the A.A GRUMPY COLUMN police to ignore public sex

[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 The helicopter has been withdrawn, the grass is back to arse level and all's well with the world.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 Namechange]

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 Namechange]

spot;1024618 wrote:

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? :wah: 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?:sneaky: 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. :sneaky::sneaky:

[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.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1024643 wrote: 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.


I write like Mary Whitehouse?? Well, i suppose that's a compliment really as the daft old bat was at least educated.

I think you have age issue's here Spot. As i could tell the first time we were introduced so rudely:sneaky:

We are not all members of the W.I. making jam and tutting at people. Good heavens man, I have toured with those Stranglers since the 70's. I have seen everything, including things i didn't want to see. If you have five minutes, please google.. Jean Jaques Burnel, my hero.

My contribution to local council has been described as diverse and putting a completely different slant on their meetings.

We must never judge books by their covers Spot. talking of image's, i always have this image that i am discussing issue's with an old wizzened, grey haired man, inventing gadgets in his spare time.

:wah::wah::wah:

[spot]

Here...Elsewhere in Bristol, blue plaques memorialise the achievements of the usual establishment figures: former foreign secretary Ernest Bevin, Sir Allen Lane, founder of Penguin books, and the actor Michael Redgrave. On the side of the Stoke Road bogs, however, official recognition has been given this week to a woman who spent her life dispensing kindness far from the light of public approval. Victoria Hughes, lavatory attendent, excelled for 33 years in a small corner of the ladies' toilets, boiling tea, eating sandwiches and, when the need arose, comforting prostitutes who sought refuge in her workplace. Tired, cold, occasionally roughed up, the ladies of the night - as they were called in Hughes' day - were welcomed in for a sit down and a chat. She invariably made them tea.

The fact that Hughes, who died in 1978 aged 81, came to be recognised by Bristol city council, is down to the excellent work of Dawn Dyer, a librarian and author of 100 Women of Bristol. When Dyer was researching her book, she remembered an obscure memoir that had passed across the library counter some years before entitled Ladies' Mile. It was printed by a small publishing house named Abson Books and chronicled the life of an "ordinary working-class woman" who, over three decades in the Downs public toilets, had encountered legions of the city's women whose stories would never ordinarily have been told. "That particular toilet," says Dyer, "was considered prestigious because it was in a refined part of town, up on the Downs. But during the depression years, it got darker and became an area for working girls."

Hughes, who had two children, was initially shocked by the needs of her visitors, but soon acclimatised and became akin almost to a social worker to them. Dyer suggested her as a candidate for a blue plaque and, after borrowing the dog-eared memoir from the library, the city council agreed. Hughes's one surviving daughter, Barbara, attended the unveiling this week and said her mother, an unassuming woman, would have been touched but embarrassed. The plaque reads: "Victoria Hughes, 1897-1978, who befriended and cared for prostitutes when she worked here as a lavatory attendant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... ures11.g21

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1024832 wrote: Here...Elsewhere in Bristol, blue plaques memorialise the achievements of the usual establishment figures: former foreign secretary Ernest Bevin, Sir Allen Lane, founder of Penguin books, and the actor Michael Redgrave. On the side of the Stoke Road bogs, however, official recognition has been given this week to a woman who spent her life dispensing kindness far from the light of public approval. Victoria Hughes, lavatory attendent, excelled for 33 years in a small corner of the ladies' toilets, boiling tea, eating sandwiches and, when the need arose, comforting prostitutes who sought refuge in her workplace. Tired, cold, occasionally roughed up, the ladies of the night - as they were called in Hughes' day - were welcomed in for a sit down and a chat. She invariably made them tea.

The fact that Hughes, who died in 1978 aged 81, came to be recognised by Bristol city council, is down to the excellent work of Dawn Dyer, a librarian and author of 100 Women of Bristol. When Dyer was researching her book, she remembered an obscure memoir that had passed across the library counter some years before entitled Ladies' Mile. It was printed by a small publishing house named Abson Books and chronicled the life of an "ordinary working-class woman" who, over three decades in the Downs public toilets, had encountered legions of the city's women whose stories would never ordinarily have been told. "That particular toilet," says Dyer, "was considered prestigious because it was in a refined part of town, up on the Downs. But during the depression years, it got darker and became an area for working girls."

Hughes, who had two children, was initially shocked by the needs of her visitors, but soon acclimatised and became akin almost to a social worker to them. Dyer suggested her as a candidate for a blue plaque and, after borrowing the dog-eared memoir from the library, the city council agreed. Hughes's one surviving daughter, Barbara, attended the unveiling this week and said her mother, an unassuming woman, would have been touched but embarrassed. The plaque reads: "Victoria Hughes, 1897-1978, who befriended and cared for prostitutes when she worked here as a lavatory attendant."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2 ... ures11.g21




Stoke Road may be worth a trip to have a look.

33 years is a heck of a time.

What a shame that we don't have similar in the Fishponds Road for all those young girls?

