UK Web Archive, Gay History, Allan Horsfall and Ray Gosling  
Gay Monitor - Allan Horsfall and Ray Gosling - History of Gay Culture and Gay Injustice in the UK - History of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality  
Seeking Justice for the Gay Community

CHE (Campaign for Homosexual Equality) submitted a motion on a Statute of Limitation to this year's Annual General Meeting of LIBERTY (The National Council for Civil Liberty).

The motion had been passed unanimously by CHE in 2008 and CHE has been affiliated to LIBERTY for more than 20 years.

But just submitting this motion has resulted in LIBERTY chucking CHE out – after saying the motion was unacceptable for debate.

So much for LIBERTY
So much for free speech
So much for fair debate

More news later

Money Appeal

All the time we’ve been operating we’ve only had our own little bits of money Plus sometimes £20 or so for doing a talk to a Gay group - So we’ve not had a bank account.
But CHE have now given us £500 in a cheque. Ta.
And we’ve opened a bank account so we can now appeal for funds.

We also now have a PAYPAL account!

NEW - Child Abuse?
Antony Grey
New Dark Age?
Case Not Guilty
A Warning on Arrest re Solicitors and Legal Aid
Wolfenden Plus Fifty
Wolfenden in the Wilderness
Text Warning!
Roger Burg Appeal for Information
Norman Williams
Sex With Boys
The Way We Were
40 Years of Campaigning
Historical Abuse Appeals Panel
The Bolton Seven
Esquire Clubs
Rock n Roll John
Jason v. The Vicar
Don't Accept a Caution
Buyer Beware
Uncles Roger & Ken
The Story of MS
Young Man with Charisma
Don't Touch a Thigh
April 2006
July 2005
January 2004
July 2003




We need a proper review.
Something’s got to be done.
The accusations that amount to “next to nothing” even if true continue.
With no time limit…your accuser can say 15 years ago…this “touching” happened when I was 14/ 15…and the accused is ruined.
In one minor allegation.
As we understand it part of Germany and Canada have now CHANGED THEIR LAWS to stop this abuse – abuse of the law.
For juries convict – almost inevitably.
Sentences are penal.
And after sentence comes further punishment organised by PROBATION without much judicial review.
And these guys – they’re usually women – are schooled in some beliefs
That are highly dubious.

Take a current couple we are befriending.
And that’s all we can do listen to the story – suggest this and that
That almost certainly they’ve tried.
In this case the guys we’re befriending are intelligent, energetic,
And socially well composed and able.  All those qualities by the way count against you.
This couple – Roger and Kenneth* fell in love with each other many many years ago.
They built up together a successful business running a care business for the elderly under contract to local councils.
Contracted to supply social services very successfully. They lived together/ shared house together as a monogamous loving couple – and never either of them had any previous convictions. Both belonged to large families where other members were parents of children.
All family members – with one exception – accepted and enjoyed the fact that Roger and Kenneth were an item. 
They lived – if you want a quite affluent life.
The 4 by 4., the good food, the big garden,  the latest computer, plasma – not quite the pool in the garden but on that way and Roger and Ken were gregarious. They loved entertaining.
They didn’t live in a gay ghetto – but within loving caring exciting big families.
All of whom were welcome and often stayed over with kids / babies/ teenagers – and everyone loved Uncles Roger and Ken.
One member of the family and their kids had a bit of a rougher/ poorer time and Roger and Ken made extra effort to help them…
Until ah ha ha one fine day an allegation was made to the police that X years ago Roger/ Ken showed a lad of theirs when  14 – 16 some porn.
Not very hard on the porno scale.
But the house was raided and on the computer images were found – a few of which were in the higher scales.  Only a few.
But that’s enough – and they lost their contracts, job/ income/ etc
And went to prison in the fullness of the jury’s judgement
And the judge following the national guidelines.

The families – ALL stuck together in supporting Roger and Ken and
Insisting nowt wrong had ever happened when their kids were staying with them.  All the families thought the justice was awful and Roger and Ken wrongly sent to prison.  All of course except the accusers.

While they spent their time in prison – different prisons – of course they “sold”  the  old lost business, their old big home and started to prepare for a life when they got out.
But the whole process had aged them – they had got older anyway.
The older one Roger now had to use a wheelchair and he was the first out and decided to leave England and return to his Scottish roots and family branches.  Fine.
He was out on parole of course – and probation of course.  This is 2005.
His partner/ life buddy the younger Ken comes out 2006 to also move to Scotland and resume / rebuild their life together that they both want.
Ah – says probation no no no.
Ken is sent/ ordered to a probation hostel in Accrington and forbade any visit or meeting with his bud Roger – until ?
They wouldn’t get free until 2011 to be together.
Any attempt to meet – back to prison.
The reason – the TWO of them together pose a greater threat to “children”
Judicial review of the probation decisions – is possible – but not on legal aid.
Their continuing the process of appeal against conviction/ maintaining their innocence isn’t helping.

It is difficult to imagine that a married heterosexual couple convicted of a similar offence would be separated by the probation service in such a cruel and insensitive way (though heaven knows we have ceased to be surprised by new acts of probation sadism).

But Roger and Kenneth are not “married.”  It had always been their intention to enter into a registered partnership when that became legally possible, but as the necessary laws were passed they were physically denied the desired union by their imprisonment.

When they were released, we all assumed, things would be different. But we reckoned without the sheer bloody-mindedness of those who would be appointed to watch over them.

Those whom the advocates of stable sexual unions would join together -  with the appropriate celebration and vows – the probation service not only would but does tear apart!

We laugh/ we cry/ we wring our hands.  We commiserate – what more can we do.  And we know the lawyers – their lawyers will do their best.  And judges too.  But the probation …they’re up against the probation
Who are making a whole set of rules on this subject
To their own fashion – enjoying their power.

*names have been changed

<<< back - Case 4 Case 6 - Buyer Beware>>>


   Home ] Introduction ] [ Articles ] [ History of CHE ] Links ]
Website by BadgerNet