the A.A GRUMPY COLUMN police to ignore public sex

[spot]

Originally Posted by oscar

how would life be, if every time we parked the car to walk our dogs on the common, there was group sex taking part in a car? Or we popped down the local supermarket on a late closing night to be greeted with the same sight?

The law's very explicit and does everything you could possibly want of it.

It's legal to engage in sex in a public place.

What you're doing becomes illegal if you're seen by someone who takes offence, that's a common law offence of "outraging public decency", or if you did it with the intention to cause alarm or distress to others (shown in Section 66, Sexual Offences Act 2003; "exposure", linked to above).

The "outraging public decency" covers every instance you've raised as objectionable, it's oblivious to whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual act (or even whether there's more than one person doing it!) and it's enforced.

What the officer says in his article, which sparked the thread, is that if the person seeing the sex in a public place is a police officer they don't have to take offence and that it would be quite good for police relations (that's a sort of a pun there) if they didn't. Nothing to do with not enforcing the law if the complainant is a member of the public, just if it's a battle-hardened grizzled old constable on beat duty who's seen far worse in his time. The article says yes, in the old days we'd lick our lips at the chance to nail another pair of rabid woofters, but these days can't we please display a bit of personal tolerance. It's a bit like moderating FG, on reflection.

How many errors of fact can you count in "new guideline recommend that police turn a blind eye to couples having sex in public which is currently a criminal offence under the indecency act."? I think five but I might have missed a couple.

[oscar]

Originally Posted by spot

What the officer says in his article, which sparked the thread, is that if the person seeing the sex in a public place is a police officer they don't have to take offence and that it would be quite good for police relations (that's a sort of a pun there) if they didn't. Nothing to do with not enforcing the law if the complainant is a member of the public, just if it's a battle-hardened grizzled old constable on beat duty who's seen far worse in his time. The article says yes, in the old days we'd lick our lips at the chance to nail another pair of rabid woofters, but these days can't we please display a bit of personal tolerance. It's a bit like moderating FG, on reflection.

How many errors of fact can you count in "new guideline recommend that police turn a blind eye to couples having sex in public which is currently a criminal offence under the indecency act."? I think five but I might have missed a couple.

So are you saying Spot, that if a couple of raving Bertie's are engaging in Oral sex in a public toilet, a battled-hardened grizzled old Constable pops in to spend a penny, and turns a blind eye because he's seen far worse?
Five minutes after he leaves, a young boy of 10 yrs old walks in only to be met with that sight because the wanked old copper on beat duty did bugger (no pun) all about it?

I am aware of common law etc, but i just personally believe there has to be a level of what we call decency and respect.
Just because some old constable can't be doing with arresting them and filling in paper work in 6 fold back at the nick, he should be allowed to turn a blind eye?
I don't agree. It's a little like vandalism. The police can't be bothered because it's class C crime -- petty stuff, the CPS is likely to chuck out anyway. You start off with 2 kids wrecking a park. Two weeks later, there's 4 of them. By the end of the week, it's escalated because the kids are conditioned by the police that it's o.k. to carry on doing it. Should a member of the public object, well tough titty because plod can't be buggered with all the nonsence. He's rather be screaming around the countryside thinking he's Jack Carter from The Sweeny.
It all comes down to prioritie's and what may not be a prioruty for police, may be one hell of a priority for other members of the public.

[fuzzy butt]

Hmmm spot I'm not seeing the Chief saying that at all . He seems to want police educated on sex sites so as to understand the sex acts they come upon and not be offended . He is trying to make police into "battle hardened turn a blind eye" persons. but he misses the point here . Police are included under the term "public person" as much as anyone else. Police are to look at crime as they would as "Mr. reasonable riding on the clapham omnibus". He has to see his job this way because that is the person he took an oath to protect. That is a police officers yard stick in which he measures. So if 'Mr. Reasonable' finds it offensive then so should the police officer.. Police are not succinct from the rest of society.

