Male homosexuality in Britain: The hidden
history
Richard Rooney, Liverpool John Moores University
Abstract
This paper investigates the coverage of male homo-
sexuality by the British press.
It concentrates on three periods of significance
to homosexuals: the Wolfenden Committee on pros-
titution and homosexuality of 1954-7, the Sexual
Offences Act of 1967, and the separate emergence
of gay civil rights and the Aids crisis in the 1970s
and 1980s.
A survey of the press across six decades con-
cludes that all newspapers had the tendency to ig-
nore homosexuals. Such coverage as there was iden-
tifies homosexuals as either inverts or perverts. This
not only taught non-homosexuals to view homosexuals
as a social menace, but also had the potential to
teach homosexuals themselves of their own worth-
lessness.
The paper demonstrates that newspapers as-
sume that everyone is heterosexual and this is the
only natural, normal, decent way to be. Throughout
the six decades there is an almost total lack of recog-
nition of the gay viewpoint and experience. News-
papers discourage homosexuality as a political move-
ment and frame all discussion in terms of morality
rather than politics.
Introduction
The history of the homosexual is a hidden history.
The documentary evidence that exists about the lives
of homosexuals tends to centre on scandals or the
memoirs and biographies of literary homosexuals.
This is no surprise since ordinary homosexuals, in a
period when homosexuality was illegal, were adept
at keeping separate their public and private lives.
Understandable though this is it does mean that
our understanding of how ordinary homosexuals lived is
flawed (it is also debatable whether the situation has
changed significantly as we enter the twenty-first
century). Male homosexuals have been forced to build
their lives surrounded by prejudice, ignorance and
social hostility. (Porter and Weeks, 1991. Weeks,
1977).
For most of the time most news media (and this
is not just the situation with print news media) ig-
nores homosexuals and homosexuality. Indeed, at all
times in the past 50 years the Press's concern has been
less with homosexuality as such, or with homosexuals,
than the shockability of its readers. Interest is
generally expressed only when events forced the subject
on newspapers. (Weeks, 1977, p.162).
This paper explores the Press coverage of ho-
mosexuality from the 1950s until the late 1980s. It
looks at three distinct periods of importance in ho-
mosexual history: the 1950s and the first stirrings of
law reform; the 1967 Sexual Offences Act that
decriminalised certain types of homosexual behav-
iour; and the early days of the AIDS crisis in the
1980s that threatened to undo the social advances
made in the previous thirty years.
It ought to be recognised that although the
above events generated a lot of column inches in the
Press, coverage of homosexuality has been spasmodic
over the years. Between the high points discussed
here there were many times when the subject re-
mained unreported. Even when homosexuality forced
itself onto the (mainly) political agenda, at times in
which Parliament was debating law reform, for ex-
ample, coverage was by no means universal among
all sections of the Press. The popular (as in high cir-
culation) newspapers tended to ignore the subject
even then.
Today there is more coverage of homosexuality
than at any other time in history, but this should not
be equated with an increase in acceptance of homo-
sexuality. Press coverage continues to reinforce ho-
mosexual stereotypes and objectify homosexuals,
turning them, into less than human beings. (Weeks,
1977, p.162).
The Press stereotypes homosexuals and this
stereotyping becomes ideological when it becomes a
vehicle for values. Social attitudes to homosexuality
reflect deeply imbued fear and hatred of homosexu-
ality. Oppression of homosexuals is legitimized by
the Press, politicians, the Church and (especially in
the 1950s and 1960s) by medical opinion. The domi-
nant position of these organisations is to repress ho-
mosexual behaviour.
Even in the rare cases when favourable stories
are written they tend to praise homosexuals who live
like heterosexuals in stable relationships and conform
to some notion of what men are supposed to be like
(hard working, monogamous, part of an ideal nu-
22 Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000

clear family). Homosexual dissidents (those who
proselytize for law reform or seek a number of sexual
partners, for example) are excluded from the arena of
debate.
The Press labels homosexuals 'bad' because they
are not like 'us'. Newspapers assume that with sexu-
ality there are oaly two polarities - the heterosexual,
and the homosexual and people are reduced to one of
other of these groups. Newspapers use a language of
exclusion, nearly always assuming that their readers are
heterosexual and that homosexuals are members of
some group that exists away from their readers'
personal experience.
As Richard Dyer says these stereotypes exist 'to
make visible the invisible, so that there is no danger
of it creeping up on us unawares, and to make fast
firm and separate what is in reality much closer to
the norm than the dominant value system cares to
admit.' (Cited in Medhurst, 1998, p.285)
The news media use a process of selection, mag-
nification and reduction to create stereotypes of the
homosexual. It takes one perceived attribute of a social
group, boils it down until it comes to stand for that
group.
By the 1950s the stereotype of the homosexual
was firmly fixed. It has changed remarkably little
since. Homosexuals are divided into two types: the
invert and the pervert. Inverts are the 'good' homo-
sexuals. These are people who are freaks of nature or
accidents of some terrible environment, usually the
product of a strong or dominant mothers and weak
and absent fathers. This 'genuine' homosexual is easily
identified by his effeminate way of acting and is a small
minority of those men indulging in homosexual
practices
The pervert is the danger and causes all the
problems. The pervert is really a heterosexual who
has lost his way. The pervert is not a homosexual:
but a heterosexual, who engages in homosexual prac-
tices. All perverts are addicted to homosexual sex.
Some seek this activity for an additional experience
while others find it exciting to do something forbid-
den. Others have been corrupted in early youth.
It is this element of corruption that makes the
pervert a menace to society. He is a danger because,
unlike the invert, he can not be detected. (Higgins,
1996, Pp.21-22).
