Reader comments · David Cameron: Abuse scandal could turn into a gay ‘witch-hunt’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


David Cameron: Abuse scandal could turn into a gay ‘witch-hunt’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I don’t think its advisable to link paedophilia with gay people as David Cameron appears to be doing. I cannot understand why he drew this comparison. There is no more link to homosexuals than there is to hererosexuals. We all have a sexuality- but paedophilia is not linked to any particular one more than any other. Whats going on?

    1. Read the article John, David Cameron isn’t comparing paedophilia with being gay, he’s warning others not to do it as Philip Schofield did when he looked up those names on the internet, wrote them on paper and accused them of being paedophiles. DC is actually behaving sensibly here when he tells people to go to police rather than smear people without proof and insult a lot of gay people in the process.

      Philip Schofield should be sacked for this stunt, especially as these people had no way to defend themselves from the accusations made on tv and because two names were visible

      1. Why did Cameron even mention a gay witch-hunt then?

        1. I cannot believe I am saying this but Cameron is absolutely right in what he said. In fact he himself is not the one to first link being gay with paedophilia, but warning against people making that association themselves. Specifically, one of the cases being Sir Peter Morrisson, who people have been accusing as a paedophile. The Prime Minister will be aware of this, and have known of the accusations made by Edwina Currie, about how Morrisson had sex with boys at the age of 16 years of age in the 1980s. Now while this would have most definitely been considered as paedophilia during that time, but now that the equal age of consent is down to 16, he would have legally been fine doing what he is accused of doing. Now here we enter the legal grey area of whether we hold people to account of what was illegal in the past and what is illegal now. To be honest of course, he should not be accused of being a paedophile or even be mentioned, if we are referring to the legal position of today.

          1. To continue my post above, we would not think about charging or accusing people, according to the laws of the past. Otherwise what most gay men are doing would be considered illegal and sodomy, according to the laws of the 1950s. We should not be accusing people, framing it in terms of past laws. To do otherwise is deeply irresponsible. So to return to David Cameron, I believe that he was warning against how homosexuality and paedophilia should not be associated, and how even if is not done explicitly, we often do so. As in the case of Edwina Currie, such an association is not often made truly explicitly, but yet we hold gay men in more contempt and moral outrage with paedophilia than with straight people, and even though something is not illegal now, it seems fair game to insinuate against gay people. The problem is that by warning against it, David Cameron has provided a soundbite that will be taken out of context, but in actual fact he was arguing a salient point.

          2. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 5:26pm

            I do wonder what the definition of ‘paedophile’ is supposed to be these days. Once a sick, paedo kiddie-fiddler, always a sick, paedo kiddie-fiddler, until they lower the age of consent and suddenly one has always been normal?

          3. @Harlequin. True and very solid point. This is what happens when our legal framework does not necessarily equate to the moral codes of the day. However, I would argue that in such a case, we cannot call anyone who has or did have sex at the age of 16, seen through a current modern viewfinder as a paedophile. This is especially because of the fact that this has been the main internationally recognised age when a child becomes a sexually aware and responsible adult. However this is not to change in the future. However, while it is absolute that someone is a paedophile when the child is under I would say 14 years of age, it shows how the term is itself relative, in ages above that, such as in circumstances when a 17 year old sleeps with a 15 year old, you cannot call the 17 year old a paedophile. But then the thing is our relative viewfinders do find a 50 year old man with a 16 year old man to have a twinge of paedophilia about it, compared to if the person were only two years older.

          4. In my above post, I miswrote some sentences. It meant to read as ‘However, I would argue that in such a case, we cannot call anyone legally, who has or did have sex with someone of the age of 16, seen through a current modern viewfinder, as a paedophile.’ and, ‘However this is not to say the age of consent will not change in the future.’

          5. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 6:59pm

            I’m reminded of

            Creepiness is sexual involvement with anyone under (age / 2) + 7.

          6. @Bi-as, actually it isn’t absolute that someone who has sex with someone under 14 is a paedophile, as the proper definition of “paedophile” is someone who sexually abuses *pre*-pubescent children, so, 10 is about the upper limit there. If they’re pubescent children, then they’re not a paedophile and the proper term is “hebephile”. This purely relates to the proper usage of words, though – I’m by no means saying that hebephilia is morally acceptable, I’m just a bit of a stickler for correct language, the type of person who finds it somewhat grating when a person says “could care less” or similar :)

      2. It is time society had this discussion as there is so much confusion and the dangerous myth contunues to be perpetuated that those that abuse children and young people are really gay. The first thing we all need to get is what pedophilia is i.e., it is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children (either female, male or both). So a person who has sexual interest in adolescents (postpubsecent) would not be a pedophile. They have been referred to as Hebephiles. What many people don’t understand is that people with such an attraction are likely not to be sexually attracted to adults. For those who are interested there is a description here

        1. I don’t know where you come from, but society has been discussing this for the last 2 thousand years at the least.

        2. Anti Widecome 11 Nov 2012, 6:47am

          Society mostly doesn’t understand paedophilia. Being the scientific type, I’ve read a few studies. There are a few facts that stand out:
          * 50% of paedophiles are “fixated”, which means they have no adult attractions

          * A preference to either gender of minors is not indicative at all of preference to adults, where one exists. Contrary to belief, there are disproportionately less paedophiles who are also gay adults. The idea that homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles is actually wrong, the opposite appears to be true

          * The differences in paedophiles brains from the normal are closely related to the differences in those of psychopaths. Whereas adult sexuality still remains largely a mystery. This could imply that attraction to minors is not the same as sexual attraction.

          As much as DC was trying to dissuade such associations, he ultimately made it worse by indicating a likelihood that people would go on a gay witch hunt with such news.

    2. Ben Foster 8 Nov 2012, 3:09pm

      He was telling people NOT to link gay with paedo. But it’s too late. I’ve already heard any number of people say it, not including that prat Jim Davidson

      1. By specifically mentioning gay, he has already provided a link to the ignorant english masses of backward conservatives, whether that was his attention or not, it is a very disturbing comment and one which will be used vehemently against the LGBT community .

        1. It may have repercussions that are beyond what he meant by them, but I do believe that David Cameron was only stating the truth and providing a warning. He cannot always understand on the spur of the moment how other people might take his words out of contet, but in this case he was telling the truth. And whatever happens, we should always be proud of our polititains telling the truth, even if him doing so is skewed by others. But in this case, we as a gay community should be strong enough to hold the fort, know in our hearts and minds that Cameron is with us in this, and deal with the real bigots who continue to slur and associate these two distinctly separate things. It is a shame, but in our world these things happen, and it would be wrong for us to lay the blame on the someone who is in actual fact, in this instance just trying to be the gay community’s ally.

          1. You are completely delusional and an obvious tory enabler if you believe “cameron is with us in this”. As a PR careered politician, cameron should be aware of what he is saying ,and the consequences of how it will be perceived.

          2. I am sorry to say Rapture that I am a through and through labour supporter. But at the same time I am not so delusional as to believe that when someone is due some understanding, that they are to be vilified. To call me a Tory Enabler is total codswallop. I am looking at his statement that he made, in terms of as his position as Prime MInister of our country in trying to clear the air, rather than for political grandstanding for the sake of his own party. And also, despite the fact that he has been in PR for a huge significant portion of his life, do you really believe that people have true and utter prowess and possession over every word they utter that they are aware of how it will be construed or misconstrued in the future by other parties? You really believe that people are capable of that? While I am totally against most Tory policies, I can seperate that from my belief when someone is having his words misconstrued.

