Front cover, issue #6

What Have I Got to Lose

19720901-01On Wednesday, 23rd August, there were more recorded murders than ever before in one 24-hour period in one city. This total does not include the shooting of Salvatore Naturelle by an F.B.I. agent at Kennedy airport after he and John Wojtowic had held up a bank in Brooklyn and had attempted to arrange a getaway by jet, using seven hostages whom they had held for several hours as bargaining counters. The place was New York City.

In such a city, on such a day, it is perhaps surprising that both major London evening papers devoted their headlines to the story in most editions from noon onwards. They did so not only because the gunmen might have got away with eleven and a half thousand pounds, not only because they held seven hostages and said they would not be afraid to kill them, but because the gunmen were gay and had said so.

John has fought in Vietnam. He has been married. He had also been through a form of marriage ceremony with Ernest Aarons after leaving his wife. One of the conditions he imposed upon the police in attempting to arrange his getaway was that his gay wife should be brought to him from psychiatric hospital where he was undergoing treatment. Clearly John was a man under considerable mental strain himself, and this was probably one of the factors which led him to act upon the information from one of the bank’s employees in attempting to steal the $29000.

John and Salvatore had been on the point of leaving the bank with the money when the police arrived. They seized seven hostages and retreated inside the bank, from where John conducted negotiations with the police and interviews with the press. He said that they would not be afraid to shoot any of the hostages, since the Supreme Court had declared the death penalty a ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ (thus banning it under the US constitution). “What have I got to lose? The Supreme Court did away with the chair . . . What have I got to lose? I am a homosexual. I told the cops to get my wife – he’s a male . . . I told them if they bring him here I will release half the hostages.” But Ernest refused to join John, saying that John “doesn’t love me any more”. Under the circumstances. John was clearly right. What did he have to lose?

John’s mother, like most mothers, believed that John was being led astray by Salvatore . . . “He’s not a mean kid he’s not the type that would hurt anybody.”

Eventually the police brought a limousine to the bank, driven by an FBI agent, to take the robbers and their loot and hostages to the airport, where a twin engined jet was waiting for them. They were escorted by a 21-car motorcade.

At the airport. Special Agent Richard Baker approached the limousine as it drew near the waiting plane. Engaging the occupants in conversation, he drew their attention away from the agent/driver, who turned and shot Salvatore through the chest, killing him. (Who needs the Supreme Court to exact a death penalty?) John then gave himself up, and the money and hostages were recovered intact.

The most amazing thing about the robbery, taking place as it did in a crime-ridden city was that it received such wide and urgent coverage in the London press . . .







Did you notice? Our own, non-medical, non-derogatory term for ourselves used without obvious explanation or apology. It seems so petty a point to have arisen from such dramatic and painful occurrences, but nevertheless, so important. Is it also petty to point out that the press made no attempt to connect homosexuality with gun-toting and bank robbing – after all, we’ve been bracketed with criminals for a long time. Perhaps all the effort over the years does have an effect on people after all.

Such a pity, too that one daily paper should choose to belittle the whole thing the following morning by calling it a ‘farce’ and ‘exotic’. I do not share their sense of humour.

I feel sorry for John and Salvatore and Ernest. Perhaps I’m not supposed to.



19720901-02Richard Adams (Design), Martin Corbett, Ian Dunn (Scotland), Denis Lemon, Glenys Parry (Manchester), Suki J. Pitcher, Doug Pollard, David Seligman, Jean-Claude Thevenin, Peter Holmes,
Julie Frost, Julian D. Grinspoon, Richard Turner, Peter Waldschmidt.
Alastair MacDougall


Roger Baker, Ian D. Baker, Graham Chapman, Denis Cohn, Lawrence Collinson, Brian Dax, Barry Conley, Martin Grant, Antony Grey, Peter MacMillan, Sylvia Room, Manus Sasonkin, David Sherlock,


Richard & Norman, Ken & Allan, Michael, Angus & Ken and all the other Friends & Loved Ones.


