Search Browse Media On This Day Map Quotations Timeline Research Free Datasets Remembered About Contact
☶ Go up a page

Ian Johnstone - television programme on homosexuality

This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It is not a transcript, it has not been checked by humans and will contain many errors. However it is useful for searching on keywords and themes by using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.

[00:00:00] I in the 1960s I came to New Zealand First of all from from Africa via Britain or Britain via Africa. I've been working both. And very soon I was delighted by New Zealand's spread of radio coverage. I was used to radio being the voice of God from London in Britain, and that was that was a northerner I would never get near it. However, living in Timo ruse, I was actually to Morocco, first of all teaching, I couldn't hear the local radio station and have eye contact, you know, with the people who ran it and who were part of our community. I thought this was good fun, I got a job with them loved it was a DJ, then I had the good fortune to be transferred to Wellington, Justice television arrived. And as we became women in the internet, Bs for whom I had worked became the ns NBC, which was a public Corporation rather than a government department, which meant it should be much freer to represent a range of views rather than to get trapped into a government propaganda. And also, most excitingly was introducing television. And so I was rusted on to read news on television, along with other news readers were doing radio news, and enjoyed it. Even if we hardly knew what we were doing. But we did have this powerful mandate from the country at large, to give them a television service. And they were very keen for it. I mean, they were delighted that the NBC had started television. And perhaps the major snag was they were not seeing enough about New Zealand on their television. They could watch the early days of Coronation Street and all that and see people drinking after six, which was itself a help in a major social reform that came about quite soon, which was changed to chemical clothing. And also they could watch BBC News, not much about television about New Zealand other than the weather forecast. So as soon as we had the main line programme series running in four places, the njvc decided to start a current affairs series and recorded compass. And I had the good luck to be recruited as a reporter for it, or the reporter, I should say for it because it was a small scale deal. And it was produced by Alan Martin and name of some eminence now and indeed, deservedly so who is the was the head of programmers, I think, at that stage. pod nail production, anyway, said he was a kiwi who'd worked in Britain, and had worked for some current affairs programmes for rediffusion. So and it was fronted hosted is maybe the word by Alan Morris, another expat Kiwi who'd been in Britain for a long time came here to head the production arm of TV in NTPC. And fronted this cut. And the idea was along the lines, and some of people looking at this may know it have a programme called panorama, which has been running forever on BBC television, and which deals with current political, social issues, questions, problems and the like. And off we went, just a small scale, we have this script, we had to learn how to do it. First of all, entire programme apart from its studio assembly, all black and white, in those days, had to be made on film, which meant borrowing film crews from the National Film Unit. And travelling off into the countryside to interview or whatever you had to do to make programmes that you needed. And then get a film editor who had a rough idea of what could put it all together and put it in front of add on who would say, Oh, that's a bit long winded, but we are learning, aren't we? So yeah, let's just trim it out. And we did it in because we were a small production unit. And it was quite a complicated thing to do. But we did it in a series of about eight I think then we take a break and then come back again. And so this was broadcast nationally and tried. And what kind of broadcast time Did you have [00:04:49] a good time it was early evening, seven o'clock, something like that right after the news. And the way it worked, because we didn't have a national link then was that we would make in Wellington, we put it to air and Wellington on a Wednesday night and tape it, and then send copies of the tapes to Auckland, and Christchurch, who would play it the next night. And when you say tape, So was this on film, it was actually made on film but recorded on vast, bulky, three, four inch videotape reels with the great machines that used to record in those days. Yeah. So what year did Comcast start? We were on edge just before the decimal currency change. Because that was our first dramatic crisis, public argument programme. When we covered very orthodox topics. It was mostly to do with government programmes or proposals, or social or business things that were going to happen to the country like I remember doing a long programme with Steve Whitehouse, about what effect containerization would have when it came. Another decimal currency one was