Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Former head of gay charity guilty of sex attacks on children

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Throw away the key. I hope they rot.

  2. Self-righteousness is all very well (and the gay community has grown very good at it). A better question is: is the prevalent attitude towards child sexuality and towards paedophilia generally successfully protecting children? I think that at present it clearly is not. But it is always easier to suggest that people should be locked up than it is to seriously question the social attitudes at the heart of the problem.

  3. I couldn’t give a f**k about prevalent attitudes in this case. We’re talking about scum people offering best friends’ young kids for sex. actually, never mind throwing away the key, just shoot them.

  4. Well said, AdrianT…

    Some of these acts were so beyond any sane person’s incomprehension and disgust that I think bringing back hanging for these kinds of crimes against pre-adolescent children might actually act as a deterrent for all but the most psychotic of these criminals. Their crimes are vile beyond words.

  5. Simon Murphy 8 May 2009, 12:50am

    No 2 rjb: you say:

    “A better question is: is the prevalent attitude towards child sexuality and towards paedophilia generally successfully protecting children? ”

    Possibly not.

    But it’s an irrelavant question when the abuse began when the child was only 3 months old. That is simply evil. Full stop.

  6. Mihangel apYrs 8 May 2009, 8:46am

    We have to try and view this dispassionately, otherwise we follow the fundamentalists who condemn just because they disapprove.

    Putting aside the visceral contempt for people who abuse trust, friendship, and innocence, we must pick out the “why”. In my opinion there are a number of “whys”:

    – children under certain ages cannot give informed consent, they don’t know the implications of their decisions;

    – children are weaker, and trusting, and can thus be exploited by those who should protect them;

    – there can be longterm psychological damage to a child eho has been exposed to premature sexualisation, and abuse of trust.

    There are probably other objective reasons, but we must maintain objectivity rather than a gut revulsion, otherwise there is no reason why others can’t apply the same standards to us, queers.

  7. Sister Mary Clarence 8 May 2009, 10:29am

    You’re absolutely right rjb, you and I will both be voting for castration in future then I take it.

    I also don’t think its particularly helpful members of our own community in anyway connecting paedophilia with homosexuality, they are not and we should remain firm on that point.

  8. The disposition of homosexuality to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature, so this should come as no surprise.

    In fact, the surprise is that more incidents of child molestation by homosexuals remains hidden.

  9. Abi Chrisopher 8 May 2009, 12:49pm

    More abuse happens from family members and members of the church than by homosexuals. Paedophiles exist in all walks of life they are parasites.

    The disposition of the christian church to paedophilia is well established in scientific literature and many many court cases and weekly if not daily reports in the media.

  10. Leon K Fox 8 May 2009, 12:51pm

    Gay or straight, a pedophile is a pedophile.

  11. @ Vee

    Your comment might also have been paraphrased:

    The disposition of Catholic clergy to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature, so this should come as no surprise.

    In fact, the surprise is that more incidents of child molestation by Catholic clergy remains hidden

  12. Chris O'Brien 8 May 2009, 1:44pm

    As sickening as this is (it is is abhorrent), I just want to comment about how this is being reported today in The Sun (or at least the Scottish edition). I expected there to be mentions of the fact several of the men involved identify as gay, but there is a very strong current of homophobia running through the various stories they have published today. Reading it, I definitely think there was a conscious editorial decision to try and link homosexuality and paedophilia in readers’ minds.

  13. Chris O'Brien 8 May 2009, 1:45pm

    As sickening as this is (it is is abhorrent), I just want to comment about how this is being reported today in The Sun (or at least the Scottish edition). I expected there to be mentions of the fact several of the men involved identify as gay, but there is a very strong current of homophobia running through the various stories they have published today. Reading it, I definitely think there was a conscious editorial decision to try and link homosexuality and paedophilia in readers’ minds.

  14. Vee wrote (Comment 8): “The disposition of homosexuality to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature, so this should come as no surprise. In fact, the surprise is that more incidents of child molestation by homosexuals remains hidden.”

    I BEG YOUR BLOODY PARDON???????

    “The disposition of homosexuality to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature . . . “

    What the hell is this ignorantly-put claim supposed to mean? One can only presume that you, “Vee”, are meaning to state that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia and this is attested to in scientific literature”.

    Please publish below, you vile lying bigoted SHIT, the complete bibliography of scientific literature which you have claimed “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”.

    PUBLISH IT HERE!

    And if you do not, because you CANNOT, then go away and cut your damned throat!