Letters Page 2
News Page 3 & 4
The Rural Homosexual Page 5
Ideas of Gay Liberation Page 6
Trolling in Saudi Arabia Page 7
S & M Feature Page 8
Biograph Review Page 9
Reviews Page 1013
Samaritans Enquiry Part 3 Page 14
Personal Ads Page 15
Information Page 16

Gay News is published fortnightly by Gay News Ltd., 19 London Street, London W2 1HL. Tel 01-402 7805.

Distribution: Us, You and a prayer book.
Printed by F.I.Litho Limited, 182 Pentonville Road, London N1.
Gay News is the registered Trade Mark of Gay News Ltd.


19720901-02Paragraph one was going to be about our little bust and its implications for us and other small newspapers (news story, GN5). However, the matter is still being dealt with by the magistrates court, so any comment from us would be in contempt of court. When the case has been heard we’ll tell you all about it.

Paragraph two might have been about money again, but you’ve heard all that before . . .

So instead we’d like to congratulate the London Evening Standard News on using the word GAY in their headlines without apology, quotation marks or explanations when covering the bank robbery in the States (Wed Aug 3rd). No newsagent will ever be able to complain about displaying the word gay in his/her shop any more. And at last the ordinary media are using our own non-derogatory term to describe us instead of insulting words like “queer” or clinical chillers like “invert” or “homosexual”.

As to the incidents themselves – well, you can read our report in this issue. At the time of writing this, however, we have only the facts published in the straight press, but their treatment of them seems to have been clear and unbiased. One can only hope that the public will follow the lead of the press in not connecting the gunmen’s homosexuality with their gun-toting, except as incidental factors, though it does seem as if the story made so many front pages because the gunmen were gay – gay is apparently news these days.

On a lighter note, we’d like to take issue with the gentleman who said ‘the name Gay News is a con; there’s nothing really gay in it’. Well, dear, what were you expecting? Pull-out knitting patterns for your jazzy new tank-top? who do you think we are Cosmopollution?

The nub of the charge is that we review films, books, records and the like because we think they’re good (or bad) whether they’re specifically gay or not. And that we haven’t, to date, doled out any ‘dishy’ pin-ups or chatty columns on make-up or clothes. Or leathers and chains for that matter.

And the answer to that is that we are a paper rather than a magazine. That the whole role-playing bitch-versus-butch game seems to us to be rather a waste of time. That people are people – so there’s not too much need to concentrate on specifically gay things just because they’re gay, ignoring the quality and conditioning effect. And in any case, there are a number of new magazines appearing at the moment which cover the lighter side of things as their main concern.

The main function and concern of the paper is serious — though we hope to be fun as well (with ‘Biograph’, ‘2032’, ‘More than one Alice’, and more to come, including a possible gay horror story). But the point we do take from the comment is that we aren’t sexy enough. We aren’t.

Has anybody any ideas on how to make a paper sexy without falling into the traps of treating people as bed-fodder (or rather, wank-fodder) of perpetuating myths about ‘types’ and so on?

The other thing about us that takes other people some time to get used to is our totally informal way of working, with no specific jobs allocated to anyone apart from vaguely defined areas of responsibility. We all do a little bit of everything at some time or another, which is lots of fun when it works and awful when it doesn’t – hence the curious numbering of pages in our last issue!

But it does mean that questions such as ‘Can I speak to the person who deals with . . .” don’t mean all that much. Any of us could answer most of the queries you might bring up, though we do have specialists in a few areas. And it does seem as if we will get more job-orientated in future, if only because each of us is developing some pet-hate or pet-love jobs. Perhaps it will then be a little easier for other people to work with us.

We also have now got our First Phantom Phoner – he/she just phones in from a call box and then waits to be cut off as the pips run out. One day soon he/she will speak. Or something. We’ll keep you posted. Seriously, though! there’s no need to be shy.

Finally, to answer a few queries raised in the last issue’s letters. When replying to box numbers, it isn’t necessary to stamp each box reply because we collect replies for a week or so and send them off together in one large envelope. It would be nice if people placing ads would enclose one such large stamped, self-addressed envelope – it might speed up your replies.