somehow our producer Gordon brick got hold of an American Gordon because his name was sorry, got hold of an American or Australian expert who forecast that the day after we changed from pounds, shillings and pence to dollars and cents under Rob Muldoon, who was then the Associate Minister of Finance under his control. This, that meant said this man that prices would increase by at least 7% or whatever. Whoa, big fat mouth? How dare you say that, Gregor, Why wasn't I consulted about this matter beforehand? How a rubber band Oh, well, we sort of know you're not sorry, you know. And he was his first practice run, that be coming the kind of political Tiger that he was. So that was a, we were an independent Corporation. But we were still very aware that the government control the amount of money that we could get from licence fees and had to give us money. So it was difficult to get discussion on things like the Vietnam War, because that would undoubtedly rock the boat as far as prime minister olio, Chris concerned, and perhaps make, make it less likely that he would look kindly upon our application for overseas funds. So I don't think we're better touched up on here. And you know, and I had to say, Well, I think we should, and so on, we went. And then by 67, we were in a position to begin to do stuff that was really a bit more of our own making. And I like to think that this programme on homosexual law reform in the 60s was of our own making, you know, it was something that we saw, as, as television makers was important, shouldn't be discussed publicly had not been published for various kind of odd reasons, and should be pushed, and are masters. So the wisdom and the justice in it always took a bit of persuasion. You want to tell them that, you know, a it would be totally reliable and be it was important. And let's see if they were to turn it down. Who knows? Somebody might find out that they refuse to agree to stand but you're all the games that you play. So when you say, talking to our masters? Was there quite a hierarchy of people that you had to convince to get the choice on? Well spotted indeed there was yet there was a director general. And above him aboard Of course, we very rarely had anything to do with them. But then there was a director of television. So he would come into the equation if there was an edge of question or might be some conservative response to whatever was good. under him was a controller of news and current affairs. under him was the head of the Wellington station. And under him, I should say around him, really, they were all relatively he was the country called the controller of news and current affairs, and he was our immediate boss, and he was the man to be persuaded. And he was usually pretty cautious. [00:09:42] And you had to kind of wash your way around things and we played tricks. I have to say, the vine if I take a sidestep on that, Gordon Beck in particular was that he would practice English Standard news journalist and the He knew about editors and Dr. Bruce, who was our our head of current affairs, had to always check the rough cut as recorded of a programme and say, Oh, well, I think perhaps that interview is rather too much of that or I don't like that script suggestion, you haven't quite got the balance right. You know, whatever cautious, liberals were cautious, they will very rarely encouraging you to do brave or new, I think. And so Gordon, and the film editor connived between them, too, for no reason whatsoever put in a shot of, or a sinking destroyer, let's say from some World War 240, Euro bomb test in in two thirds of the way into the programme. And, and that meant that you put in your deliberate mistake, and Bruce crutsinger, I do think I don't know how that got in there. But that should, Oh, God, you spotted the proof. Well, my work, really, and you know, you hope to play these silly games. And, and generally, I have to say they did give in, but the difficult thing always was to get approval from Bruce and his seniors, because he would report to a meeting. And then he thought, quite often poor bugger. He saw this great idea. Yes, oh, what Gods came and then he'd go to a meeting of he his senior officers and then come back to look, I don't think that is such a good idea. So you knew he'd been hammered by one or two of them. And you had some sympathy for him. But it was it was hierarchical, and over control. So the programme we're going to focus on today was a compass programme looking at homosexual law reform. And I've got it here as it was broadcast on the 27th of April 1967. Can you tell me how so that if that's the broadcast, like how long did it take to produce? Not necessarily that programme, but a programme how many weeks or months or two weeks, I guess, roughly. And sometimes you were shooting, because there was an occasion, but it might take you longer, but that would be a one off thing that you're charting. You put it on the shelf and wait until you need it. It's that average two week turnover, I suppose from approval to getting into. Why? Why at that point, were you looking at a programme on homosexual workforce? It was bubbling the topic. There was some discussion, there's a lot of our stuff was