Two examples of why police engage in enquiries into certain matters .
Firstly people don't understand that pulling people over on the side of the road, doing lisence checks etc. is the most common way of finding criminals, be it warrants , drugs, people who shouldn't be where they are (due to court orders, lots of pedophiles up to no good are found this way) so while it's a pain in the arse for Mr reasonable and us. the majority of criminals are actually in there cars at the time of an arrest.

And that example brings me to the topic . Most Sex offenders, rapists and pedophiles are found whlst engaging in the acts described here. Point : My husband has discovered and arrested these very people in this way.
eg. He went to investigate a van parked at a common and discovered a fourteen year old girl having sex with what she thought was a 17 year old boy (see a problem here? she didn't think that one through, what 17 year old has a lisence?) anyway he turned out to be a 21 year old with sex offences as long as your arm and a tendency towards violence.

The acts mentioned in this thread are high risk behaviours and the average person does not engage in high risk behaviours of this kind. That's why your likely to find sex offenders in this way. Gay and hetrosexual. Police do not find dead bodies in the middle of main street - they find them on commons and parks and secluded areas.

Essentially what this Chief constable is suggesting is stopping lines of enquiries of criminal offences and acts where police find most of their known criminals engaging in criminal acts.

It's police strategy and it should remain so. We are all creatures of habit , criminals are no different .

I think this Chief should be sacked quite honestly - but he'll probably shout discrimination!!!! That is one stupid police officer.

[fuzzy butt]

And and just another point. If someone is arrested swearing in public and a judge decides that only the police officer heard it and therefore he is used to that behaviour, police can still fine the person because they are also by-laws officers and there is no distinction between police and the general public. Offensive behaviour is the decision of the general public, they decide, not some bloke sitting at Scotland yard bored out of his mind with nothing else to do .

[oscar]

Originally Posted by fuzzy butt

Hmmm spot I'm not seeing the Chief saying that at all . He seems to want police educated on sex sites so as to understand the sex acts they come upon and not be offended . He is trying to make police into "battle hardened turn a blind eye" persons. but he misses the point here . Police are included under the term "public person" as much as anyone else. Police are to look at crime as they would as "Mr. reasonable riding on the clapham omnibus". He has to see his job this way because that is the person he took an oath to protect. That is a police officers yard stick in which he measures. So if 'Mr. Reasonable' finds it offensive then so should the police officer.. Police are not succinct from the rest of society.

Two examples of why police engage in enquiries into certain matters .
Firstly people don't understand that pulling people over on the side of the road, doing lisence checks etc. is the most common way of finding criminals, be it warrants , drugs, people who shouldn't be where they are (due to court orders, lots of pedophiles up to no good are found this way) so while it's a pain in the arse for Mr reasonable and us. the majority of criminals are actually in there cars at the time of an arrest.

And that example brings me to the topic . Most Sex offenders, rapists and pedophiles are found whlst engaging in the acts described here. Point : My husband has discovered and arrested these very people in this way.
eg. He went to investigate a van parked at a common and discovered a fourteen year old girl having sex with what she thought was a 17 year old boy (see a problem here? she didn't think that one through, what 17 year old has a lisence?) anyway he turned out to be a 21 year old with sex offences as long as your arm and a tendency towards violence.

The acts mentioned in this thread are high risk behaviours and the average person does not engage in high risk behaviours of this kind. That's why your likely to find sex offenders in this way. Gay and hetrosexual. Police do not find dead bodies in the middle of main street - they find them on commons and parks and secluded areas.

Essentially what this Chief constable is suggesting is stopping lines of enquiries of criminal offences and acts where police find most of their known criminals engaging in criminal acts.

It's police strategy and it should remain so. We are all creatures of habit , criminals are no different .

I think this Chief should be sacked quite honestly - but he'll probably shout discrimination!!!! That is one stupid police officer.