    How DARE you!

    What you have written is incitement to hatred of gays and lesbians everywhere on the planet.

    I have NO “disposition” to paedophilia, thank you very much.

    My life-partner has no “disposition” to paedophilia.

    I have many many gay and lesbian friends and not one of them has your so-called “disposition” to paedophilia.

    So, we all now await your exhaustive list of sound scientific references, to be published here below.

    —————————————-

    It is a GREAT pity that a former head of “LGBT Youth Scotland” has been found to have been involved in paedophilia. As evidenced by the fatuous statement of “Vee”, above, this announcement in the media can only cause a surge in homophobia on the part of those people ever eager for an opportunity to tar all gays and lesbians as evil.

    Homosexual people have no more “disposition” to abuse children than heterosexual people have.

  15. @ Mihangel apYrs

    With all due respect, I think most of us already know the reasons why it’s not good to rape three-month-old babies.

    Some of us, however, have friends snd acquaintances who have suffered the devastation of childhood sexual abuse. They had to live with the tormenting knowledge that their violator was again, or still, at large and only really began to find relief when the perpetrator was dead.

    For the victim’s sakes, then, these crimes need to be punished much more severely than the often currently are.

  16. Mihangel apYrs 8 May 2009, 2:23pm

    @Rob Fox – I wasn’t trying to diminish the damage and pain, I was trying to point out that the gut reaction is dangerous for everyone not immediately connected with the case because it plays into the hands of those who would destroy us. We have to have laws against objective harm rather than the “it disgusts/angers me” reaction that many homophobes use against us. I know if someone I loved and who looked to me for protection was so abused I would be murderous, but we don’t allow the victims and their families to sit in judgement

    Child-rapers receive no sympathy from me, but we must sentence to punish, to deter, and try to re-habilitate the criminal and victim

  17. @ Eddy

    I have the feeling that Vee, Reality Check, David Skinner, and some of the other bigoted trolls are all the same creepy individual.

    If not, then they’re just different ugly heads of the same ghastly Hydra known as fundamentalist Christinsanity!

  18. Jen Marcus 8 May 2009, 2:34pm

    “The disposition of homosexuality to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature” please state the source material for your quote Vee. Contrary to that assertion it is my understanding that 98% of heterosexual males are pedophiles. In any case, what these people did, and all other pedophiles do for that matter is/was despicable and only provides cannon fodder to the “right wingnut jobs” and religious homophobes in our midst making us out to be evil people not worthy of our human rights to say nothing of our very existence! These men are IDIOTS! They have potentially set our movement back another generation.

  19. Rob Fox, yep, you could well be right. “Vee”, “Reality Check”, “David Skinner”, “Louise”, “Paul Brownlys”, and some others are most probably all, as you put it, the same creepy individual. My attitude to them is to STAMP on them immediately, challenging them and revealing how fatuous they are, and then just keep repeating (briefly) the same challenge whenever they appear . . . till they answer it. Which they never can. :-) Delusionals can be very bright but at the end of the day they are severely intellectually compromised.

  20. Pinkwinkle 8 May 2009, 3:02pm

    OH MY GOD. Firstly, I can not believe that I have just read that someone has actaully written, “The disposition of homosexuality to paedophilia is well established in the scientific literature”. Where the hell did you get that from you absolute idiot? I work with children who have been abused and I have to say that my experince and therefore ‘research’ would suggest that most paedophiles are in fact straight men who are either in or known to the child’s family. But thanks for adding to the hate and vileness already out there. and linking sex crimes to sexuality is as shortsighted, bigoted and misrepresentative as saying all white people are racist. WHAT A TWAT. Secondly, thanks also (not) to James Rennie for further entrenching this totally shit view. Way to go!!

  21. dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178354/Gay-rights-campaigner-led-double-life-leader-paedophile-ring-carried-catalogue-child-abuse.html

    See how the Daily Mail have run the story. Rather than expressing the fact that the men are all paedophiles, and that there are 100s of heterosexual paedophiles in our jails already, the subtext of this article is: these abusers are all gay men.

    This is very bad news for gay men and women in this country. Hate to think what The Sun and The Express and the rest of the gutter-press have made of the story today.

  22. A very bad day for gay men. Why is it that when anything nasty like this happpens the whole gay ‘community’ is put on trial. Why are we not putting all Scots on trial? If they had been all red headed would we be putting all red heads on trial? Of course not. This is the sort of time we need Stonewall and other organisations to come out with some sensible line to counteract the hatred that will be stirred up.