      2. No, he wasn’t. You’re wrong. Look at what he said. Listen to what he said. See the video.

        “a danger . . . this can turn into . . . a witch-hunt . . . against people who are gay”.

        Of course, there’s a danger of that. There are lots of other dangers that this important North Wales issue could “turn into”.

        Cameron made a big mistake by suggesting that investigating this issue could turn into (quote) a witch-hunt against people who are gay.

    3. damned filth 8 Nov 2012, 4:14pm

      It is probably because the allegations all stem form a boys’ home, not a girls’ home

      1. That There Other David 8 Nov 2012, 5:57pm

        Not really. One thing we’re learning from the Jimmy Savile story is that whilst he normally went after girls he’d also target young boys when he had access to them. The same thing has happened with a lot of the Catholic priests who have been convicted, in that they’ve abused the children they’ve had access to.

        Don’t try and put adult sexuality labels of any sort onto paedophiles is my advice. Whatever goes on in their heads seems to be more about control and opportunity than anything else. They’re primarily just rapists when it comes down to it.

    4. Considering the names and allegations that have popped up when I’ve just done a ‘3 minute cursory glance of the internet’ it would appear right that Cameron has said this. It would appear there’s a lot of talk of some Tories have sex with young men and them having to pay bribes to keep them/police quiet. These stories originate from the days of the age of 21 being the age of consent and mass homophobia – so paying people off to shut up back then is no evidence of paedophilia. The internet rumours are most likely idiots applying current conditions to past events and ending up with 2+2=5.

  2. What a disgusting and irresponsible thing for him to say. To start the witch hunt against ‘gay’ people, tell everyone that is what this will be. Has the Jimmy Saville pedo enquiry turned it into a witch hunt against ‘straights’? Has anyone even suggested that is what will happen? Have ‘gay’ people labelled all ‘straights’ as pedos?

    1. He himself did not start the witchhunt against gay people, or even stoke the fires. It is not his fault that his words have been warped by others. It would be impossible for Cameron to actually be able to edit his comments continually to such a degree that none of his comments could be taken and warped by any other party, and warped for their own use. Unfortunately that is the nature of language though.

      1. No one on this morning mentioned the word gay. Cameron did. Cameron used the word gay instead of pedo. Tory high ranking pedos. The fact that people are disgusted by my comment and not the prime minister equating being gay with pedos shows how stupid most people are who log onto this site. Or maybe tory HQ is marking everyone who is disgusted with cameron down. CAMERON NEEDS TO APOLOGISE. Being gay has nothing to do with being a pedo.

        1. That There Other David 8 Nov 2012, 6:05pm

          Cameron didn’t use the word gay instead of paedo. The Internet is currently full of unfounded paedophilia allegations being made against closet homosexual MPs from the past. Schofield was, very irresponsibly, stoking that particular fire, and all Cameron did was dismiss the link in an albeit clumsy way.

          If anyone should apologise IMO it should be the producers of This Morning. Their desire to get what they consider a juicy bit of gossip has led to this.

          1. No one mentioned the word gay before Cameron. Cameron could have said a witch hunt against pedos, but he didn’t. He said a witch hunt against gays. So therefore, he did use the word gay instead of pedo. If you think the PM was being clumsy, you’re being naive as you don’t know how prepared someone like the PM is for these kinds of interviews. But I agree, This Morning should apologise and schofield should be sacked for putting Cameron in that position and thinking that you can present a list of internet searched suspects to anyone for allegations as serious as this.

        2. @Mark Y. I think I have to disagree with you. In fact I believe it is you that are not taking a close enough look at this whole debacle. Why should Cameron also have said ‘paedo’ instead of ‘gay’, when the whole point is that Sir Peter Morrisson, who was one of the people who was accused would not be considered a ‘paedophile’ in our modern current legal system, for the boy he had sex with was 16, and yet he was most certainly gay and most likely had his name on that list. I agree with the fact that being gay has nothing to do with being a paedophile however. But one thing that also makes me hate the whole talk around this is when people sling around the word ‘paedo’ as well. Whenever people write ‘paedo’, it just makes me think of accusations rather than the problems at hand, and as a shorthand, just sounds like we are in the Daily Mirror and Sun territory and all rational thought gets lost.

          1. So you don’t like the word pedo being slung around but you don’t mind the word gay being slung around. Mmmmm. Why? The reason why word pedo should be used is because the issue is about child abuse. Do you see the link there? I also disagree with you. I don’t think Cameron had any need to mention anyone’s sexuality on this morning. No one else mentioned sexuality – it was only Cameron. I don’t think you are taking a close enough look and think you, and anyone who doesn’t think Cameron was wrong to bring up being gay in the interview are being naive.

          2. Mark Y – a witch hunt is where you accuse someone of being something purely because of something unrelated. Therefore a witch hunt against gay people is appropriate as there are people who say every gay person is a peado and therefore must all be punished. Don’t try and deny it we have seen it ourselves since the consultation started pinknews have published many stories of people saying it.

        3. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 7:15pm

          As fascinated as I am by how people grade comments here, I think conspiracy theories unnecessary. Personally, I have never voted Conservative in my life. I marked you down for your misrepresentation of what the Prime Minister said, your assumption of intellectual superiority over the majority of other readers and your apparent general paranoia.

    2. Oh, I think that’s rather harsh and unfair. He strikes me as being genuinely committed to equality. I don’t agree with his politics, but as a person I rather like him.

      1. I didn’t say I didn’t like him. I think it’s irresponsible for the PM on national TV to suggest that a pedo enquiry will turn into a gay witch hunt. Why mention the word gay?

    3. Rashid Karapiet 11 Nov 2012, 6:42pm

      The real scandal is that Cameron’s default position seems to be ‘paedophilia’ = homosexuality despite the avalanche of evidence that paedophiles appear mostly to be heterosexual. Perhaps Cameron’s Bullingdon days are casting long shadows. Hoas there been any kind of apology from Downing Street?

  3. Jimmy Savile; Gary Glitter; Freddie Starr; Leonard Rossiter are / were all straight.

    These are the most high profile suspects.

    I have not seen any evidence of a witch-hunt against gay people.

    Cameron is the 1st to mention it.

    I wonder if he is trying to encourage a witch-hunt against gay people so he can avoid keeping his promise to introduce equal civil rights for us like he promised.

    He used to work in PR (lying as a profession) after all.

    And for some unknown reason nothing is happening on equality.

    1. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 5:32pm

      Rossiter has been accused of wanking at the attempted rape of a male who was then under the homosexual age of consent. That might have been ‘paedophilia’ but it doesn’t sound ‘straight’ to me.

    2. Some good thoughts there in what you’ve written, dAVID.

  4. Seeing Cameron saying this off-hand comment makes me very cross. It’s such a stupid irrelevant reference to make.

    1. It was not irrelevant, and I think you will find that in actual fact, whenever there have been paedophilia accusations flying about, one of the first groups of people always attacked and insinuated against is the gay community. Cameron will have heard of what has been happening with the accusation of Tory Politicians, and in almost all cases those people will have been gay. Thus in Westminster, he would have heard the accusations being framed in that context, and so was referring to that. If we ourselves do not try and see what someone who is actively trying to be on our side is saying, then what hope is there for the rest of us. The false outrage whipped up by those linking gayness to paedophilia cannot be replied with false outrage for someone who is not doing it. Otherwise all that is happening in this whole debacle is that outrage just flies left right and centre, and no rational discourse and understanding of the real issues and victims at hand is understood.