Homosexual men are only distinguished from
other men by their sexual desires. The homosexual's
life is seen to resolve around sexual desire since it is
only that desire that separates the homosexual from
the heterosexual (with this position fixed it becomes
difficult to move from this framework to discuss the
political dimensions of homosexuality, the structure
of family life and so on).
Press stories set a distinction between accept-
able and unacceptable behaviour. (Porter and Weeks
pi). 'Unacceptable' behaviour is confined to a small
and alien group. Those who are non-homosexual are
reassured of their non-problematic membership of
the dominant sex and class. As Simon Shepherd says
Press hysteria helps to produce 'disavowals of homo-
sexuality'. The disavowal works not only to closet
individual but also to create barriers of non-recognition
between homosexuals. (Shepherd, 1989, Pp.220-223).
The 1950s: the stirrings of homosexual law reform
You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to feel
that news about homosexuals was deliberately kept
out of the Press in the period up to the mid 1950s. In
1953 the Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John
Nott-Bower issued instructions that police officers
should attempt to smash homosexuality in London.
To do this there was to be a concerted attempt to
increase the number of arrests. None of this was re-
ported in the British Press. You had to read the Syd-
ney Sunday Telegraph to find out what was happening
in our own capital city.
When homosexuality was mentioned in news-
papers it was always with disapproval and most usu-
ally concerned court trials of homosexual sex crime
so that homosexuality became to tally unmentionable
in any context other than abuse or condemnation
(Sanderson, 1995, Pp.5-6. Higgins, 1996, Pp.179-
230).
In the 1950s some newspapers, most notably
the Sunday Pictorial and the Daily Mirror, began to
expose what editor-in-chief Hugh Cudlipp called the
'spreading fungus' of homosexuality. Cudlipp's con-
tribution, as we shall see below, was to vilify homo-
sexuality by making it indistinguishable from pae-
dophilia in the public mind. (Cudlipp, 1962, P.317)
Press coverage of homosexuality increased dra-
matically in the 1950s. Patrick Higgins notes that
there had been more written in the British Press about
homosexuality in the six month period beginning
October 1953 than at any time since Oscar Wilde's
trials in 1895. (Higgins, 1996, P.5).
In the 1950s an increasing amount of space was
being devoted to coverage of court cases involving
homosexuality. In 1954 the Cabinet was so concerned
about this that it discussed the possibility of encour-
aging a private member's bill to restrict newspaper
reporting of court cases involving homosexuality. It
realised that it could not get away with this so in-
stead set up a Home Office departmental committee
of inquiry into homosexuality and how it might be
contained (a Royal Commission was ruled out
because this would have to take evidence in public).
At the same time the government wanted to
clear prostitutes (male and female) from the streets
of large cities. It was particularly concerned to pro-
tect what it saw as public decency, fully expecting
prostitution to be taken off the streets but to con-
tinue behind closed doors from flats, as had been the
Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000 23

experience in many US cities when similar measures
had been introduced. (Higgins, 1996. Weeks, Coming
1977)
The Wolfenden Committee, which resulted, sat
from 1954-1957. Its main recommendations as far as
homosexuality was concerned was that homosexual
behaviour between consenting adults over the age of
21 in private should be no longer a criminal offence
and that questions relating to 'consent' and 'in pri-
vate' be decided by the same criteria as apply in the
case of heterosexual acts. (Wolfenden, 1957, par 355)
The Wolfenden report placed the topic of ho-
mosexuality high on the news agenda, but not for
long. During most of 1957 the Daily Mirror never
mentioned homosexuality at all. After the publication
of the Wolfenden report in September it devoted
963 column inches to the subject in two weeks. The
following week, interest dropped to 43 inches, and
thereafter to practically nil.
In the 1950s the Sunday Pictorial systematically
set out to dehumanise homosexuals and to under-
mine moves towards law reform. In November 1953
when Sir David Maxwell Fyfe was appointed Home
Secretary the Sunday Pictorial ran a campaign urging
him to be tough on vice. In particukr, it demanded that
he force magistrates to use their full power to deal
with homosexuals and soliciting by prostitutes of
both sexes. (1 November 1953). The campaign was
vicious, even by the standards of the time.
It might be no coincidence that the following
month Sir David told the House of Commons, 'Ho-
mosexuals in general are exhibitionists and
proselytizers and are a danger to others, especially
the young. So long as I hold the office of Home Sec-
retary 1 shall give no countenance to the view that
they should not be prevented from being such a danger.'
(3 December 1953. Cited in David, 1997,p.l77).
The Pictorial's other major contribution to de-
humanising homosexuals came with a series of three
articles under the collective title 'Evil Men', published in
the summer of 1952. Hugh Cudlipp, in his memoirs,
described this series as 'a sincere attempt to get to the
root of a spreading fungus, but the taboo was still
strong; so absolute in fact, that nothing practical was
done to solve the worst aspects of the problem-the
protection of children from perverts.' (Cudlipp, 1962,
p.317).
The series is especially remarkable because it
encourages every misconception of the homosexual
that popular prejudice could muster.
One point that the Pictorial was determined to
emphasise was that 'If homosexuals are tolerated here,
Britain would rapidly become decadent'. (25 May
1952).
Issues of social order were at stake. Newspapers
assumed that homosexuality was a moral, argument
rather than a political one, so arguments tended to
framed in terms of morality and family values.
The articles by Douglas Wrath told his readers
that homosexuals were conspiring against the natural
order of Britain. He implied that upper class perverts
were corrupting decent working class boys. Parents had
to be vigilant; you could never tell who was a pervert.
'Few of them [homosexuals] look obviously effeminate
- that is why people so often remain in ignorance of
the danger. Many who have never been brought to
book, are listed in secret police records as "suspects".'