  23. My, how we tread on eggshells!

    Consider history then?

    The origin of the term ‘homosexual’ is the obscure invention of a Hungarian-German writer named Karoly Maria Kertbeny in 1868. His aim was to remove the criminal association of such terms as sodomite, pederast and ‘knabenshander’ – a defiler of boys which at the time were still a criminal offence throughout Europe.

    .

  24. Next, consider science!

    Homosexual Alfred Kinsey’s study of the American male in 1948 found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

    In a major survey of 5,000 homosexual men in America in 1979, carried out by two gay activists – Professor Karla Jay and journalist Allen Young – which became known as The Gay Report was quickly absorbed into academic studies. They found that 23 percent of gay men admitted having sex with 13-15 year-old children. Indeed, 50 percent of the gay respondents had experienced their first sexual encounter at the age of 15 or less at the hands of predatory holder homosexuals.

    Of course, there’s much, much more!

  25. If this is true Vee I am shocked by this Kinsey studies. I used to get offended in Dublin when people shouted pedophile because I was crazy and gay. But this”prejudice” was in fact rooted in scientific fact. For the first time in my life I am experiencing self loathing due to my sexuality. We are the monsters the so called bigots always claimed.

  26. Sister Mary Clarence 8 May 2009, 4:58pm

    Vee, could you tell us how old these homosexuals were when they had sex with anyone under the age of 17. I don’t suppose they themselves would have in fact been under that age also?

  27. This “Vee” is just a twisted sick fool. I wonder if this “Vee” creatures has ever had sex itself. If it is healthy it will have had sex with another of its species of roughly the same age anytime from puberty onwards . . . which means that a twisted sick bigoted mind could accuse the “Vee” creature of being a paedophile.

    Delusionals have to learn to question the bad thoughts they have. They aren’t generally as frightening as they want to believe.

  28. Sister, you and I have made the same point? We agree? Are we friends then? :-)

  29. Sister Mary Clarence 8 May 2009, 5:07pm

    Also I note that marriage under the age of sixteen is permitted in a number of US States (Indiana, Michigan, Connecticut, Wyoming, Utah, South Carolina, Tennessee and Hawaii to name buty a view).

    One would assume that the marriage is consummated on or about the wedding night. This surely makes for a considerable number of paedophiles having sex with child spouses does it not?

    Do you for example consider a thirty year old in Hawaii marrying a 15 year old girl and having sex with her to be abusive?

  30. I would love to attack you Vee but OMG. But 23% of gay men had sex with 13 -15 year olds. That means 1 in 4 gay men are pedophiles. I am so shocked but dont lots of gay activists quote Kinsey when they talk about the number of homosexuals. This means a quarter of gay men should be behind bars. Or like some of your more militants on here think they should be hung high. I just cant believe this I thought that was just bigots talking but this is supported by the biggest sexual survey ever conducted in the U.S.This seems to be verified by scientific study and I have been really militant in saying to people this was just a myth. This is terrible and shocking.

  31. Another Christian crackpot quoting a survery that has zero significance from 30 years ago. Who cares it’s Friday!

  32. There is an interesting fact (and if you want me to dig up the references I shall do so) that states that a child and children have a 100 per cent chance of being mollested by a favourite uncle or family friend than by a gay man. Generally and certainly in the majority we gays are not paedophiles. Gay couples make very good parents and good au pairs with NO sexual undertones at all. The reason that we feel betrayed and ill at ease now is because we are fighting for equality in society on many fronts and unfortunately we are going to suffer a few minor setbacks through the stupid unthinking selfish action of some members in the gay community. This is bound to happen we are are not all perfect but we can at least try to be. Don’t let this incident get you down The fight goes on and let’s keep proud of who and what we are. But don’t let us make any more mistakes of this size, we are all in this battle for gay rights together.

  33. For those closet-queers hanging around these threads trying to stir things up by quoting The Kinsey Reports, here’s what the internationally respected British Medical Journal, The Lancet, said when reviewing Judith Reisman’s book “Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (1990)”:

    “Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports. . . The important allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children…The book goes beyond that, however, for Kinsey, et. al, questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behaviour. . . Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his former co-workers some explaining to do.”

    So fuck-off prats.

  34. #25 is hilarious! Thank you for the laugh! #32 Eddy is telling the truth about the Kinsey studies, which the christohet supremacists both quote and denounce depending on what they are trying to prove with them.

