Isle of Pride

[Peter Layman]

2 hours ago, Mrs. Woman said:

I don't know what Mr. Wright is talking about, and neither does he. He didn't attend Saturday's celebration, but he was praised for his contribution, help on legal matters, in 1991. He's had a couple of garden parties years ago for gay people that he knew, and that's all she wrote! He is not relevant in the gay community on the Island and his opinion is not sought after, although, of course, he can say what he wants, nobody cares.

Who's pissed on your cornflakes?

[Numbnuts]

Reaches for my popcorn , sits back and listens attentively. 

[John Wright]

4 hours ago, Mrs. Woman said:

I don't know what Mr. Wright is talking about, and neither does he. He didn't attend Saturday's celebration, but he was praised for his contribution, help on legal matters, in 1991. He's had a couple of garden parties years ago for gay people that he knew, and that's all she wrote! He is not relevant in the gay community on the Island and his opinion is not sought after, although, of course, he can say what he wants, nobody cares.

I’m not going to get into a who did what and when argument. Or whether events held publicly, with hundreds attending, with advertising and press coverage, family events, drag, comedians,  were garden parties or something else. It’s not relevant.

I  know who the poster, Mrs. Woman, is in real life. No I didn’t go to Pride. I was unwell. I didn’t go to the 30th celebration. My invite only arrived Thursday, I had family staying, and we had plans. I’m not blaming. I’m glad no one cares. That was then. This is now. Different world. 

I don’t claim to be relevant. I handed over the reigns when the Manx Rainbow Association was set up. I set up switchboard, volunteered for 20+ years, I then sat for 8 years on the Police Diversity and Inclusion Scrutiny group, in my capacity as a gay man and an advocate ( advocates need to be liked and loved also ). I always made it clear I represented the views of no one but myself.

The baton has now passed to another generation and I’m glad that they, and Tynwald, have chosen to remember Alan Shea and Steve Moore and lots of unnamed people who were involved along the way. I’ve not sought to be mentioned or praised for my small part. Neither did anyone else. But it is good that there is a memory, recall, and gratitude. And,  ultimately, reconciliation.

However in 2015 and 2016 I was involved, along with the police officer leading the LGBTQ strand of the Scrutiny Group, in opening lines of communication between the Chief Constable and those who were then seeking an apology. I wasn’t looking for an apology for myself. I was just asked, and offered, to facilitate. The CC was willing to issue an apology. He wanted to be sure that the wording was agreeable. The approach was to those most deeply and intimately affected, the relevant people,  in the 1980’s and who were seeking the apology. In my view that was the correct approach.

I have all the e-mails and messages. 

It’s fact. The approach was rebuffed. A meeting was not able to be organised. I then developed leukaemia, and eventually, in 2019 stood down from the Scrutiny Group. The officer has retired. I’m not aware of anyone more recently on the scene being involved.

However, whatever Mrs.Woman says, the offer was made, the contact was made, but it wasn’t accepted. It seems it’s gone nowhere since.

Its important however, when the story being spun questions why there has been no CC apology, that the truth be told. It’s been there, on the table, to be picked up and thrashed out, for 6 years. I’m sure Mrs.Woman, and possibly Peter Tatchell, or Allan Bell, haven’t been told this inconvenient truth.

[Gladys]

Thanks for that, John.  It seems that those who are deserving of the apology are either not willing or able to take it forward.  That is a shame because it is the generation who were affected by the police actions, yourself included, who have earned it.  They are also the generation who should be thanked by the younger generations for their efforts, and the personal risk endured, in speaking out which achieved the law and attitude changes that are enjoyed now.  To that end, they remain highly relevant.

Mrs.Woman's post was disappointing to say the least.  Perhaps it is a generational thing, but to dismiss people as not relevant because of what they achieved 30 years ago devalues the very real contribution they made to what we have now. Those efforts made events like Pride joyous, inclusive and accepting. Not many dismiss the efforts of the suffragettes because it was a long time ago.

There are many more nuances in inclusivity and you have educated many on here, myself included. 

 

[Mrs. Woman]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

I’m not going to get into a who did what and when argument. Or whether events held publicly, with hundreds attending, with advertising and press coverage, family events, drag, comedians,  were garden parties or something else. It’s not relevant.

I  know who the poster, Mrs. Woman, is in real life. No I didn’t go to Pride. I was unwell. I didn’t go to the 30th celebration. My invite only arrived Thursday, I had family staying, and we had plans. I’m not blaming. I’m glad no one cares. That was then. This is now. Different world. 

I don’t claim to be relevant. I handed over the reigns when the Manx Rainbow Association was set up. I set up switchboard, volunteered for 20+ years, I then sat for 8 years on the Police Diversity and Inclusion Scrutiny group, in my capacity as a gay man and an advocate ( advocates need to be liked and loved also ). I always made it clear I represented the views of no one but myself.

The baton has now passed to another generation and I’m glad that they, and Tynwald, have chosen to remember Alan Shea and Steve Moore and lots of unnamed people who were involved along the way. I’ve not sought to be mentioned or praised for my small part. Neither did anyone else. But it is good that there is a memory, recall, and gratitude. And,  ultimately, reconciliation.

However in 2015 and 2016 I was involved, along with the police officer leading the LGBTQ strand of the Scrutiny Group, in opening lines of communication between the Chief Constable and those who were then seeking an apology. I wasn’t looking for an apology for myself. I was just asked, and offered, to facilitate. The CC was willing to issue an apology. He wanted to be sure that the wording was agreeable. The approach was to those most deeply and intimately affected, the relevant people,  in the 1980’s and who were seeking the apology. In my view that was the correct approach.