We’re very sorry that the gentleman who thought we were a CHE publication has had to wait this long to realise what he’s missing in Battersea . . .

To Richard Webster in Durham . . . it is an economically impossible job!

To everyone else, thanks, keep it up, and good luck. Byee!

As you may have noticed, there are 16 pages in this issue. That won’t happen every time, but we got lots of luvverly advertising this time. And to make room for it and all the goodies we intended to print, we had to have more pages. On which we spent the extra cash from the ads. So – we’re still as broke as ever. Still, that’s life. Hope you like it. Wish we could do it more often . . .

Your Letters

19720901-02Dear Brothers and Sisters,


The argument used by the “Frock Brigade” for wearing drag is that it challenges male privilege and is therefore aiding the liberation of women in our society. I wonder what privileges they are referring to? Neither men nor women in general have any privileges. The majority of “privileged” men have to work hard at monotonous jobs for low pay and have generally unsatisfying existences. It is not by men that women are oppressed, but by the System which oppresses both men and women. Men are often the unwitting agents of women’s oppression. The working man dissatisfied with the conditions of his work will vent his frustration on his wife When he comes home.

Hence it is a question of changing the system by which women are oppressed, that is by being given the opportunity to explore ways of relating other than the restrictive monogamous heterosexual relationships based on mutual tolerance rather than mutual love.

As a political act within GLF it is very damaging as the majority of gay people do not, cannot, and do not wish to identify with men wearing frocks. If a man WANTS to wear drag, that is a perfectly valid reason for wearing it, but it is folly to think of it as a POLITICAL act. It re inforces a stereotype image of gay people which can have a shattering effect on gay people who still feel ashamed or guilty about being homosexual, making it more difficult for them to accept themselves. The Frock Brigade (I do not use the term Radical Feminist as they are neither radical nor feminist.) should realise the amount of harm they are doing to the gay movement and, more importantly, how much unhappiness they must be causing to thousands of gays who become alienated by their tactics.

Apparently, as the Spare Rib incident would indicate, the Frock Brigade will only accept women’s liberation on their terms i.e. on men’s terms. If that isn’t patronising, I wonder what is. How can these men (even though they pretend they are not men) be aware of what being a woman is like, of producing and caring for children and of being brought up from infancy as a woman.

As a LIBERATION movement, let us not forget that liberation is about people. Let us not forget the people we’re trying to liberate.

P Waldschmidt.

Brixton Hill

Dear Gay News,

Piggery alas at yet another cottage. On August 16 at Strawberry Vale cottage, Finchley, on the North Circular Road near the A 1000 intersection. I arrived to find a cute looking fuzz in fetchingly butch mufti – leather jacket and lovely black hair and moustache – taking down the particulars of several gay brothers whilst a colleague with an alsation dog looked on.

In early May the same cottage was invaded by-two Security Express guards, again complete with alsations. Whether the London Borough of Barnet had hired them for this purpose or they decided just to have a little go at any fucking poufs they might find whilst passing I can’t say, but clearly this is a terrifying precedent.

Love and strength, Jim Scott
Upper Richmond Road,

Putney Sw15

Dear Editor,

The negative comments in your column about Biograph Review are somewhat misleading.

Reviewing in national dailies has become a specialised art, obscurity is deliberate, and the writing seems purposely directed towards the comprehension of an elite few, not the total readership.

Biograph Review is informative without being stuffy. It is written in an extremely individual style. No profession lends itself to individuality more than journalism.

It is youthful. There is a two-fold place in modern journalism for youthfulness: first; to atone for past prejudice against young writers as “immature” second; because, as even the establishment has come to realise – youth has something to say.

The art of the critic is not easily attained.

George Copeland’s letter (Gay News No. 4) illustrates that. Especially if one aspires to the ponderous, overwritten, heavy material so often enountered.

Julian Grinspoon’s column easily achieves what it proposes – communication. It radiates friendship.

At his trial, Oscar Wilde was asked if the conversation of one of his young men friends was “literary”?

