A chilling and sick dual Irish-British citizen, Tom O’Carroll is a blogger and activist for paedophilia advocacy. A convicted distributor of child pornography and a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), this monster attended a Hacked Off! Rally with John Cleese in April 2015 and was interviewed by Australia’s 60 Minutes in July 2015. During the documentary, O’Carroll remarked: “We thought our illegal interest in children should be made legal if they were willingly involved… The age of four came into it because children are verbal… The emphasis is consent… I don’t see that communicating consent is a problem… It is not sex with children. It’s sex… I call it erotic contact with children. It might involve masturbation… If they were traumatised, they wouldn’t have gone along… They would not be traumatised unless they’d been told many years later that they’d been abused… It’s ground into them from the media. They think: ‘I must be traumatised because the media told me’… The children were willingly involved”. The asylum beckons.
The Roll Call - MEDIA MOUTHPIECES
< Categories
The issue is not just consent on the part of the child…. it is INFORMED consent. What child would have the capacity to be informed of the full range of sexual information, ie, STDs, sexual addiction, sexual persuasion tactics, sexual grooming, emotional bonding, separation trauma and physical injury? Tom O’Carroll is a delusional predator.
For a start, “sexual addiction” is fashionable nonsense. There is no such thing. A strong sex drive is an entirely natural feeling without which none of us would be here. To pathologise it is lunacy. It is a sign of our crazy times that we make this an issue ahead of gunning down kids in schools. Kick-ass America with its vile gun culture should take a look in the mirror. What sort of monsters are you that love your guns more than your children?
“Fashionable nonsense” – To belittle child abuse in this manner sums you up as nothing short of unhinged. You claim to be misunderstood and misinterpreted but in reality your desires are nothing but sickening and evil. A child does not have the comprehension to understand the things you claim they’d consent to as they are exactly that: A child. You simply excuse your own perversions and desires in saying such and frankly it sounds as if you simply would do best to check yourself into the lunatic asylum. As regards “monsters”, take a look in the mirror. It must be very hard for you to do that.
‘A child does not have the comprehension to understand the things you claim’ – well, they understand ‘pleasure’, can differentiate nice sensation from bad sensation, or whether they are being injured or not, and they know whether they feel happy or not – until persuaded otherwise.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
You have a very sick and twisted take on this subject. I am appalled by your views actually.
You are one seriously f***ed up creature!!!!!!!!!! I hope Matthew bans you from further comments.
As hard as it maybe, it is actually a good way for people to see with their own eyes how these men think. Let him keep commenting as he really does believe that he is normal and we are all the sick ones! The problem we have in the UK is that no one can visualise a man (or women in some cases) having sex with children therefore leave their own kids open to risk. If they thought like me the first thing that I think when I meet anyone new is “Do I think this man sexually abuses children”, which is probably harsh but I am super duper sensitive on peodo issues. By understanding how these men (and some women) think, can only assist us in protecting our children more in the future. I really would like him to tell us if what he proposes to do to children is something that indeed happened to him in his childhood.
‘the first thing that I think when I meet anyone new is “Do I think this man sexually abuses children”, which is probably harsh’.
It’s pretty sick, defensive and suspicious actually. ‘Super duper’ sensitive – you make it sound like misandry is a jolly little hobby with you.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
I expect, being Irish, you were educated by those other paedo sicko’s, the Irish Christian Brothers. That could be the reason for yoor mental sickness
In Liberal Britain, you are well protected by the Political Correct Brigade, who will soon lobby for your right to date the neighbours 4 year old toddler. Outside Britain we will not only kick your ass, we will cut off your balls. Your rationale is disturbed and unacceptable to family orientated individuals. The children are our future…………..
You are evil Tom O’Carroll.
ADULTOPHILIA – The Rational Case.
Listen carefully you filthy paedophile nonce. I have a daughter who is six. If you filthy bastard looked at a child upto the age of sixteen, I would like to meet you and vanish you.