Wrath went on: 'There is a freemasonry among
them which brings the rich, pampered degenerate
into touch with the "rough" who acquired his un-
natural habits from some corrupting youth club
leader.'
The young were in danger so drastic measures
were needed save the nation, 'so many normal people
have been corrupted and, in turn, corrupt others'.
The use of expert testimony was an important
way in which the Press built its case against homo-
sexuals. Experts gave scientific validity to prejudice.
The Pictorial quoted 'the great psychiatrist Clifford
Alien, the accepted medical authority on the sub-
ject'. (Wolfenden called him to give evidence)
Newspapers were so intent on demonising ho-
mosexuals that they never questioned the obvious
quackery of some medical opinion. Alien told the
Pictorial that homosexuals tended to be more intel-
ligent than non-homosexuals. 'It must be admitted
that sexual abnormalities do, in the main, occur in
the more intellectual and artistic types whose abilities
are so worth preserving in the future representatives of
the race.'
There was 'a terrific amount of biological waste'
because 'many intelligent types fail to reproduce'.
The Pictorial called for medical camps to be set
up to experiment on. homosexuals until a cure for
their mental illness could be found. Wrath wrote, 'To
treat these corrupters of youth as mere invalids would be
as sensible as sending a baby .murderer to a conva-
lescent home.' Sending homosexuals to prison was
also a danger (Wrath reminds his readers that ho-
mosexuality was rife in prisons).
'What is needed is a new establishment for them
Like Broadmoor. It should be a clinic rather than a
prison, and these men should be sent there and kept
there until they are cured.'
Wrath accepted that medical science did not
know how to cure homosexuality but 'a Broadmoor
for homosexuals will enable the medical man to do
the research that is needed.
'And, if any pervert there failed to respond to
treatment at least society would know that he was
not at large spreading his poison and the misery that
accompanies it.'
So there you. have it. The thorough dehumani-
sation of the homosexual. The right place for him,
according to the Pictorial, was in a medical experi-
24 Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000
 ment camp. And if he would not go there of his own
free will, he would be forcibly removed. (From this
distance, this series of articles might look shocking,
but some of these sentiments surfaced again In the
Press In the 1980s In the early days of the AIDS
crisis, when homosexuals were being demonised as
carriers of disease).
It is useful at this stage to consider what the
generally considered medical view of homosexuality
was in the 1950s and 1960s. It was accepted by all
sections of the Press (and society in general as far as
one can tell from documents of the time) that ho-
mosexuality was a disease and that it could be cured.
The only matter for debate was what was the most
humane way to do this.
At its heart the medical model states that ho-
mosexuality is a symptom of a lack of development in
the individual, it is a deviance or perversion and
therefore has its causes and has to be expkined (no
one asks for an explanation for the 'causes' of hetero-
sexuality).
A respected figure C. G. Learoyd wrote in the
Practitioner journal in 1954 'As one would expect with
their essential lack of mental control, many [homo-
sexuals] exhibit other sexual abnormalities, maso-
chism, sadism, exhibitionism, transvestitism, and all
the dog-like interests in excretion and excretory prod-
ucts. They are also often criminal. [...] The idea that a
practising homosexual can be perfectly high-
minded in other respects is a carefully fostered illu-
sion.' (Learoyd, 1954, p360).
Homosexual men were compared quite regu-
larly to walking time bombs waiting to explode, and
the language of sickness and sexuality, disease and
deviance has become inextricably intertwined. This
'medical model' gave homosexuals a deep sense of
inferiority and inadequacy. (Weeks, 1977, Pp.27-31.
Moran, 1989, p. 187. Ellis and Heritage, 1989, p.39).
The Pictorial was determined to equate homo-
sexuality with child molestation. Even in a laudable
campaign against a man calling himself Father
Ingram who set up his own private school, and then
molested a number of boys in his care.
The Pictorial chased Father Ingram through its
columns for three years. Eventually, as the Pictorial
reported on 16 May 1.954, Father Ingram was ar-
rested in the company of a 17-year-old former pupil.
He was jailed for 10 years. Once Ingram was safely
behind bars Pictorial editor Colin Valdar summed
up the lessons to be learned from the episode. Head-
lined, 'If You Love Children This Is The Urgent
Lesson of the Evil "Father" Ingram'. The lesson ac-
cording to Valdarwas "... howmany private schools,
without effective supervision, are exposing children to
the 'care' of known homosexuals?' (18 July 1954).
Even newspapers that believed they had a tol-
erant approach to homosexuality accepted the medical
model without question. Reynold's News, a left
of centre popular Sunday newspaper, asked its resi-
dent doctor Brian Welbeck to write on 'homosexu-
ality - a topic that no other newspaper has dared to
deal with along such objective Hues'. (11 April 1954).
Welbeck's case was that up to 55 per cent of the
population 'have at some time indulged in a mild
form of homosexual activity'but adult homosexuality
does not progress from the adolescent phase 'not for
moral or physical reasons but because of emotional
conditions in childhood'.
Homosexuality is not a vice nor a sign of deep
moral degradation. 'These men are from, a clinical
point of view suffering from a genuine mental illness
which can in many cases be treated successfully pro-
vided help is obtained for them early enough.'
To demonstrate to readers the validity of its ar-
gument the newspaper included a separate report 'I
WAS AN OUTCAST, By a man who found new
hope, was cured and is now happily married.'
As suggested earlier one of the great difficulties
of historical research into homosexuality is the lack
of contemporaneous accounts of the lives of ordi-
nary homosexuals. In the 1950s homosexuals were
socially isolated and one suspects particularly vulner-
able to 'expert' opinion such as this. It is quite likely
that homosexuals suffered from a self-fulfilling stere-
otype. If you tell people often enough that they are
inferior they will come to believe it.
