Inevitably any organisation seeking to grow and prosper finding funding became a necessity. Almost a year and a half of struggling to meet payments of electricity and telephone bills and to find additional money for refreshments and other expenses through staging discos and dances proved insufficient to cover costs. Without a formal membership and subscriptions inadequate collections were taken at weekly collective meetings. To remedy this situation a decision was made, in October 1975, to apply to Lambeth Borough Council for a small grant to cover basic running costs. The grant was for £1797.00 annually which included projected costs for rent and rates (council tax). A much smaller sum compared to £4470.00 claimed by the Women's Place next door to the gay centre which included a full-time worker/playgroup leader. All gay centre organisers gave their labour on a voluntary basis. The Women's Place application was approved but the gay centre's was rejected. Before discussing the rejection it's worth looking at the case for a grant made by the the South London Gay Community Centre. This gives a snap shot into the politics of the South London gay liberationists at the time.
The grant application considered by the Community Liaison Sub Committee began by stating the London Medical Group Research Department's figures that one in eight people in London were homosexuals. This statistic was indicative of the many thousands of Lambeth residents were also gay and was followed by an assertion that would raise hackles nowadays but at the time was not considered to be controversial:
"Homosexuals in this society are very much in the position of Jews in a fascist state. They live in a constant state of fear that if their homosexuality becomes known they will be disowned by their family, rejected by their friends and sacked from their jobs."
In 1974 most of this statement was true. The police continued to raid gay saunas, pubs, clubs, cottages and cruising grounds. Under the age of twenty one gay men could still be prosecuted for illegal relationships and laws such as importuning for an immoral purpose or against gross indecency were used to arrest gay men (and still can be!). Those who were prosecuted and subjected to pubic exposure were ostracized as social pariahs. But nowadays to equate this to a state policy of mass incarceration, mass murder, the destruction of civil liberties, property confiscation and exclusion from employment would be seen at the very least a gross exaggeration and at most a grotesque form of antisemitism in minimizing and devaluing the deaths of millions of jews exterminated in the holocaust. Gay men also died in Nazi concentration camps but it would be seen as outrageous to suggest an equivalence between the two. Most that can be said about this is that it was a deliberate rhetorical flourish to emphasize the extent and depth of gay oppression. Even so today it would be seen as an irresponsible one. In some ways it typifies the anger-driven, casual and sometimes ill thought out approach of gay liberationists in that era.
The statement goes on to illustrate the various strategies gay men were forced to adopt to carve out a safe space in society in ghettoized jobs such as hair dressing and the theatre. One survival strategy was to play stereotypes ridiculing gay men for the amusement of others. They were viewed by gay liberationists as the equivalent of 'uncle Tom' figures to gain limited acceptance by 'straight' society quoting Larry Grayson, Danny La Rue, Kenneth Willliams and Stanley Baxter as equivalents to 'eyeball-rolling, water melon eating blacks who played inferior 'comical' roles in pre-war American movies and reassured society of white superiority.'
'Most homosexuals', continued the submission, pretend to be heterosexual even to the extent of getting married to quash suspicions about their continued 'bachelorhood'. Further, to avoid detection they also remain 'closeted' at work, in the street, in political groups and the family out of fear of adverse reaction should their sexual orientation become known.
The statement continued by emphasizing the absence of any positive endorsement of homosexuality at school, in the media, books, television and films leading to isolation during childhood and adolescence and a 'lack of identity' with the assumption that everyone is heterosexual (and white as well).
The statement went on to explain how the pubs and clubs exclusively for homosexuals, mostly confined to large cities, were exploitative (charging high prices), repressive and tension ridden. Although they provided a short respite from pretending to be heterosexual, cramped into a few 'frantic' hours of social existence, these ghettoes were subjected to raids by the police and individuals were harassed by them on leaving the places quoting the Colherne and Boltons in London's Earls Court as examples.
A case tor the Gay Community Centre is then made as an alternative to the established and unfriendly gay scene emphasizing the need for a relaxed and friendly atmosphere to provide a supportive background where gay people could 'be themselves.'
The statement continued with the following points:
The gay centre is not a club with a membership but a community centre similar to Women's Aid (state funded) or centres for disadvantaged black youth.
Young people rejected and thrown out by their parents and an unfriendly gay scene needed an alternative place to socialize to stop the drift into the West End of London and prostitution.
Rose Robertson of Parents Enquiry (also funded by the state) and the independent Icebreakers Collective were on hand to liaise with parents and rejected youngsters to repair relationships and to provide a specifically gay youth group. Both assisting the turn away from drugs and suicide and protection against abusive parents.