I have all the e-mails and messages. 

It’s fact. The approach was rebuffed. A meeting was not able to be organised. I then developed leukaemia, and eventually, in 2019 stood down from the Scrutiny Group. The officer has retired. I’m not aware of anyone more recently on the scene being involved.

However, whatever Mrs.Woman says, the offer was made, the contact was made, but it wasn’t accepted. It seems it’s gone nowhere since.

Its important however, when the story being spun questions why there has been no CC apology, that the truth be told. It’s been there, on the table, to be picked up and thrashed out, for 6 years. I’m sure Mrs.Woman, and possibly Peter Tatchell, or Allan Bell, haven’t been told this inconvenient truth.

It doesn't need a committee meeting to word an apology. All that's needed is for the Chief Constable to word his own apology, no heel dragging, no arguing, no months of meetings and disagreements. Just Gary Roberts saying he's sorry for the terrible things that happened.

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Mrs. Woman said:

It doesn't need a committee meeting to word an apology. All that's needed is for the Chief Constable to word his own apology, no heel dragging, no arguing, no months of meetings and disagreements. Just Gary Roberts saying he's sorry for the terrible things that happened.

Well, why doesn't somebody say that to him, having first checked with those around at the time and who are the proper recipients of the apology? 

[TerryFuchwit]

You can guarantee no matter what is said it won't be good enough.

As incorrect and wrong the laws may have been at the time the police were doing exactly what they should do.  Enforce them.

I suppose it Cannabis was ever legalised would we expect the police to apologise for anyone prosecuted for it?

Or the great great grandchildren of people that were in the slave trade?

I'm not sure Gary Roberts saying sorry really does much.   And they certainly wouldn't want to open up options for suing the police force.

[Gladys]

18 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

You can guarantee no matter what is said it won't be good enough.

As incorrect and wrong the laws may have been at the time the police were doing exactly what they should do.  Enforce them.

I suppose it Cannabis was ever legalised would we expect the police to apologise for anyone prosecuted for it?

Or the great great grandchildren of people that were in the slave trade?

I'm not sure Gary Roberts saying sorry really does much.   And they certainly wouldn't want to open up options for suing the police force.

It was not the enforcement of law that was the problem but how it was enforced and the tactics used that is deserving of an apology.  Entrapment, set ups, covert surveillance and targeting.  Threats of disclosure and reputations ruined ending in at least two suicides. 

You also have to remember the general mood at the time.  Many people, through the gay rights movement and the AIDS epidemic, reset their thinking on homosexuality.  It was no longer a shadowy pecadillo indulged by a few who were, in the words of Linda La Hughes, too lazy, but a large section of society who should have their rights recognised and given the support and care that other parts of society received.  It was recognised not 'just' to be a sexual preference, but also an emotional state with many long term relationships being brought into the light.

Yet, the IOM was hounding that section of our society.

Edited July 12, 2021 by Gladys

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It was not the enforcement of law that was the problem but how it was enforced and the tactics used that is deserving of an apology.  Entrapment, set ups, covert surveillance and targeting.  Threats of disclosure and reputations ruined ending in at least two suicides. 

 

Well said 

[Whatnonsence]

Ex Sergeant GED Power was extending his opinion on Manx Radio this morning that the Chief Constable Mr Roberts should be considering an apology to the gay community for the activities of the police against the gay community.

Twelve months ago this same retired officer was presenting a petition at Tynwald for a committee to be formed to investigate the police complaints system on the Island.

Axe to grind with the Constabulary?

[Zarley]

41 minutes ago, Whatnonsence said:

Ex Sergeant GED Power was extending his opinion on Manx Radio this morning that the Chief Constable Mr Roberts should be considering an apology to the gay community for the activities of the police against the gay community.

Twelve months ago this same retired officer was presenting a petition at Tynwald for a committee to be formed to investigate the police complaints system on the Island.

Axe to grind with the Constabulary?

As Powers was a member of the constabulary in the 80s, what's stopping him from issuing his own public apology?

Presumably his apology would mean more as he was serving at the time, than an apology from Roberts, who wasn't. 

[Gladys]

It was interesting that he referred to the normalisation of these behaviours by direction from the top.  A bit like that famous psychology test in which subjects were asked to give increasing electrical shocks to interviewees who got questions wrong.  Even though the interviewees were screaming in pain, the supervisor said they must increase the voltage and despite the interviewers being clearly uncomfortable with continuing, most continued. They had abrogated their own moral responsibility because they were told by 'authority' to continue. 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, Zarley said:

As Powers was a member of the constabulary in the 80s, what's stopping him from issuing his own public apology?

Presumably his apology would mean more as he was serving at the time, than an apology from Roberts, who wasn't. 

It's an apology from the institution which is required.  The institution continues regardless of the individual members. 

[Zarley]

38 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It's an apology from the institution which is required.  The institution continues regardless of the individual members. 

I do realise that. However I still maintain that if Powers feels so strongly about an apology being issued, there's nothing stopping him from issuing his own as a serving member of the constabulary at that time. 

An apology from Powers would not mean that an apology from the wider institution wasn't necessary. 

Maybe it's just me, but I feel if I were in Powers shoes, and felt strongly enough about the issue to go on public record with my opinion, I would be inclined to go that one step further and issue my own apology for being part of what went on, whether directly or through my silence. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by Zarley

[Barlow]

There's an election coming up.