How to put a knuckle-Dragger back in their box in one easy lesson!

Field: (Describing Peter): “Bent as a nine bob note. My ex husband and his workmates were working on a whole row of houses in Chelsea, can’t remember what it was called now, but Madonna had one, they had an underground car park, swimming pools in the basement, etc, and he (Peter?) would be outside every morning, cup of tea/coffee and fag in hand, wearing little white hot pants and staring at all the different tradesmen, “Morning boys”, he’d say, my ex said he made his skin crawl, this was in the late 80’s.

Me: I was with Peter for 30 years, right up to his death in 2018, and I can assure you that he wasn’t “as bent as a nine bob note” then!

I remember very well the workmen being there as I spoke with them myself on occasion. I recall one of them telling us about his wife who’d been a life-long Jason King fan. Peter and I would often make tea for them and take out biscuits. It’s desperately sad that this was construed by your “ex” as something more sinister (no good deed ever goes unpunished?!). I suggest that what your “ex” told you says far more about him than it ever could about my Peter. Perhaps said “ex” was secretly pissed because Peter showed no interest in him and so concocted this story in lieu of a full-on hissy fit(?) Either way, it makes my skin crawl to hear such nonsense!

Poor Gaynor’s “ex” was evidently the end product of blind belief in tabloid tittle-tattle, combined with his own in-bred bigotry. He construed a friendly “Hello” as something more sinister, and not only that, he went home and spun a yarn to his gullible wife who, years later, repeated it on a gossip forum.

I find that people like silly Gaynor, when challenged by someone who was actually there and knows what they’re talking about, will either slither back under the stone where they came from in the hope that no-one has noticed what a complete and utter prick they’re made of themselves, or when they realise they’ve been skewered, will resort to foul-mouth abuse and personal insults because they have nowhere else to go.

Gullible Gaynor’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Here’s a few more corkers for your delectation…

Robert Watson: He (Peter) was just a little bit gay though.

Me: He wasn’t during the 30 year relationship I had with him. Or when he was in relationships with Dorinda Stevens, Vivien Leigh, Mary Ure, Anna Massey, Kay Shanton (model). Diana Dors, Elisabeth Skjorekjole (model), Sally Home, Nyree Dawn Porter, Lady Victoria Berkley… the list goes on. I suspect you never came within a 1,000 radius of him during his lifetime, OR anyone who knew him. Your spectacular insight is doubtless based on tabloid tittle-tattle, internet gossip and that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia.

Robert Watson:: ok (sic) calm down’

Me: You do know that penis enlargers are widely available online. You don’t have to attack people who are no longer here to defend themselves and lash out at women to feel like a man.

On realising that he’d had his chair kicked out from under him, Watson went to the only defence he had, misogyny. The “ok calm down” jibe, I assume, is internet parlance for, “Right! I’m taking my ball home now because I realise I’ve been skewered and have nowhere else to go!”. Another case of those knowing the least knowing it the loudest.

Watson’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

No Name: “I saw him (Peter) at a film fair. He was wearing a baseball cap that he’d written FCUK on the front of it in gold ink” (This post attracted the grand total of 4 laughing emojis, not counting Mr. No Name’s own).

The inane laughter ended abruptly when I said, “The cap was a gift from his 9-year old godson who had terminal cancer. Not so hilarious now!”

Mr. No-Names Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

Bowlocks: Heartthrob. He was a joke!

Me: Really? He was one of the most respected actors of the British stage; won praise from all quarters, and was presented with some of the most coveted awards in international theatre and television. Out of interest, what have you achieved to afford you the luxury of sitting in judgement of others?

George Bowlocks: We thought he was hilarious when I was at school. A peacock.

Me: I’m sure he would’ve reciprocated given the opportunity.

George Bowlocks: That makes no sense. Do you mean he would have thought we were a peacock? Also, what are converted awards?

Me: No. He would’ve thought you were a joke, And for the record, the word is COVETED not CONVERTED. Perhaps if you and your mates had paid more attention when you was at school and spent less time poking fun at people you considered a “joke”, you may well have spotted that!