secondary to Britain. So I think it was the wolfenden was starting to report in Britain and discussed not making any great progress, but at least and so naturally, you knew about it. And you think, Oh, yeah, that and then you began to sniff around and find out a what our legal position was, which was usually much the same as the Brits. And if there were any rumblings or suggestions, and then you found out, there were a number of people trying to push for law reform, hear about homosexuality. And that was interesting, you talk to them. And then you discovered that venue, young, brave man, out of New Plymouth. I always love to see them in rural New Zealand doing brave things. We're going to talk talking about bringing up a private member's bill on God that provides the kind of public impetus that you useful when you're trying to persuade the bosses to let you do it. And that's what got us moving. I will confess to a personal note, I'll tell you about that at the end when I was kidding myself to do some work on this topic. But I'll tell you when we finished the programme, so you don't want it on the record? No, no, I don't mind. No, I just think it might make more sense. Once we've talked about the actual programme itself. Sorry, I'm doing myself editing here. There we go. Can you recall if there were many we were aware of many gay people within bc NZ. Yeah. [00:14:33] Not many. But you knew who because more readily talked all you know, we were more open working community here and then the standard one and so there were a number of mean number of actors and things like that. And in fact, that's how we found our people to be on our programme through acting. The unity theatre group The way Chuck said when that happened, we were thinking about doing a programme and had mentioned it to one of the people whom you thought would be interesting because they were gay or because they were a good idea. You know, it's about time we did something good a sec were around. So you knew, and Julia Mason and she was then Julia Stewart now is she was the only researcher for the programme. She had good friends who, in accuracy, what did they call it, unity theatre group. And after rehearsal of something, she said, Oh, by the way, we're looking at the possibility of one and two or three people put their hands up and said, Go, I hope you're getting people quite alarmed. Or maybe I'm gay myself, I really don't know that background. But she made some connections. They said, If you decide to go ahead, we'll help you, which was the first important step. And then then we would put on that basis, I think we put the proposal up and we got approval to go ahead with it. provided of course, entirely and nothing illegal is you don't remember Yeah, yeah, we know Yes. guarantee you you know, and you'll have a chance to look at it and all that stuff. So then we put it together, Julia assemble the list of names with a great help on my must offer my huge gratitude. And thanks to Barry Niels, if that name range and he when he was something to do with a group. What was it called? It wasn't wolfenden it was the the the the the Dorian group of Dorian society, Darren society that tried which was an assembly I think of gay people under support, we can use gay now, which we didn't in those days. And Barry, it was who said yes, what I'll help you to get in touch with some people that I think might be prepared. And you have to understand there's quite a risk for them. So we were mightily touched, that they had enough trust in Julia and in us to actually come along to a meeting our senior member at Barry's house, where we kind of canvass the idea and how many people might be able to take part and what they thought we should cover and do and so on. And that was very heartwarming and good value. Until we went ahead, now you use the word. I also use the word gay. But I'm wondering back in the 60s, what words were being used to talk about our fantasy trial to get to essentially in common other areas of homos or queers. rally queer is, you know, and, and it is interesting, because one of the things I remember looking back at this age, we had just, we started doing a few interviews. Because you could only do them gradually. I mean, you couldn't call it a whole lot of people to get over draw attention and spread. Anyway, it was known that we were doing this programme, and was it the cameraman wouldn't have been because he wasn't a drinker. But I went with somebody into the bar, top bar or the Royal look. And we cleared the bar. In other words, it was a place where gays drank, and they wondered whether we next follow us might be a camera. So remember, guys, when you did in those days, I am right, thank you. And it's all gone. And then we read it was good to happen, because it made me realise, oh, my word we are on something here, which is, carries a dangerous overtone for a lot of other people. And it made me respect all those who were prepared to take that risk. And what we had shown a ramble on. Before we continue on. Just following on from that. I wonder, are you able to just have a bit of a description of what the climate towards homosexuality was like, in the 60s? I'm thinking that we hit the challenge of a heart