost such a great chance for the party, can you imagine how our film crew ask him "So Clive you now understand, this is why we are bullied, because we expose serious issues like this and will not reform to the Media Corruption" etc
Brian remember's well that I told him , at what time and what GA said, at the time he was flabbergasted, also he was obviously very dissapointed !!
There is loads more folks ,you couldn't imagine what he has been cooking behind the scenes; I find it truly sickening.
I now have serious concerns over the fact he could very well be a serious infiltrator, especially when you consider he was raised by Marching Commies.
CONTINUED.......
Who the fuck would do such a thing and why !!, only the sort of worm I speak of above.
For now I am prepared to keep the rest to my self, I do not want to bring the Party into any further disrepute,it would not be good for any of us. GA has recently been mentioned and supported on the main BNP site , fuck me they will be sorry , I guarantee it !
Activists should tread careful with him and remember we are all Brothers , Warts an all and our aim is not for Glory or profit, but it is organised resistance against the State Machine..
Paul Morris (GA) thinly veiled premeditated slithering strategy to laughably divert attention from the BNP and the cause for his benefit will be completely excepted very shortly.
The only and most serious goal is to look after each other "selflessly" and be United in strength !!
T
These pederasts seem to feel that the strength of the child's consent is a simple function of the targetted child's arousal..
Similar to the zoophiliacs.
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm
And here they are.
P.S.
I always keep the very best till last.
But I must add, what never stops to amaze me, is that people think I have what I have and live like I do by accident.Duuuuuuuuuuuuurrrr
It hasnt even started warming up yet , I have talents in places that would be uncomrehendable to most , most Traitors like GA that is :O)
T
Extant. Thanks for that..interesting and obviously heartfelt.
respect.
Disappointing.....
Well articulated Lee.
Another thing that sets kids up for sexual deviance is the use of words like "fucking cunt" around them in society. These have never yet been the words in the vocabulary of the leadership class, and even the working class 50 years ago were very strict about not swearing "like a trooper" in the presence of women, children and polite company. The society where such language becomes commonplace is a society already in at least the shallow end of a sewer. How long until even our Prime Minister feels that he can use such language to put an extra nail in the coffin of our nation?
Lee you said, "the sexuality of any decent human being is irrelevant to their decency as a human being." - well by qualifying the statement and using "decent" that is self-fulfilling. But if you remove the first "decent" then there certainly IS a relevance...
Extant,
I am sorry that you have been let down mate.
They are mugs to treat true nationalists the way they have treated you.
Dear Buttercup, I think what we see with you is called wishful thinking.
Anyone who has studied the sick sub-cultures of many political queers, as I have in order to be able to speak authoratively on those sub-cultures, will know of such things.
One must educate ones self on such issues as the true nature of Political Queers, if one is to be a true politician and propagandist against them.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
These are good comments and responses
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given
a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is
saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and
partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.
Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I
hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.
Peter Tatchell writes:
The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.
Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the
Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their
crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.
My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my
friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but
who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint
but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the
mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for
their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we
should respect that (while also recognising that many people are
harmed by early sexual experiences).
My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.
Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:
Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html
You can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse his
first priority.
he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.
See this Guardian article, published in September last year:
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html
It is true that I support reducing the legal consent age to 14. But I
support 14 in order to end the criminalisation of the many young
people who have sexual contact with each other from this age onwards.
More than half of all British teenagers have their first sexual
experience (not necessarily full intercourse) at around the age of 14.
I do not advocate them having sex at this early age. It is best if
they wait. But I don’t think that consenting 14 years olds should be
dragged to court and threatened with prison. I certainly do not
endorse adults having sex with young people aged 14.
My critics also cite an interview / article I did with 14 year old Lee
in the late 1990s where he said that he had sex with adults when he
was a child and that he does not feel that he was abused.
This was a journalistic piece designed to let him have his say and,
through him, to give a glimpse into what many young people think about
the age of consent and its pitfalls. My critics seem to believe that
young people's opinions should not be heard if they disagree with
their moral perspectives. I call that censorship.
In the interview with Lee, I nevertheless challenged his view in
various ways, including making these points:
“How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?
“Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most
young people are not so sophisticated about sex.
“Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between
a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily
manipulated and exploited.
“Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will
expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry?
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given
a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is
saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and
partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.
Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I
hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.
Peter Tatchell writes:
The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.
Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the
Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their
crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.
My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my
friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but
who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint
but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the
mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for
their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we
should respect that (while also recognising that many people are
harmed by early sexual experiences).
My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.
Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:
Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html
You can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse his
first priority.
he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.
See this Guardian article, published in September last year:
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html
My critics also cite an interview / article I did with 14 year old Lee
in the late 1990s where he said that he had sex with adults when he
was a child and that he does not feel that he was abused.
This was a journalistic piece designed to let him have his say and,
through him, to give a glimpse into what many young people think about
the age of consent and its pitfalls. My critics seem to believe that
young people's opinions should not be heard if they disagree with
their moral perspectives. I call that censorship.
In the interview with Lee, I nevertheless challenged his view in
various ways, including making these points:
“How can a young child understand sex and give meaningful consent?
“Perhaps your friends were particularly mature for their age. Most
young people are not so sophisticated about sex.
“Many people worry that the power imbalance in a relationship between
a youth and an adult means the younger person can be easily
manipulated and exploited.
“Many people fear that making sex easier for under-age teenagers will
expose them to dangers like HIV. Isn't that a legitimate worry?
I can understand that some people are concerned by certain of Peter
Tatchell's writings on under-age sex. But I don't think you have given
a fair and accurate picture of what Tatchell is saying and why he is
saying it. The quotes you cite from Tatchell are too selective and
partial. You quote too many of his words out of context.
Tatchell offers a different explanation, which I am posting below. I
hope you might engage with what he is actually saying.
Peter Tatchell writes:
The idea that I advocate paedophilia is laughable, sick, untrue and defamatory.
Unlike many Catholic clergy, I have never abused anyone. Unlike the
Pope, I have never failed to report abusers or covered up their
crimes. I do not support sex with children. Full stop.
My Guardian letter cited examples of Papuan tribes and some of my
friends who had sex with adults while they were still children, but
who do not feel they were harmed. I was not endorsing their viewpoint
but merely stating that they had a different perspective from the
mainstream one about inter-generational sex. They have every right for
their perspective to be heard. If they say they were not harmed, we
should respect that (while also recognising that many people are
harmed by early sexual experiences).
My Guardian letter did say very clearly that paedophilia is
"impossible" to condone - meaning that I don't condone it.
Here's an example of what he wrote in the Irish Independent last year:
Irish Independent – 10 March 2008
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/lowering-the-unrealistic-age-of-consent-will-help-teens-1312148.html
You can see that he made protecting young people against sex abuse his
first priority.
he has said similar things in many other articles and interviews.
See this Guardian article, published in September last year:
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/dontcriminaliseyoungsex.html
Would trust Tatchell no further than I could throw him. I don't want to dignify his 26 June 1997 letter by posting it but you can read it in full at the bottom of this page:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/
When challenged, he pretended he was merely drawing attention to the views of another pro-paedophile advocate. Yet he clearly condones paedophilia himself in his own penultimate paragraph.
I feel sorry for the decent-minded gay people he's using to promote his sick views. He doesn't speak for them.
I'm gay, & I agree 100% with your views on Peter Tatchell. The man is nothing less than scum.
Post a Comment