I used to come back from town via the Fishponds Road area quite late at night in winter weather and see those girls standing on the corners. They still get pillored by society, cafe owners etc won't let them in.

Very interesting Spot. thankyou for linking that for me.

[spot]

fuzzy butt;1024311 wrote: 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.


What part of "It's legal to engage in sex in a public place" have you failed to grasp?

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1024868 wrote: What part of "It's legal to engage in sex in a public place" have you failed to grasp?


So the Chief Constable is saying 'known criminals' engaging in sex in public?

So, if they are 'known' to freqent particular haunts to engage in outdoor sex with casual aquaintences, the police are now saying "Let's leave them to it", in other words.

You'll have to indulge me Spot, i am very tired and not concentrating on full beam here, but if it was legal to engage in sex in a public place, then why has plod been collaring them for years?

[qsducks]

Did you get the email Oscar?:wah:

[spot]

oscar;1024879 wrote: So the Chief Constable is saying 'known criminals' engaging in sex in public?Not as far as I'm aware. I think Fuzzy's just getting overenthusiastic again.

[spot]

oscar;1024879 wrote: if it was legal to engage in sex in a public place, then why has plod been collaring them for years?Because Plod is a toerag and, observing the exposure, chooses to be virginal and claims to be personally offended, thereby transforming the occasion into one of legal sin. Were Plod to be honestly amused instead then it would remain legal. It's entirely down to what Plod chooses to claim is his or her personal reaction.

It's a common law offence of "outraging public decency" if and only if you're seen by someone who takes offence. It's Plod's choice, once he's seen the behaviour, to react in whatever way he or she sees fit. Plod has been collaring them for years because Plod is a bastard and enjoys screwing up the lives of citizens whenever the opportunity arises.

[Oscar Namechange]

qsducks;1024881 wrote: Did you get the email Oscar?:wah:


Sorry ducks, i can't tell yet. Mr Oscar is asleep in the dark in the room where my p.c. is, so i'm on his in another room. If i go in there and wake him too early, it's 06.35 a.m. here, i shall get a severe drubbing.

He should be up soon to fetch his wench er breakfast and cawfee, so as soon as the old grump is up, i shall nip in there and e mail you right back.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1024887 wrote: Because Plod is a toerag and, observing the exposure, chooses to be virginal and claims to be personally offended, thereby transforming the occasion into one of legal sin. Were Plod to be honestly amused instead then it would remain legal. It's entirely down to what Plod chooses to claim is his or her personal reaction.

It's a common law offence of "outraging public decency" if and only if you're seen by someone who takes offence. It's Plod's choice, once he's seen the behaviour, to react in whatever way he or she sees fit. Plod has been collaring them for years because Plod is a bastard and enjoys screwing up the lives of citizens whenever the opportunity arises.


Ah, grasshoper finally see's dispite the insomnia.

So, it's not an illegal offence to have sex in public, only if it is to the offence of another member of the public. So if plod chooses to be offended, he can then arrest them.

What happens if, a member of the public happens upon people engaged in sex outdoors, is offended, calls the police and plod refuses to nick them? What about the member of the public who has been offended?

I can't imagine a scenario like that never having happened, so, it is a law, only when plod see's fit?

We know plod is a bastard screwing up citizens lives when ever the opportunity arises. Tell me yoda, what is your take on this, just out of interest.

I hear about a case very likely to be broken in the gutter press around Christmas.

During a trial, an arresting officer had their mother in court for four days with them. When the verdict was read out, the arressting officer and their mother who was in the public gallery having finished giving their evidence, jumped up, punched the air and shouted Yes, to the horror of everyone else in there. The judge was still in his chair and so was the clerk to the court. the judge said nothing. the lawyer was correctly quoted by said gutter press saying that to see such a spectacle by a police officer was utterly contemptous.

Your brief thought on that one Yoda? We will just have to be patient and see what the gutter snipes report.

[spot]

oscar;1024903 wrote: Ah, grasshoper finally see's dispite the insomnia.

So, it's not an illegal offence to have sex in public, only if it is to the offence of another member of the public. So if plod chooses to be offended, he can then arrest them.

What happens if, a member of the public happens upon people engaged in sex outdoors, is offended, calls the police and plod refuses to nick them? What about the member of the public who has been offended?

I can't imagine a scenario like that never having happened, so, it is a law, only when plod see's fit?

We know plod is a bastard screwing up citizens lives when ever the opportunity arises. Tell me yoda, what is your take on this, just out of interest.

I hear about a case very likely to be broken in the gutter press around Christmas.

During a trial, an arresting officer had their mother in court for four days with them. When the verdict was read out, the arressting officer and their mother who was in the public gallery having finished giving their evidence, jumped up, punched the air and shouted Yes, to the horror of everyone else in there. The judge was still in his chair and so was the clerk to the court. the judge said nothing. the lawyer was correctly quoted by said gutter press saying that to see such a spectacle by a police officer was utterly contemptous.

