Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Campaign for Homosexual Equality disaffiliated from Liberty

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “We urge the government to introduce a Statute of Limitation which would debar any criminal prosecution in respect of alleged child abuse unless the matter was brought to the attention of the police within five years of the complainant reaching the age of majority.”

    If I’m reading this correctly, this would mean that the ‘gay’ group wants a 5 year limit on the time that one can report an abuser?

    What rubbish! Why would anyone want that, really???

    There’s nothing to gain!

    This only serves to tar homosexual males with a very, very, bad brush!

    I’m astonished! >:(

  2. Mihangel apYrs 16 Jul 2009, 6:19pm

    regardless of the merits of the case, I’m concerned that Liberty is unwilling to debate this and expel a long-standing affiliate. It’s the sort of reaction one would expect from authoritarians: “we are right because we are”.

    Once a subject can’t be debated, it can’t be resolved

  3. What where the CHE thinking no time limit should exist in any kind of abuse case.

    This is about supporting the victims of abuse who should have all the rights not the perpetrators.

    SHAME ON THE CHE.

  4. It seems very odd that Liberty should try to stifle debate, particularly on an issue such this.

    There are various interpretations on how or even whether a “Statute of limitations” should apply in different legal systems and the denial of debate is a surprise.

    Can we assume that Liberty forbids it’s affiliates from discussing other issues?

    Does anyone know of any other group that has received similar treatment.

  5. Sister Mary Clarence 17 Jul 2009, 8:41am

    I can’t understand the CHE’s motion for a five year limit on reporting. As I’m typing this I can’t actually believe it’s as simple as that, but I’m going to have to have a dig around a little bit later to seem what they’re actually talking about.

    Often young children growing up in an abusive home don’t actually realise they have been abused because of their age for example, we hear cases of babies being abused, and to say that they have 5 years to complain is stupid. In other situations complaints are made to the wrong place of covered up.

    If it is true, what are they thinking of?

  6. “It seems very odd that Liberty should try to stifle debate, particularly on an issue such this”

    Because there is NO debate dude, there’s nothing to debate here! Child abuse is a disgrace and I don’t care if one of the abusers is only jailed when he’s 80, that little girl/boy he abused years ago has lived with a life sentence.

    There is absoloutely NOTHING to debate, to say so would be like, “Hmmm well everything should be up for debate, how about time limits on rapes and murders?” – Nope, don’t think so.

    It’s just not feesable and there is nothing to gain from it.

    Why do some people on here feel the need to defend anything that’s remotely ‘gay’. I for one, as a gay woman, am ashamed of this organisations’ actions on this issue.

  7. Whilst I disagree with a five year limit, I do agree with CHE reasoning behind it.

    One only has to look at the impact & affect of false allegation upon the lives of those falsely accused of ‘rape’ to realise (given the still grossly homophobic nature of our judicary), that a gay person before the courts accused of any ancient alleged offence would be biased against greatly in the current hysteria.

    …And yes there are many cases of false allegation which are ecconomically motivated by the substancial fincial gains to be made by ‘victim compensation’. A person falsely accused does NOT have to be convicted of an offence, only charged for the ‘so-called’ offence for the false alleger (so-called rape victim’)to recieve compensation.

    This is a mine field, but CHE are right in their reasoning that gay people would/will not be treated fairly…unless you believe with the massive increase in documented homophobic hate crime in the UK, that there suddenly isn’t still a deeply underlieing homophobic problem in this country…not least within police forces & the judicary…which are still bastions of Homophobia.

  8. Anon-

    How many of these cases are truly fraudulent?

    How many are fraudulent compared to actual cases of abuse?

    This is the type of scare-mongering akin to rape cases wherein newspapers like the Daily Mail publish a ‘false rape’ claim nearly every week yet refuse to report on the hundreds of thousands (yes hundreds of thousands!) of true rape cases; hence re-enforcing the notion that many women are liars and are just in it for the money when this is simply not the case. The conviction rate of rapes is at just 6% due to a culture of disbelieving police.

    What CHE are proposing would do the same thing. I realise you don’t agree with the ‘time limit’, but this is the crux of their proposal.

    And if you look on ‘gaymonitor dot co dot uk’ you will see the founder of CHE has wrote an article called ‘sex with boys’ which I find very disturbing, here are some snippets of it:

    “It was naive. I suppose, to think with a relaxation of some laws against male homosexual behaviour, there would be an accompanying general tolerance of the “funny little ways” men and boys get up to with each other. That the law would get out of the bedroom where no one was hurt, frightened and no one was forced.”

    ‘Funny little ways men and boys get up to’-Oh please, why a grown man would want an under-age boy is beyond me!

    “Why are we picked on?” the victims berate us. “I wouldn’t be prosecuted if it were me and a lass?” No.
    “Because it’s male gay sex, I’m being done: ruined. Were I a lesbian, there could be no charge.”

    Wrong on all counts. The age of consent is the same.

    So you see, the motives behind this are, in my view, very disturbing. I don’t want gay organisations to go down the ‘NAMBLA route’ as seen some time ago in the States.

    If I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, anyone feel free to correct me, but alas I don’t think I have.

  9. Lezabella -

    agreed! It makes puts the whole question of a time limit on reporting abuse in a new light. Presumbably CHE don’t want any 14 year olds they took advantage of reporting abuse when they turn 21 and get enough courage to tell someone.

    Only thing is they’re not alone. Peter Tatchell (and I think Outrage) want the age of consent lowered to 14 which would have the same effect.