Older, middle-aged gay people rejected by the commercial gay scene were not only lonely as a result of this but had to 'shake off a lifetime's habit of guilt and shame.' The gay centre would provide a place of acceptance, friendship and relaxation in the company of other gay people.
With the major problem of gay people being sacked from their jobs and the reluctance of trade unionists to support them, citing a midwife and a teacher as victims, a Gay Workers' Group had been set up 'in several parts of the country' with the express task of producing a Gay Workers' Charter in a similar vein to the Working Women's Charter proposed by the Women's Place next to the gay centre that had also applied for a grant.
The gay centre telephone service provided a lifeline for gay people in various states of worry and despair including fears of suicide. Calls were even handled after midnight by Alastair Kerr who lived above the gay centre.
The USA, Canada and the Scandinavian countries were years ahead of Great Britain in the public provision of Gay Community Centres in major cities as they were in tackling women's equality, black liberation and gay rights.
Gay people contribute to society in terms of paying rent and rates hence the time is overdue for public funds to be made available to counteract gay oppression by fudning the gay community centre, the first of its kind.
The grant application was vigorously supported by Ken Livingstone and Ted Knight who were then Lambeth Labour councillors. Knight later became leader of Lambeth Council and famously defied the Thatcher Tory government against rate capping. Livingstone later became the Mayor of London and Member of Parliament for Brent East. As head of the Greater London Council he fully fully funded the first officially backed Lesbian and Gay Centre at Farringdon Road and, though castigated at the time as part of the 'loony left', all of the measures adopted by the radical Labour Left have now been adopted.
The grant application was given further support by a number of Left Labour councillors, Area 5 Social Services and Lambeth's Council for Community Relations. Testimonials of support were also given by the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, London Friend and Icebreakers. The grant application was however defeated on the spurious grounds that the extra money needed for the gay centre grant could not been budgeted for in the following year’s financial projections. But clearly this did not stop the community liaison sub-committee from allocating funds to other groups that had not been anticipated in forthcoming financial projections such as the Womens' Place which had applied for funding at the same time as the gay centre. (CHECK THIS FOR ACCURACY)
There was opposition to the grant from both conservative and right-wing labour councillors but the most vocal challenge from members of the public came from Beatrice Old the landlady of the George public house. Standing conveniently near to the gay centre this pub became the watering hole for centre volunteers and users. Recalling a prior confrontation with gay liberationists at her public house she resolutely opposed the grant.
Some customers had objected vociferously and grumbles of shocked discontent were building up to a crescendo of boundless anger. It has to be born in mind at this point in time that the gay group concerned had been thrown out of practically every bar on Railton Road and surrounding areas and this episode threatened to be another nail in the coffin of access to a public space in which to socialise. There were no laws against discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
In fact almost a year earlier in November 1974 at the Hamilton Arms on Railton Road gay liberationists were barred by the landlord. This time action was called and insisting on the right to socialise anywhere to counter bigortry and prejudice an occupation of the pub was arranged. A squatters’ group which met at the Women’s Centre had been attended by several gay people. The squatters and one or two left-wing labour party councillors from Lambeth Council demonstrated their solidarity by joining the occupation. David Callow had made the rounds of kissing his gay comrades with the usual gay liberation disregard for the misery of the closet. He and some other gay men were promptly asked to leave the building for such a wanton display of gay audacity was not appreciated by the bar manager. The sit-in was eventually defeated as the protesters, one by one, were lifted and heaved out onto the pavement by the police. The Hamilton Arms suffered a considerable financial loss as a result and the local squatters were deprived of what was a sometime decent watering hole.
Mrs. Beatrice Old cited the fracas in her public house as part of the reason for her opposition to the grant. That and the strange way that people dressed and acted. The make-up and women’s clothes on men was one thing. But kissing too! The fight in the saloon bar of the George Hotel after taunts and insults from some young men and a few older regulars led to the ban being imposed. Roland the truck driver went over to a straight couple and adopted a laddish pose. He threatened to take on anyone who dared to challenge him. He was robustly built and not one to pick a fight with. Table and chairs were overturned in the best of Western saloon bar traditions and the errant gay libbers were ejected. A picket was later mounted outside the George with banners protesting again discrimination on the uncharacteristically chilly Friday evening of 5 September 1975 with few customers braving the cold to go into the pub.
Mr. John Old, the landlord, was admant in refusing admission. In his statement to the South London Press he insisted that kissing and cuddling between men would not be allowed in his pub. He would not let men and women do that let alone men and men and his customers had threatened to desert him. The matter of being barred from other pubs in the area was also mentioned in passing. Beatrice Old and husband John however failed to mention that they had been threatened with prosection under the Race Relations Act for allegedly attempting to ban black people from socalising in their pub.