    2. Of course, such a frenzy is what happens and gets whipped up when witch hunts are taking place, and that is exactly what is happening. a witch hunt.

  5. Then don’t let that happen, Mr. Cameron, while you root out all forms of corruption in the Tory party!

    I hope you’re not looking for excuses not to proceed?

  6. Yes, this is actually a very stupid and dangerous, but “clever”, statement for Call-Me-Dave to have made.

    He’s gone and signalled to the entire nation that paedophilia is linked to the gay community!

    Where’s Gandalf? Make another statement Gandalf! Here’s yet another Prime Minister, beyond Mr. Key of New Zealand, who needs a public rebuke.

    1. He didn’t. Read about this from more than one news source. Philip Schofield linked paedophilia and homosexuality when he looked up these names on the internet other people made claims against for being gay.
      DC told Philip he was pulling an irresponsible stunt.

      1. Absolutely. It is Schofield who should be targeted with disgust and not Cameron. Simply because Schofield took a list off the internet does not mean anything in terms of evidence. Since when does the mob rule through the internet, and insinuations and accusations made online constitute the truth, which could be held up as verifiable in a court of law. As Cameron said, if there is any real proof or accusation, it should be made to the police. Otherwise any Tom Dick and Harry can just download names off the internet and call it the truth. Such behaviour is almost akin to McCarthyism in 50s America where pure insinuation was a definite indication of guilt. There should be more anger for what Schofield did, which was deeply irresponsible and disgusting. It was a knee jerk populist move by a cheap man, and if also nowadays we hold things written on twitter etc.. as sacred truth, then that is a damning indictment on culture. Our techn. might be better, but were still unenlightened chimps.

        1. Schofield will do anything to increase ratings, he has no integrity. Also the ridiculous connection made by cameron could also be said of men who work closely with children, schofield should take note of that, as his history is as a childrens presenter like saville.

          1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:42pm

            Schofield is just the mouthpiece.
            It is the producers and editors of that show that should be held to account.

    2. No! People, you are not thinking deeply enough!

      Schofield handed Cameron a list.

      Cameron was already aware of the names on that list,
      and Cameron knows that many of those names are the names
      of prominent people who are popularly known as gay.

      So instead of Cameron saying,
      “No! We will not have a witch-hunt for paedophiles!
      “No! I condemn witch-hunts!”
      what did he say instead?

      Cameron chose to say he was fearful of a GAY witch-hunt,
      thereby indirectly suggesting paedophilia is a gay issue.

      That was WRONG of Cameron.
      Paedophilia pertains as much or as little to heterosexuals as to homosexuals.

      It has also been suggested that Cameron is shirking from exposing the paedophile ring because many of them are Tories,
      and so he is pretending to wish to protect all of us gays
      so that he does not have to expose the paedophiles.

      Think more deeply people!

      1. Unfortunately some on here are very gullible ,and are desperately trying to convince others that camerons comments were acceptable.

        1. It’s extraordinary, isn’t it, rapture.

          I also think that quite a lot of PinkNews readers are sheep. If they see a comment has got a couple of positives, they add a positive too. And vice versa. Some readers need to THINK.

          1. Yes there are always those on here who can’t formulate their own reasoning, but then again could be some people soo desperate , they would have alias accounts to make it look like their comment is garnering support. Either way , i believe most reasonable people find camerons comments unacceptable and contributory to hate.

  7. I can see what he is getting at. Many people do link being gay and peadophilia. However, he should have chosen his words much more carefully rather than the flippant remarks he did. He must issue an apology to the gay community sooner rather than later.

    Look at the names of those linked to the recent child abuse scandal, all are straight, so far. And statistically speaking gay men are least likely to be peadophiles, although it does (unfortunately) happen

    1. This is not true, the sole people linked are not just straight people. This is the point. In the Tory Party, those who have been accused have been gay men. And since Cameron is the head of the Tory Party, it follows therefore that he would have been very aware of the mixing of the accusations with gay people.

      1. Sister Mary Clarence 9 Nov 2012, 11:16am

        I absolutely agree – the comments very much suggest that the list presented by Schofield was exclusively or largely a list of gay Tories.

        Based on what little we do know about what Cameron saw though, I surprised (actually in truth I’m not) at the lambasting he is getting.

  8. If anything he has acknowledged that theres a lot of right wing nutcases out there who have been associating gays with peadophiles who have been very verbal with it and high profile in the media. Its an attempt to nip it in the bud.

    1. Unfortunately I can just imagine hordes of knuckle dragging, mouth breathers reading the headline in the Star or Sun and thinking that a witch hunt against gays is quite appropriate. They aren’t going to read it as an attempt to nip it in the bud – they’re more likely to see it as a call to action.

  9. It’s rubbish to say that he’s linking homosexuality with paedophilia..

    He’s just saying that it’s not good to have this free for all witch hunt based on rumours and gossip.

    He’s saying instead of that, let people with genuine information go to the police with it.

    He just thinks that if there is this randomly targeted witch hunt situation, that he thinks gay people will be most vulnerable to the predations of the speculators…

    And unfortunately, he’s probably right there! We always hear that crap about us.

    1. That is not true.

      He specifically stated that child abuse allegations against senior figures within the Conservative Party risked becoming a witch-hunt against people on the basis of their sexuality.

      Why is he making that comparison when the most high profile cases (Savile; Glitter; Starr) are straight?

      1. He pretty much just said ‘ there is a danger that this could turn into a sort of witch hunt – particularly of people who are gay’.

        And he got that impression from what the internets are saying.

        There was no ‘comparison’ made~

      2. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 5:36pm

        I was not aware that Savile, Glitter and Starr were “senior figures within the Conservative Party”.

      3. Exactly, David, in all fairness to Schofield he did NOT mention gay people at all and you are right the general public is fully aware that the high profile cases are men who have not been accused of abusing same-sex children. So neither Schofield OR the general public has made the connection with homosexuality at all.
        What this is is Cameron being caught on the spot and his mental make-up revealing itself: i.e. child abuse and homosexuality being linked.

    2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 5:45pm

      It is precisely the opposite. It was Schofield that intimated the possible connection and Cameron that put him fair and square back to rights that the two should NOT be associated.

  10. Well there you go. In spite of all his supposedly anti-homophobic posturing, Cameron either equates gay people with paedophiles, or makes a serious miscalculation in implying that there is a link.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 5:47pm

      Dickhead. He said completely the opposite.
      Try reading the article again.

      1. you are right Spanner but if our own people are making this assumption or error – imagine how many hundreds of viewers and readers will only hear what they want to hear, and assume he said pedo = gay.

        Just wait for the backlash of homophobes sighting Cameron for say what he didn’t –

  11. Ben English 8 Nov 2012, 2:20pm

    What the f–k does uncovering old tory peadophiles have to do with the fact that someone might be gay? This is disgusting ignorance and he clearly won’t be getting my vote next year.

