Changes

'''Thomas "Tom" Victor O’Carroll''' (b.1945), Irish [[homosexual]] and “gay” rights activist convicted of [[pedophile]] offences. His career and his writings provide strong evidence for the close connection, indeed inseparability of [[homosexuality]] and [[pedophilia]] and also for the connection between the homosexual/pedophile movement and academia.

'''Thomas "Tom" Victor O’Carroll''' (born 1945) is an Irish [[homosexual]] and "gay" rights activist convicted of [[pedophile]] offences. His career and his writings provide strong evidence for the close connection, indeed inseparability of [[homosexuality]] and [[pedophilia]] and also for the connection between the homosexual/pedophile movement and academia.

==Career==

==Career==

O'Carroll moved to England in the 1960s. In 1979, O’Carroll was secretary of the UK [[Paedophile Information Exchange]]. When it was officially disbanded he carried on as a prominent member of its successor, the International Paedophile and Child Emancipation group (IPCEG). He was also a press officer for the UK Open University, a publicly-funded institution with a crudely pro-homosexual bias.  

O'Carroll moved to England in the 1960s. In 1979, O’Carroll was secretary of the UK [[Paedophile Information Exchange]]. When it was officially disbanded he carried on as a prominent member of its successor, the International Paedophile and Child Emancipation group (IPCEG). He was also a press officer for the UK Open University, a publicly-funded institution with a crudely pro-homosexual bias.  

He was for twenty years from 1975 onwards the protegé of the UK National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, now Liberty), which supported [[PIE]] and in his book “Paedophilia: the Radical Case,” published in 1980, <ref>Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, pub. Peter Owen, London, 1980, ISBN 0 7206 0546 6</ref> he heartily thanked those who helped him write it “especially… Ms Nettie Pollard of the National Council for Civil Liberties [who] read the whole text in draft and made many helpful suggestions”.

He was for twenty years from 1975 onwards the protegé of the UK National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL, now Liberty), which supported [[PIE]] and in his book “Paedophilia: the Radical Case,” published in 1980, <ref>Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, pub. Peter Owen, London, 1980, ISBN 0 7206 0546 6</ref> he heartily thanked those who helped him write it “especially… Ms Nettie Pollard of the National Council for Civil Liberties [who] read the whole text in draft and made many helpful suggestions”.

NCCL’s secretary, Patricia Hewitt, later a [[Labour]] MP refused to say that pedophilia was wrong, but merely said “public hostility to pedophilia was such that it damaged the cause of gay rights for the gay movement to be associated with it”.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653944/The-right-to-sleep-with-children-was-one-civil-liberty-that-NCCL-supported.html</ref>

NCCL’s secretary, Patricia Hewitt, later a [[Labour]] MP refused to say that pedophilia was wrong, but merely said “public hostility to pedophilia was such that it damaged the cause of gay rights for the gay movement to be associated with it”.<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10653944/The-right-to-sleep-with-children-was-one-civil-liberty-that-NCCL-supported.html</ref>

==Published Works==

==Published Works==

''Paedophilia: the Radical Case,'' published in 1980, <ref>Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, pub. Peter Owen, London, 1980, ISBN 0 7206 0546 6</ref>

''Paedophilia: the Radical Case,'' published in 1980, <ref>Tom O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, pub. Peter Owen, London, 1980, ISBN 0 7206 0546 6</ref>

In this manifesto, O'Carroll insisted that children can consent to sexual activity at any age and displays a blinkered refusal to consider any of the harmful consequences. He writes with approval of sex between teachers and young pupils, or late middle-aged men and girls of 12. Even incest is defended. He admits that he had often acted as a stubborn and persistent predator on young children.

In this manifesto, O'Carroll insisted that children can consent to sexual activity at any age and displays a blinkered refusal to consider any of the harmful consequences. He writes with approval of sex between teachers and young pupils, or late-middle-aged men and girls of 12. Even incest is defended. He admits that he had often acted as a stubborn and persistent predator on young children.

Reviewers of the book in the upmarket broadsheets and periodicals were sharply divided, ranging from scathingly dismissive to strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out. One critic wrote "Were Mr O’Carroll a more accomplished writer, he might not have elicited such an ungenerous response. It’s possible he doesn’t feel comfortable talking to adults and resents having to spell out things that are, apparently, self-evident to children. Whatever the reason, the result is an edgy, self-righteous book and a lacklustre piece of propaganda. Since Mr O’Carroll sees nothing wrong with paedophilia, he isn’t interested in our sympathy; and since his opinion of the non-paedophile world is no higher than the opinion the non-paedophile world has of him, he doesn’t waste time trying to be conciliatory. We may think we are doing Mr O’Carroll a favour in listening to his case: but in his view he’s the one who is doing the favour.