The grant application was rejected and rumour upon rumour suggested that Mrs. Beatrice Old tumbled down the steps at the front of Lambeth Town Hall as she was leaving the committee proceedings. Did she fall of was she pushed? This was the question many people asked and a very hazy answer was forthcoming. Beatrice Old entered the Brixton Faeries’ theatre group hall of infamy as one of their characters. She reincarnated as a sour-faced Mrs. Mold in ‘Mr. Punch’s Nuclear Family.’ The failure to get a grant prompted the points put forward on a leaflet which was handed out at a demonstration going past the Houses of Parliament (WHICH ONE? IT WAS HELD ON THE SAME DAY THAT ‘THE LONDON PROGRAMME’ WENT ON AIR - 20 NOVEMBER 1975?).
The leaflet is shot through with an eclectic mixture of gay separatist arguments tinged with quasi-Marxist analysis and liberal demands for civil rights. Stress is laid on strength through numbers and the need to gain acceptance through greater visibility. It is worth quoting in full to gain a flavour of the ‘spontaneous’, haphazard and sometimes vitriolic nature of gay centre propaganda at the time. The errors in grammar and punctuation reflect the 'hurried' nature of activist propaganda with little time for editing:
THE NEED FOR SETTING UP GAY CENTRES
“Though recognising the urgent need for law reform in Parliament, real change will only come from a change in the people’s attitudes (and by ‘people’s attitude’ we also mean the attitude of gay people towards ourselves, our rights as citizens and an angry recognition of how we have been deprived of these”
“A recent survey of the London Medical School's Research Dept., places the number of gay people at 1 in 8 of the population of London; 1 in 10 elsewhere. That is at least 5 million people in Britain; 900,000 in London.”
“If every gay person was on this march, we would be immobile fro Speaker’s Corner to Trafalgar Square, and every street in London would be blocked by us. (and then they’s probably bomb us!)
“Despite our vast numbers only a minority of gays are “involved” in gay groups, and this energy is largely ‘intemalised’ ...i.e. directed into social channels of dances,etc. A great many gay people have no regular meeting place apart from the commercial gay scene - a scene that does not really lend itself to building up the strength, pride and self-confidence necessary to a civil rights struggle.”
“For gays in South London this was frustratingly true until the setting up 2 years ago of the SOUTH LONDON GAY COMMUNITY CENTRE. Since then, with our own home open every evening of the week, we have been able to build up s strong local gay group. The support and identification that has come from having our own place has enabled us to make a contribution to the gay movement far in excess of our actual numbers.”
“For gay people locally, and not so local, it is a place to come to for friendship, relaxation, support and sympathy. Increasing numbers of quiet, shy gays use the centre regularly gaining self-confidence. Many come out.”
“From our experience, we have come to believe that the most positive way for gay people to organise for our many needs is by creating such centres. Others - (in our out of Parliament) - will not do it for us - WE MUST DO IT OURSELVES.”
“Change is not only required from Parliament. Real change in our lives must be effected on the home front, i.e. where we live and work.”
“Gay people are part of their communities. At least one tenth of ratepayers are gay. Virtually all are tax-payers. And what service do we receive for our contribution? Society is organised to cater for the needs of heterosexuals only. Public money (£113 public money) is spent on their children; their housing; their police; their libraries; their marraige guidance bureaus(and their divorce courts ! ) and medical services which deny us our sexual orientation.”
“Lambeth Council ahve spent £ 13 MILLIONS on Social Services this year. We, at Sth. London Gay Community Centre, have asked for £2000 ( .016 of 1 percent for 12 and one half percent of the population) to pay back to them the rent and rates they ask form us.”
“Our city-fathers, shuddering at the concept of “LAMBETH/HOMOSEXUALS” have refused us. This is now building up to a major council row,in which we have the support of many individual councillors. We are glad of this, as now, with all the attendant publicity, all the 30,000 gays in Lambeth must know of the Centre’s existence, and after tonight;s
television programme about us(see below) a great many more will know.”
The statement ended with information about our appearance on Lond Weekend Television’s ‘The London Programme’ one of the earliest public access programmes creating an opportunity to ‘speak for ourselves’. A dance was organised at Hammersmith Town Hall together with Bradford GLF’s production of ‘Present Your Briefs’ to help raise funds to pay the centre’s emergency bills (EXPAND THIS SECTION AT A LATER DATE).