killing in the early 60s we have the park issue murder. [00:19:35] What How was homosexuality seen by the kind of general population? dismissive and basically prejudicial, complete, almost coming. That's unfair of me say it completely because there are a number of more liberal people who, for simple matters of justice and alike were very keen to see change. But a lot of other things that needed changing as well. And there were no restrictions on women, everybody was restricted in some way or other. So this was seen as kind of at the extreme end, and affecting a small minority people really, who were also obviously tolerating it. You know, there were no gay marches or homosexuals coming out and saying, no people frightened, they were cold, which was part of the reason why something should be done about it. Because people were living in fear, and shame and all the rest of it. And it was just time very much for a change. And also, these organisations were, were beginning to be set up here. And I read in quite recently, which I wasn't aware of, that a petition had been sent to the New Zealand Parliament by 175, knowledgeable citizens and all that. And but it didn't get anywhere. So there was no response out of Parliament itself, left or right. Remember, in those days, we just had left and right. And they were pretty restricted in view of their own view of their own responsibilities, you know, to be a brave person, as venya was brave, obviously, who would? And I thought, to answer your question as directly as I can, the inferentially. Anyway, I read that that group who put that petition up to Parliament then formed a committee that was going to work towards changing homosexual law. And they went to the then Governor General, Lord kabane, and asked him if he would be patron of this organisation. And he responded quite quickly. And obviously, from his own hand, as it were saying, No, I will not because it's very obvious that homosexuality is a disease, which is suffered by people and affects them mentally, in the same way as let's say, smallpox affects people physically. And the problem is, of course, that we don't know how contagious this disease of homosexuality is. So there's no point in even trying to change the law. And I thought, My God, that's probably a fairly standard official. I don't know. You can't even call it that, you know, prejudice to view of it. Given an understanding of the time I suppose we shouldn't be all that surprised. So yes, yeah, it was a matter of shame. If you were gay. Are you given treatment often, I think if you reported it, explained how it was concerning you, and you'd be sent off to bear and unless you found a good one, like Fraser McDonald, or people like that, who were very responsible and understanding people, I imagine the treatment will be bloody awful. And Fraser McDonald was a he was a man I greatly admired. He, and some of the better people in those days in public service, were in this a, he was the head of one of the OIC, I think an Auckland mental institution, you know, and was a liberal, and used to speak out bravely. And that's all I'm sorry, I should know more about it. And more should have been done to honour him. But there were others who were really quite strong and good on the question. Can I take you back to that meeting? You hit it Barry nields Harold's and what were the kind of issues that the I guess gay community but also other people in the room? What What did they want to see in that programme? Well, I have to say the first thing about it was because we didn't know each other. We had was Barry's goodwill as it were as convener [00:24:22] and Julian's openness and knowledge and our rough intention, now we'd like to do something on the topic. And first thing I'd say was a good idea. Because he couldn't be here. They said, Oh my God. You know, who knows what happened after this where all of us closet. We are hidden, who some of us are in marriages. We all have jobs. The the consequences of opening it up and us being revealed. Not only are we open to police prosecution I don't know how many prosecutions have been but but you know, xintai, once you declared on television that you were gay or whatever, and presumably had committed what regarded as, as illegal acts, then microscope on you. And it was a real fear. And the last thing we wanted was to try and go either in ways which would harm them or be going half baked. And you go into news. And unfortunately, we can't tell you much about this. But no good doesn't work in television. You know, it's about people come in revealing for the viewer, something that if he didn't know about beforehand, and and so that took one meeting, I think to get that right. Then we went in, and we went in more detail. And we began to quiz them about what what what does it mean in your life? Very good understanding where my wife or my partner and I've been together for 15 years, but we always have to go out by different door, and we can't. And it just explaining those kind of social limitations on contact, exposure, freedom to move to go together to drink together to tribal. And it was very, I suspect, by the way, that it had worsened since the troops came back. I haven't read much about