  12. ...Paddyswurds 8 Nov 2012, 2:25pm

    Ah, so CallmeDave finally shows his true colours and what he really thinks of Gay people. We are all evil paedophiles. Anyone who thought for one millisecond that the Law and Justice homophobic Tories had changed their spots was and is sorely deluded. This is Cameron playing to the gallery and showing the true nature of the Tory party to the bigoted blue rinse brigade in the Home Counties. Well I say he should have a care and look at what happened to his counterpart, Romney, in the US on Tuesday. He had the same attitude to American Gays and see where it got him. If Dave wants to be a one trick poney and end up on the scrap heap come 2015 then carry on with his current direction. If he is truly what he says he is he needs to back pedal rapidly and APOLOGISE for this slur and table an Equal Marriage bill at the same time. Otherwise Goodbye Bigot Dave……

    1. I’m taking it by the number of red arrows you’ve got that the witch hunting has already begun thanks to camerons word association.

      1. ...Paddyswurds 8 Nov 2012, 10:38pm

        Exactly Why didn’t he say it would start a witch hunt against Breeders. They after all are away ahead when it comes to paedophilia. As much as 80% of paedo cases are committed by straight men while only 18% of cases are attributed to gay people. It is ignorance of what it means to be gay that makes breeders say paedos are gay. Gay men are homosexual which means we prefer sex with men. Children are not men!

    2. Interesting. “Bigot Dave” was making a point on the perceived link between homosexuality and paedophilia which he had seen from comments by members of the public online. Comments which, according to the article, “Bigot Dave” objected to. “Bigot Dave” hasn’t actually made the link, he hasn’t condemned gays as peadophiles, but the first thing that he says that could be misconstrued and you appear to jump on the anti-tory bandwagon. This begs the question as to who the real bigot is in this equation.

  13. I’m a bit weirded out by this. All the men named were straight abusing young girls … Where does gay come into the picture?

    1. This has nothing to do with Jimmy Saville.

      It is about the Wales care home scandal, which involved male victims. The current speculation is about whether Peter Morrison was a perpetrator, possibly along with other Tories in the ’80s. Morrison was gay, as were/are a number of those being gossiped about online.

      Even so, gay or straight should never come into the picture, since statistically most men who abuse boys pursue adult relationships with women rather than men, and many abusers assault children of both sexes.

      1. The Peter Morrison case is way more low profile than the Savile or Glitter cases though.

        It is wildly inappropriate and irresponsible for the PM to be making statements like this (although its possible that he is doing this on purpose).

        Appallingly irresponsible behaviour from the man who promised equality almost 3 years ago, but who has done nothing to introduce it

        1. Yes what you said is true that it is lower profile to the public, but I am sure since Cameron is the leader of the Tory party, I am sure that what is spoken about more around him are those accusations concerning his party, and therefore his discourse and view will be formed more around that.

        2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:21pm

          Oh give it a fcking rest you lefty tosspot.
          All you do is try to score political points and take a swipe at the Tories at every possible opportunity.

          DC did a good, honest and decent evaluation of a dodgy situation on a dodgy TV show.

  14. David Cameron didn’t start these rumours. There is a lot of gossip going around about who might have been involved, and many of those being whispered about were/are gay. In some cases, gay men seem to be being mentioned for no reason other than their sexuality.

    But Mr Cameron handled this poorly. It would have been much better to say that we should wait to hear what the police say, and to remind viewers that child abusers are often skilled deceivers who can’t be identified through gossip or hunches.

    1. No he didn’t start the rumours, but he is making a clear link between gay men and the rumours thanks to these comments.

      Those people who only knew about the Savile and Glitter stories now have a new scapegoat.

      Thanks Callmedave

      1. No, that’s what you want to believe Cameron meant. Your political point scoring is disgusting. Please leave the gay community, you do us a disservice.

      2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:23pm

        I second Lucas.
        Your attitude is despicable.

  15. Samuel B. 8 Nov 2012, 2:49pm

    That is a very presumptuous comment to make, especially as Cameron made a point of not looking at the piece of paper Schofield ambushed him with.

    Curiouser and curiouser…

    1. In many ways poor Cameron, it is interesting in the clip actually that I think I can see him realising mid way through the sentence that what he is going to say will be misconstrued. At one point, around the 1:55 mark in the following clip you can see when he realises this might be interpreted in another way.

  16. Should the issue here be re-addressed by the Cabinet Office and it members of staff, guessing most are straight, maybe an equility and diversity course maybe in order?

  17. I was worried they’d try to attack us with that old bit of homophobia. but no-one did it. no-one at all, I was surprised and impressed

    The first person to draw this link is DAvid Cameron himself! Is he trying to cover up his party’s scandal by trying to throw out a distraction?

    1. It would appear a deflective approach, like scapegoating the disabled, single mothers etc for his the economic deficit.

  18. This is the Prime Minister – a politician who has years of media experience; a ton of advisers and a former career in PR.

    It is difficult to imagine that he made these appallingly negligent and dangerous comments by accident.

    What is he up to?

    1. Your political point scoring has knows no bounds mate. You disgust me. I wish you would analyse a situation properly instead of jumping ship onto another bandwaggon, anything to dig Cameron or the Tories. I am sick and tired of reading the same crap from you day after day. You often make some valid points but you have gone too far. Just sod off man!

    2. Yes, quite right, dAVID. Years of experience and he’s been dealing with this matter, at No. 10, for about one whole week. His Intelligence people have long since furnished him with the list. He’s had plenty of time to decide how to deal with the matter. His priority is to keep the matter hushed up. He doesn’t want the cat out of the bag. Apparently Blair put a secrecy order on a paedophile ring some years back and Cameron has got to honour it. If the Internet list is true then the current issue is one of the most extraordinary proportions. He’s got to keep it under wraps. How to do that is his challenge. Using us is clearly one way out.

  19. Extraordinary to predict a Gay witch hunt. Some straights are pedoes. Some gays are pedoes – and we have 2 high-profile investigations going that demonstrate this. I don’t think he meant any deliberate harm by the remark but it is hard to see where he is going with this. I’m sure there is lots of homophobic gossip going on in Westminster.

  20. I hate Cameron, but it’s obvious the list he was handed was a list of gay men.
    It seems just picked off the internet.
    He wasn’t suggesting a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, but it’s interesting how others have been trying to turn the Savile scandal into a witch hunt against gay men.
    As PS colluded in here.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:04pm


  21. so is a witch hunt being held for the heterosexuals and jimmy savile ?

    the associations are just crazy so long as you don’t generalize about white male heterosexuals – paedophilia is sexuality and gender neutral Mr Cameron.

    He may be trying but he has a lot to learn – i never forget that gaytimes interview with him on equality issues-

  22. Samuel B. 8 Nov 2012, 3:26pm

    Before we get into the whole gay/straight thing, an important point to note about paedophilia is that the abuse of children often transcends gender altogether because the main objective is one of exerting control over a helpless human being, hence why male rapists are often straight.

    All paedophiles exhibit sociopathic and psychopathic traits because sociopaths and psychopaths are on a constant power lust in every given situation.

    All too often when these sick people cannot exert power in their everyday professional and social lives – and occasionally even when they can – they will resort to children to exert control over because the child is an easy target to manipulate and, in situations like care homes, won’t be believed.

    1. NorthernIrishGuest 8 Nov 2012, 4:10pm

      I’m not sure if I agree it transcends gender as such – the majority of pedophiles (whether they are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual – whatever) are more often than not men. There is a growing number of female offenders coming to light and those who facilitate the abuse, but predominately the offenders are male. So while the abuse transcends sexuality you have to acknowledge that the abusers are overwhelmingly identified as men.