    Of course none of the numbers in the Kinsey reports, none of the statistics or percentages (and I’m not addressing anything else in the reports) can be applied to the public in general; except a small population of criminal and mentally ill people like those Kinsey had access to and interviewed for his studies and reports.

  35. Jim Burroway over at BoxTurtle did a good review of 1979’s “The Gay Report” and its uselessness from day one. January 9, 2006, revised October 15, 2006.

    “The Gay Report” always was useless except for the self-titillation of the 1% who filled out and returned the enormous questionnaire, and the self-titillation of anti-gay crotch-faced creeps like Peter LaBarbera.

  36. Vee wrote
    “Next, consider science!
    Homosexual Alfred Kinsey’s study of the American male in 1948 found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.
    In a major survey of 5,000 homosexual men in America in 1979, carried out by two gay activists – Professor Karla Jay and journalist Allen Young – which became known as The Gay Report was quickly absorbed into academic studies. They found that 23 percent of gay men admitted having sex with 13-15 year-old children. Indeed, 50 percent of the gay respondents had experienced their first sexual encounter at the age of 15 or less at the hands of predatory holder homosexuals.
    Of course, there’s much, much more!”

    Yes Vee there is much more I agree . . . and it is interesting how you desseminated and why you have only choosen some aspects of Kinsey’s work

    1.Ignoring the context and age ranges of underage sexual activites
    2.Ignoring statistics with regards to Hetetrosexual under age sexual activites
    3.Ignoring modern sexology, sexuality and gender studies and more upto date research as well . . . very interesting.

    Modern thinking is that Pedophiles are both homo and heterosexually orientated.

    Vee you do not seem to know much about human sexuality
    Vee are you a fundamentalist christian?
    Vee do you generally go around inciting homophobic hatered.

  37. Sister Mary Clarence 9 May 2009, 2:20am

    Friends on this one maybe then Eddy – the twats are out in force here, so might be best to concentrate our energies on them.

  38. Sister Mary Clarence 9 May 2009, 2:21am

    In answer to your question John K – my guess is, yes he does.

  39. In Comment 14 (above) Eddy said to “Vee”:

    ‘Please publish below, you vile lying bigoted SHIT, the complete bibliography of scientific literature which you have claimed “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”.’

    Please note everybody that twisted contorted screwed-up little “Vee” HAS been back to this thread SINCE (see Comment 24) but that “Vee” has FAILED to publish here his/her complete bibliography of scientific literature which “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”.

    “Vee” is a sad internet troll. I suggest that every time it/him/her posts anything here simply follow the posting with the message:

    “Vee” is a sad internet troll.

    The vapid watery “Vee” is now likely to shape-shift into a homeless roaming creature of yet another name.

  40. Sister Mary clarence . . . thanks for that.

    As I suspected then with regards to Vee

  41. . . . and hours later “Vee” has still not published here his/her complete bibliography of scientific literature which “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”.

  42. Isn’t it funny how we all react to people like Vee? Must give them a great satisfaction to stoke self-doubt and be homophobic all at the same time. I would avoid reacting to obvious prejudice.

    Anyway, this is a horrible story, but it speaks more about the need to vet those who work with children so much more thoroughly. This guy must work with others who knew he was a bit suspect, so why didn’t they inform someone? That is the bigger question I feel. If I met him and had the first whiff of what he was up to I would tip off the services.

    How did they manage to do this in the first place? Vile. Perhaps there are different levels of paedophiles, surely these guys are at the most extreme end. It’s actually unimaginable how a 3 month old child could be a sexual object. Incomprehensible.

    One thing is for sure, these types are strangely self-destructive. They know it’s wrong, but they can’t stop themselves and seek help – see his last quote “… I knew this day was coming”. How on earth can a non-paedophile ever understand this wretched compulsion?

    Psychologists have much work to do to uncover what drives offenders like Rennie to do what he did in the first place.

  43. Dan Wrote:
    “Isn’t it funny how we all react to people like Vee? Must give them a great satisfaction to stoke self-doubt and be homophobic all at the same time. I would avoid reacting to obvious prejudice.”

    Not sure why you would avoid reacting to Vee’s obvious prejudice?