When he realised he’d painted him into a corner, poor ol’ George began blathering on about women “creaming their knickers” over Peter in the 1970’s. When he finally clocked that he was screaming abuse at someone who’d had a 30-year relationship with Peter as opposed to an hysterical fan, he vanished in a puff of smoke. I dare say that charmer like this would’ve had to worry about women “creaming” their draws over him!

Bowlock’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

Price: I met him in the 70s and he was much more interested in my boyfriend than any of the women. He was positively rude to me.

Me::Genuinely, you’re the first person I’ve ever come across who claims that Peter was rude to them. He has only ever been described as charming, gentlemanly and kind. Perhaps he was having a bad day, or didn’t much like the company of certain people….

Price: possibly. I certainly didn’t like him. Maybe he thought I was in his way!

Me: How so – like you were sitting in his seat? Or blocking the corridor?

Lesley’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

The next Freudian delight is Peter Dron, who made this extremely intelligent observation on Facebook in response to the posting of an image of Peter and Lucille Ball in the TV special, ‘Lucy In London‘: “Wyngarde was certainly a curio, it is alleged.”

Me: “I assume your conclusions are based on tabloid newspaper reports that have long since been discredited? I had a 30 year relationship with Peter – from 1992 to 2018 when he passed away. He was a wonderfully kind, intelligent and talented man, who is deeply missed by those of us loved him.”

Dron: “Fair enough. However, there was the case some years earlier involving “gross indecency with a crane driver in public toilets in Gloucester bus station” to which Mr Cyril Goldbert pleaded guilty. Curious, indeed.Fair enough. However, there was the case some years earlier involving “gross indecency with a crane driver in public toilets in Gloucester bus station” to which Mr Cyril Goldbert pleaded guilty. Curious, indeed.”

Me: “You’ll find that that conviction was inevitably quashed by the Home Office as being “unproven”. That is a matter of public record. Keep up!

Dron: And I presume that Alan Bates was just a “chum”, whatever you choose that to mean.

Me: Oh dear – a Donald Spoto devotee. Peter was married to actress Dorinda Stevens for 5 years. Had a five year relationship with Vivien Leigh. Also had relationships with Mary Ure, Diana Dors, Nyree Dawn Porter; models Kay Shanton and Elisabeth Skjortekjole plus several women outside the theatrical world. I note you haven’t mentioned any of them. This is why there’s an old adage that states that a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. Perhaps if you tried to educate yourself BEFORE making wild postulations based on the work of a single author who was known in the industry as “Mr. Sensationalism” (look Spoto up) and see for yourself the kind of rubbish he peddled about other actors and directors.

Dron: Or perhaps you are tolerant and not exceptionally observant.

Me: Dear God! Have you heard yourself? Your level of arrogance is truly breath taking! I spent thirty years with that man, during which time we shared a relationship of complete transparency. I had direct access to his private letters, diaries, and extensive documentation dating back to the early 1950’s. In contrast, there you stand with your copy of The Mirror or The Sun tucked under your arm – believing they had some privileged insight, rather than being nothing but malevolent muckrakers who were making it up as they went along!

In 2020, I published a book specifically to refute the baseless rumours that individuals like yourself continue to propagate. In that work, I presented irrefutable, first-hand documentary evidence to substantiate my claims, something none of the gutter rags or trashy authors you rely on were ever able to do. Much of this evidence is available on my website at www.peterwyngarde.uk and in numerous public records that are available to everyone online, free of charge. Why don’t you have a look – you might actually learn something.

I suggest you look beyond the filth peddled by the tabloids. In the meantime, you might care to ponder on this: Imagine how you would feel if some random, ill-informed idiot popped up online one day and began spreading lies and long-discredited myths regarding one of YOUR loved ones and then refused to acknowledge the facts when confronted. I suspect you would find the experience distressing; So why do you feel it’s acceptable to do it to one of mine?

Oh, what’s the point? Where there’s no sense, there’s no feeling! If nothing else, you’ve provided me with useful material for a section of my website dedicated to highlighting just this type of idiotic encounter. You’ll definitely be in good company.