    2. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 5:57pm

      If what you write is true, does that mean that these people stop being “sick”, exhibiting “sociopathic and psychopathic traits” and being unable to “exert power in their everyday professional and social lives” when the laws of their country change or if they move to somewhere more liberal? Alternatively, are you referring to studies of people who are primarily attracted to prepubescent children, as I understand the term to have meant before its current usage by the media?

      1. lsmlca2169 8 Nov 2012, 7:02pm

        To back up what has been said, pedophilia is about CONTROL! If you speak to any therapist they will tell you that the main psyche is about controlling another human which is expressed through sexually abusing their victims. Sexuality be it gay or straight has nothing to do with it. Put another way, if sexuality was involved, why don’t pedophiles find adults of the same/opposite sex attractive?

      2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:31pm

        One could say the same about murderers or rapists.
        If there are societies that are liberal enough to accommodate the occasional homicide or the odd accidental rape, then I’m sure they will be seen as perfectly upstanding members of the community.

        The term “paedophile” as used errantly by the popular media is anybody that has sex with anyone under the age of 16; the reality of it though is a rather more complex psychological condition that in some ways drives a person in much the same way as rape or murder.
        If you were to ask any criminologist for the motives behind serial killers and rapists, they would put “control” right at the top.
        It is not about sex or death, it is about the kick they get from the act of how their victim reacts, not the act itself.

    3. Samuel B. 8 Nov 2012, 7:02pm

      Sorry, I should have clarified it more clearly by stating that paedophilia like male rape often, but obviously not always, transcends sexuality.

      1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:33pm

        Like any rape actually. People rarely rape for sexual gratification.

  23. Given that many of the rumours involve tories/the wealthy elite I think he’s far more worried about a witch-hunt against these groups than gay people, but he can’t admit that so he’s using this as a fig leaf.

    Whether it was his intention or not, his poorly worded comment will be seen by many to legitimise making a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

  24.’s no surprise that the ignorant and sheltered idiots in Society believe homosexuals are more likely to molest children. Can we try to re-educate people in understanding gay people are not deviant?

  25. Anti-gay witchhunts have been carried out by Homophobic Devon & Cornwall Constabulary for years…at least since 2004.

    Strangly police & IPCC never bother to interview the numerous witnesses AGAINST the police when complaints are made about their police conduct (or examine documentation, photographs & other evidence against police).

  26. NorthernIrishGuest 8 Nov 2012, 4:06pm

    Where did this list come from? Why wasn’t it handed to the police?

    The only conclusion I can reach is that it was to make daytime TV, the most boring thing ever, seem more exciting.

    This has nothing to do with protecting children.

  27. Based on Cameron’s support for gay marriage there is another reading to this and it is also concerning, but Cameron is not the issue here.

    He was presented with a list. He has recognised at least some names in there that might be known to him as being gay. He was quite right to point out that he doesn’t want a witch hunt against people merely for the fact that thy are gay which is what he was saying. He was not saying that he thinks they are pedophiles because they are gay. Or linking it any way. It is others who have done and Philip Scoflied and this show are the
    Culprits. How dare they bandy about a list with names included on it merely because thy are gay.

    It is all too easy to put a name on a list and if they are gay mud sticks wen more sadly.

    If the people on list really do all have a case to answer then all bets off.

    1. What makes you believe Cameron supports equal marriage (other than his words – and remember he used to work in PR – his entire career has been based on lying.)

      The complete lack of action in the almost 3 years since the Tories came to power would indicate that his support is only skin deep.

  28. Jock S. Trap 8 Nov 2012, 4:56pm

    I’m disgusted that ITV and the people at This Morning allowed this to happen. It was completely irresponsible and ITV should be struck down for allowing such material to go out as it encourages such ‘witch hunt’ as Mr Cameron stated.

    Go on David Cameron for standing up and making this Very important point and I for one applaud his comments.

    1. Why did he say Gay, though? Philip Schofield made no such accusations

      1. The list was probably made up solely of openly gay politicians.

    2. Rashid Karapiet 11 Nov 2012, 6:54pm

      OMG – haven’t posted for months but the ineffable Jock S. Trap is still polluting web-space. Does this individual not realise how pathetically schoolboyish his pseudonym is? does nobody else see this?

  29. brown fingered fiddler 8 Nov 2012, 5:13pm

    Paedophilia is disproportionate amongst the homo-deviant ‘community’.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 5:42pm

      Some prat political science hack that is quoting Kinsey?
      That pseudo-quack was disproved back in the 60’s.
      It also turned out he was a closet gay.

  30. Godric Godricson 8 Nov 2012, 5:25pm

    It also seems very strange indeed that the present safeguarding stories involving vulnerable boys in care have appeared now…..Could it be a deliberate smoke screen to cover up the heterosexual abuse evidenced by Jimmy Savile and his friends in high places. What is really going on?

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 5:51pm

      Savile has also been accused of abusing boys as well.
      Sexuality is not the key issue here.

  31. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 5:40pm

    I think one thing has to be clear about paedophilia; it has little to do with sex, and everything to do with control.

    Straight people will play with kids of the opposite sex as much as the same sex – it has nothing to do with sexuality, it is merely the physical attribution of often very disturbed minds.

    I think Cameron was right not to try and draw parallels between paedophiles and gay people per se, they come in all shapes and sizes, colours, classes, sexes and sexualities.

    1. lsmlca2169 8 Nov 2012, 7:09pm

      Finally someone who understands that pedophilia is about control and not about sexuality! Thank you for highlighting this – well done! Now if only the rest of the ignorant world knew this were the case?

    2. brown fingered fiddler 8 Nov 2012, 7:10pm

      Spanner (Paedo apologist) said…

      Dunderhead! Paedophilia by definition means a SEXUAL attraction to prepubescents. If there is no sexual attraction and it is a trip, then it is not padophilia since it does not FIT the DEFINITINON. Do you believe that there exist people that are SEXUALLY attracted to prepubescents or not?

      1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:18pm

        “Paedophilia by definition means a SEXUAL attraction”
        What definition would that be? The Boy’s Own book of Kiddy-fiddling?

        From the Greek:
        paidos = child
        -philos = like or love

        Just because somebody is a Francophile, it doesn’t mean they want to shag all French people.


  32. Why should there be a gay witch-hunt? Paedophiles can be straight, gay or bi-sexual (as was the case with Savile)

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 11:06pm

      Who said Savile was bisexual? I very much doubt it.

  33. 3 minute internet search? top quality investigative journalism there Phil.Present someone a list once you have some evidence not a bunch of names grabbed off random websites with zero facts to back it up.

  34. The witch hunt has already started, as seen on twitter.

    Nice one Philip – give the bigots a damn excuse to cause trouble and they will.

  35. Lord McAlpine has been married three times I believe

  36. I find it strange how a minority of heterosexual men see female sexual abuse less significant than male sexual abuse, all abuse significantly wrong! It makes me wonder if such heterosexual men have a hidden agenda & they use homosexuality as a distraction.

  37. Believe David Cameron was speaking with good intentions, some of the names on the list seem to have been derived as a result of them being openly gay. If anone is to blame it’s Philip schofield pulling a cheap and sensationalist stunt

    1. Precisely!

  38. Some of my best friends are witches…

  39. Jesus Mohammed 8 Nov 2012, 6:15pm

    This is the Schofield list.

    I only hope to high heaven it’s not true!