Reynold's News published a number of letters
in response to Welbeck's article. These offer valuable
insights into the terror homosexuals and their family
must have faced as social outcasts.
People believed what they read in the newspa-
pers. Is it too fanciful to suggest that in the absence of
any other source of information on homosexuality the
newspaper campaigns quite directly ruined many lives?
The stereotypes portrayed in. the Press certainly
had the potential to make homosexuals doubt them-
selves and share the general contempt for sexual in-
verts.
One man wrote about 'my secret longings which
for years I have shamefully suppressed until now I
know I. am on the verge of a breakdown.'
The letter continues, 'I have always known. I was
different. I have loved sincerely and with all my heart
quite a number of my friends.
'Twice it became more than friendship but the
remorse was too much for me. I saw neither of them
again.
'I used to be a boys' club leader, and there in my
craving for affection found an outlet in service of others.
But I have given it up in case I should find myself too
interested in them.
'I lavish affection on my several dogs, but that is
not enough. But what can I do? To whom can I turn
for help? I am not an evil person, I know.' (Reynold's
News 4 April 1954)
Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000 25
 Here is further evidence that the newspapers
had a profound effect on how people viewed homo-
sexuality. Responding to the idea that over affectionate
mothers could turn their sons homosexual, a
mother wrote to Reynold's News to reproach herself
for making her son a homosexual. She explains how, if
she were able, she would alter her previous behaviour
towards him. Implicit in her testimony is that other
mothers should follow her example and treat their
own sons accordingly.
'I would take early note of every deviation from
the normal. I would refrain from too much .molly
coddling. We mothers are so afraid of pain for our
children that often we rob them of valuable experi-
ence. They would become better adjusted to life if
allowed to round off the rough edges naturally.'
She advised mothers to consult a medical psy-
chologist as soon as the inversion is suspected and
refuse a verdict that nothing can be done. Her con-
clusion is that if they want to homosexuals can be
normalised sufficiently to take their proper place in
society. (11 April 1954)
Often unconsciously homosexuals internalise
the expectations that popular psychology and psy-
chiatry have for them. It is difficult to withstand the
conventional wisdom even when it contradicts your
own experience. Fear of public opinion and a deep
internalisation of guilt and secrecy had a corrosive
affect on people's lives.
Hugh David has written that without the support
of a homosexual community, homosexual men very
often find themselves in anomic isolation, all too
ready to believe everything they read about themselves.
He tells the story of a young homosexual PhD
student in the 1950s who read in a Sunday paper
about a doctor who claimed he could cure homo-
sexuality. 'Nicholas' signed up for treatment and for
more than a year took aversion therapy with a series
of hourly injections designed to make him vomit at
the thought of men. Later parts of his treatment in-
cluded electric shocks and psychoanalysis. Finally the
doctor prescribed doses of LSD, Doctors told
Nicholas that they could make him no longer find
men sexually attractive, but could not make him find
women attractive. (David, 1997, Pp.182-187).
This testimony exposes the medical model.
Doctors, supported by the Press, wanted to stop people
having homosexual urges. They did not necessarily
want to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals. They
sought to enforce standard heterosexual normality on
homosexual patients. They sought to help
homosexuals overcome social pressures rather than
advocate changes to heterosexual behaviour.
The 1960s and the Sexual Offences Act
During the 1950s and 1960s agitation for homosexual
law reform increased. The Press ignored much of this.
Homosexual law was finally reformed by the Sexual
Offences Act 1967. The Act decriminalised homo-
sexual activities in private for adults over the age of
21. It applied only to England and Wales and did
not cover the merchant navy or the armed forces. But
homosexuality was not, as such, legalised. (Weeks,
1977, p.176).
This reform was the result of evolution of atti-
tudes. In the 1960s a new climate of liberalism
emerged and with it a homosexual sub-culture that
became a trendsetter in parts of the fashion and arts
worlds. Personal liberation and sexual liberation went
hand in hand. Publicly acceptable behaviour, including
the sexual, helped to increase the visibility of
homosexuality.
Although newspapers were generally hostile to
homosexuality, television influenced a new openness
on the subject. In 1964 the This Week documentary
series compared the situation of British homosexuals
with those in the more liberal Netherlands. In the
previous year the drama series Z Cars had featured a
storyline involving two homosexuals who were being
blackmailed. (Jeffrey-Poulter 43-44).
The 1960s was also a decade of increasing sexual
freedom for women and patterns of family life moved
away from the nuclear model. It was becoming in-
creasingly more difficult to exclude homosexuals from
changes that recognised sexual pleasure as a desir-
able goal in itself. (Jeffrey-Poulter, 1991, Pp.43-44.
Hobsbawm, 1995, Pp 323-333).
It was becoming increasingly evident that the
law relating to homosexuality did not work so it was
best to change it. In 1965 a National Opinion Poll
suggested that 63 per cent of respondents were in
favour of decriminalising homosexual acts between
consenting adults.
In Parliament those in favour of law reform
avoided moral arguments and instead tried to ensure
debate was rational and moderate as possible, believing
that emotion and prejudice would ruin chances of
success. (Weeks, 1977, Pp. 1.74-175)
As Les Moran says, the language of the Act was
toleration. Homosexuality was to be endured. Devi-
ance would be allowed to exist, but it would remain
firmly deviant. 'It was still wicked, wrong, corrupt,
ill, immature'.
Even today the law presents homosexuality as a
danger to others, to children, the family and the se-
curity of the state. As Moran maintains the law is
designed to contain homosexuality and keep it in its
place. (Moran, 1989, Pp. 189-190).