It’s typical of people like Dron, who seems far more willing to place his faith in sensationalist tabloid claims and the word of a widely criticised author than in the testimony of someone who actually shared Peter’s life for three decades. Rather than weighing evidence carefully or considering the value of first-hand knowledge, he appears eager to accept dramatic headlines and second-hand gossip as unquestionable truth. It is a curious position to take, given that a person who spent thirty years alongside someone would naturally possess a far deeper understanding of their character, experiences, and private life than journalists chasing a story or repeating rumours.

What makes Dron appear particularly small-minded is his apparent readiness to loudly express his opinions before ensuring he is in full possession of the facts. Instead of listening, asking questions, or examining all available information, he rushes to judgement with great confidence and very little humility. Such behaviour can give the impression of someone more interested in proving himself right than in discovering the truth. When a person chooses assumptions and headlines over direct knowledge and lived experience, it inevitably raises questions about the fairness and credibility of their conclusions.

Dron’s Score’s On The Doors are:

Knuckle-Dragger Score (out of five)

Clearly, most of the above are just intellectually-challenged big-gobs who, rather than leave us just think they might be idiots, they can’t resist the temptation to post detritus like this and PROVE it! Inevitably, the subject of the Gloucester Bus Station incident in 1975 came around, which was quashed by the British Home Office in 2023. According to several all-knowing participants in this conversation, Peter was supposedly also arrested in Newcastle, Southampton, Portsmouth, Birmingham (see ‘ToTheHeartOf’ It’) and even Hyde Park Corner! Sweet Jesus! I’m surprised Peter found the time to do any acting!

It’s unlikely that any one of the above when challenged actually understood what was being said to them.there were some that were contrite when they realised that they’d been looking down the wrong of the wrong end of the telescope all these years. Others were damn right disgusting.

There were a few moments of hilarity, however. One chap claimed that Peter had lived at some castle in Northumberland (the name of which evades me) at some point or other in his life. This was news to me, and I said so. “Oh, yes,” this bloke continued. “He used to do public appearances up there. A friend of mine owns the place” He then promptly produced a screengrab of a post by his friend. Turns out said castle is a hotel, and that Peter had stayed there a couple of times when he was working at the Forum Billingham Theatre. Me: “So he DIDN’T “live” there!”

Needless to say, the original post was shared several times to other Facebook groups, which in turn drew out another wave of indolent muckrakers and halfwits who professed to be in the know. One of them stated in reference to a photo of Peter that had been posted, “As camp as Christmas”. And yet, as I pointed out, this supposed camp, effete man still managed to bed a harem of women, all of whom I named (see earlier in this post). “Well,” came the response from this oaf, “he may’ve been with them, but he still preferred his own type,” And so I asked him given the profound insight he professed to have, if he might care to provide the names of these men. Certainly, Peter’s friends who I’ve remained in contact with, not to mention me myself, would appreciate being enlightened by someone with such privileged insight. Despite giving him my email address so he could send this information without him having to suffer too much inconvenience, I’m yet to hear from him. No surprise there! As with all the characters mentioned here, there was not a single one of them who were able to put their money where their mouth is when required to do so.

There’s a psychological condition called the Dunning-Kruger Effect – some of you may’ve heard of it. Part of it explores how people with low ability and knowledge will often talk with faux authority about things they really know nothing about. I think that condition fits these people and scenarios aptly.

While Peter collected critical acclaim for his work, both domestically and internationally, the type of people who seem to delight in spreading misinformation and lies about him while sniggering and snorting from behind the safety of their computer screen, have probably achieved little (if anything) of note throughout their worthless existence. They appear to measure success by the number of laughing emojis they can collect. What a delight it is to see those inane grins wiped off their faces when they’re confronted with the truth.

😂😂😂

Here are an couple more examples of the mentality of the internet gossip–monger

One of the most bizarre encounters with the dazed and confused I’ve ever had occured back in September 2021.It came courtesy of Fank – a 75-year-old gentleman, who rather loudly stated on social media that Peter was a “Pervert” because – to quote him – “He was convicted of Gross Indecency in 1975 in Gloster (sic).”