  40. Arghhh! The usual suspects bleating about how Cameron is anti-gay and instinctively equates paedophiles with homosexuality. It is so clearly NOT the case. Cameron is an ally and is concerned that Internet rumours are dangerously plucking names of senior (closeted) gays and claiming all sorts of misdeeds involving children. That, most definitely, has the potential for a witch-hunt against a very many gay figures. But many posters here are too blinkered by their dogmatic beliefs to see this. Instead they rant about homophobic Cameron.

  41. Schofield will be promoting as truth what’s scribbled on bus shelters next. What a stupid stunt to pull. I hope ITV are taken to task for this. And if it was Schofield’s idea to do it, ITV should distance themselves from him as fast as possible for being such a vicarious liability.

  42. Certainly a very unexpected and unhelpful comment from Cameron which provides fodder for the homophobic bigots

  43. ...Paddyswurds 8 Nov 2012, 6:23pm

    Like I said before, enough already. You are now just annoying people and not gaining any friends…

  44. ...Paddyswurds 8 Nov 2012, 6:26pm

    Ah, so David Cameron finally shows his true colours and what he really thinks of Gay people. We are all evil paedophiles. Anyone who thought for one millisecond that the Law and Justice homophobic Tories had changed their spots was and is sorely deluded. This is Cameron playing to the gallery and showing the true nature of the Tory party to the bigoted blue rinse brigade in the Home Counties. Well I say he should have a care and look at what happened to his counterpart, Romney, in the US on Tuesday. He had the same attitude to American Gays and see where it got him. If Dave wants to be a one trick poney and end up on the scrap heap come 2015 then carry on with his current direction. If he is truly what he says he is he needs to back pedal rapidly and APOLOGISE for this slur and table an Equal Marriage bill at the same time. Otherwise Goodbye Bigot Dave……

    1. …Paddyswurds

      My goodness. I hope you are never called on to do jury service.

    2. …Paddyswurds

      It’s no good when we as LGBT people accuse others of stereotyping and discriminatory bigotry towards us, and at the same time demonstrate the same kind of stereotyping and discriminatory bigotry towards others.

      This blanket Conservative-bashing and David Cameron-bashing represents a very low level of consciousness, and it is hypocritical to expect others to try to see us as we are, and not through their own distorted prism, if we are not willing to do the same for them.

      There are bigoted Conservatives around, but David Cameron is certainly not one of them. And there are plenty of Conservatives who are progressive on issues of social justice. I have campaigned on social justice issues, both LGBT and non-LGBT issues, for over 30 years, and I can attest to the fact that Conservatives have often come up trumps when others have been indifferent, or even the cause of the problem.

      These overgeneralising misanthropic cynical anti-Tory rants are just irritating.

      1. ...Paddyswurds 8 Nov 2012, 11:09pm

        Why then is CallmeDave dragging his feet on Marriage Equality.
        and not to mention his insulting Consultation. Why do GLBs need a consultation in order to get our rights. We pay our taxes just like anyone else. Indeed gay people pay more taxes as single men than breeders.
        And yes I agree my comments are irritating… to homophobic Tory lovers.
        Don’t forget also that as an Irishman I also have serious issues with the Tories, as it was under their Governments for the last hundred years that the Irish of the North of Ireland suffered most.. even when the gerrymandered Unionist Government ruled from Stormont, it was with the explicit support and encouragement of Tory governments. It was the Tories who went the Army to murder 15 teenage boys on Bloody Sunday, for which Cameron so recently made his grovelling apology.
        So then to irritate Tories and their shameless supporters is the whole idea, so I’m encouraged by your irritation!

        1. Well, as a Tory who is sympathetic to the Irish Republican cause, who is conscious of historical bigotry on the part of many Ulster Unionists, and who is appalled at the long history of colonial oppression in Ireland,which includes people being hanged, drawn and quartered just for speaking gaelic, it is a pity that I have been tarred with the same brush as everyone else.

          Which perhaps only goes to show that blanket condemnations of a whole class do not do justice to all, many or perhaps even most of the individual people concerned, or to the truth.

        2. Don’t give us that “as an Irishman” BS. I’m an Irish labour supporter and you’re comments are exactly as Gazza described them; stereotyping and discriminatory/bigoted.
          David Cameron isn’t making the link here. The article clearly stated he’d seen and objected to comments online that were linking homosexuality to paedophilia and that’s why he was worried about the matter. You’re not doing anything but clinging onto stereotypes from the past.
          Yeah, the Tory party has in the past had a reputation of being A*****les, but that isn’t what’s happening on this occasion. You talk about bloody Sunday and that really was a terrible tragedy, but at least Cameron actually apologised for it; in fact, he apologised for that sooner than French politicians apologised for the involvement of France in the holocaust. The Tories may have done some terrible things in the past, but you need to learn to grow up and stop clinging desperately to the past- it’s not going to get you anywhere.

  45. According to my understanding:

    1. Paedophilia is a primary or exclusive sexual ATTRACTION in people over 16 towards PREPUBESCENT children, i.e. under 11 or so.

    2. Hebephilia is the same as the above, but towards pubescent children between approx 11 and 14.

    3. Ephebophilia is the same as the above, but towards adolescents between approx 15 and 19.

    4. I am sure there are many people who are paedophiles or hebephiles or lower-end ephebophiles, and who would not dream of ever trying to initiate any sexual interaction with a child, which they would rightly regard as immoral and harmful to the child.

    5. The common automatic tendency to refer to abusers of teenage children as “paedophiles” is therefore linguistically and logically incorrect. All sex with children is CHILD ABUSE. A celibate paedophile or hebephile who does not view child porn or groom is NOT a criminal or abuser. Sexual orientation is not a choice or a crime.

    And attraction to over 11s-is hebephilia. Not paedophilia.

    1. brownfingeredfiddler 8 Nov 2012, 7:24pm

      ” Sexual orientation is not a choice or a crime”

      Nor is racism ,, unnecessary abortion etc etc. They are sins are they not?

    2. “I am sure there are many people who are paedophiles or hebephiles or lower-end ephebophiles, and who would not dream of ever trying to initiate any sexual interaction with a child, which they would rightly regard as immoral and harmful to the child.”

      Spot on, Gazza, and that being because they have conscience and empathy which would prevent them ever seeking to hard a child.

      The point about paedophiles who do abuse children without conscience is that they are sociopathic and psychopathic by nature and therefore are unable to empathise with their victim:- it is all about their own gratification and power lust.

      And it is the latter group who are more likely to seek out children wherever they can regardless of the child’s gender or the paedophile’s sexuality.

      1. Yes – it has to do with sociopathic/ psychopathic behaviour, and lack of empathy, and the paedophile/ hebephile orientation is not sufficient in itself to motivate child abuse.

        People who were sexually abused as children often experience post-traumatic stress disorder as adults, or/and chronic depression, and it does them very serious harm. Appalling harm. The people who are responsible for this are sociopaths. It takes much more than a sexual orientation to do harm of this kind, and it is a serious misnomer to use the term “paedophile” as a lazy synonym for “child abuser”.

      2. brownfingeredfiddler 8 Nov 2012, 8:43pm

        You are wrong. The attraction itself is immoral, acting on the attraction is immoral and a crime.

        1. This may prove controversial but I would argue that attraction to children is not a crime in and of itself:- only the acting out of the attraction is.

          If such attraction were itself to be criminalised, it would be on a par with criminalising thought which is, of course, a rocky road to tyranny and totalitarianism.

