the A.A GRUMPY COLUMN police to ignore public sex

[spot]

Originally Posted by fuzzy butt

would you like to have a read?

It's at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998..._19980037_en_1 and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003..._20030038_en_1

I have no desire to read the entire acts. What are you pointing me at? What "part nine and onwards"? Do you mean Part 9 Miscellaneous powers? The stuff about ASBOs?

Aim for a bit of explicit clarity here. Quote a key sentence or two.

You're trying to claim that sex in a public place in England is illegal, by all means show it. It's just plain not so.

[fuzzy butt]

the anti social Act is an open Act which gives police powers to question and or detain . It's up to the police officer himself to follow this through as he sees fit or a member of the public sees fit. You guys call it antisocial behaviour we call it Offensive behaviour .........................looking up the definitions pertaining to individual words in an Act should help you find the rellevent law in the future .......but i warn you it's difficult.

This is becoming a question of law and it's too early in the morning (Sunday ) to be thinking of this area . I'll get back to you sometime.

[spot]

Look, if you were right then that Times article about CCTV proof of public sex would be wrong, wouldn't it. Just think about it for a moment. They have CCTV footage showing the offence and it's still not a crime here. It requires someone to be there as a witness at the time and to be offended.

[fuzzy butt]

I've been reading up in the last day about the OP and not all the article was placed here. It has nothing to do with sex in public places and the recommendations in the "Guidence On Policing Public Sex Enviroments" details policing known outdoor spaces for Public sex. That's very different from having sex in a local park or on someones nature strip

Oh and BTW you had the right Act after all but it's section 71 not 66. that would be the main Criminal offence but depending on the Magistrate he can bring it down to a summary Act offence.

As for the CCTV it's recorded Ie no wittness to the act of sex. But mainly because a wittness must be present, with CCTV the person (if it's real time) is in another and seperate place. the perception of offensiveness is not up to the interpretation of the individual but the societal standards at the time ie, the courts.

[fuzzy butt]

I must take issue with this (and yes i know you were joking)

Glory holes in public toilets were actually invented by Kent police back in 1912 with the advent of public toilets.

homosexuality was illegal in that day . and the glory holes were purposely put there to catch criminals in the act. Now, this does not demonstrate a perversion by police because you can compare it to those police and agencies that sit everyday at a computer and have to look through child porn to catch the makers and distributers of the said material. It would also put magistrates and juries in the same boat when they have to view matierial and decide on someones guilt.
It also puts into play that someone would think a strip search is a alluring job for police officers . I can assure you it's not.

[spot]

Originally Posted by fuzzy butt

Oh and BTW you had the right Act after all but it's section 71 not 66. that would be the main Criminal offence but depending on the Magistrate he can bring it down to a summary Act offence.

You have no idea how incomprehensibly vague you're being, I haven't the slightest idea what "right act" is either as "right" - for what, out of all these points?? - or "act" when we've cited so many in two different countries.

Section 71 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, to which I even provided a hyperlink in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/sh...24&postcount=5 states in its entirety:

71 Sexual activity in a public lavatory

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is in a lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has or is permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise,

(b) he intentionally engages in an activity, and,

(c) the activity is sexual.

(2) For the purposes of this section, an activity is sexual if a reasonable person would, in all the circumstances but regardless of any person’s purpose, consider it to be sexual.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

"that would be the main Criminal offence" for what?? It's obvious what it's for. How do you apply that to acts outside of a public lavatory, for goodness sake?

[fuzzy butt]

spot the "guidence" thingy I mentioned, read that, it's on the net that's what the article in the OP was talking about . ( it's in pdf format) Not about general sex in public places, you'll see the difference. The OP is misleading because it doesn't have the full article.
I've learnt something, I didn't know Britain actually had open air spaces essentially put aside for sexual deviance . EEEWWWHHHH GROSSE!!!!!

[spot]

Fuzzy,

There is the article which formed the basis of the OP.

There is also the question of sex in public places which we've discussed at length.

While the article is no doubt interesting it doesn't invalidate the discussion on sex in public places, nor the law in England relating to the subject. What I've described in ghastly detail is as correct as I can get it, and it's very correct.

We don't have "open air spaces essentially put aside for sexual deviance", we have customs and practices which have developed over hundreds of years. None of it has any official imprimatur, no "put aside". In the case of that stretch of the two roads on the Downs conventions have been built up right down to the times of day when the rest of Bristol averts its eyes and travels the short way round instead. The outrage erupts when our local police take it into their tiny heads to "do something about it". They get slapped down and they go back to beating up suspects in their cells or whatever it is they normally do to pass the time.