  10. just one thing that people seem to have missed – the motion called for the time limit to apply five years after the complainant reaches the age of majority (18), ie when they turn 23. NOT five years after the alleged abuse took place.

    but either way i don’t think this is a good idea – it is certainly possible that someone could make up a false claim of historical abuse, but people can and do repress memories of this kind of thing, and even if they don’t it can take a hell of a lot of courage to report.

    surely it’s better to try to tackle the sort of underlying homophobia and confusion that might cause a jury to be more likely to convict an innocent homosexual man of abusing a boy, rather than introducing a motion such as this which can only conflate homosexuality and paedophilia even more in the eyes of the sections of the public that already inclined to make that connection.

  11. Sister Mary Clarence 19 Jul 2009, 3:51pm

    Homophobia and paedophilia are tow completely different things. Why the CHE is getting involved in anything to do with child abuse is beyond me. How is the rest of society expected to break the phychological link between the two if the gay community perpetually tries to link them back together again.

    I am glad that Liberty have given them to boot, maybe it will be a bit of a wake up call for them. I obviously support equality for homosexuals. I do not support kiddie fiddlers getting off because of a loophole in the law.

    Naive little twats what to thinmk a bit more about what they’re doi

  12. A comment was: Whilst I disagree with a five year limit, I do agree with CHE reasoning behind it.

    One only has to look at the impact & affect of false allegation upon the lives of those falsely accused of ‘rape’ to realise (given the still grossly homophobic nature of our judicary), that a gay person before the courts accused of any ancient alleged offence would be biased against greatly in the current hysteria.”

    I take huge offence at this.

    I am now 38 years old and over the last couple of years, images of Child Sex Abuse have been coming forward and I’ve had to deal with them and how it’s affected me.

    These images were due to child sex abuse by the father of the Church I used to attend. Whilst I am not after recompense or anything else, I do feel that those who have also been affected should have that right.

    As said – SHAME ON THE CHE.

    regards

  13. Dear All – following my posting earlier – this is the email I’ve just sent to CHE:

    “Dear CHE

    I am horrified to learn that you are wanting to limit the amount of time to bring a case of child sex abuse to only 5 years after the ‘victim’ becomes of age.

    I was subjected to child sex abuse when I was younger by the Father of the Church that I attended, and it’s only now, at the age of 38, that these images are now coming to the fore of my memories.

    They were buried and pushed aside for years until a couple of years ago and since last year I’ve been attending Counselling to reconcile these images.

    I feel it devalues the work of the CHE by asking for this limitation and certainly brings no understanding of what it means to have been subjected to such accounts when one was younger and not strong enough to deal with it until later in life.

    I am certainly not of the ‘compensation culture’, however I feel that by partnering the work of the CHE and that of those who commit such heinous sexual crimes, you are doing a dis-service to those who have been affected and supporting those who commit these types of crimes.

    I ask you at CHE to delete this demand so that you can work together with Liberty and move forward to ensure that the work that CHE has done over the years is now not damaged.

    regards
    RJ”

  14. It is such a shame that despite emailing CHE regarding this article, I’ve still to receive a response. Will keep waiting and see how long it takes . . .

  15. Well, despite emailing CHE – I’ve still to receive a response. I’ll wait and see how long it takes before I actually get one . . .

  16. Hey . . . . am STILL waiting for a response !!!

    RJ

  17. and STILL waiting for a response . . . .

  18. CHE have done a lot of work around this issue and perhaps a little research would help. False allegations do happen and ruin lives, all it takes is the word of one person with an agenda such as malice, revenge or disavowal and you have a case. Gay men should recognise the very great risk this causes.

    Jury’s, infected with this countries crazy child protection mantra will often convict on little or no evidence. Some of us have been their. Without the help of CHE we would not be alive. This is not about covering up abuse, it is about ensuring justice for all. If accused after many years, as is often the case, you will end up having to prove you did not do it.

    Your defense will be “it never happened” and that is no defense at all. Witness the jersey abuse case. Few prosecutions with one of them being for a sex act between a then 13 year old and a 12 year old some 30 years ago. What is the point of that.

    The most dangerous cases are by far those of now heterosexual men who “dabbled” consensually with an older mate and come screaming about it later.

    It is important to remember that the age of consent has not been the same, first 21 then 18. Those older men who broke this unjust law (and rightly so) then discover years later that their 16 year old lover then returns massaging dates so that what actually happened when someone was 17 suddenly occurred when they were 15 as the age of consent is now 16 and thats the only way they can win and receive compensation.

    In one case a boyfriend of 9 years who was 29, accused his then boyfriend of abuse as he had now met a woman and realised he was not gay. The boyfriend could not prove the lies and went to jail. Interestingly both his accuser and his future wife had started working at a social services centre where they received training on how to spot abuse two weeks before the allegations!

    I repeat this is not to minimise the experiences of anyone who has been abused, it is about recognising that despite the laws in regards to consent, young people have always experimented with other folk, older and younger, and that is unlikely to change. The differentiation between this kind of consensual (in reality, not legally) activity reframed years later to appear as it was not and the actual, ongoing, often sadistic and power based abuse some here describe is a differentiation that should be made.

    The statute should exist because you cannot sacrifice the innocent to get the guilty.

    I have often wondered, why no men suddenly start screaming abuse for the 25 year old women who slept with them when the were 15, odd that, or just plain old fashioned cultural homophobia?

    Thanks for taking the time to read this.

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