          However if such people sought to fulfill their sexual needs by seeking out kiddie porn then they should be charged as they are contributing to the demand that such a depraved market exists to cater for.

          For the record I like my men 30+, over 6ft tall, hairy-chested and husky-voiced, thank you very much!

          1. Samuel

            Best not to feed the troll.

          2. brownfingeredfiddler 9 Nov 2012, 8:53am

            So you agree it should not be criminal to be disgusted by homosexuality?

          3. Yes Brownfingeredfiddler that’s exactly what he’s saying. There’s nothing wrong with finding homosexuality disgusting, just as as a gay guy I find the notion of cunnlingus disgusting (and any vaginal stuff to be honest). It’s acting upon that disgust to cause public disorder or harm to others which is a crime.

            Also Samuel B, I totally agree with your choice of men, though I’d add I like them a little bit on the heavy side too. :P

    3. Why is why the law treats those convicted of these crimes differently – Note the distinction in the sexual offences act of under 11 and under 16

  46. Trashy TV, internet wierdness, and a bumbling Tory. Who needs Nadine Dorries in the jungle when the Prime Minister gives us this?

    What was Phillip Schofield / the ‘This Morning’ programme playing at? ‘Mr Schofield said he had found the names after spending “about three minutes” trawling the internet’ – is this how ITV researches news stories now? What a fiasco.

  47. brownfingeredfiddler 8 Nov 2012, 7:17pm

    Clueless contributor Spanner (Paedo apologist) said..

    Paedophilia by definition means a SEXUAL attraction to prepubescents. If there is no sexual attraction and it is a trip, then it is not paedophilia since it does not FIT the DEFINITINON. Do you believe that there exist people that are SEXUALLY attracted to prepubescents or not?
    Also, do you think the s’cat commnity should be allowed to work ith children? Sc[at is deviantas is homosexuality. Do deviance and child minding co-exist without detriment?

  48. There is a mistake when people refer to child abuse perpetrated against teenagers as “paedophilia”. As I’ve explained above, paedophilia is a primary sexual ATTRACTION in adults towards prepubescent children, i.e. under approx 11.

    It by no means automatically follows that all or even most paedophiles would ever dream of acting on that attraction. A paedophile who never pursues sexual activity and never views porn is not a child abuser, and is not a child sex criminal. The same applies to hebephiles, who are attracted to pubescent children 11-14.

    Before the early 80s, society often tried to make out that gay men were all child abusers or potential child abusers. Just take a look at this 1950s advertisement warning children about “homosexuals”:

    There are still religious and extreme right-wing bigots who try to associate being gay with child abuse. The PM is right to be concerned about these bigots’ actions on the web.

    1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:09pm

      Do the semantics really matter? Having sexual relations with anyone under the age of 16 is ILLEGAL. Nuff’ said.

      1. Spanner

        Well, I might be a bit pedantic, but I like language to be used with precision. That is something I value, and I feel irritated when people keep calling abusers of teenage children “paedophiles,” as though the two were synonymous.

        But I think the distinction is particularly important to someone who really is a paedophile, or a hebephile. They have as little choice as to their sexual orientation as gay or heterosexual people have: with the difference that they must remain celibate their whole life in order to avoid doing others harm and acting immorally. Just think about that.

        And having become aware they have a paedophile or hebephile orientation, and having come to terms with that as best they could with no support or sympathy from anywhere, and committing to be celibate, they then find the description of their orientation being used synonymously with child abuse. That is not fair. It is not the case that all paedophiles or hebephiles are child abusers.

        1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:41pm

          That’s like saying if you are homosexual, but never have sexual relations with anybody, you aren’t actually gay.

          I understand there may be many people out there with paedophilic tendencies that have never laid a finger on a child, but they are nonetheless still paedophiles, even if they are not child abusers. Many people have been sent to jail just for collecting photos of children. That still makes no difference in the eyes of the law.

          To clarify: Anybody who sexually abuses a child is a paedophile, but not necessarily vice-versa.

          1. Spanner

            Nope. Anyone who sexually abuses a child under 11 is a child abuser. He may also be a paedophile, but to be so, he needs to be primarily or exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. It is perfectly possible for someone who is primarily attracted to adults to have a minor interest in some children, and to be the child abuser, without meeting the definition of being a paedophile.

            And if the child victim is pubescent, i.e. approx 11-14, then the abuser is more likely to be a hebephile than a paedophile, and again may equally be an adult with a primary interest in other adults but a minor interest in children.

            I covered the issue of child porn in another post. There is no reason to assume all or most paedophiles either abuse children or view child porn.

            Your first sentence does not stand. What I have said is that if someone is a paedophile, and never has sex with a child, then he is not a child molester.

          2. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 11:13pm

            You are just playing around with semantics here.
            Anybody having sexual relations with a minor is breaking the law.
            A minor is legally defined as somebody under the age of 16.

            Anything else is basically confusing the issue and digressing from the topic.

          3. Spanner

            Come on, don’t oversimplify the issue. I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to explain my points in detail, and your post is evasively dismissive.

            Just imagine being a gay teenager in the 1950s and hearing all the time about how homosexuals are child molesters, with the terms often used synonymously.

            Now imagine being a teenager in 2012 who finds himself predominantly attracted to prepubescent children, and feeling horrified this is the case, and also feeling unable to trust anyone enough to confide in them or seek support. Imagine how lousy he feels about himself, and how anxious and depressed he is.

            And then imagine someone implying it is ok to call child molesters “paedophiles” as if the terms were synonymous. The effect on that teenager is hardly a matter of semantics.

      2. I was a paedophile but I’m (legally) alright now.

        That is, one defines paedophilia in those terms. I was having sexual relations with my last boyfriend a month before his twenty-first birthday in 1991.

        1. Harlequin

          Having sex with someone of 20 falls well outside the definition of paedophilia. To be defined as a paedophile, a person has to be over 16 and either exclusively or predominantly sexually attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. under 11-13. The fact that male gay sex was illegal if a partner was under 21 at that time is irrelevant.

          It is also the case that, if a person is a paedophile, and does not ever try to encourage a child to have sex or to view child porn, then he or she has done nothing wrong. “Paedophile” should not be used as a synonym for “child abuser”. I would imagine that a great deal of child abuse gets carried out by people who are not in fact paedophiles according to the definition.


    Are you still able to block IP addresses of trolls who play out their sexual neuroses on PN comments pages? If so, can you do your stuff, please? It’s like a badly-behaved child who keeps interrupting adult conversation with naughty words for attention.


    Please do not feed the troll.

    1. Yes, they can but desperate and sick trolls use a different ISP because they’re sad and lonely and dying for attention. Email Pink News if you spot a vile troll and they’ll remove the comments when they can.

      1. Harlequin 8 Nov 2012, 8:54pm

        Indeed. And, as Gazza wrote, please do not reply to them. Your replies, however well-meaning, are just what they want.

  50. Are you a total moron OR are you “on” something extremely expensive?

  51. This is not the place for your protest. Set up a blog and send e-mails to specific people with links to it. You could also write to your MP or to the media if you feel you have a legitimate grievance. You are doing your cause no favours, and are just alienating people.

  52. Sebastian 8 Nov 2012, 8:07pm

    It seemed clear to me. David Cameron does not want top Tories investigated for paedophilia and therefore suggests that any investigation will be a witch hunt against gays.

