Again you're putting words in my mouth!! Show me where I said they should be exempted. I'm saying some people are assuming that because you are gay you are automatically a paedophile and I am saying thats not the case.

Nobody on this thread – from across a range of political opinions – has suggested that anyone should be 'exempted' from an investigation for any reason. Equally, nobody has suggested that homosexuals cannot be paedophiles, although in asserting that they can, Dally is effectively suggesting that people have said this – or he is at least attempting to make such a link.

As noted earlier, abuse and rape are essentially about power and that should be remembered when discussing them. Rape in prison does not occur because the rapists have suddenly become gay. Equally, rape as a weapon of war does not occur because soldiers are heterosexual.

Dally's on one of his trolling outings. As has been mentioned by various people over the years, trolls often simply exaggerate views that they do actually hold themselves for effect.

My view is quite straightforward. People's initial sexual experiences (good and bad) have an enormous psychological impact and often sub-consciously influence their actions in this area in later life. I posit that the Tory party has more openly gay MPs simply because a higher proportion of their party went to all male boarding schools, where they had their passive or actual initial sexual experiences. Those experiences would invariably with young teenage boys either consemsually or as bully / 'bullyee'. I contend it therefore makes it quite plausible (if not highly probable) that gay Tory MPs / ex-MPS may in some cases also have been abusers of teenage boys in their later life. That is not being a bigot that is thinking logically.

If you wish to mock my hypothesis, go away, conduct an experiment and provide empiral, peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary. Alternatively, suggest a more rational hypothesis.

There is no evidence that you are 'made' gay – or straight, for that matter – by some event or other. Any more than there is any evidence that you 'choose' your sexuality.

That is the reality in terms of the scientific thinking on the issue of what 'causes' sexuality these days.

And it is utter codswallop, and lacking in anything close to logical thinking, to pretend that negative early sexual experiences would only affect gay people. Unless you can find some sort of equal argument for why some heterosexuals abuse, your 'hypothesis' is simply balderdash.

No Dally, you appear to misunderstand how research works. It is up to the person proposing a theory to back it up with experiments or to provide empirical, peer-reviewed evidence in support of their theory.

Not for the rest of the world to provide evidence to disprove an unproven theory.
That's like dear old Kirkstaller saying that because no-one can prove God doesnt exist that is evidence of his existence.

If we run that theory then surely very few Tory MP's would ever procreate because they'd all be too busy having a jolly old game of Cum On The Biscuit.

Really? So the great theoretical physicists were a waste of space?

Wow,wow, wow, you don't have to be gay to be a paedophile, striaght people can be aswell. If you're gay or straight, who cares? the public only care if they're paedophiles. David Cameron's comments were cleverly spoken, straight on the backfoot, he retorts about outing homosexuals, straight away he dflected the argument away from the rumours. The rumours that I have read, have shown no regards to the sexuality of those named or rumoured. Saville was bisexual, as is Gary Glitter. Freddy Starr as far as I know is straight, some of the mps rumoured to be involved are married with children, so Cameron's comments are flawed.. all he has done, is another divide and conquoror (sic) episode.

As for david Icke website, it's certainly eye-opening. Most of it is crap, some of it believeable, but a lot on there seem to have mental problems, whilst some are extremely clever and know where to look for things. Most significant about david Icke, he has been saying/ accusing things for years, and yet, has not been arrested. To me, that says there is an element of truth in his accusations.


Suffer little children seems rather apt atm.

To be fair to Icke again, although I too scoff at his worldview that we are all being controlled by alien lizardmen, is it any more outlandish then a belief in God and the Devil? Yet the most prominent positions in our global society are occupied by people who still believe 5000 year old fairytales.

Great plan. This would presumably mean forcing hundreds or maybe thousands of male children to attend all male boarding schools; install total "big brother house" surveillance, and keep logs of each and every passive or actual initial sexual experiences for every child. Then wait until a statistically meaningful number of these children have become adults, been elected as Tory MPs and had a career. Make sure that they all agree to meticulously log and record for you whenever they abuse teenage boys in their later life, then once you've received enough reports, hey presto, job done!

Can anyone see any possible flaws or difficulties in the practicalities of conducting this experiment?


Dally, pretty much every hypothesis there's ever been, with the possible exception of David Icke and Todd Akin, is more rational than your effort, which aurally compares well to the sound of kennels, and is to rationality what Toulouse Lautrec was to pole-vaulting.

Wonderful phraseology, mein Erdeschwein!

Agree with most of this, completely – except simply that I still wouldn't, in this amazingly rare circumstance, blame DC for what he said, given that he was ambushed.



An interesting point. Although if we remember the anthropological explanations for why a belief in a god/s originated, then it would be rather less convincing if someone invented the same, while living in a society that is advanced in terms of science etc.

What are you on about? The great theoretical physicists conducted experiments and produced research to be reviewed by their peers. They didn't stick a finger in the air, proclaim the first idea that pops into their head as true, then challenge everyone to produce evidence to disprove it.

But some of their predictions of what might happen towards the speed of light have only relatively recently been 'proved.'

The scientific thinking is that homosexuality is an evolved response to over-population. Rats put in over-crowded conditions display homosexuality in the same way that humans do. Give people natural living space, natural population densities and you get virtually no homosexual behaviour.