To address the list point by point:
i STDs – true paedophiles (i.e. who are attracted to prepubescent children) rarely wish to engage in penetration with children. Most rapes of children are committed by men who are not actually paedophiles – they are either opportunist rapists, or are drugged or drunk or mentally unbalanced. A paedophile wouldn’t have intercourse with a child he loves because it would not be pleasurable for her – that is the bottom line for a true paedophile.
ii ‘sexual addiction’ – does this really exist? You mean someone who enjoys sex or intimacy?
iii ‘sexual persuasion tactics’ – like a man buying a woman chocolate, or putting Barry White on the stereo? Such tactics only work if BOTH partners have the capacity to experience arousal and attraction. Can children experience these feelings? Of course they can.
iv ‘sexual grooming’ – grooming is a silly word. What happens is that an adult and child meet each other, find they get on and become friends. Sometimes the two may fall in love with each other. If that man happens to be a paedophile it’s labelled as ‘grooming’. Grooming is just a nasty word for a positive beautiful thing. Look at this story – http://www.popsugar.com/moms/4-Year-Old-Cancer-Patient-Marries-Her-Nurse-37918292?stream_view=1 – do you consider that Matt, the nurse, groomed little Abby? After all they love each other and he’s been kind and caring towards her.
v ’emotional bonding’ – and in what world is bonding emotionally with someone ‘bad’ or a problem? Do you want children to grow up xenophobic, supiscious and hostile just in case they make friends with someone who finds them beautiful?
vi ‘separation trauma’ – seperation from whom? her adult friend? Whose fault is that? Society’s.
vii “physical injury’ – I don’t understand this. Why would a man (or woman) loving and caring deeply for a child lead to physical injury?
Is it that you are so ‘fuck-minded’ that all you can imagine a paedophile wanting to do with a child is penetrate her? Have you so little respect for children that you can’t imagine any way of giving them sensual pleasure than by just using them as a receptacle for a penis? How would you feel if I characterised the love between a man and a woman by using the Yorkshire Ripper as a prime example?
Tom O’Carroll, if you bothered to read him, is a decent man of great integrity and courage – someone who has risked stigma and ostracism because of his radical ideas. I suggest that if you confronted his ideas you would quickly learn that it was you who had been delusional, and as for ‘predator’ I know what you adultophiles are like, with your rohypnol, date rapes, Jack the Ripper and wife beating.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: CERTAINLY THE WORST AND MOST VILE COMMENT EVER RECEIVED BY THE STEEPLE TIMES. PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND DISGUSTING THE MINDSETS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
I think (know for sure actually) oral sex on a child is also against the laws put in place to protect children. I thank god there are good men and good fathers out there to give protection to mothers like me, and our children. Imagine a world if every man thought and acted like this. I heard a statistic that 1 in 5 men were peodophiles. This is extremely high and our children need protecting every step of their childhood. I no longer live in the UK for this simple fact. I cannot pay tax to a Govt who do not protect it’s children properly but instead quite happily murder and rape them. Now I am sure Tom O Carrol is a decent man of great integrity and courage apart from being a peodophile which then puts him in the MAPPA level 3 category (which means he really is not decent at all in the eyes of most of the nation), but all of the abused children who are now in psychiatric hospitals and prisons or dead through suicide because they were abused in their childhoods might not quite agree with that.
My child gets pleasure from playing with her barbies, going to the park, riding ponies, swimming and generally living the life of a child. There is no way she will be receiving and “sensual” pleasure until she is at a lawful age where this is legal. Does Tom have any children? Did they make adulthood untouched sensually by him? I feel physically sick thinking that maybe he was married and his wife had no idea he was a peodophile….
You have a very sick and twisted take on this subject. I am appalled by your views actually.
I’m puzzled by your response Mr Steeples.
What in my post is so ‘very sick and twisted’? I’ve presented you with a version of paedophilia, the true version, which doesn’t involve murder, rape, coercion, manipulation, a love which is based on tenderness, respect and care.
This is what 99% of paedophiles feel and experience.
But somehow you seem to find this as offensive as if I wanted to murder, rape and coerce.
Can I ask you – are you happier imagining paedophiles as raping, murdering monsters, or knowing them (from the horse’s mouth) as people who feel the same love and respect for those they love as I’m sure you do?
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
The “true version” of paedophilia is that it damages lives and is illegal. You should be ashamed of your sick tendencies and seek help for your illness.
“Illegal”? Yes.
“Damages lives”? No.