“No. On the contrary,” replied Mr. Wilde, “quite simple and easily understood.”

Fred G. Green
ex: Arts Committee
Gay Activists Alliance-New York

This is a letter sent to OZ magazine in reply to Felix Dennis’s criticisms of the Biograph Review. Julian says “right on and all that sort of thing” to Fred, and “hard sucks” to Felix.

Barons Court W 14

Dear Collective,

Notwithstanding the paranoia with which Bob Mellors consistently gives ‘sisters’ priority over ‘brothers’, there is much in his letter (GN no 4) to commend. At one point he might almost have been quoting me. I have always longed to be regarded as a sex object. Even when I was a pretty young chick (and I can substantiate that claim with documentary evidence) I was singularly lacking in that animal magnetism which attracts other gay guys into bed. Admittedly, over the years, this has been compensated for by a series of prolonged and searching relationships culminating in an ecstatic and richly rewarding love affair I had with a young man I met through the columns of IT (vide my “Sunday Times” letter reprinted in GN 3), but this doesn’t alter the fact that I am, and always have been, welcomed with something less than warmth on the sex conveyor belt that your eighteen-year-old writes about with such (feigned?) boredom.

This brings up the whole question of sex-appeal and psycho-sexual empathy in the gay world. Even in maturity, if I might euphemise middle-age as such, I am not a bad proposition. My teeth and legs are good, my sexual appetite voracious, and I give as good as I get. My IQ is not quite up to Bobby Fischer’s but my field of reference is much wider and I am not a nonentity having a certain recognition in my own field. My kinks are such that they give as much pleasure,to their recipient as they do to me. Above all, I am interested in the people I go to bed with. Yet all my life, these desperate months between affairs have been spent fruitlessly in pursuit of sex partners, whilst other people with no overt sexual appeal that I can recognise, seem to exert an effortless attraction for other gays. It is definitely not, as Bob suggests, a question of youth and beauty.

It is a much more elusive quality that I find impossible to analyse, or even to detect. How I envy those guys who wearily, and quite sincerely, sigh “Jesus, I must have a night off, for once.” This constant rejection has a debilitating effect on one’s psychological resilience and one’s sexual competence, which in turn are mutually demoralising.

I sometimes wonder what I am doing, helping the gay reform movement, be it in the press, on the box, or simply in my everyday affairs. It is many years since I gave up my hang ups about my homosexuality and my friends and associates accept me on my own terms, and I do not differentiate between my straight and gay friends. Nor have I cultivated, nor been able to cultivate, an exclusively gay circle. Perhaps the reason for my exclusion is my lack of exclusivity. I find bilateral society attitudes are still, and regrettably, very much the norm in gay circles. How often is one asked to parties with the qualification that one must not camp because it will be ‘straight’ or ‘mixed’ or introduced to someone with a whispered warning that ‘he is not queer?’ I have never subscribed to these partisan attitudes. Does this make me undesirable? Or is there some intuitively perceived aspect of my sexual quirks that people find distasteful? Or is it simply my profile?

Is there anyone else as gorgeous as me who is equally underdesired? If so, could we between us, discover what the psycho-sexual barriers are? Failing that could we not by-pass the A & B jet set, the Coleherne Miss World contest, the GLF chauvinists, the CHE mums, the Holland Walk perambulating circumnavigators, and get on with the fucking?

Sororally yours (if I might redress Bob’s balance)

James Stevens

P.S. I Love Grinspoon.

Julie Andrews
Monday Market St

Dear Gay News,

I am donating £1 to your Good Gay News magazine. I hope that many many people will come to read it and that many of us Gay lonely people may find that they have many friends.

Love and Peace
to all Gay Brothers and Sisters


Rosary Gdns.,
South Kensington,
London S.W.7.