While the arrest may well have been so, such a conviction alone does not necessarily mean that someone is a “Pervert”. Therefore, I inquired of this obviously bewildered old man what further evidence he possessed to substantiate this severe accusation. “Well,” he grunted, “he was also cautioned for the same offence in Birmingham. That makes him a perv,” he asserted with all the conviction of his own intellect. Really?! And from where did he obtain this information?

“It’s on Google.”

“And where, pray, did Google source it from?” I probed. Unsurprisingly, the ridiculous old goat was unable to provide an answer. And so I regaled him with what had REALLY happened regarding this story – namely that it was the machination of a Wikipedia contributor (you can read more about this here)

So what effect did this revelation have on the gullible Frank when he realised he’d not only been barking up the wrong tree, but was in entirely the wrong forest?

“But it still says it on Google,” he whimpered. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

I felt compelled to explain to the old fool in the simplest language I could possibly muster that, Google is a search engine, and as long as wizened idiots like himself kept feeding it garbage like strawberries to a donkey, the more likely it is to keep spewing garbage out! I asked how he would react if someone were to circulate scandalous claims found online regarding his own loved ones. All he could manage in response was to mumble a few unintelligible words before vanishing back into the cesspit from where he’d emerged.

The second portion of absurdity on the agenda came from a woman called Margret, who asserted that her brother had, at some point, lived “near” Peter in London. He’d claimed to have seen our man in a his car – cruising around Kensington and Chelsea with his “toy boys.” When I questioned this, Margaret’ abruptly shifted the identity of the alleged ‘eyewitness’ from her “brother” to herself: “The young men,” she insisted, “all appeared to be foreign.” How on earth could she possibly ascertain that? Were they all adorned in keffiyehs or silk kimonos while playing the Balalaika? And when exactly did this occur? “In the late 60s or early 70s. He [Peter] then went to ground.” Oh, really!

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the sole vehicle Peter owned was a two-seater Austin-Healey ‘Frogeye’. Therefore, unless he was attempting to re-enacting a scene from the classic British game show, ‘It’s A Knockout’, I find it difficult to comprehend how many “foreign toy boys” could possibly fit into such a car?!

Left: An illustration of what Peter’s car likely resembled in the 1960’s, at least according to dear old Margaret... or was it her brother…?

I presume that the point she intended to convey was that Peter frequently drove around the Royal Boroughs of London accompanied by a group of young, exotic men, which, in her (or indeed her “brother’s”) tiny, tiny mind, unequivocally indicated that they were his romantic partners. Did this, in her view, provide a comprehensive understanding of Peter’s entire existence? I suppose I will never ascertain this, as Margaret would abruptly ‘go to ground’ once she recognised she’d backed herself into a corner. Now, if I were to be uncharitable, I might speculate that her sudden withdrawal from the field of play was related to her argument collapsing under scrutiny, but let us extend her the benefit of the doubt, shall we?

For Margaret’s information if no one else’s – during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Peter was at the pinnacle of his fame. He was the highest-paid actor on British television and was performing to sold-out audiences in the West End of London. How this is interpreted as ‘going to ground’ remains a mystery, but it’s likely that the old dear was becoming somewhat confused.

It appears that, over the years, humanity has diminished its capacity for independent thought – as demonstrated by individuals like Frank, who will read a statement from an anonymous source online and accept it as truth without question, and not only that, will not hesitate to replicate and disseminate it. It never seems to occur to people like him to investigate how the person who originally posted this information obtained it; were they directly involved in the event they’re discussing, or did they witness it first-hand? Did they have a personal relationship with Peter? Did they attend a court hearing in person, or do they possess privileged information such as court documents, witness statements, or transcripts? Given that 99.999% of the time the answer to such questions would be a definitive “No!”, what justification does ANYONE have to circulate scandalous rumours? Certainly, someone like Frank wouldn’t DARE to approach a random stranger on the street and accuse his or her spouse, sibling, child, nephew, niece, cousin or friend of being a “Pervert”, as I suspect that he’d find himself nursing a broken nose!

Rumours are carried by haters,
Spread by fools
and accepted by idiots!
Ziad K. Abdelnour – Author

See the Open Letter that was sent to the admin of the UK Nostalgia Vibe, his reply and Wyngarde fans reaction here.