Reviewers of the book in the upmarket broadsheets and periodicals were sharply divided, ranging from scathingly dismissive to strongly supportive of the author, if not entirely of the "radical case" he had set out. One critic wrote "Were Mr O’Carroll a more accomplished writer, he might not have elicited such an ungenerous response. It’s possible he doesn’t feel comfortable talking to adults and resents having to spell out things that are, apparently, self-evident to children. Whatever the reason, the result is an edgy, self-righteous book and a lacklustre piece of propaganda. Since Mr O’Carroll sees nothing wrong with paedophilia, he isn’t interested in our sympathy; and since his opinion of the non-paedophile world is no higher than the opinion the non-paedophile world has of him, he doesn’t waste time trying to be conciliatory. We may think we are doing Mr O’Carroll a favour in listening to his case: but in his view he’s the one who is doing the favour.

The book is divided into three sections. The first is autobiographical; a long middle section is taken up with the ideology of paedophilia; and a final section is devoted to PIE and its not so pi activities. Mr O’Carroll starts by recounting his early life as a paedophile. No attempt is made to explain his condition – indeed, he sees nothing in it to explain. ‘I am not interested in why I am a paedophile,’ he tells us in his short sharp way, ‘any more than others are interested in why they are “normal”."<ref>https://www.lrb.co.uk/v02/n23/mary-kay-wilmers/young-love</ref>

The book is divided into three sections. The first is autobiographical; a long middle section is taken up with the ideology of paedophilia; and a final section is devoted to PIE and its not so pi activities. Mr O’Carroll starts by recounting his early life as a paedophile. No attempt is made to explain his condition – indeed, he sees nothing in it to explain. ‘I am not interested in why I am a paedophile,’ he tells us in his short sharp way, ‘any more than others are interested in why they are “normal”."<ref>https://www.lrb.co.uk/v02/n23/mary-kay-wilmers/young-love</ref>

O'Carroll writes a blog that should alert people to the true nature of the LGBT movement (better described as the LGBTP movement i.e. Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, Transsexual and Pedophile). <ref>http://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/ </ref>  

O'Carroll writes a blog that should alert people to the true nature of the LGBT movement (better described as the LGBTP movement i.e. Lesbian, Gay, bisexual, Transsexual and Pedophile). <ref>http://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/ </ref>  

O’Carroll laughs at “the current “politically correct” claim that gay men are no more likely to “molest” underage boys than straight men are likely to “molest” underage girls.” He argues “the falsity of the new language, which obscures an extensive “cross-over” phenomenon. In fact, whether we call it “gay” or not, '''men show a disproportionately higher homosexual interest in children than heterosexual.''' Research suggests that about a third of male paedophiles prefer boys, about a third prefer girls, and a third are attracted to both. The one third preferring boys is a very high figure given that only about 5% of all men in society are preferentially homosexual. Consider, too, Ray Blanchard’s experimental work: he has demonstrated that men typically have a significant degree of sexual response to their second age category preferences as well as their first: the erectile response of teleiophilic men (i.e. “gay” ones, preferentially attracted to adult males) to erotic images of pubescent boys is on average well over 60% of their response to such images of grown men. '''A key implication is that the gay men who loudly insist there is no connection whatever between gayness and boy love are making a politically expedient but factually flawed claim.'''”

O’Carroll laughs at “the current “politically correct” claim that gay men are no more likely to “molest” underage boys than straight men are likely to “molest” underage girls.” He argues “the falsity of the new language, which obscures an extensive “cross-over” phenomenon. In fact, whether we call it “gay” or not, '''men show a disproportionately higher homosexual interest in children than heterosexual.''' Research suggests that about a third of male paedophiles prefer boys, about a third prefer girls, and a third are attracted to both. The one third preferring boys is a very high figure given that only about 5% of all men in society are preferentially homosexual. Consider, too, Ray Blanchard’s experimental work: he has demonstrated that men typically have a significant degree of sexual response to their second age category preferences as well as their first: the erectile response of teleiophilic men (i.e. “gay” ones, preferentially attracted to adult males) to erotic images of pubescent boys is on average well over 60% of their response to such images of grown men. '''A key implication is that the gay men who loudly insist there is no connection whatever between gayness and boy love are making a politically expedient but factually flawed claim.'''”

<ref>https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/benjamin-britten-both-gay-and-a-boy-lover/</ref>

<ref>https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/benjamin-britten-both-gay-and-a-boy-lover/</ref><ref>http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Paedophilia-.-The-Radical-Case </ref>

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:O'Carroll< Thomas Victor}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:O'Carroll, Thomas Victor}}

[[Category:Homosexuals]]

[[Category:Homosexuals]]

[[Category:Pedophiles]]

[[Category:Pedophiles]]

[[Category:Pedophilia]]

[[Category:Pedophilia]]

[[Category:Authors]]

[[Category:Authors]]