Dear ALL,

I am writing to tell you, how I enjoy your paper, or should I say our paper, I got the first issue from the Colherne, and really enjoyed it, I then tried to get the second copy by doing a rather unsuccessful tour of the newsagents, W.H. Smiths, Menzies, etc. Although I had little joy in obtaining a copy, it was compensated for by seeing the faces of some of the newsagents when asked for it. And when they said ‘no’, the mouthful they got from me, it was very amusing, I heard one ‘straight’ remark as I left the shop – “Fucking Poof” – I haven’t been called that in ages, I felt quite nostalgic.

Anyway I got number two in the end from Virgin Records, long may their ‘Y’ fronts not hamper them.

My third copy was obtained from the ‘Boltons’ (outside — I’m not too keen on the interior) whilst mincing along one night.

I am pleased to say issue no. 3 is great, I really enjoyed reading it in bed the other night, although my old man wasn’t so happy, he had other plans for the night. I think no. 2 was a low, keep on having highs like no. 3, power to your elbows duckies.

Why not a column on make-up and beauty and clothes. Heaven knows there is so much crap on the market we need a good guide to colourful make-up and good bright clothes.

Please print my little ad as I can’t afford the rent for much longer. If you do print this letter, then anyone is welcome to my place for a chat and a little wine.

Will send you a subscription when I get someone to share my place.



Dear Gay News,

Readers who use the contacting facilities of Clapham Common may care to note the following experience of mine.

Recently I went to the Common and there met a seemingly rather pleasant man and agreed to return to his flat. On leaving the Common I saw it was very late, so decided to defer the pleasure to a weekend. Whereupon my companion became threatening, demanding money and my wristwatch. Largely to avoid drawing attention I got rid of him by giving him a small amount of money I had with me.

Next day I took legal advice, which was that the police, though they might prosecute me, most certainly would take no steps whatever to pursue my assailant – my best course was to try to raise a stink.

So I wrote to that noble custodian of the British liberal conscience, ‘The Observer’, then running a service of leading articles on public confidence in the police. Back came the reply that the matter was of interest to only a minority of readers (this from a paper that purports to care about minorities), that to criticise the police on the basis of a solicitor’s experience was ‘unfair’, and that although ‘The Observer’ had (of course) no sympathy with queer bashing, anyone trolling Clapham Common really 2 was asking for it.

So Gay News readers, should any of you ever be tempted to take a late-night constitutional in Clapham’s perfumed groves, watch out, there’s a thug about. He’s about 35, 5’9″ and fairly stocky with medium length dark wiry hair, receding slightly over somewhat lined features. Scottish, probably from Dundee, but now believed to reside in Clapham. On first impression he is a decent working-class bloke. He’s not, and if you meet him, avoid him and tell your friends to do likewise.

Love and strength,

James J Scott

Would Charles G. Brown, who had a letter of his published in Gay News No. 5, please contact us. Thanks.

This could happen to you

Four Prisoners – Fourteen Charges

Keele Gay Lib Soc established itself early this year, and membership grew rapidly at first. The group soon noticed that the police (CID) began to show some passion for having hurried half pints in the same pub they used prior to meetings. And, coincidentally, they were ostentatiously watching the house of some gays living in the Potteries, also taking youths down to the station for questioning in the absence of solicitors, parents or guardians. It is hard to establish whether threats were actually used on these occasions.

The Gay Lib Soc were informed that the police had been assembling a dossier on all known gays in the Potteries, for the last eight months.

After consultation with the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties) a formal complaint was sent to the police and statements forwarded to NCCL. Shortly after this the first person was arrested (on May 31) and remanded in custody. Within about two more weeks, three more people were arrested and also remanded in custody. It is possible that an otherwise growing membership melted away because of these arrests, as the group shrank in size from this time.

The remands (at Risley) continued until about July 17, when they were released on bail – police objections that they would plant bombs, intimidate witnesses, and be the subject of ravenous lynch mobs, suddenly disappeared from the prosecutor’s repertoire.

The four came up for committal on August 7, and are due to appear in the Crown Court in about 2-3 months time. Here are the details.