gay experience in the military. But I think that the soldiers were much more open. And it may well have been more homosexual themselves. And so then is it tighten down, you know, that would revert it to the frumpy conservative society that New Zealand was really accused of being in so many ways in the 60s? Anyway, we had two or three meetings like this. And then we had to work with them in details. Okay, if we were to do it, what are your requirements? And it was about not being identified? By sound or vision? Absolutely no communication of names, contact, people involved with the police. And complete confidentiality, in the names and places that we would fill within our own group, which meant camera crew, Julia and myself. Are we happy with that? Absolutely happy. And delighted, you know, and we please let us know, through Barry, if you're willing to take bath. And we did, and they did. And we then went to we're not just talking, we didn't send any memos around or in England, to the head cameraman. Can white. Again, being a sympathetic surface in here, but I will do this job. I won't have a junior do it. And it will not go on the roster, or whatever. You know, it just encompasses filming. And we got likewise senior challenge record is wrong cook. And so he none of his, you know, it was no question of it being discussed among the juniors or all the sound recordings. So what have you purchased to Joe? And off we went, we hired, I think, two or three vans that were unlabeled didn't have injured bc or have them what have you. We found mostly Bruce is about Barry's house, but not always. Sometimes he went to other places. And we went after dark. And we didn't go at the same time. You know, we kind of go and go somewhere on a Monday night and somewhere else on a witness the night and just in case, because people who knew whether the police or agents have look for suspicious thing might be in touch with what we were doing. [00:29:20] And it sounds like you, you as a team have had real concerns. This wasn't just it wasn't just kind of in someone's mind. I mean, you obviously had real concerns that people would be found out. Yeah, yeah. And also in a way, you know, technically we were breaking the law is we were asking people to discuss illegal acts or or life which had illegal elements in it. And in some ways, you know, hadn't just been had been a political rather than a social Hume Hume main topic. You You could have been taken off air or whatever, or have ugly scenes. And the last thing we wanted was to watch the word coverage in a kind of negatively explosive way. By being gay, you know, the kind of antagonism that was raised sometimes when reports were, as they were commonly published about people being molested or people in public laboratories trying to solicit and, you know, which brought up public revulsion, not what we wanted at all, quite the reverse. And so we've been quite in contrast for from something like the New Zealand trick, so maybe I was thinking quite right. I mean, for them this father is what they did. And we It was a reason why we wanted to do our programme because we felt it was most unfair, obviously to live on prejudice. Got God that would actually, you know, it comes about and and then we went, and we just, yeah, I mean, oh, oh, Ken did was shoot from the side. So it was all profile, and fully lit on this side. So you got a moving profile. But you couldn't make out. And Ron tweaked, some sort of little burble. And it still was perfectly reasonable. But we hoped, that's all we can do. And we to do them, God bless them to do them justice. Nobody asked to see it before. And we did in fact, show it to a number of them before we put it were just so they knew what I'd have to face up to it. But nobody said Oh, do you know I don't like it or don't do it. Or I've got cold feet or whatever, whatever. And we talked to quite a lot, obviously, about what it meant to be homosexual. But we also tried to fit that into the socially. So you know, you're an engineer. Wow, that must be well, yes. But I've got a lot of mates, you know, people who are quite easily relaxed, if relaxed is the wrong word. None of them were relaxed. They're all new porting speaking of something, which when I thought they hadn't maybe never said to anybody, you know, and he will we have public eye. And I could understand that you will be somewhat hesitant when you did this and wondering whether you were risking, you know, your kids, your friends, your job, your life, or even having to go and live somewhere else if this was revealed, and that was a genuine apprehension. And Gosh, I so admired them for putting that risk to one side and going ahead with it. Not one ducked or dived or lied choice I can you know, nobody was there to be posing on. Sorry, yeah. What am I got? What were they apprehensive about? Yeah. Oh, oh, I'm sorry. The other thing we did, we guaranteed the lows. And we used false names. And they told me I mean, it was kind of Fred rather than Harry. Was there anything in those interviews? that surprised you? I think most of all, was a pleasant surprise, which has a prize that does self confidence within them. [00:34:04] You know, the kind of picture that people had