Post by: roo_ster on July 11, 2008, 06:31:28 AM
Plans to clear undergrowth from gay sex spot branded discriminatory
By Richard Alleyne
Last updated: 8:22 AM BST 08/07/2008
A council has been accused of discriminating against homosexuals over plans to clear undergrowth from a notorious gay cruising spot.
Bristol City Council wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.
But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was "discriminating" to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.
Work on the beauty spot has been temporarily delayed while talks with gay rights groups take place to try and break the deadlock.
The area of the Downs sits at the top of the Avon Gorge, in the upmarket Clifton suburb of Bristol and is home to various species of rare plants and wildlife.
But councillors said it had become overgrown over the past 20 years.
Thick bushes cover the secluded area next to a street known Circular Road which has become a mecca for gay men and couples cruising for sex.
The area hit the headlines last year when four firemen who disturbed an outdoor gay sex session were reprimanded and fined after they shone torches into the undergrowth.
The Downs Committee commissioned a report as part of ongoing improvements to the shrubland and have proposed cutting back a lot of the undergrowth.
The move was strongly backed by local residents who complained about "inappropriate sexual activity" and safety concerns in the area.
But during the consultation period last year "equality" concerns were raised by the council's Rainbow Group - an action group of lesbian, gay and bisexual council employees - about the threat to gay rights.
A report on the plans states: "As part of the consultation, concerns were expressed by the council's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Group (and a small number of other consultees) that this action was potentially discriminating against gay and bisexual men, whose activities on this part of the Downs were objected to by other members of the local community and Downs users."
Council officials have been forced to consult with the police and gay rights group the Terence Higgins Trust to ensure there was no discrimination.
Peter Wilkinson, the council's Head of Parks, said: "The general public are unhappy about people taking part in lewd behaviour in public spaces, whether it's between men and women or people of the same sex.
"We are working together with the Terence Higgins Trust to make sure any work we will do is sensitive.
"We're making sure people know what we are doing so we are not seen to be discriminating."
The £20,000 five-year maintenance scheme was approved in January 2007 and work to remove the bushes is due to begin in the next three months.
Peter Abraham, a Conservative councillor, hit out at the anti-gay accusations as "offensive".
He said: "How can it be discriminatory to clear land that might stop what is an illegal practice? We need to manage the Downs properly. For a long time we have been told that the scrub land needs to be opened up.
"I find it offensive to suggest that by taking this action - which might stop people collecting to carry out what some might describe as illegal acts and certainly offensive behaviour - you are being discriminatory."
The Rainbow Group refused to comment yesterday but said they stood by the comments made in the report.
Police said those having outdoor sex in the area could face criminal charges, and any formal complaints about it would be investigated.
A spokesman for Avon and Somerset force said: "Last year saw 250 people arrested throughout the force for offences including outraging public decency to kerb crawling.
"Unfortunately there is a minority of people who partake in sexual acts in public places in certain areas which are not only against the law but are also offensive to members of the public."
The HIV charity, the Terence Higgins Trust, said it was in talks with the police and the council over the issue and did not yet want to comment.
The Trust has been criticised in the past for handing out free condoms in the area of the Downs where people were engaging in outdoor sex,
A row blew up last October when it was revealed that four fire fighters had been disciplined for allegedly disturbing a gay sex session on the Downs by shining their torches into the bushes.
After complaints that their actions were homophobic, the four senior officers from Avon Fire Service were fined £1,000 and transferred to other fire stations.
By Richard Alleyne
Last updated: 8:22 AM BST 08/07/2008
A council has been accused of discriminating against homosexuals over plans to clear undergrowth from a notorious gay cruising spot.
Bristol City Council wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.
But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was "discriminating" to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.
Work on the beauty spot has been temporarily delayed while talks with gay rights groups take place to try and break the deadlock.
The area of the Downs sits at the top of the Avon Gorge, in the upmarket Clifton suburb of Bristol and is home to various species of rare plants and wildlife.
But councillors said it had become overgrown over the past 20 years.
Thick bushes cover the secluded area next to a street known Circular Road which has become a mecca for gay men and couples cruising for sex.
The area hit the headlines last year when four firemen who disturbed an outdoor gay sex session were reprimanded and fined after they shone torches into the undergrowth.
The Downs Committee commissioned a report as part of ongoing improvements to the shrubland and have proposed cutting back a lot of the undergrowth.
The move was strongly backed by local residents who complained about "inappropriate sexual activity" and safety concerns in the area.
But during the consultation period last year "equality" concerns were raised by the council's Rainbow Group - an action group of lesbian, gay and bisexual council employees - about the threat to gay rights.
A report on the plans states: "As part of the consultation, concerns were expressed by the council's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Group (and a small number of other consultees) that this action was potentially discriminating against gay and bisexual men, whose activities on this part of the Downs were objected to by other members of the local community and Downs users."