  53. Not a goody, Dave. Money or the promise of compensation money is a great motivator for all sorts of claims, real and unreal coming out of the wood work. Times are hard and people need money so what is one lie that cannot be proved wrong going to matter? Money is money. But keep off the backs of the LGBT Community. We are not pedophiles.

  54. I went to Eton, and have mixed in the same circles as Mr Cameron. What most of you do not know is that this is how we, including Mr Cameron, are taught to speak. Dropping subtle innuendos and shifts in perspective and focus, causing the real issues to disappear for our own agendas. Why else do you think my parents would pay so much money to educate me. To be the same as you? Or to be part of an elite group who can manipulate reality for our own ends. Anyone who thinks Mr Cameron had not already thought about using these carefully chosen words for this topic is…. not part of the elite. We laugh at you, as you defend us.

    1. If you really did go to Eton, which I think is extremely unlikely having read your post, then your parents wasted a great deal of money to produce a person capable of such self-satisfied condescension.

      Take your manipulative and discriminatory claptrap and post it somewhere where your disingenuous class warfare might be appreciated.

      1. Spanner1960 8 Nov 2012, 9:07pm

        It’s just our favourite anti-Tory with a chip on his shoulder sock puppet under yet another name. Sad and predictable as ever.

      2. I wouldn’t dismiss his claims so quickly, Gazza. Just the odd typo in a hurriedly written message does not render the message untrue.

        Furthermore, the content of what the man has written is actually true. Cameron is highly skilled in nuancing matters to his own advantage. And Cameron’s Intelligence people informed of the names on “the list” many days ago. He’s decided on a strategy and one way of sweeping this grenade out of the way is by claiming that he needs to protect gay people – because of course all those involved would have to be gay, wouldn’t they?

        1. I wasn’t referring to any typos. I was referring to the style. It came across to me as what someone pretending to be an Etonian would have written in order to denigrate the PM. It is cringeworthy.

    2. Although I chuckle at Etonian’s delusions of grandeur there is some truth in what he says.

      Cameron and his like will be well versed in the application of NLP techniques to subvert debate and plant seeds of doubt in the subconscious mind, and I daresay he will have been groomed to prepare for such an ambush.

      As I speculated earlier, Cameron’s reference to gays appeared presumptious at best as it came completely from left-field and was supplanted, I believe, to subvert a reasonable response to Philip Schofield’s direct question into something else entirely by introducing gays into the equation, when Cameron knows only too well that many people irrationally associate homosexuality with paedophilia.

      It was a masterclass of smoke and mirrors and, more than anything, suggests Mr Cameron is, as Etonian alludes, somewhat of an NLP svengali, but more importantly knows a damn sight more than he is letting on.

    3. I’m a student at the university of Cambridge studying veterinary medicine. I suppose that would by definition make me one of the so-called “elites” that you tout; however, I have read between the innuendos and subtle nuances of the comments made and am willing to defend Cameron on this occasion. There’s a difference between part of the “elite” and being a prat; apparently that’s something that the supposed wealth of your parents wasn’t able to teach you.

  55. What about stopping all the lame talking about speculation, and start giving information about any homophobes you’ve been protecting in your own party, Mr CaMoron? No matter how high up in the country or whether they are alive or dead, go to the police … yeah right …

  56. Do you think you strike people reading your comments as someone whose judgment can be relied on?

    Your posts are just persistently vexatious. They make me instinctively want to side with whoever it is that you are complaining about, even though I have no idea what any of this is about. You are achieving the opposite of what you apparently intend.

  57. Yes, what the hell are you on about?

    Take a valium, calm down, and then try to express yourself in a comprehensible manner!

  58. somebody has already used the case of Jimmy Saville as a reason not to allow same sex marriages. I Quote:
    “He became a risk to the children in his extended family (and wider afield) because his nuclear family was not providing the stable male and female/mother and father loving & nuturing role models he needed growing up.” (Not spam!)

  59. I am astonished by these comments. Schofield’s action was utterly reprehensible, and Cameron acted entirely correctly. If you’ve got allegations, go to the police, not a politician; don’t spread unsubstantiated rumours from the web. We already have a case tonight of what appears to be mistaken identity — imagine the consequences this lynch mob attitude could have had for that innocent person. For shame.

  60. Terry Stewart 9 Nov 2012, 10:07am

    Well I have surprised myself and am on the side of David Cameron on this one.
    David Cameron’s response was a response I may have given, having been handed a list of gay men and told that this is a list of possible Paedophiles. Schofield was rather silly not too have considered this matter and the impact such an allegation might have on the whole Gay community.

    If Nick Griffin had presented this list, what would your thoughts have been to such a response by David Cameron? The out pouring of support for Cameron would have deafened even the hard of hearing.

    I don’t agree with Witch hunts by whoever leads them because of the real danger they have on people’s lives. Cameron rightfully stated “We live in a country which has in place procedures to deal with such matters”. It’s a bit of “you’re dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t”.

  61. Terry Stewart 9 Nov 2012, 10:08am

    I remember the Witch Hunts in the 70s and early 80s on the Gay community and we really don’t need to revisit that place again. For the Prime Minister to state his constructive comments shows us how far we have come and how many gains we have made.

    Some people are willing to play dirty politics with our lives, which we should avoid at all times. Listen to what Cameron said and ask yourself, what was wrong with his comment. I welcomed it and opposed to the rule of the mob.

  62. Not a Tory fan but... 9 Nov 2012, 12:19pm

    Poorly articulated. Presumably he meant to say that some of the online lists lump together alleged paedophiles and gay men under a general “they’re all perverts” banner. Some of the online lists belong to a pretty extreme conspiracy theory genre, for example, one alleges a well-known deceased royal was a notorious paedophile. Fairly implausible. I think it was reasonable for Cameron to urge caution and in fairness, ITV was stupid to adopt this approach.

  63. CaMoron’s message:
    “Don’t look at me. Look at teh gays.”
    Nice one Bullyingdom boy! Your mates have much appreciated your call and are already closing ranks with you on the defensive and the offensive fronts.
    If you were trying to shield “teh gays” from your alleged witch-hunt, you couldn’t have chosen a better way of achieving it for yourself, because just look around and your creation is already under way, exactly as you have imagined.

  64. The so-called Etonian was not very well taught. His second sentence is not a sentence at all as it does not contain a main verb. Unfortunately, his parents wasted a great deal of money on someone who cannot write grammatically.

  65. Another Hannah, BA, RMN. 9 Nov 2012, 5:27pm

    If he talked about a witch hunt fine. because he put Gay and Paedo in the same sentence, and as somebody in the media and trained to deal with the media he has to have been aware of the inevitable result.

  66. Helmut Fischer 11 Nov 2012, 12:59am

    Judging by the general tenor of all too many comments, I fear that quite a few of “us” gay people just desperately WANT to be offended. How blind must one be not to recognise that David Cameron himself did in no way link paedophilia with homosexuality? All he said that this could – or already has – lead to a which hunt against gay people – which is the sad and depressing fact. Of course those people who are stupid and primitive enough to believe everything they read on twitter and consider something written under the protection of the internet’s anonymity as sufficient prove to slander someone’s name and execute or castrate them in their vile phantasy are likely to be also daft enough to regard paedophilia and homosexuality as the same thing. As a matter of fact most of those politicians who are known or suspected gays ARE constantly rumoured to be paedophiles. It’s a deplorable, sick truth.

  67. If he thinks that rumours are enough to convict someone of a crime then someone needs to lock Schofield up – I have read that he is a peadophile online too.

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