  1. One person aged about forty is charged with nine out of twenty-six possible charges: three charges of buggery with minors (section 12(i) of the 1956 Sexual Offences Act); five charges of attempted buggery contrary to Common Law; one charge of indecent assault (section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act).
  2. A second person aged about thirty is charged with buggery with a minor (section 12(i) of the 1956 Act).
  3. The third (about thirty-five) is charged with attempted buggery and indecent assault.
  4. The fourth, aged about nineteen, is charged with indecent assault and ‘causing wasteful employment of police time by making a phone call to the effect that there was a bomb in Longton Police Station’.

(The latter charge omitted the fact that the police had used this as an excuse to go up into the house the boys were living in, and illegally arrest them). This boy had been summarily tried on the latter charge, and no sentence was imposed, as his lawyer so abjectly grovelled and apologised for his ‘silly act , etc.

All the four charged have straight-straight solicitors – one solicitor gets most of his bread as the local pig-prosecutor!

What remains of the Gay Lib group has tried to support the accused while on remand, and get together the beginnings of an alternative defence – but it looks like they will get a straight defence in the end – psychiatrists and all.

At least four other arrests have been expected (but this may be police panic-mongering) and the present case seems in some ways like a repeat performance of the 1968 Potteries Purge, which resulted in the murder of one boy (‘suicide’ according to the coroner) whilst on remand, and the incarceration of three others after dubious police practices (see Sunday Times 17/3/68 – ‘The Disturbing Case of the Consenting Teenagers’, page 2)

These people are still remembered in the local gay community.

Bye-bye Weymouth!

Hullo Morecambe!

MANCHESTER: The Campaign for Homosexual Equality has had to move its first conference next year from Weymouth to Morecambe, because the Dorset resort’s council has reversed a decision it made in July to allow CHE to hold its conference at the Pavilion.

CHE finally got the cold shoulder from Weymouth on August 17 when the council decided by 24 votes to 14 to reject the decision of its entertainments committee to invite the conference to the town after a storm of protest in both the national and the local press.

The Dorset Echo shrilled: “Between 300 and 500 homosexuals will hold a conference in Weymouth next April.

“Their applicaiton was granted yesterday despite angry protests from the Town Council.”

Leading the opposition former mayor, Ald. Wilfred Ward, who thought the idea “a disgusting lead” to give to the town.

He said; “Just how can we get in this town in order to raise money? Are we going to stoop to just anything? We seem to want to get our money without taking into regard any standing of the town.”

Coun. John Knight agreed. He said: “This will bring in a lot of morbid sightseers who will want to see a crowd of queers.”

The Daily Mirror got in on the act, too. On July 21 the paper joined the protesting chorus.

Coun. Clifford Chalker said: “We will be having a conference of prostitutes next.”

Not all Weymouth’s councillors share Mr Chalker’s prehensile views. Ald. Sidney Porter said: “We have no right to stop a bona fide conference. We wouldn’t stop one on grounds of race or creed.”

The Mirror’s bedfellow, The Sunday People joined in the finger-pointing campaign to kill the conference.

Voice of the People, the new-style, old-morality comment column lashed out saying: “Something very queer, but very understandable is going on at the seaside town of Weymouth.

“The queer thing is that some councillors are up in arms over the decision of the entertainments committee to act as hosts to the annual conference of a perfectly legal body.

“The uproar is understandable. Because the body is the Campaign for Homosexual Equality.

“Legal though homosexual acts now are between consenting adults in private, there is strong public distaste for those who engage in them . . .

“If the citizens do let the homosexuals in there is one way that they can dissociate themselves from their guests.


The Sunday People showed that there’s more than one way to go about queer-bashing and the challenge was taken up by the people of Weymouth.

The paper showed the way to get the boot in to a lot of the good people of sunny Wevmouth.

Mrs H. A. O’Neill wrote to the Echo saying: “I am far from being prudish, unenlightened I or unwordly, but I feel the citizens of Weymouth must band together to have this degrading decision rescinded.”