The climate in the 1960s had turned towards
one of tolerance rather than acceptance. The differ-
ence as Dennis Altman says, is that tolerance is a gift
extended by the superior to the inferior while ac-
ceptance recognises the equal validity of a style of
Life. Tolerance of homosexuality can co-exist with a
considerable suspicion of, and hostility towards, it
26 Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000

(Altaian, 1974, Pp. 51-52).
The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 remains the
most important piece of legislation affecting the lives
of male homosexuals that has been passed in more
than 100 years. The Press of the time virtually ig-
nored it.
Leo Abse MP had first tried to get a Bill passed
in Parliament to implement some of the Wolfenden
proposals as early as 1962. The House of Commons
talked it out. In May 1965 the House of Lords voted in
favour of Abse's new decriminalisation Bill. When he
tried to introduce it as a Ten-Minute Rule Bill in the
House of Commons in the same month it was
defeated. Several more attempts to introduce a Sexual
Offences Bill failed until Abse reintroduced the Bill
in July 1966. It took a year to make its way through
Parliament with the most acrimonious debates taking
place in June and July 1967.
Despite the long history of struggle for homo-
sexual law reform both inside and outside Parliament
most newspapers ignored the passage of the Bill. The
Daily Mirror, at the time the biggest selling morning
paper with a circulation of more than 5 million, did
not publish a single story on the subject in the final
run up to legislation until the Bill was finally
passed. And then it was to warn homosexuals not to
flaunt their newfound freedom (22 July 1967).
The Daily Express, the Mirror's main rival for
circulation, ran two short stories during the whole
debate. In both cases it described the measure as a
'Vice Bill' in headlines which tells us all we need to
know about that paper's attitude to the legislation.
The Daily Sketch, a high minded Tory paper
aimed at the working classes, did little better.
The broadsheet papers gave the passage of the
bill much more coverage. As was typical of the age,
the Times and the Guardian, gave detailed coverage
of debates as the bill moved through both houses of
Parliament. But this was done in splendid isolation.
The Times made no reference to homosexuality
throughout the whole of 1967 except when it reported
directly from Parliament.
Nowhere was the voice of the homosexual heard.
The entire Parliamentary debate assumed that ho-
mosexuals were a body apart. Indeed, some indignation
was felt when one Tory MP suggested obliquely that
some members of Parliament might themselves be
homosexual and ought to declare the fact. This
prompted the London Evening News to publish its
only story of the campaign. The paper was only in-
terested in. the row between some MPs who felt the
finger was being pointed at them.
No newspaper, however 'liberal' its editorial
agenda, published the thoughts of homosexuals. No
correspondence column contained letters from ho-
mosexuals.
The coverage of the broadsheets give the best
possible insight into the debates in Parliament. The
Association for Journalism Education Conference
Papers 2000 2 7
Times and the Guardian gave what seem to be faithful
reports of the debates in Parliament. It is probably
unfair to criticise the newspapers for the attitudes of
politicians, but it is clear that no serious newspaper
made attempts to put a contrary view. As a result
homosexuality was framed for readers in terms of
perversion. For example, Ray Mawby MP (Con:
Totnes) was allowed to go unchallenged when he said,
'The general public consider this an abomination, so
much so that they are not prepared to talk about it.
Many of my constituents ask me why Parliament
should be so obsessed with the subject.' (Guardian
24 June 1967). This in spite of the findings of the
National Opinion Poll two years previously which
found a majority of people in favour of
decriminalisation.
lan Percival (Con: Southport) felt the whole
subject of homosexuality was best left unspoken, 'If it
were not that there were young people in the public
gallery it might be useful to explain it,' he said. 'But
that one offence is so utterly disgusting and degrading
that I don't wish to give the details of it in public
here or anywhere else, but let nobody be in any
doubt of the disgusting nature of that offence.'
(Guardian 24 June 1967).
Even supporters of the legislation were unable
to accept homosexuality. At best the English estab-
lishment was prepared to tolerate the condition. But
only under the strictest conditions. Roy Jenkins, the
Home Secretary, sending the Bill to the Lords said,
'This is not a vote of confidence in, or congratula-
tion for, homosexuality. Those who suffer from this
disability carry a great weight of loneliness, guilt,
shame and other difficulties.' (Guardian 5 July 1967).
The extent to which legislators wanted the subject
of homosexuality brushed aside is exemplified by
the Earl, of Arran, the main sponsor of the Bill in the
House of Lords. On the day the measure passed into
law, he told the Lords,
'I ask those who have, as it were, been in bondage
and for whom the prison doors are now open, to show
their thanks by comporting themselves quietly and
with dignity. This is no occasion for jubilation and
certainly not for celebration.
'Any form of ostentatious behaviour now or in
the future, or any form of public flaunting, would be
utterly distasteful and would, I believe, make the
sponsors of the Bill regret that they had done what
they had done.
'Homosexuals must continue to remember that
while there may be nothing bad in being a homo-
sexual, there is certainly nothing good.
'... No amount of legislation would prevent ho-
mosexuals from being objects of dislike and derision,
or at best of pity.' (Times, 22 July 1967).
It was this speech that provided the Daily Mirror
with its only coverage of the Act. (22 July 1967).
The Guardian reported the Earl of Arran as
 saying, 'Homosexuals would always be disliked, de- The Press did, however, report the legal attack
rided or at best pitied; they would always be the odd on Gay News in July 1977 when the paper was suc-
men out and they would have to bear it like men.' cessfully prosecuted for blasphemous libel (a law that
(22 July 1967). had remained dormant since 1921) after it published a
The News of the World called the new law 'a poem that suggested that Jesus might have been
blot on the country' and a 'charter for corruption'. homosexual.
