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’ll run through FOUR CASES we’ve recently been befriending
Because these people – our comrades: our friends when they get done are terribly hurt worried lonely  - it’s awful what happens.
It is a persecution that is going on.

And not all will get to court – not a to a court trial.

Take B.H. and those are NOT his real initials – though this is a case where the guy would go and tell his story to say The Guardian and we and he have approached - but so far oh dear.
Some days you go into a corner and weep.
B.H. is and was at the time of the events a middle middle aged man of with a secure good job in a smallish private company that made things – living in this fairly big town but not a metropolitan Great City place. B.H. lived alone in a council flat in a good district where he was liked. He was known and well respected in the small local gay community and particularly because (here comes the rub) he wrote letters from time to time to the local papers on gay issues.
And quite a fair few in his local community knew he was gay and wrote letters.
But never  ever was there any interest shown by B.H. or known in any circle of any kind of interest from him in kiddies or even teenagers.  None. None.
However there was one guy in a local pub B.H. frequented who could be just generously obnoxiously anti-pouf to him.
And then – ah ha - in a local park an incident happened where two male children aged 4 and 5 said they were assaulted in a mild sexual titillating manner in the park by a “funny” male adult stranger.  The kids were not at all traumatised, so their Mum said.
But there was a complaint made to the police  And a report in the local paper.

And then as the police begin some door to door inquiries – ah ha lo and behold the guy in the pub of the obnoxious remarks says he saw B.H. take kiddies in the bushes – because he was homoseckshul.
Well - B.H. was nicked – that’s what happens.  Nicked and charged.
Taken to the magistrates who are  as is the rule.  Even when not the law.  Even when they have  power – our experience is magistrates won’t want to touch sex with a bargepole – always: always – magistrates pass the sex bag to the Crown Court.
The charges – when people have charges put against them in these circumstance – the charges are vaguey.- because the prosecutors think there may be changes.
THE question for the magistrates is the BAIL CONDITIONS for B.H.
Well after great deliberations the magistrates bench decided that in this case B.H.  could not enter the town – as if “keep him away from OUR kids” He had no choice.  His advise not sought.  He was ordered out of his town – exiled -  except to see his solicitor.
You can see from the magistrates’ point of view they could cite public order fears – now there’d been charges and publicity and his name mentioned it wouldn’t be safe for B.H.
So – well he had to give up his job and give up his flat – leave – to live miles away in temporary accommodation for the long long period between the first charging and the eventual Crown Court appearance.
During this time the police passed their files to the Crown Prosecution Service who examined the evidence and eventually decided  to bring no charges and have the matter dropped.  End of story.
Yes -  but B.H. had lost his job – his friends – his flat – his home: everything.
No compensation. No apology.
He came back to his town but his job had gone.  And it took some of our efforts to get him back a flat.  And slowly he picks up his friends and gets some life back and a job with another small firm  in HIS town.  And dignity and standing ?  Yes – returned. 
An apology from the accuser ?  No.
He formally applied for compensation – and the Home Office refused.
There we are. 
We are pursuing the matter with B.H.’s M.P. and others.

a more thorough investigation before someone is charged. 
protection of anonymity before someone is charged - ie unmarked police cars: plain clothes police – NOT telling the neighbours “We got the paedie” – when the paedie was never a paedie.
compensation for wrong accusations would make everyone think twice.
Case 2 - 'Don't Touch a Thigh' >>>


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