  44. Dan wrote: “How on earth can a non-paedophile ever understand this wretched compulsion?”

    Well, this gay non-paedophile certainly can’t . . . STILL . . . after many years of friendship with a very fine heterosexual human being who is now 60 and still single and who since his 20s has been aware of an overpowering attraction to young women in the 15 to 20 years age-bracket. He is a person of exceptional moral values. He has worked as a social worker and in other pastoral capacities BECAUSE it is part of his very fine nature TO CARE for the young AND everybody. What he has always known is that if he were to give free reign to his talent for caring he would care to the degree of intimacy. This he has battled with continually. We have occasionally talked about this feeling within him and it is so akin to the priestly or pastoral “caringness” promoted by the churches that we have considered that it may well spring from what was engendered in him as a child by his religious instructors: that to care and sacrifice yourself for the good of others is the highest vocation of a human being. It’s almost akin to a martyr complex. It has mental masochistic elements to it. (“For you, Jesus, and you alone, I give everything I am and can be” sort of thing.)

    As I say, this is as close as we have come to analysing the source of his love of much younger women. Some years ago he believed he had at last found love. She was 17. He was about 50. He was finally happy and fulfilled, largely because he was able to lavish care upon her. She had had a wretched upbringing at the hands of her family. Unfortunately she only needed his extraordinary caringness and after two years he had helped her into a healthier state of mind from which she then wished to launch out on life as a fairly ordinary young woman hoping for a man of roughly the same age as herself. Of course, with love he let her go and was glad to see her happy, though at the same time he felt desolate and does still.

    Anyway, what transpires from remembering this case with which I am fairly intimately familiar is that this is a case which reminds us of what can perhaps be called “true paedophilia” – an inclination to love much younger people than oneself in a virtuous manner. The “paedophilia” of these eight individuals in Scotland is one of destructiveness and abuse. There was no “philia” in it at all it seems, except “love of horrifically abusing the young”.

    Lastly, I must echo John K’s wise observation: why, Dan, would you avoid reacting to Vee’s obvious prejudice? (And we note that “Vee” has still not published here her bibliography of scientific proof which “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”. Are you completely unable to do so, “Vee”?)

  45. Brian Burton 10 May 2009, 5:49pm

    No matter how much we all natter and chatter and twist ourselves into contortions over paedophilia. This has been happening to children since at least Roman times that I can think of. No one has the right to take away a child’s childhood. So keep on locking the offenders up.

  46. . . . and hours later “Vee” has still not published here his/her complete bibliography of scientific literature which “establishes” that “Homosexuals have a disposition to paedophilia”.

    I wonder if “Vee” and “SMC” are one and the same? Both seem to like to cite umpteen studies to support their claims but then fail to publish a list of them.

  47. Sister Mary Clarence 13 May 2009, 9:15am

    Well Eddy, not that I want to defend Vee, but having ‘published’ the first piece of evidence in defense of my position you upped and left the thread apparently not wishing to discuss it any more.

    So, if you have a few minutes (and you do seem to be finding a fair bit of time for the site in general), maybe you could go back to it and tell me why there is such a difference between the Gallup Coexist poll (which you appear to believe proves your point that every last Muslim on the planet is devil spawn) compared to the poll of British born Muslims that actually shows that tolerance and integration levels are massively higher). As I have made very clear, I will provide more evidence, once we have looked at this, but there seems little point in moving off the first once, if as I suspect, I’m utterly wasting my time on someone who actually has no real idea what they are taking about, but likes the sound of their own voice.

  48. NOTE WELL, anyone reading the above piece of garbage from the self-styled “Sister Mary Clarence” (who is actually a seriously screwed-up individual), please visit the Comments at
    pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-12321.html#
    and read my final post in that thread. (SMC, completely unsupported by an Muslim body in the United Kingdom, refutes the results of the international Gallup-Coexist poll of last week concerning the intolerance of the general UK Muslim population towards homosexuality.)

  49. “SMC, completely unsupported by any Muslim body in the United Kingdom, refutes the results of the international Gallup-Coexist poll of last week concerning the intolerance of the general UK Muslim population towards homosexuality.”

  50. Actually, Vee is incorrect…. well, tell is something we don’t already know.

    But in actuality, the results of “37%” is men who had at least one homosexual experience, not with under-age people like you said. If you’re going to quote science to a scientist, please have the intellect to do your research.

    And this study is well out of date. In reference to this study, the main criticisms pertain to sample selection and sample bias. Two main problems identified were that a significant portions of the samples come from prison populations and male prostitutes, and that people who volunteer to be interviewed about taboo subject are likely to suffer from the problem of self-selection, both of which undermine the usefulness of the sample in terms of determining the tendencies of the overall population.

    In short, the results are not considered entirely reliable by the scientific community, and modern research has eclipsed this study.

    That, Vee, is science. Real science. Not your biased homophobic view of pseudo-science…. your biased “christian science” is a oxymoron.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all