Despite Mrs O’Neill’s reminder to councillors that it was the citizens of Weymouth who put them on the council, the entertainments committee wouldn’t go back on its word to CHE, and its report to the council said that it (the committee) consider that this conference might lead to better understanding of the problems which face what is understood to be a fairly large number of people, without at the same time, involvement in an extension of licence that would be unacceptable to them.

“The campaign is supported by a large number of highly distinguished and responsible persons prominent in Church and State, who have given it their approval.”

Despite that the council meeting that looked at the entertainment committee’s decision to let CHE have the Pavilion decided that it was not going to risk having 300 to 500 gays in their happy seaside resort.

The Town Clerk, Mr Edward Jones would tell Gay News only that the council had debated this for about an hour and a half. Weymouth Council would make no comment on the reasons for their decision to go back on the entertainment committee’s decision.

As for CHE, Weymouth’s hostility hasn’t upset the Manchester organisation’s hierarchy a bit. A spokesman said: “Weymouth was just one of the resorts we’d approached. We’ve now fixed it all up for Morecambe.”

Presumably the people of Morecambe are more broadminded than A. W. Delacour, of Wyke Cottage, Weymouth, who wrote to the Echo saying: “For the very small minority of our population genuinely trapped psychologically in the homosexual stage of development, one must feel the greatest compassion.

“But the current intellectual cult of defending any sort of aberration or perversion in personal relationships in the name of freedom needs to be challenged and attacked by all who subscribe to the Christian concept of human dignity. There is nothing new about sexual or homosexual licence. What went on in Sodom and Gomorrah 4,000 years ago or in the Roman Empire in the days of St. Paul, is known to everyone.

“Many people in Weymouth must surely beappalled by the insensitivity of certain of their elected representatives in agreeing to receive the conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Inequality (whatever that means!)” – Mr Delacour s cock-up.

Mr Delacour was not available to comment to Gay News on his views on gayness, but we compliment him on this letter and on his error in CHE’s title.

Gay News case delayed

19720901-03On Tuesday, 22nd August, 1972, Denis Lemon, a member of the Editorial collective of Gay News, appeared at Great Marlborough Street Magistrate’s Court to answer a charge of “wilfully obstructing the passage of the footway of Wharfdale Street, SW10″. (see Gay News No. 5).

Denis was appearing after being remanded from an initial court appearance on 14th August.

Unfortunately the case was not heard until the end of the morning and after the reading of the charge, only the evidence of PC David Ford (480) of the Chelsea Division of the Metropolitan Police Force, was heard.

Denis was further remanded until Wednesday 13th September, where provision will be made for the length of time the case is likely to take. A number of witnesses for the defence will be called to give evidence.

Anthony Burton, the solicitor acting on Denis’s behalf, protested to the Magistrate, Mr John Hooper, at the further delay in hearing the case.

Denis is again remanded on £10 bail.

A full report of the outcome of the case will be in the next edition of Gay News.

The editorial collective of Gay News would like to further remind customers of The Colherne that they will only be taking photographs of the police and the surrounding area, and will try not to take recognisable shots of the pub patrons. Any photo that clearly shows the identity of either customers or the general public will have the faces blanked out if these pictures are used in Gay News or any other publication.

Manslaughter or murder

19720901-03ADELAIDE: George Duncan, a 42-year-old ex-Cambridge don was drowned in the city’s River Torrens early this year. London police are still in South Australia investigating this death, which was followed by the resignation of three members of the Adelaide vice squad.

George Duncan, an Australian, had returned to the country to take up a post at Adelaide University.

In May he and another man, 27-year-old Roger James were thrown into the river by four unknown attackers in Torrens River Park, the local trolling area.

Roger James broke an ankle in the fall and saw George Duncan was drowning. He shouted for help, he said at George’s inquest.

One of the attackers half-stripped and dived in to help George Duncan, but couldn’t find him. Then all four ran off.

That was Roger’s evidence at the inquest into George’s drowning.

Three vice squad officers didn’t deny they were in Torrens River Park on the night of May 10.

But, they said, they’d been drinking and had stopped off at a public lavatory near the Torrens for one of them to be sick.