Your brief thought on that one Yoda? We will just have to be patient and see what the gutter snipes report.The reaction was appalling and I hope he was disciplined by whoever wields the birch back at HQ.

What happens if a member of the public happens upon people engaged in sex outdoors, is offended, calls the police and plod refuses to nick them? That's just the same as any reported crime which the police fail to follow up on and it shouldn't happen. It became a crime when they were offended, it has nothing to do with whether the police can get off their fat arses and do some productive work for a change.



fuzzy butt;1024953 wrote: Unless you're seen ..........................what part of that didn't you grasp?


But you're wrong. It's only if you're seen by someone who finds the behaviour offensive. Were I to inadvertently discover a couple in such a situation, for example, they'd still not have broken any law.

[spot]

oscar;1024862 wrote: Stoke Road may be worth a trip to have a look.Here, this is the place, you can just see the blue plaque over the entrance. When Clifton decides to have a public convenience it makes a thorough job of it.

[Oscar Namechange]

qsducks;1024881 wrote: Did you get the email Oscar?:wah:


I got he e mail ducky..... Hilarious..you should send it world wide....The Colegate Chick in the Whitehoouse:wah::wah:

That's my kind of humour, i love the bit where the window opens and she says 'where did Russia go':wah:

Can't say i liked seeing Bambi blown away but very very funny, thanks for that.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1025073 wrote: Here, this is the place, you can just see the blue plaque over the entrance. When Clifton decides to have a public convenience it makes a thorough job of it.








As with most of Clifton, steeped in History and beautiful buildings. It's why i love home so much, Brighton, so much history. Ever been there Spot and toured the Pavillion?

[spot]

oscar;1025898 wrote: As with most of Clifton, steeped in History and beautiful buildings. It's why i love home so much, Brighton, so much history. Ever been there Spot and toured the Pavillion?


I once fell asleep on the train from Victoria to that place on the Surrey border. Croydon. After spending the evening at the Ognisko - the Polish Hearth Club in Kensington. I woke up in Brighton around two in the morning and had to wait for the milk train back, with just time enough for a shower before getting into wherever I was working. Ladbroke Grove, of all places, in a Portacabin at CBS Records on an IBM 360. I was living at the Croydon YMCA at the time - I'd just finished a contract at Spillers Data Centre just round the corner on their Burroughs Large Systems machine. That was my one visit to Brighton and I saw lots of it, it was mid-summer and the sun was up by four so yes, I've seen the Prince Regent's folly and the pebble beach and the three piers.

[Oscar Namechange]

spot;1025930 wrote: I once fell asleep on the train from Victoria to that place on the Surrey border. Croydon. After spending the evening at the Ognisko - the Polish Hearth Club in Kensington. I woke up in Brighton around two in the morning and had to wait for the milk train back, with just time enough for a shower before getting into wherever I was working. Ladbroke Grove, of all places, in a Portacabin at CBS Records on an IBM 360. I was living at the Croydon YMCA at the time - I'd just finished a contract at Spillers Data Centre just round the corner on their Burroughs Large Systems machine. That was my one visit to Brighton and I saw lots of it, it was mid-summer and the sun was up by four so yes, I've seen the Prince Regent's folly and the pebble beach and the three piers.


You should see Croydon of late.... yuk....all glass and chrome.

I shall be beside the sea this time next week sniffing the ozone but unfortunately, our West Pier burnt to a shell a year or so ago. Up with it went rare seabirds nesting. very tragic.

I remember when i first came to Bristol, the first place i wanted to see was the Clifton Suspension Bridge.. Just fabulous.

We went there when Concorde came home not to see concorde but the Spitfire and Hurricane that escorted it. Wonderous :-4

[spot]

Fuzzy, what you've linked to isn't UK legislation. It may well be that you're accurately describing Australian law. I've already linked the the UK statute. The only offence here covering sex in public is the common law, other than in that designated location in Section 71, "Sexual activity in a public lavatory". If you want an article on the state of play in England you might like to read http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 703653.ece - "SEX acts cannot outrage public decency if they are captured only by closed-circuit television and not seen actually taking place by passers-by".

I'm not going to restate what I said, by all means go back and re-read it. "are you saying that if you don't report the couple having sex no offence has occurred"? No I'm not, and I've been very precise in what I actually have said. And correct.

Where I wrote "Were I to inadvertently discover a couple in such a situation, for example, they'd still not have broken any law" the inadvertently is immaterial. The point is that I'd not have been offended by what I saw and consequently the act wouldn't have been illegal.

As to your final paragraph, obviously I would. You're inventing fairy-tale scenarios that have nothing to do with the question we're discussing.

[spot]

fuzzy butt;1026068 wrote: would you like to have a read?:)It's at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/uk ... 80037_en_1 and http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/uk ... 30038_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.

[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.

[spot]

fuzzy butt;1028514 wrote: 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/showp ... ostcount=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?

[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.