Council officials have been forced to consult with the police and gay rights group the Terence Higgins Trust to ensure there was no discrimination.
Peter Wilkinson, the council's Head of Parks, said: "The general public are unhappy about people taking part in lewd behaviour in public spaces, whether it's between men and women or people of the same sex.
"We are working together with the Terence Higgins Trust to make sure any work we will do is sensitive.
"We're making sure people know what we are doing so we are not seen to be discriminating."
The £20,000 five-year maintenance scheme was approved in January 2007 and work to remove the bushes is due to begin in the next three months.
Peter Abraham, a Conservative councillor, hit out at the anti-gay accusations as "offensive".
He said: "How can it be discriminatory to clear land that might stop what is an illegal practice? We need to manage the Downs properly. For a long time we have been told that the scrub land needs to be opened up.
"I find it offensive to suggest that by taking this action - which might stop people collecting to carry out what some might describe as illegal acts and certainly offensive behaviour - you are being discriminatory."
The Rainbow Group refused to comment yesterday but said they stood by the comments made in the report.
Police said those having outdoor sex in the area could face criminal charges, and any formal complaints about it would be investigated.
A spokesman for Avon and Somerset force said: "Last year saw 250 people arrested throughout the force for offences including outraging public decency to kerb crawling.
"Unfortunately there is a minority of people who partake in sexual acts in public places in certain areas which are not only against the law but are also offensive to members of the public."
The HIV charity, the Terence Higgins Trust, said it was in talks with the police and the council over the issue and did not yet want to comment.
The Trust has been criticised in the past for handing out free condoms in the area of the Downs where people were engaging in outdoor sex,
A row blew up last October when it was revealed that four fire fighters had been disciplined for allegedly disturbing a gay sex session on the Downs by shining their torches into the bushes.
After complaints that their actions were homophobic, the four senior officers from Avon Fire Service were fined £1,000 and transferred to other fire stations.
Post by: Sawdust on July 11, 2008, 06:35:43 AM
Sawdust
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 06:35:50 AM
Enough said.
But we're supposed to be more like Europe, according to Obama.
Post by: Racehorse on July 11, 2008, 06:40:44 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 11, 2008, 06:42:56 AM
I rather think sex is far more fun than watching "rare wildlife".
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 06:44:16 AM
I don't see a problem, really.
I rather think sex is far more fun than watching "rare wildlife".
I rather think sex is far more fun than watching "rare wildlife".
I think it's disgusting, and violates every tenet of a civilized society. It's also a public health hazard. Animals have sex in public places. Animals. Not human beings.
I'd also be all for identifying the people and allowing their health insurance providers to terminate their coverage without fear of lawsuit.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 11, 2008, 06:46:53 AM
And besides, civilizations change. It's quite likely we're going towards an era where we'll be more accepting of sex, public or private. Certainly better than the other alternative.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 06:50:44 AM
I remain undisgusted. Semi-public "lover's lanes", and other similar areas where people meet and have 'dates', have existed in every culture.
And besides, civilizations change. It's quite likely we're going towards an era where we'll be more accepting of sex, public or private. Certainly better than the other alternative.
And besides, civilizations change. It's quite likely we're going towards an era where we'll be more accepting of sex, public or private. Certainly better than the other alternative.
Nope. I don't want that to happen. Neither do people where I live. In fact, I won't allow that sort of morally bankrupt hedonism Eurotrash liberal garbage to come about. I will fight it, and so will everyone I know here.
Honestly, you might really want to consider northern Europe as a place to settle instead. That attitude is not at all widely accepted in America, least of all in New England, where people are properly modest!
You WILL be arrested and charged with at least a misdemeanor, or even a felony in New Hampshire for public indecency. You'll also likely end up as a Registered Sex Offender and not be allowed to live near playgrounds and schools. There was just a bunch of raids of a wooded area near Hooksett where gays were having anonymous sex near a park-and-ride lot. People were arrested.
And you know what? People here like it that way. It's civilized to be modest.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 11, 2008, 06:56:24 AM
Please do not interpret my political views to cast on my sexual or personal habits.
I prefer to do my stuff indoors. When I want other people to see me doing this stuff, I post videos of it online on sites where this is appropriate.
Otherwise, I'm a believer in loving and (usually) monogamous relationships for myself, and good, old, plain stuff like hard work, books, and good music as my entertainment. Guns, too, but I can't own or shoot any of these.
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 11, 2008, 06:57:33 AM
Happened to me once or twice in high school, and I don't think the good Officer should be fined for it by any means. His intent wasn't to stop kids from fooling around any more than these firefighters' intent was to be anti-gay... he was just defusing a situation that other citizens might find uncomfortable or inappropriate if they came across it.
"Clearing the undergrowth" as being anti-gay? Nope. It's being anti-makeout place. Go home and have sex/orgies/hamster-experiments/makeout-sessions/insert-fetish-here.