All research which has taken the effects of stigma into consideration (Rind &al, Clancy, Kilpatrick & c) shows that there is no damage done by consensual relationships between children and adults – that the damage is done by the stigma society loads onto such relationships and the children who’ve participated in them.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
Pupil X’s comments seemed to exude empathy and humanity all the way to me. A word about the beautiful nurse-marrying story, though. In fairness there was no sexual interaction involved (obviously), so the ‘love’ – which was irrefutably felt by adult AND child – does not constitute a defence for paedophilia – unless you’re taking the literal meaning, ‘love of children’, as opposed to the more sinister nuances of the word commandeered by modern society. It certainly does not constitute a condemnation of it, though, does it? Unless you’re one of those soulless morons who denounced the entire event, or the male nurse in question, as creepy. Like it or not, the proverbial jury is out on how that child would naturally and harmlessly relate to that nurse as the years go by, if unfettered by socially-imposed angsts. I bet I and pupil X are not alone in feeling more heart-bleeding wishes for that girl’s recovery than the majority of the ‘upright’ population.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
“extreme and vile”? lol. In thinking that news story of the nurse and sick child was beautiful and innocent, and then expressing heartfelt wishes for her cure? You’re sounding like a defeated schoolboy with these disclaimer notices. I shouldn’t provoke you, though, credit to you for allowing free speech.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
I have allowed you plenty of space to “express” yourself as abhorrent as your vile views are. Please do not test my patience by continuing to inflict your nonsensical views on our readers.
A child is just that: He /She is still in the process of learning about life, still in the process of absorbing, developing and evolving. A child can never be expected to make any informed sexual decisions. The parent monitoring is still paramount. The child is not very clued yet about unwanted pregnancies and the consequences of being a child parent to a child. Also a child is not very well aware of the dangers of STD. A child needs protection from any person whose sexuality is child orientated and is willing to act upon it and this is one very important task to parents.
“The child is not very clued yet about unwanted pregnancies”
“Also a child is not very well aware of the dangers of STD.”
prepubescents won’t become pregnant because 1/ they are prepubescent 2/ an ethical paedophile wouldn’t engage in intercourse with her as it would be painful for her. ditto STDs.
A sensual relationship with an informed and caring older partner is the best way for a child to learn about relationships, hygiene, respect and her and other’s bodies.
We keep telling children “sex is about relationships’ but we don’t allow them to witness sex in relationships nor to experience it. Instead we leave sex education down to play-ground gossip, the pop industry and internet porn, and a far-too-late sex ed at school, that misses the point because it never addresses the fact that sex is primarily about pleasure and desire.
I suggested that a trusted and caring family friend would be a better teacher about sensuality, sex and relationships than the botch society makes of it.
“A child can never be expected to make any informed sexual decisions”
Children make decisions all the time – what information does a child need in order to decide, for example, that she likes having her bottom stroked?
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
There is no such thing as an “ethical paedophile”. The fact that you like to talk about children “liking” having their “bottom stroked” only confirms that you have a truly warped and dangerous mind.
Hmmmm – I guess you’ve not had much to do with children then – what adult doesn’t get pleasure from someone they trust stroking their butt? Do you think kids are that different? A nice feeling is a nice feeling regardless of age.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
I found it incredible that this man is free to wander around in our society without a bright aluminous suit on with paedophile written all over it. There are laws in place to protect children, which he is blatantly breaking by doing what he thinks is ok to do. If a man told my 4 year old her panties were nice she would belt him and run to me screaming…….What he describes is Grooming a child which is what these peodos need to do to get the trust of a child therefore enabling them to sexually abuse them. If any mother heard a man say their child’s panties were nice to their child any protective mother would not let that man near her child alone EVER!
I am afraid the UK people need to prepare themselves for a lot worse to come out than what has been reported already. Exaro News and The Steeple Times are doing a great job.
Well said Vicky!!!!!!!! I know what you’ve been through and know you understand this situation………. Tom O’Carroll is a twisted f***er!!!!!!!!!
Tom has committed no crime [EDITOR’S NOTE: HE HAS BEEN JAILED ACTUALLY]. All he has done is question the prevailing (and I would add irrational) hysteria surrounding child sexuality and paedophilia.
The Westminster allegations will, of course, come to nothing, have already been evaluated by all as no more credible than tales of witches on broom sticks – they are just hysterical creations of a mob-imagination desperate for such events to be true – remember the Salem witch trials, remember how there were ‘Reds under your Beds’, remember the Satanic Abuse scandals – the hate filled, swivel-eyed commenters here are just members of a mob swept up in the exhilaration of self-righteous brutality and hate.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
You have a very sick and twisted take on this subject. I am appalled by your views actually.
Is the record stuck?