read about to the extent and read about this paper was shamed, and seeking ways out and looking for treatment, which might? Or is there a way of why have I been, you know, made to understand to live this way and for regret and anguish, where there wasn't any angry. You know, nobody was bemoaning what they had to do. They were just talking about the reality of living. So they were over. And he kind of has been taught an awful lot themselves working out what they were doing and why. And that strength came through and now is wonderful and so and it surprised me. I thought a few might have sort of cowered away or regretted There was never any question, which was lovely. I haven't seen the programme, are you able to describe how it finally came together? What's it look like? What was that again, about, I just, I got to refresh myself for that, because I couldn't remember I can remember shooting a little sequence, which we made up, which we used to put VoiceOver on. And it was about a couple of men making contact with each other via subterfuge in a public hotel or some such euro. And we had a couple of actors and they made contact with each other and then moved off together. And over this, we needed something where we could say what we knew, which was the state of law here, the estimated number of people who were practising homosexuals and likely to be by international comparisons, what else did we put up that something or other? Oh, we would also have talked about van young and, and about the societies and the approaches that will be to show that we weren't just doing something out, you know, there was a public beginning of a, an interest in chain. And that worked quite well. We were a bit scared of guiding it, but they seem to find it. Okay. And Barry said it was alright. That reserved when you say going at what does that mean? Oh, that, you know, you over flop it or you? Yeah, I mean, you misrepresented by overacting it or, you know, we put up some peculiar gay idea. If you're like the kind of gay pride stuff that we do now, which has people kind of flaunting and jumping. We weren't any of that we were quite the reverse. You know, these were couple of men who bumped into each other in a pub having a beer, which was much more than way of things in the 60s. And so it was nothing flamboyant about it, or efforts to present pansies or you know what I mean, that sort of stuff. Does that make sense? Yeah. So, in the finished programme, how many interviewees how many participants to do? I would think 1011, something of that order. But when you see a prototype, you've got it wrong. I'm sorry, I don't think it'd be more than 10. It's quite remarkable that you were able to get it wrong. And we had a number of meetings where we were there, and others would come along, and I think they took strength from each other. So that we'd say, well, we're gonna shoot in here now. So I'm sorry for just keep quiet. And see what and presumably each felt strengthened by the presence of the other. Because we said if you'd rather we just did it all on our own without anybody else. But nobody ever complained about that. So the kind of brotherhood was, if anything strengthened and I think was useful in the filming. I'm really interested in in the the reaction to the programme when it was broadcast particularly now that you're saying that the participants came across as quite comfortable and and strengthened on the in the ideas when the kind of prevailing mood at the time was this is something you should be ashamed of? What was the audience reaction? [00:38:48] Well, I don't know that I ever heard that picked up on but I think it's a my own kind of editorial judgement on it is that was a huge strength. Because this was not something you could dismiss as a standard ordinary pure, you know, you can say you their intensity and serious commitment to what they were telling you made it obviously true and reliable and not to be ignored, or dismissed. Right. That's, that's my view of it. Now, I never heard anybody say that. Because we did get some pretty good response. I have to say generate your nose those people wrote in that was featured in Korea by el programa Santa and we got a fair number of them. And I was you always looked out for the press review. So I found one, which I can I read it out to you. I only read good ones. So This comes from, oh, this was the listener review. Right? The compass programme on the homosexual laws can take its rightful place among the best documentaries from anywhere. Well, that makes you smile. And here's the tablet, which was the Roman Catholic, probably still is a Roman Catholic magazine, a difficult subject, which compass dealt with carefully and with the restraint. If more positive action follows, this programme will have more than justified itself, which is quite, quite nice, because they're saying, We are the tablet, we are conservative core. And if you decide to do something, parliament, you know, we're with you. So that those were two kind of pieces of paper that we cut out and we're proud of. But any number of Nate said, Wow, no, thank you both hadn't realised. And that was that was very warming, and we didn't receive any reports of adverse reaction from the