'were commended by the court chairman on 'their patience in dealing with a very unpleasant case'. They deserved the praise-but was the order by a senior officer-to carry out what may be thought a degrading duty-right? This is probably the easiest way of getting proof in indecency cases-but is it necessarily the best?"

And on 4-16-65 the same paper published an indignant letter which said: "I am astounded to read that the police locally have now sunk to a new low inasmuch as they are prepared to spend two weeks peeping through a grille in a male convenience in Leyton, on the lookout for sexual deviates. That it took so long to catch a pair of offenders surely proves there must be very little of this kind of activity in progress. But that the police should so outrage public liberty by sinking to such methods is intolerable. Far from commending the officers concerned, the chairman at the court should have surely thoroughly chastized them and thrown the case out." To which another reader replied: "Sexual deviates . . . may frolic to their hearts content in private as far as I am concerned, but not in parks, public lavatories and other public places subsidized by

me.'

This last, ONE might add, is precisely the state of affairs that it and modern homosexual law reform movements, are trying to bring about. Many will remember a parallel and well-publicized Long Beach, California case a few years ago which reached the State Supreme Court, in which the defense stood against the same 'Peeping Tom' methods which have been standard technique in California and other States for years, even though apparently somewhat of a novelty in England. In the California case above referred to, the de-

cision was rendered that for public. indecency to be charged, the act must be under such circumstances that it could be publicly (not secretly or clandestinely) observed. This ruling has supposely outlawed peephole procedures in California, but whether or not it has affected similar practices in other States is not presently known. TANGENTS will appreciate receiving reports or clippings from out-of-State readers on this subject.

LONDON DRAG SHOW 'REVOLTING'

"Mary", "Grace" and "Lolita" were actually Pete, George, and Eddie (or something like that), so that when Roger Hall, reporting for the 4-4-65 issue of NEWS OF THE WORLD, spied them at the Lord Ranelagh public-house, gyrating about in their best wigs and gowns for the "Queen of the Month" contest, he was shocked into writing:"This Show Must NOT Go On!!!"' But it did, for that evening anyway, so Reporter Hall got a brimming eyeful.

"Mary", it seems, was the incumbent Queen, who, according to Hall, clambered aboard a table, sheathed in glittering lame and with a gold-cardboard crown, and "mimed and wriggled his way through a pop-song," after which "Grace" was elected the new "Queen of the Month." "Then," continues Hall, ... came the most nauseating part of all. 'Grace' was crowned by the retiring Queen with the cardboard crown, received a large bouquet of flowers, and was kissed by him. At this point I'd had enough, and escaped into the night air.

Later, however, he collared the operators of the house, who claimed not to notice anything extra-ordinary about the show-said there had been only one complaint so far, from a man astonished by the