(27 July 1967) There was a continuing backlash in the Press
Such was enlightened England. over the supposed 'visibility' of homosexuals. Even
As the debates published above demonstrate, as Leo Abse, the sponsor of the 1967 Act had his doubts.
far as lawmakers were concerned all manifestations Writing in the Spectator on the tenth anniversary of
of homosexuality were still Inadmissible. There was the Act he expressed a view that was common in the
still a deep-rooted antagonism to homosexuality de- Press, 'the new freedom to come out has meant only
spite the advances in sexual freedom that were taking that they [homosexuals] have freaked out'. (9 July
place elsewhere in society. 1977).
Much to the annoyance of the lawmakers no
doubt, homosexuality became more visible. News- The 1980s: AIDS and the political backlash
papers took it upon themselves to monitor homo- The spread of AIDS to Britain in the early 1980s
sexuality and keep it decently hidden. In a classic piece
put the cause of homosexual law reform back by at
of its kind Denis Cassidy of the Sunday People visited
least ten years. The wholesale attacks on homosexuals
a pub frequented by homosexuals in Leeds. He saw as a community and as individuals reached a vi-
men dancing cheek to cheek, kissing, holding hands ciousness never before seen in the Press. The Con-
and petting. He called upon the police to close the pub
servative government, under Margaret Thatcher,
down on the grounds that homosexuals were flaunting aided by newspapers, were able to turn homosexuality
themselves. (24 March 1968). into a political stick with which to beat off opposition,
Despite the open hostility of the Press, 'gay pride'
especially from the Labour Party which was
replaced self-oppression during the 1970s. The ho- attempting to gain new supporters, particularly at
mosexual sub culture grew throughout the western local authority level, with left-wing policies.
world and there was a huge increase in the number It was clear how far Britain had retreated when in
of homosexual groups in the UK with a certain 1987 Thatcher was able to conclude her speech to the
amount of merging of homosexual and heterosexual Conservative Party conference by saying, 'Children
youth cultures, most obviously in pop music. (Weeks,who need to be taught to respect traditional values
1977). are being taught that they have an inalienable right to
But there was also much state activity to op-be gay.' Never since the darkest post-war days had
press homosexuals, especially by the police. The homosexuality been presented as a direct threat to the
number of prosecutions of homosexual men actually common core values of the nation.
increased in the UK after 1967, especially for offences Within a year Section 28 of the Local Govern-
committed in public toilets. Homosexuality might ment Act 1988 had been passed. It stated that local
have become increasingly acceptable but only so long-as
councils should not'promote homosexuality or publish
it did not cross frontiers. (Weeks 229). material for the pro .motion of homosexuality...
A National Opinion Poll in 1975 suggested that
promote the teaching in any maintained school of
40 per cent of those asked felt that homosexuals the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended
should be allowed to live their lives openly. family relationship by the publication of such material
Reporting on the poll's findings Gay News wasor otherwise'.
remarkably prescient about how public attitudes to The Press for most of the 1980s had scapegoated
homosexuality would change in the next decade as homosexuals. The onslaught began in 1983 when
the scourge of AIDS reached Britain. Britain woke up to the dangers of AIDS. Of course,
'It sees that overall tolerance will last for as long
AIDS had not been discovered in that year. It had
as homosexuals are not perceived as a positive dis- been known for some years that a disease had been
ruptive force in society. If their presence is ever per-
striking down homosexuals in the United States and
ceived as extensive enough to undermine 'normal' that a small, number of cases had been isolated in
society, it seems likely that this tolerance would be-
Britain.
come modified into a harder attitude.' (Jeffrey- In April 1983 a BBC Horizon programme about
Poulter, 1991,p.H5). how the disease had spread in America put the subject
There was renewed political activity inside and
on the British newspaper agenda. Many newspapers
outside Parliament to make further civil rights gains
commented on the subject for the first time. The
for homosexuals. Debates in 1977 about lowering the following month stories were published that
age of homosexual consent in line with that for suggested that people could 'catch AIDS' through
heterosexuals went largely unreported in the Press. contaminated blood transfusions.
might be in danger from AIDS. Then the panic be-
28 Association for Journalism Education Conference gan.
Papers 2000 As Simon Garfield says the reporting of the
Suddenly the Press realised that heterosexuals AIDS crisis was always going to be a great newspaper
 story. The story was dramatic. Put simply it said: 'Sex
Kills You'. But it also gave newspapers the op-
portunity to legitimise homophobia. As the then
editor of the Daily Star, Derekjameson, put it"Fleet
Street does not like homosexuals. They think it is
abnormal, unnatural and evil because it is wrong.'
(Garfield, 1994, Pp.41-43.)
Roy Greenslade, who was assistant editor (fea-
tures) of the Sun during the 1980s, said, 'The con-
sensus that informed the debate, such as it was, was
that all homosexuals are perverts. Flowing from that,
AIDS appeared to be just desserts for being involved in
deviant sexual behaviour. It was quickly realised that
it came about due to anal sex, and heterosexual
executives on the Sun thus fed in the fact that it was a
Gay Plague. AIDS tended to suggest that it might
stop all that kind of behaviour, and might lead to
fewer gays being around. This might shut them away
then they wouldn't be influencing other people to
'go gay' (Cited in Garfield, 1994, Pp.44-45)
By October 1983 Britain had its first recorded
AIDS-related death of a no n-homosexual. Suddenly
the Press was able to differentiate between'innocent'
victims of AIDS and others. The others were homo-
sexuals.
