Jump to content

Isle of Pride


2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 6/11/2021 at 10:43 AM, Mysteron said:

If the acts committed back then were committed today, would they still constitute the same criminal offence, or a different criminal offence or no criminal offence now?   

My recollection, jogged by what Mr Shea said in the Paul Moulton interview, talking about Douglas Promenade, is he was alluding to activities committed in public toilets.  If my assumption is correct, had those activities occurred in private, would any criminal offences have been committed?        

The act of buggery was illegal back then. In fact as the new Sexual Offences Act hasn't had royal assent yet it still comes under the term "unnatural offences". 

So to answer your question buggery between consenting adults over the age of 16 is no longer illegal so it would be a different offence if they were caught in a public toilet now.

Screenshot_20210612-205026_Drive.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ham_N_Eggs said:

The act of buggery was illegal back then. In fact as the new Sexual Offences Act hasn't had royal assent yet it still comes under the term "unnatural offences". 

So to answer your question buggery between consenting adults over the age of 16 is no longer illegal so it would be a different offence if they were caught in a public toilet now.

Screenshot_20210612-205026_Drive.jpg

Why are people so focussed on anal penetration? I don’t think anyone was caught/charged with that, either in private or in public loos. It was all indecency offences. 

Both still illegal in loos under the 1992 Act because cubicles aren’t private ( neither were hotel rooms, either )

The new legislation, when passed,  makes sexual activity that can be seen or heard and causes distress or alarm to a member of the public an offence. Notably the bill breaks ground by saying the police aren’t capable of being caused distress or alarm. So covert observation or pretty police alleging they were upset are finished. And it’ll be a defence if you thought that you couldn’t be observed or overheard.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, quilp said:

Possibly because for some it is exclusively and definitively an homosexual act. 

For fear of taking the thread waaaay off topic and past what is reasonable…….. really??  “Exclusively and definitively an homosexual act (sic)”

Mind……blown

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, John Wright said:

Why are people so focussed on anal penetration? I don’t think anyone was caught/charged with that, either in private or in public loos. It was all indecency offences. 

Both still illegal in loos under the 1992 Act because cubicles aren’t private ( neither were hotel rooms, either )

The new legislation, when passed,  makes sexual activity that can be seen or heard and causes distress or alarm to a member of the public an offence. Notably the bill breaks ground by saying the police aren’t capable of being caused distress or alarm. So covert observation or pretty police alleging they were upset are finished. And it’ll be a defence if you thought that you couldn’t be observed or overheard.

So if the public toilets element of the offences is still illegal today, could that possibly explain why the requested/expected apology from the Chief Constable has not been forthcoming, or is there another reason entirely?  In the historic cases, were the police acting in response to complaints from members of the public, or did they act unilaterally in their decision to investigate the offences?  I'm simply trying to ascertain what the police did wrong, that warrants an apology today.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mysteron said:

So if the public toilets element of the offences is still illegal today, could that possibly explain why the requested/expected apology from the Chief Constable has not been forthcoming, or is there another reason entirely?  In the historic cases, were the police acting in response to complaints from members of the public, or did they act unilaterally in their decision to investigate the offences?  I'm simply trying to ascertain what the police did wrong, that warrants an apology today.    

There were people arrested, harassed and treated poorly apart from the toilet purges.

The toilets may have ben the subject of one or two complaints from the public, but the bible carrying CC ( and officers who wanted to curry favour and attended his daily prayer meetings ) set up mass observation activities, over months, hidden in ceilings.

Then arrested dozens over a weekend. No duty advocates in those days. Encouraged  most of the detained persons to sign statements admitting ( the CCTV was B&W and indistinct - no one one who contested was found guilty ), then released a list of names, addresses, charges, to the press in advance of the court defendants had been summonsed to.

Most weren’t gay, just men who occasionally  had sex with men. No Grindr in those days.

Those people woke up on Tuesday morning to find their names plastered over the Examiner ( or it may have been the Weekly Times ). That’s how their families found out, their employers, their kids, friends.

Several lost jobs, others lost their families, and one, who had just gained custody of his daughter, was told the Police were reporting him to Social Services and removing his child to the ex-wife’s and telling her - and that he’d not get access. He went out and attached a hose to his exhaust, and died.

Thats when I started to campaign for two things.

1. The Duty Advocate scheme - most of those detained would never have been charged or gone to court if they’d been advised “no comment”. The CCTV was really so poor.

2. To set up and help run the LGBT Switchboard advice and Counselling service. It ran for 21 years. 

My personal view is that the CC, having been Anderton’s deputy in Manchester, before coming here, was politicking against the law change debate. He had the same philosophy. Remember, Anderson said, in 1986, that homosexuals, drug addicts and prostitutes who had HIV/AIDS were “ swirling in a human cesspit of   their own making”. Such was the attitude of the police against minority and marginalised groups in 1986.