Continue in this vein and we will simply ban you. Your views are repugnant Phil Stevens.
You seem very certain about your views, yet you seem as yet unwilling to support them with reasoned argument.
It seems that too often the shutters come down on this subject – and, beyond insults, people are unable to respond to the points I make.
If you feel as strongly about this issue as you seem to, surely you must have a better defense for your stance than “You have a very sick and twisted take on this subject. I am appalled by your views actually.”
As someone who is clearly intelligent you must be aware how inadequate this is as an intellectual defense of your position.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
Your “points” are so beyond ridiculous that it is simply not worth engaging with your unreasoned nonsense. I have given you a fair opportunity to express your “views” but please do not continue to attack the perfectly legitimate views of other commentators.
A commentator implying that someone should have their testicles ripped off is not ‘a legitimate view’ – it is proposing an action of gross illegality and brutality.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
If you think he has committed no crime, then you are ill-informed. He was jailed in 1981 for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and then again in 2002 for importing child pornography images from Qatar. Said images were of children aged two to ten. In 2006 he was jailed a third time for distributing child pornography videos and images produced by his friend Michael Studdert. He is a sick individual and a criminal. He argues that two-year-old children can consent to sexual activity, when this kind of sick shit can damage them permanently. We’ve seen in so many cases, like the football sex abuse scandal, that children who don’t fully understand the harm of having sexual contact with adults suffer psychological damage in the future. The kind of relationships he advocates for lead to an extremely imbalanced power dynamic, manipulation, psychological abuse and many other issues. Children do NOT understand the sexual connotations of their actions.
You should keep well clear of children and adults Tom O’Carroll. In fact – Go and live on an uninhabited island. Just leave the animals alone also.
Intelligent and insight is strong in this one ^
Many paedophiles rape small babies as young as three months old, so how does he explain away that they have sexual urges at that age?? This man is truly a hideous monster and should be carefully monitored … Personally, if it was up to me to decide his punishment, I would remove his [EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS].
Des
Pressed before finished typing but despite the editing you all get my drift…….!
Deb W – We have to carefully moderate comments to avoid legal complications but I think readers will understand your distaste for this vile man.
In the UK a child is killed by one of its parents on average every 10 days – such incidents may make the local news and be forgotten after a couple of days.
In the UK a child will be killed in a sex-related incident once every 10 years. Such incidents make international news and remain in the news till the next one happens (on average 10 years later).
You see the problem?
You should focus your hatred more on the real source of suffering and death of children – parental brutality.
But you won’t, of course, because parents are ‘sacred’ and to think too much about the real source of suffering and cruelty would be bringing it too close to home. Your home.
“Many paedophiles rape small babies as young as three months old”
I read about a man who raped and killed his next door neighbour – I presume that must be normal behaviour for heterosexual men.
Remove the plank from your own eye before you see fit to remove the mote from mine.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
Let’s try to be reasonable about this, instead of hateful, knee-jerk and as hysterical as a Salem witch-hunter:
“Many paedophiles rape small babies as young as three months old” – wrong! Almost certainly less than 1% of paedophiles do this, or have the slightest inclination to do this. It’s as abhorrent and heart-breaking to them as it is to you.
“..if it was up to me to decide his punishment, I would remove his…” – seriously? The man’s main crime is ‘speech’. His past conviction was based on a few dubious images would even the judge admitted could be perfectly innocent in the context of any family album, and a novel charge of ‘corrupting the public morals’ (again – ‘speech’).
Even if the guy had interfered with children in some corporal way, you’re a pretty aggressive, gruesome and vigilante-minded person to propose what you propose. Who is ‘extreme and vile’ here?? Please *try* to understand that the more severe abuses committed on children are the acute minority of cases, and any arguments Tom O’Carroll and defenders put out are not condoning these. With your system or corporal or capital punishment where would you draw the line? How do you differentiate severity of offence – DO you differentiate al all? – and how do terrorists, school-shooters or plain ASBO thugs fit into your perspective of people who deserve their life/genitalia?
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
Your views are sickening and twisted conveniently to suit your warped argument Phil Stevens. Please cease posting the same nonsense again and again. Thank you.