A uniformed policeman in a patrol car drove up, but, he told the inquest, he was told to move off by one of the vice-busters Con Francis Crawley.

Crawley told the patrolman “You’re buggering up our poofters on the river.”

At a police enquiry into the killing. Senior Con Brian Hudson, Cawley and Con Michael denied they’d been anywhere near Torrens River Park. But when it came to the inquest they refused to answer any questions in case they incriminated themselves.

All three were promptly suspended from the police force as a result, and resigned almost immediately.

Even if the coroner returned an open verdict on George Duncan – adding there was no evidence to show any of the vice-men had been nearer than 300 yards from the death scene, Adelaide’s new police commissioner Harold Salisbury, who used to be in the Metropolitan Police, ordered another inquiry.

And to help him in this he invited his old buddies Chief Supt Bob McGowan and Det Sgt Charles O’Hanlon down under to dig a little dirt.

Scotland Yard told Gay News: “The officers haven’t come home yet, as far as I know. Any report they make will go directly to the local authority.”

A spokesman for Australia House said; “No result to this investigation has come over to us yet.”

‘Vietnam Has Sexual SideEffects’

19720901-04NEW YORK: America’s Time magazine has decided that homosexuality is on the way out. In its report on the latest round in the USA’s favourite parlour game, sex-surveys. Time magazine tells its readers that “anything that discourages heterosexuality encourages homosexuality, “in the view of Paul Gebhard, the ex-director of the Kinsey Institute of Sex Research.

“Because there are fewer sexual taboos in our society today, the adolescent is more likely to find a heterosexual pathway,” Dr Judd Marmor, of Los Angeles, tells Time.

Dr Marmor adds that, despite this, only a small number of adolescents are likely to be affected since generally “the origins of homosexuality derive from certain specific conditions in the home and these conditions still exist.”

Time concludes that increased sexual freedom will lead to a decrease in gayness and goes on to say: “There are no recent statistical studies that show changes in attitudes. Just as there is a greater willingness to ‘come out of the closet’ among their elders, younger men and women are more open about their homosexuality, especially in cities and at universities where there are organisations like the Gay Activist Alliance.”

The facts used in Time’s piece come from the first full-scale sex-survey to be carried out in the USA since Alfred Kinsey did his in 1953 – but then, Kinsey only talked to whites.

This latest survey is multi-racial and Time blames the breaking up in society for the growth of permissiveness. The paper editorialises: “Diminishing family influence has shaken up the rules.

“The disillusionment of many youths with Vietnam, pollution, corruption, has sexual side effects. It reinforces the idea of the older generation’s moral inferiority.

“In fact, sociologists Simon and Gagnon assert, many young people begin their sexual activity in part as a ‘personal vendetta’ against their parents.

“Nor does the older generation have a very good record of marital stability. Since there are now 357 divorces for every 1,000 marriages, it is little wonder that children do not necessarily heed their parents’ advice or consider marriage their ultimate goal. ‘There’s a healthy disrespect for the facade of respectability behind which the Albee-like emotional torrents roll on,’ says Yale Chaplain William Sloane Jnr.”

Ban On Cliff

19720901-04Believe it or not, our own very special Cliff ‘Livin’ Doll’ Richard has been reportedly banned from performing in Singapore next month. The reason given was his long hair

The 32-year-old ex-rock ‘n’ roller is understood to have had his, and his five-man backing group’s application for a visit refused for the same reason, according to Singapore’s afternoon newspaper New Nation. Cliff Richard, although still popular, is not renowned for having flowing locks and all that mistakenly implies.

One wonders if Val Doonican will be banned from Hong Kong, and God help David Bowie on his forthcoming trip to Australia.

Cliff, who is touring Israel, commented “If Singapore bans me I shall simply carry on to Tokyo and forget the whole thing.”

“I’m not going to get a haircut. Is this long?” remarking, that is, on his fashionably styled hair, which is considered short by our own standards.

Keep it growing Cliff, for as long as you are able. One wonders if this thought has ever crossed Cliff’s mind, “Did Jesus ever have this trouble?”