Last modified on May 19, 2019, at 18:01

Tom O'Carroll

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.


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, [1] 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”.[2]

Published Works

Paedophilia: the Radical Case, published in 1980, [3] 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. 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”."[4]

[Of course normal people have got plenty of explanation for why they are normal, as whether you believe in evolution or creation or a combination of both, the procreative function of sex, the immaturity of children and the complementarity of male and female are abundantly evident.]

The homosexual press was broadly sympathetic to O'Carroll's book. Sexologist Richard Green included O'Carroll's book as recommended reading for his criminology students at Cambridge University England and in 2000 invited O'Carroll to speak at the annual meeting in Paris of the International Academy of Sex Research. O’Carroll is still active in academic circles. In July 2013 he was invited to speak at a conference on pedophilia at Cambridge University. There he found plenty of homosexual academics and activists leaning towards his views. Unrepentant, he continues to campaign for pedophilia using his blog and any other means. He has from time to time been banned from Twitter but always returns.

Criminal Convictions

In 1981 Tom O’Carroll was jailed for “conspiring to corrupt public morals” by publishing ‘contact’ advertisements (which put readers in touch with vendors of child porn) in an edition of PIE's publication The Magpie. In 2002 O'Carroll was found guilty of evading a prohibition on the importation of indecent photographs of children from Qatar. He was given a nine-month sentence on the basis of three images, a sentence later overturned by appeal. O'Carroll was convicted again in 2006 of conspiring to distribute indecent photographs of children. He was arrested after undercover police infiltrated the IPCEG and its subsidiary, Gentlemen with an Interesting Name. “According to police O’Carroll saw the groups as a base for an “international secret society” of “academic” child abusers... Children, mainly boys and some as young as six, had been filmed and photographed being raped and tortured.” The cache was found in the Surrey home of a former vicar, Michael John De Clare Studdert, exposed as a PIE member. O’Carroll was arrested 1 June 2006 on child pornography charges. In September 2006, he admitted to two counts of distributing indecent images of children. On 20 December 2006, he was jailed for two and a half years.[5] Police investigating the case seized more than 50,000 indecent images, from a variety of addresses. Some showed images of a man abusing a one-year-old boy. A detective who had worked on the prosecution told reporters: ‘I’ve been dealing with hard pornography for ten years now, but what I saw in this case made me go outside for a walk. It was awful. Awful.’ [6]

Usefulness to Conservative and Christian World-View

Because O'Carroll is extremely candid about the close links between homosexuality and pedophilia his writings provide useful evidence in the face of disingenuous denials from official LGBT activists (whose policy is to conceal of postpone some parts of their agenda until the public is considered "ready".) O'Carroll's honesty can seem refreshing and he is to be compared with other candid homo-pedo-activists such as David Thorstad and Walter Breen who also let the cat out of the bag.

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). [7] 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.[8][9]