Prominent gay rights campaigners involved in sick paedophile ring

[financeguy]

Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse | Mail Online


It is of course dangerous to draw any statistical conclusions from one case involving a comparatively small number of sickos, but I think it is legitimate to ask questions of some aspects of the gay rights lobby if they do not tighten up on vetting procedures for senior positions in their organisations. It is legitimate to ask if the gay rights lobby has become above criticism in the UK, bearing in mind the completely different political context regarding gay rights in the UK as compared to the US, with gay 'icons' such as Ian McKellen being feted in the media, several of Labour's cabinet ministers being openly gay, and even in the Conservatives homophobia is much less tolerated that heretofore.

 

[VintagePunk]

That is a horrific case, and I hope that the man, along with the others involved, receive punishment to the full extent of the law, along with intensive therapy.

That does not change the fact though that the vast majority of pedophiles identify as straight, and that there have been straight people in positions of authority who have been found guilty of this crime, as well. I guess straight organizations need to tighten up their vetting procedures too.


Eta - wow, you've edited your original message so much that I barely recognize it. Just wanted to point that out, because my response made sense in the context of your original message. I guess I should have quoted.

 

[deep]

Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse | Mail Online


It is of course dangerous to draw any statistical conclusions from one case involving a comparatively small number of sickos,

I don't know a whole lot about the gay rights movement in England.


Please tell me why the fact that he is a gay rights activist is of any more consequence than if he were a animal rights, immigrants rights, single parent rights, atheist rights, or any other group activist?


is there a pattern of covering up or protecting people that harm children in the gay rights community as there was in the Catholic Church?

 

[BVS]

but I think it is legitimate to ask questions of some aspects of the gay rights lobby if they do not tighten up on vetting procedures for senior positions in their organisations. It is legitimate to ask if the gay rights lobby has become above criticism in the UK

If this was any other group, no one would say it's legitimate to ask these questions.

 

[deep]

ok I did a quick read of the article

this is one of those situations where it appeals to one's bias

gay behavior is sick
gays do sick things like molest children



of course this is obviously bad thinking
and one of the simplest examples of flawed logic

 

[financeguy]

I don't know a whole lot about the gay rights movement in England.


Please tell me why the fact that he is a gay rights activist is of any more consequence than if he were a animal rights, immigrants rights, single parent rights, atheist rights, or any other group activist?

Because he was using his position to advocate for gay couples being allowed to adopt, which would allow him personally to adopt kids for the purpose of abusing them. Note, I am not making an argument against gay couples being allowed to adopt.

 

[BVS]

Because he was using his position to advocate for gay couples being allowed to adopt

What if it was an advocacy group that pushed for more relaxed laws to adopt African children to straight couples? NO ONE would say "I think it is legitimate to ask questions of some aspects of the African adoption lobby..."

Your own bias played into this...

 

[VintagePunk]

Because he was using his position to advocate for gay couples being allowed to adopt, which would allow him personally to adopt kids for the purpose of abusing them. Note, I am not making an argument against gay couples being allowed to adopt.

Not that I'm dismissing this case - every case of pedophilia is horrible and tragic - but straight pedophiles are already allowed to adopt. So, I'm not really sure where you're going with this. We should keep gay pedophiles away from children? Sure, but we should keep straight pedophiles (who make up the clear majority of pedophiles) away from children, too. Sadly, there seems to be no foolproof way of doing this, pedophiles of every sexuality are able to fool people.

 

[financeguy]

What if it was an advocacy group that pushed for more relaxed laws to adopt African children to straight couples? NO ONE would say "I think it is legitimate to ask questions of some aspects of the African adoption lobby..."

Sure they would. If a high profile supporter of advocacy groups that push for more relaxed laws to adopt African children was found out to be a child abuser, precisely those sorts of questions would be asked in that scenario. Questions regarding vetting and the like. And rightly so.

Your own bias played into this...

As I said before, though do I lean moderate conservative on some issues, it is only on FYM that I feel like some kind of raving far rightwinger.

 

[BVS]

Sure they would. If a high profile supporter of advocacy groups that push for more relaxed laws to adopt African children was found out to be a child abuser, precisely those sorts of questions would be asked in that scenario. Questions regarding vetting and the like. And rightly so.

But the cause itself wouldn't be questioned just those individuals. Read again what you asked, you questioned if the gay rights lobby is beyond criticism.

As I said before, though do I lean moderate conservative on some issues, it is only on FYM that I feel like some kind of raving far rightwinger.

I never said you were.

 

[Zoomerang96]

What if it was an advocacy group that pushed for more relaxed laws to adopt African children to straight couples? NO ONE would say "I think it is legitimate to ask questions of some aspects of the African adoption lobby..."

of course they would.

 

[BVS]

of course they would.

Really, you honestly think we would all of a sudden think, maybe this cause is a bad idea African children shouldn't be put into better homes. No the individuals would be questioned and the cause wouldn't even play into the equation. The cause is already established as a good thing, no one questions whether it's right or wrong to adopt children that need a better life. The only reason the cause came into factor here is that it isn't already established by all that it's a good thing to give homosexuals equal rights...

because they might just be sicko perverts.

 

[CTU2fan]

I'm with BVS on this one. Reading the article it appears that the one man, Rennie, was a "gay rights activist" and the other men were just random perverts that he met/knew. I think it's fair to say that it's disturbing that this man is advocating for gay adoptions because he himself wants to adopt a child for his own sick pleasure, but you certainly can't draw any conclusions about why "gays" want to adopt based on one particular twisted individual.

It's certainly disturbing that this man was around children, but that's what a lot of these pedophiles do. They seek work that allows them access/contact with children; whether he's gay or not is really incidental. And focusing on that is dangerous...like telling our children about "stranger danger" when the real danger was far more often the neighbor, family friend, or uncle. Drawing a connection between pedophile and gay helps the straight pedophiles stay hidden.

 

[Irvine511]

what crap.

 

[A stor]

 

[Salome]

It is of course dangerous to draw any statistical conclusions from one case involving a comparatively small number of sickos,

I've re-read this a couple of times and still am not completely sure what you're arguing here

 

[Irvine511]

I've re-read this a couple of times and still am not completely sure what you're arguing here

there's no "argument" here.

what is being done in this thread is the drawing of a broad conclusion -- a broad, wildly inaccurate, and historically used to justify discrimination conclusion -- about a specific group of people based upon a statistically insignificant number of sickos.

hence, it's crap.