The last time i looked, Police officers in this country were "Civilians in Uniform" put there to protect the public. In fact, i understand that apparently, there is a loophole under the British 1966 Police act where The Police can be sued if a member of the public has to preform a moral obligation because the plods are too busy else where.

Fuzzy is absolutely correct in saying that you don't find murder victems of sex crimes in the middle of Town.

As you will know Spot, it is nothing for the police to persecute prostitues and drag them through the courts for an easy collar.
It is highly hypocritical by the police to think that the women on the streets offend more than the raving Bertie's found cottaging or out on a common.
What we also have to remember, is that open air sex, i.e commons and public toilets are infact, open to the public. therefore, if it is anywhere that is a public place, it is a criminal offence.
Prostitutes do have sex in alley ways with their punters, yes, but often or not, it's the poor girls under pimps who can't afford a room.
I have views on prostitution but one of them is that if it were not for the ladie's of the night, there would be one hell of a crime increase in rape, sexual molestation and child abuse. O.k. i may not want to stumble upon a used condom, but it's got to be better than having that person the lady has just relieved prowling the streets looking for an easy target.

If the police don't want us to keep critising the wank idea's that they come up with like this, then stop going for easy collars, i.e the local drunk falling out of his pub, which is a quick caution for drunk and disorderly, followed by a quick target driven notch on their truncheons and do some-thing about the very issue they want to turn a blind eye to.

[spot]

You know, you only have to read these posts to see that it's a matter of opposition to homosexuality that's driving the thread's agenda and not one of public decency.

Ten minutes walk from here is Bristol's most popular drive-in open air sex arena. It's separated from the city by a quarter of a mile of open grassland, it's a road that leads in a wide arc from the edge of the zoo along the gorge to the top of Blackboy Hill. It has been Bristol's convention for at least two hundred years that after dark those who enjoy open air coupling go to that particular road in their carriages, charabancs, cars, motorbikes, pushbikes or on foot, promenade until they catch the eye of someone with a similar intent, wander into the long grass (or onto the back seat of the carriage etc etc) and decorate the evening air with their joyous cries.

Periodically, Plod has been whipped by his morally rectitudinous superiors into raiding the place. This has been so rare an event that Bristol society has pilloried the bastards on every occasion - and I'm talking 1824, 1846, 1893, 1912 all the way up to the last time it happened in 1957. The reason it's been so rare is that Bristol has behaved this way on the Downs since time immemorial and it's never hurt a fly.

Deputy Chief Constable Michael Cunningham argues in his article that there are circumstances in which police should not arrest those who enjoy sex outdoors. It's not a blanket statement (though I've not yet seen his article - I might if this thread carries on unreasonably) but I can see what he's saying as being a reference to this background practice I've described. In the last couple of years there have been two major public outcries in Bristol, one to the deliberate flying of the Police Helicopter over the Downs at such hours - it's equipped with car-registration cameras - and the other being an incompetent council instruction to cut back the grass along the remoter sections of the Downs where people have traditionally copulated. The helicopter has been withdrawn, the grass is back to arse level and all's well with the world. Everyone from teenagers in their first banger to old age pensioners revisiting scenes of triumph with their life partners are the happier for it.

[oscar]

I am certainly not homophobic Spot. I don't judge any-one and as you know, equally, i do not like it when people judge me. There is always two sides to the coin.
As i am not native to Bristol, i have to admit that i am not as up on the history as yourself.
I do remember a lot of fuss in the local rag over the cutting down of some grass on the downs. I didn't pay alot of attention to it at the time but i also remember an issue with the police helicopters.
Could there be another side to the arguement here that say for e.g. people wanting to study wildlife up there, do their rights not need protecting?
Whilst you say there is a society that enjoys meeting aquaintences and engaging in open air sex, would this not make these area's no-go-zones just through intimidation?
There must be a case to say that everyone who engages in this, is not just an innocent partaker. Murders are fact as well as voilent sexual crimes. I can't remember his name but i remember one chap in London who went to these area's with the full intention of finding his next victem.
What i find odd, is that i am not aware of lesbians gathering for casual open sex. Do you know of any cases?
Do you not think that if the police did turn a blind eye, just in the case of petty vandalism that i stated, this would give a 'green light' and deviants would take advantage?