The notion that AIDS was a 'Gay Plague' was
common currency in the early 1980s. Stories implied
that AIDS and homosexuality are synonymous. In
addition there is the widespread use of the term'high
risk group' or 'those at risk from AIDS'. (Armitage et
al 60). Although the term 'gay plague' was used for
only a short period of time the damage done by the
initial misinformation remained.
The sheer cruelty of some coverage is breath-
taking. The Sun featured a vicar who said that he
would shoot his own. son if he discovered he had
AIDS. The article was illustrated with a picture of
the vicar aiming a shotgun at a young .man's head. (7
February 1985).
Bill Brownhill, Tory leader of South Stafford-
shire Council, was quoted in many newspapers in
January 1987 when he said, after viewing a health
education film about AIDS, 'As a cure I would put
90 per cent of queers in the ruddy gas chamber.'
In March 1985 the Sun felt confident enough
to quote US psychologist Paul Cameron as saying,
All homosexuals should be exterminated to stop the
spread of AIDS. We ought to stop pussy-footing
about.' (Cited in Sanderson, 1989, p.238).
MPs called for AIDS to become a notifiable
disease so that sufferers would be forced into quar-
antine. If evidence were needed that homosexuals
were marginalised within society the government-
backed Standing Advisory Committee on AIDS had
no representatives from the homosexual organisa-
tions. The vast majority of money made available by
government to tackle AIDS went to haemophilic
organisations, even though the majority of sufferers
were homosexuals. (Jeffrey-Poulter, 1991,p.l86)
Moves were made to curtail the freedom of ho-
mosexuals. Once again, newspapers asserted their
right to silence them. The Daily Express stated, 'Ho-
mosexuals are the group hardest hit by AIDS and
most involved in its spread. More than ever, no one
should be allowed to do or say anything that could
tip youngsters towards hom.osexua.lity.' (9 December
1987)
A survey of Press reporting conducted for the
Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom in
November 1985 found a great many articles which
mentioned lesbians and gay men also mentioned
AIDS, leading the report's authors to conclude that it
is possible that all articles which mention AIDS,
whether they mention homosexuality or not, could
be read as comments on homosexuality. Using such
language as 'gay plague' was a deliberate choice with
political implications. (Armitage et al, 1987, p.60)
Newspaper columnists helped to turn public
opinion away from homosexuals. Newspapers blamed
homosexuals for AIDS, highlighting innocent vic-
tims (those who were infected through blood trans-
fusions) and by implication 'the guilty'who caught it
through sexual practice and then passed it on to others.
During the 1980s a new form of journalism was
becoming popular in newspapers. Julian Petley has
identified how a new type of journalist punditry
emerged, fuelled by the need for newspapers to chase
readers who were deserting the printed Press in fa-
vour of broadcast news. Newspapers were tempted to
go where broadcasting does not, into the realm of
opinion and comment. The comment, however, was
not necessary based on fact. (Petley, 1997, p.254).
The most extreme form of comment,
unsurprisingly, was to be found in those newspapers
that were engaged in circulation battles. The Daily
Star's columnist Ray Mills was able to write this in
1986. 'Little queers or big queens, Mills has had
enough of them all- the lesbians, bisexuals and trans-
sexuals, the hermaphrodites and the catamites and
the gender benders who brazenly flaunt their sexual
failings to the disgust and grave offence of the silent
majority. A blight on them all, says Mills." (Sander-
son, 1989, p.239.)
Newspapers repeatedly called for 'tougher ac-
tion' to be taken against homosexuals. The Daily
Express felt able to print a reader's letter advocating,
'Burning is too good for them [homosexuals]. Bury
them in a pit and pour on quick lime' (13 December
1987).
The Press disguised its own role in this con-
Association for Journalism Education
Conference Papers 2000 2 9
 struction of AIDS. They presented people 'caught
up in the AIDS scare', without mentioning that mis-
information from the Press caused that 'scare' in the
first pkce. (Armitage et al, 1987, p.62)
In 1988, the Daily Star editorialised, 'Surely, if
the human race is under threat, it is entirely REA-
SONABLE to segregate AIDS victims - otherwise
the whole of mankind could be engulfed.
'[...] The truth is that promiscuous homosexuals
are by far the biggest spawning ground for AIDS. They
could curb the spread of the disease if they curbed
their sexual appetites, but that does not seem to be
happening, despite all the warnings and all the condom
campaigns. Right now, ideas Hke AIDS colonies have
got to be worth considering.' (1 December 1988. Cited
in Beharrell, p227)
The use of homosexuality to make political capital
was gaining momentum in the right wing newspapers
in the 1980s. The creation of moral panics, u sing
one of the last remaining minority groups which it was
socially acceptable to abuse, helped the papers to set
the political agenda. Some commentators even
suggest that these inflated crises and threats were
hyped up to the extent that they created a climate of
public opinion that allowed Section 28 of the Local
Government Act 1988 to be passed.
Terry Sanderson asserts that Parliamentary de-
bates relied almost entirely on evidence culled from
the newspaper reports whose authenticity had been
challenged over and over again. (Sanderson, 1995,
p.235).
To coincide with the 1986 local government
elections, and those of Labour-controlled Inner London
Education Authority, the Sun devoted a front page
to 'Vile book in schools' - Jenny Lives With Eric
and Martin. The report stated that the book which
was 'a shocking schoolbook showing a little girl in
bed with her homosexual father and his naked lover'
was available to children in ILEA schools.
(Sanderson, 1995, p.60) The story was a distortion of
the truth, but one that stuck. Even in 2000 as the
debate over the scraping of Section 28 continues this
book is invoked as a reason why 'homosexual propa-
gandists' should not be allowed into schools.