participants. Now, whether that was just a general courtesy, and I don't know, but nobody said, Oh, my God, you know, I was scared when, when I went to work the next day or whatever, they might have been slightly apprehensive. Who knows? which always increases the value of a programme if there's a risk in it. And there was a lot of risk in this reading. And we should have actually pointed out at the start, that it's my understanding, this was like one of the first if not the first programmes on homosexuality in New Zealand on in broadcast media. Yeah, I think it may have been the on radio, the January those days radio was essays by the opinionated, you know, all the well informed to do them justice. So I imagine somebody may have mentioned it along the way, but I have not seen or heard anything which took you in any depth into the life of a homosexual, although difficulties in the benefits, such as they were, but I mean, I was a fulfilled life, which is worth acknowledging No. So no, I think we were and I, I claim, later on, of course, it took a long time. After that, we did get another couple of employee got Fran Wilde, and we got all her job, a whole heap of stuff going on. But eventually, I remember going to the civil union, celebration of a couple of gay friends and going, Hey, we pull it off. And that would have been 20 years later. It's just just lovely. So after producing the programme, had your views on homosexuality change? Yeah. Yep, I think so. I it was more widespread than I had appreciated. Just because I didn't move in those circles greatly. And also [00:43:32] in our lives, you know, in radio and television and stuff, like a pen will have all kinds of lives, and that's fine. It's good, whatever you want. So it hadn't been a matter apart from it. The injustice of fundamental injustice, applying stupid ancient laws, and that, you know, that angered me. So I did and I hadn't realised that is when he and I hadn't realised the strength that people had to show to live that life in whatever subterfuge way. Munda that was a good good for me to find that. Do you think that programme influenced subsequent homosexual Law Reform Act but he's or attitudes? I do? Yeah. I mean, cuz Kelly, I always maintain television is not a good medium for changing things. But it's a good medium for saying, look at this. I wonder if we should be doing something about it. And that the large part springs from this kind of programming, you know, much time for television campaigns that say you should all the law. Here is such a shocking horrific thing that you must immediately now that That's an abuse of it, especially public television in which we were and which we still were more. But that's by the way. And and yes, I mean, you can almost see there's a progression isn't the small group of people realise what's happening, and they try and persuade the government, the government doesn't want to know. Because it's an ill informed, it's got other things to do, you waste your time, fuel more people continue to research things come in from overseas, and then another bit of dismay, and in this case you caught took a lot longer insurance. But it did get there. But if we hadn't kicked the door open, as it were, to take longer, or it wouldn't have happened because you wouldn't know. And, you know, there still were opponents to change. For people who saw we shouldn't do anything about the bloody careers. They never said, so. Maybe we scan the bug as Richard please me, you know, they could realise that they're dealing with a serious matter here and it wasn't something he destroyed. I forget about it. So we're in probably more proud and I ought to be all over that. But can I tell you now, that thing I was gonna say, when I was at university in Britain, a good mate of mine was Alan, Alan Wilson. And we all knocked around together, we played sports yet one thing or another. And I happen to end up for no reason I can really think of except that the local Vicar signed me into theological college, then most of my contractors were going on to be ordained. There were about a dozen of us who were the salt festival weren't. And then. So I went to Alan and we both went through and took our degrees and went away. And then a year or two later, I went to see Alan in Oxford at his next college, the ordination? I don't know. Right? He said, Great. So when you're going to get on day, one should Well one of the things I've discovered here is I'm pretty certain I'm homosexual. And the risk is too great. I can't Yeah, I can't do risk what the church might make of or what disappointment I might face it, right. So I'm gonna go Whoa, geez, come on. Let's go and have a beer. We're in a beer. We talked about other things. And I always have a huge sense of failure, that I was never able to comprehend what Alan had realised and was then facing, and I kind of dismissed it and I thought I failed him as a friend. And I felt in some small way, that when we made that programme, the debt had been at least acknowledge

This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It is not a transcript, it has not been checked by humans and will contain many errors. However it is useful for searching on keywords and themes.