Unfortunately, we do not live in the relatively safe days of the 19th century any more.

[spot]

I told you oscar, I live ten minutes from there. The road's even called Ladies' Mile, for goodness sake, it's been used that way since the Middle Ages.

Wildlife? After dark? It's a fixed area of the Downs, it takes maybe a tenth of the available space and anyone up there after dark with binoculars would be considered a bit furtive.

They're not no-go areas in the slightest, I can't remember any instance of intimidation in all the years I've lived here, it's a grown-up playground. Everyone from the Lord Mayor down knows what it's for. Most of Bristol's been there at some point too. It's traditional. People take their mothers. These aren't "deviants", these are sexual picnickers.

There's even a plaque on the side of the Water Tower to a woman who took tea round and made sure the working girls stayed safe, now I think about it.

My reference to "opposition to homosexuality" was triggered by your "more than the raving Bertie's found cottaging or out on a common". You'll pardon my reacting to that as though it were a homophobic comment.

The entire point of the article, in my rather uninformed opinion, is that no crime has been committed unless the PC chooses to make it a crime. It's not a matter of overlooking anything.

Just look at the bottom line, oscar. You don't want people to do these things but the law says it's legal for them to do it. You're slightly out of touch here. I can imagine you organizing pickets to go there specifically to be shocked in order to make it illegal, you know.

[oscar]

Originally Posted by spot

Wildlife? After dark? It's a fixed area of the Downs, it takes maybe a tenth of the available space and anyone up there after dark with binoculars would be considered a bit furtive.

There's even a plaque on the side of the Water Tower to a woman who took tea round and made sure the working girls stayed safe, now I think about it.

My reference to "opposition to homosexuality" was triggered by your "more than the raving Bertie's found cottaging or out on a common". You'll pardon my reacting to that as though it were a homophobic comment.

The entire point of the article, in my rather uninformed opinion, is that no crime has been committed unless the PC chooses to make it a crime. It's not a matter of overlooking anything.

I can imagine you organizing pickets to go there specifically to be shocked in order to make it illegal, you know.

Why do you imagine me out with pickets specifically to be shocked? I have cracked up laughing at the mere suggesstion and Mr Oscar is having hysterics as we speak.
Do you think that anyone who has been sitting here tonight trying to work their diary, to see how many Stranglers gigs she can get in on their tour, is going to be a stereo-typed busy body with a blue rinse? The Stranglers indeed, that nasty punk rock band from the 70's and 80's who have one of the most fearsome reputations in the history of British rock, for sex, voilence and drugs. Not that i engage i will have you know. I am far too respectable.

There are some people who go out at night looking for wildlife. We are not furtive, it's just the only time you can get close to the badgers and the foxes. No doubt if anyone came into my neck of the woods and found me in my nightware carrying a plate of chicken and jam sandwiches at 01.20 am as i have just been, calling 'clarkson', i would be sectioned.

Now, i know the location of this site that has caused do much debate in the locals, i shall ask Mr Oscar if he'd accompany me up there to have a look for the plaque. I do love history, i have been swotting up on the slave's in Bristol so i am as equally interested in any thing old. That's why i'm with Mr Oscar. I might have a drive up there sunday morning to have a look. As you know, i'm always willing to hear the arguements for and against.

If your up the Downs sunday morning, you won't miss me, I'll be the one with the blue rinse carrying the placards with a line of homophobic pickets behind me.

[spot]

I must get this image out of my head that I'm discussing things with Mary Whitehouse. It's just the you write exactly like her.