In January 1988 a Harris Poll confirmed that
the sustained anti-homosexual rhetoric of the Press
had taken a toll on public opinion. Only 48 per cent
now thought that homosexual relationships between
consenting adults should be legal (it had been 61 per
cent in March 1985). Of those questioned 83 per
cent agreed that local councils should not teach that
homosexuality was 'on a par'with heterosexuality. A
total of 55 per cent believed that gay and lesbian
magazines should not be on public sale (Jeffrey-
Poulter, 1991, Pp.225-226)
The government responded by encouraging
backbench MP David Wilshire to put forward Sec-
tion 28. One cannot but agree with Jeffrey-Poulter
30 Association for Journalism Education Conference Papers 2000
that for the first time in British history this placed
on the statute book the principal that homosexuality
was socially undesirable and inherently inferior to
heterosexuality. It was a blatant attempt to consign
homosexual relationships to second-class status.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that over the past six
decades images of homosexuality have been distorted
in the Press to demonise a group seen as apart from
mainstream society.
Not much has changed today. In 2000 the Daily
Mail has been leading the charge against homosexual
law reform. It supports the House of Lords every
inch of the way in its fight to stop the repeal of Sec-
tion 28 and 'gay propaganda being peddled to im-
pressionable young minds'. (8 February 2000).
The Mail on Sunday sees a conspiracy, believing
homosexuals have undue influence on the Cabinet (13
February 2000). This echoes the Sun's campaign 'Tell
us the truth Tony. Are we being run by a gay Mafia?'
(9 November 1998).
The Sunday People labels as 'perverts' homo-
sexuals who use a public area of woodland to make
sexual contacts. (5 March 2000).
Richard Ingrams asks in the Observer, 'Are pae-
dophiles gay?' (20 February 2000).
A British Airways plane is delayed while two
men seen kissing one another are thrown off. 'The
Captain decided to abort take-off rather than risk
the safety of the passengers,' a BA spokesman said.
(Sun, 12'April 2000).
To end on a positive note. The Mirror seems to
have introduced a policy of reporting positive im-
ages of homosexuality, perhaps as a way of redefining
itself as a modern progressive newspaper. While the
Mail manufactures controversy over the repeal of
Section 28, the Mirror reports on three homosexual
teenagers - two male, one female - about 'the
challenge of being "different" in a hostile world'. The
Mirror supports repeal because Section 28 'encour-
ages prejudice and abuse'. (M Magazine, 11 April
2000).
REFERENCES
Altman Dennis (1974), Homosexual Oppression and Libera-
tion, Alien Lane, London.
Armitage Gary, Julienne Dickey and Sue Sharpies (1987), Out
of the Gutter, A Survey of the Treatment of Homosexuality by
the Press, Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, London.
Beharrell (1993), 'AIDS and the British Press, in Eldridge John
(ed), Getting the Message, News, Truth and Power, Routledge,
London.
Cudlipp Hugh (1962), At Your Peril, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
London.
David Hugh (1997), On Queer Street, A Social History of British
Homosexuality 1895 - 1995, Harper Collins, London. Ellis Sue
and Paul Heritage (1989), 'AIDS and the Cultural Response:
The Normal Heart and We All Fall Down', in Simon
 Shepherd and Mick Wallis (ed), Coming on Strong, Gay Politics and
Culture, Unwin Hyman, London. Garfield Simon (1994), The End of
Innocence, Britain in the Time of AIDS, Faber and Faber, London.
Higgins Patrick (1996), Heterosexual Dictatorship, Male Ho-
mosexuality in Post-War Britain, Fourth Estate, London. Hobsbawm
Eric (1995), Age of Extremes, The Short Twentieth Century 1914 -
1991, Abacus, London. HMSO (1957), Report of the Committee on
Homosexual Offences and prostitution ['The Wolfenden Report'],
Cmnd 247, London.
Jeffrey-Poulter Stephen (1991), Peers, Queers and Commons, The
Struggle for Gay Law Reform from 1950 to the Present Day,
Routledge, London.
Learoyd C. G. (1954),'The problem of Homosexuality', in The
Practitioner, 172, London.
Medhurst Andy (1998), Tracing Desires: Sexuality and Media
Texts', in Briggs Adam and Paul Cobley (ed), The Media: an
Introduction.
Moran Les (1989), 'Sexual Fix, Sexual Surveillance: Homosexual in Law',
in Simon Shepherd and Mick Wallis (ed), Coming on Strong, Gay
Politics and Culture, Unwin Hyman, London. Petley Julian (1997),
'Faces for Spaces', in Bromley Michael and Torn O'Malley (ed), a
Journalism Reader, Routledge, London. Porter Kevin and Jeffrey Weeks
(1991), Between The Acts, Lives of Homosexual men, Routledge,
London. SandersonTerry (1989), 'Gays in the Press', in Simon Shepherd
and Mick Wallis (ed), Coming on Strong, Gay Politics and Culture,
Unwin Hyman, London.
Sanderson Terry (1995), Media Watch: The Treatment of male and
Female Homosexuality in the British Press, Cassell, London.
Shepherd Simon (1989), 'Gay Sex Spy Orgy: The State's Need for
Queers,' in Simon Shepherd and Mick Wallis (ed), Coming on
Strong, Gay Politics and Culture, Unwin Hyman, London. Weeks
Jeffrey (1977), Coming Out, Homosexual Politics in Britain from the
Nineteenth Century to die Present, Quartet, London.

Paper delivered at Association of Journalism Education, Journalism the First Draft of History
conference, London, UK, May2000.

At the time of writing Richard Rooney was Principal Lecturer and Head of the Journalism
Department, Liverpool, John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.

Association for Journalism Education Conference

Papers 2000 31