‘A child does not have the comprehension to understand the things you claim’ – well, they understand ‘pleasure’, can differentiate nice sensation from bad sensation, or whether they are being injured or not, and they know whether they feel happy or not – until persuaded otherwise. Also, I reckon the concept of STD is not a difficult one for a child, any more than understanding they need to clean their teeth to prevent decay. Children are routinely expected and obligated to do any number of things they DO find stressful in our ‘advanced’ society, but which adult authority deems is good for them (or good for their futures). As a former child, now 45, I can safely say that I’ve got a fair few festering wounds from such things as being made to read aloud in class, overbearing teachers in general who seemed to have no understanding of shyness, or being made to feel immature and inept because I couldn’t focus enough to hand homework in on time (the actual reason being I was unhappy, preoccupied with insecurity, loneliness and the need for sexual experience and know-how during my developmental years or even before this – if you’re not on track, as nature intended, by age 10 I even think it’s too late)
I can say with all honesty I’d swap most of my supposedly ‘proper’ schooling for an experience with a sensitive child-molesting (so-called) female teacher, and be better for it. Even an unwelcome erotic incident or two would pale into insignificance before many unjust hard-knocks handed out in youthful life. The terror and paranoia of underage intimacy (on ‘behalf’ of the underage) is bizarre, in the context of genuine threats to the health and lives of our children, gun culture being but one of them. Like it or not, paedophilia and ephebephilia (look it up) will one day be recognized without hatred much as gayness has established itself. Of course safeguards would be needed to protect children from genuine harm, but just as there are abusive or mutually beneficial relationships between adult heteros or gays, there can be all degrees of the spectrum with adult-minor also. Difficult news to many, obviously. At the very least, the presence of minor-attracted ‘feelings’ in an adult should not be so ignorantly reviled by would-be vigilantes (they’re SO common), and many judgementalists need to develop the wit and humility to realise those they are so contemptious of very often have far better general self-control than they.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
You have a very sick and twisted take on this subject. I am appalled by your views actually.
They are everywhere, in high positions in the ministry of Justice, Crown Court Judges sitting on the bench. Members of Parliament……They are the establishment, that is why political correctness has to rule, to protect these vile creatures.
Matthew, read through the comments below this article – on one hand you have people foaming at the mouth, wanting to castrate someone for voicing opinions they disagree with, on the other hands you have polite, intelligent and coherent comments such as Phil Stevens’s.
If this were a discussion about a non-controversial subject, and it was evaluated on content, reasoning and presentation – who do you think would come out better? Sharon Robinson, with her “Go and live on an uninhabited island. Just leave the animals alone also”n or Phil Stevens?
You see, the truth is that reason and research are on our side, not yours.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: PUBLISHED ONLY TO SHOW HOW EXTREME AND VILE THE VIEWS OF SUCH PEOPLE TRULY ARE]
“Truth and reason are on our side” – No. In the eyes of the law, the activities of paedophiles are rightly illegal. Long may they remain that way.
The rational of your argument is weird and very disturbed, it is morally debased and there is no value systems or principles. The debate that you present is immoral , perverted,corrupt deviant, degenerate, unprincipled. In a nutshell, you are a very depraved soul. There is a principles such as ethos that have to be taken into account before any research is allowed on any subject matter. It is not a controversial subject, it is criminal subject, You are a freak, and you can thank the heavens that you are protected by a liberal politically correct Police Force and criminal justice system.
Paedophilia is listed as a Paraphilic disorder in the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM), The bible of Psychiatry. It is listed as a mental illness. What truth? What reason? What research?. Seek help……………………….
Evil personified.
I chanced on this after seeing the most recent comments section. I truly do hope Tom O’Carroll burns in hell.
What a disgusting beast.
These sick commenters above need to have their computers and phones seized and inspected by the police. Here’s hoping.
If you think he has committed no crime, then you are ill-informed. He was jailed in 1981 for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, and then again in 2002 for importing child pornography images from Qatar. Said images were of children aged two to ten. In 2006 he was jailed a third time for distributing child pornography videos and images produced by his friend Michael Studdert. He is a sick individual and a criminal. He argues that two-year-old children can consent to sexual activity, when this kind of sick shit can damage them permanently. We’ve seen in so many cases, like the football sex abuse scandal, that children who don’t fully understand the harm of having sexual contact with adults suffer psychological damage in the future. The kind of relationships he advocates for lead to an extremely imbalanced power dynamic, manipulation, psychological abuse and many other issues. Children do NOT understand the sexual connotations of their actions.
[…] TOC, Conservapedia, The Sheeple Times, Independent, […]