It was deliberate. It was against the background of HIV, the tombstone campaign, Maggie, s.28, signs in pub windows on Victoria St saying “Health Warning - this is not a gay bar. Queers not welcome” 

And I don’t think the way the police dealt with the threats against Alan Shea was particularly effective. More that he deserved abuse, graffiti, excrement in envelopes through his door and they couldn’t do anything.

If you get the impression I’m angry when I recall all this, you’re spot on. If you think I want a police apology, spot on.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, John Wright said:

Why are people so focussed on anal penetration? I don’t think anyone was caught/charged with that, either in private or in public loos. It was all indecency offences. 

Both still illegal in loos under the 1992 Act because cubicles aren’t private ( neither were hotel rooms, either )

The new legislation, when passed,  makes sexual activity that can be seen or heard and causes distress or alarm to a member of the public an offence. Notably the bill breaks ground by saying the police aren’t capable of being caused distress or alarm. So covert observation or pretty police alleging they were upset are finished. And it’ll be a defence if you thought that you couldn’t be observed or overheard.

Wait, so if someone is giving their piece on the side a good seeing to in the Premier Inn and she's a bit of a screamer it could be a criminal offence??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, John Wright said:

There were people arrested, harassed and treated poorly apart from the toilet purges.

The toilets may have ben the subject of one or two complaints from the public, but the bible carrying CC ( and officers who wanted to curry favour and attended his daily prayer meetings ) set up mass observation activities, over months, hidden in ceilings.

Then arrested dozens over a weekend. No duty advocates in those days. Encouraged  most of the detained persons to admit ( the CCTV was B&W and indistinct - no one one who contested was found guilty ), then released a list of names, addresses, charges, to the press in advance of the court defendants had been summonsed to.

Most weren’t gay, just men who occasionally  had sex with men. No Grindr in those days.

The people woke up on Tuesday morning to find their names plastered over the Examiner ( or it may have been the Weekly Times ). That’s how their families found out, their employers, their kids, friends.

Several lost jobs, others lost their families, and one, who had just gained custody of his daughter, was told the Police were reporting him to Social Services and removing his child to the ex-wife’s and telling her - and that he’d not get access. He went out and attached a hose to his exhaust, and died.

Thats when I started to campaign for two things.

1. The Duty Advocate scheme - most of those detained would never have been charged or gone to court if they’d been advised “no comment”. The CCTV was really so poor.

2. To set up and help run the LGBT Switchboard advice and Counselling service. It ran for 21 years. 

My personal view is that the CC, having been Anderton’s deputy in Manchester, before coming here, was politicking against the law change debate. He had the same philosophy. Remember, Anderson said, in 1986, that homosexuals, drug addicts and prostitutes who had HIV/AIDS were “ swirling in a human cesspit  of their own making"

It was deliberate. It was against the background of HIV, the tombstone campaign, Maggie, s.28, signs in pub windows on Victoria St saying “Health Warning - this is not a gay bar. Queers not welcome” 

And I don’t think the way the police dealt with the threats against Alan Shea was particularly effective. More that he deserved abuse, graffiti, excrement in envelopes through his door and they couldn’t do anything.

If you get the impression I’m angry when I recall all this, you’re spot on. If you think I want a police apology, spot on.

Who was the CC at the time?

The above doesn't make pretty reading.

You were name checked on Manx Radio the other day for holding the first unofficial Gay Pride in your house or something.:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Wait, so if someone is giving their piece on the side a good seeing to in the Premier Inn and she's a bit of a screamer it could be a criminal offence??

No. There was a specific, very narrow and peculiar, definition of privacy that only applied to male with male sexual contact in the English 1967 and Manx 1992 decriminalisation legislation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Who was the CC at the time?

The above doesn't make pretty reading.

You were name checked on Manx Radio the other day for holding the first unofficial Gay Pride in your house or something.:thumbsup:

Still around. Is, or was, chair or president of the Island Commonwealth Games Association, high up in the Order of St John, Chancellor I think.

We did three Prides. Whole day events. Properly licensed, publicised. First was invitation only because of licensing restrictions. Huge marquee on the lawn ( 1.5 acres of lawn in those days ).

200 attended year 1. 500 in year 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday's festival was a triumph. The organisation was superb, the festival attendees had loads of fun.  Good food, good bands, good craic and no trouble.  Hats off to everyone who took part in one way or another.

It might not have been in your front room this time John, but your legacy will carry on.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Still around. Is, or was, chair or president of the Island Commonwealth Games Association, high up in the Order of St John, Chancellor I think.

We did three Prides. Whole day events. Properly licensed, publicised. First was invitation only because of licensing restrictions. Huge marquee on the lawn ( 1.5 acres of lawn in those days ).

200 attended year 1. 500 in year 3.

Thought he had moved back to the UK. If its the one I am thinking of, he occasionally gets wheeled out to comment on some religious matter or other.

If he is still alive, a personal apology from him would be too much I suppose.  Or at least ask him to point to the bit of the bible that says "thou shalt fuck up other people's lives in my name". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...