Post by: Stetson on July 11, 2008, 06:59:44 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 07:02:19 AM
So Lovers Lane(s) are okay though, because you are in a car and properly modest or is that not allowed in New England by decency standards?
Quote
NH 645:1 Indecent Exposure and Lewdness.
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person:
(a) Fornicates, exposes his or her genitals or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
(b) Purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is at least 13 years of age and less than 16 years of age.
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is 12 years of age or younger.
(b) Having previously been convicted of an offense under subparagraph I(b), or of an offense which includes the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under subparagraph I(b).
III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously been convicted of 2 or more offenses under subparagraph I(b) or II(a), or of 2 or more offenses which include the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under subparagraph I(b) or II(a).
I. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person:
(a) Fornicates, exposes his or her genitals or performs any other act of gross lewdness under circumstances which he or she should know will likely cause affront or alarm.
(b) Purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is at least 13 years of age and less than 16 years of age.
II. A person is guilty of a class B felony if:
(a) Such person purposely performs any act of sexual penetration or sexual contact on himself or herself or another in the presence of a child who is 12 years of age or younger.
(b) Having previously been convicted of an offense under subparagraph I(b), or of an offense which includes the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under subparagraph I(b).
III. A person shall be guilty of a class A felony if having previously been convicted of 2 or more offenses under subparagraph I(b) or II(a), or of 2 or more offenses which include the same conduct under any other jurisdiction, the person subsequently commits an offense under subparagraph I(b) or II(a).
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 11, 2008, 07:04:48 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 07:06:23 AM
So I suppose two people doing it behind a bush aren't really covered by this, because they're not likely to cause alarm to anyone... Of course, judging by Manedwolf's previously expressed opinion, he'd throw them in a chain gang anyhow.
If they're in a public area where someone can stumble across them, that's the legal precedent. That's how they've been charged in the recent arrests, with convictions.
Quote
Five men were arrested at Hooksetts park and ride lot on Hackett Hill Road as police investigated the spot for reports of lewd acts in the woods there.
Its been ongoing for years now. Theres been word that this kind of stuff goes on, said Hooksett police Detective Sgt. Nick Pinardi of the relatively remote trail system near the park and ride, across the street from the toll booth.
Robert Blais, 55, of Manchester, and Earl Corey, 55, of Warner, were arrested on Thursday, April 17, and charged with criminal trespass, indecent exposure and disorderly conduct, said Pinardi.
Pinardi said the department has fielded complaints from citizens going to the park and ride for legitimate use of the trail systems, and have seen people, particularly men, congregating at the parking lot and heading into the woods.
Some have seen these men performing sexual acts, Pinardi said. Since the snow has melted, the department has heard more of these accounts, and responded by putting extra patrols on the parking lot.
One of our officers walked right up on it, Pinardi said. The officer caught Blais and Corey in the act on the trail by the park and ride, Pinardi said. As the officer approached the area where the two men were, a third man walking ahead of him went to the same spot and stood directly next to Blais and Corey.
That man, Michael White, 44, of Canterbury, attempted to flee when he saw the officer approaching. When the officer asked what he was doing there, White allegedly said he was going to the bathroom.
White was charged with criminal trespass, as he was fully clothed at the time of the arrest.
On a second foot patrol through the trails, an officer came upon William Vickory, 60, of Pembroke, and Stephen Savoy, 43, of Manchester, who appeared to be pulling their pants up, Pinardi said. Both were charged with criminal trespass, he said.
Pinardi said Hooksett police will continue to patrol the area, as they believe this is a common place for people to commit such acts.
The ground in the area, Pinardi said, is littered with trash and condoms.
If Blais and Corey are convicted on the indecent exposure charges, they will have to register with the states sex offender registry.
All five men are due to be arraigned in Hooksett District Court on May 21 at 8:30 a.m.
Its been ongoing for years now. Theres been word that this kind of stuff goes on, said Hooksett police Detective Sgt. Nick Pinardi of the relatively remote trail system near the park and ride, across the street from the toll booth.
Robert Blais, 55, of Manchester, and Earl Corey, 55, of Warner, were arrested on Thursday, April 17, and charged with criminal trespass, indecent exposure and disorderly conduct, said Pinardi.
Pinardi said the department has fielded complaints from citizens going to the park and ride for legitimate use of the trail systems, and have seen people, particularly men, congregating at the parking lot and heading into the woods.
Some have seen these men performing sexual acts, Pinardi said. Since the snow has melted, the department has heard more of these accounts, and responded by putting extra patrols on the parking lot.
One of our officers walked right up on it, Pinardi said. The officer caught Blais and Corey in the act on the trail by the park and ride, Pinardi said. As the officer approached the area where the two men were, a third man walking ahead of him went to the same spot and stood directly next to Blais and Corey.
That man, Michael White, 44, of Canterbury, attempted to flee when he saw the officer approaching. When the officer asked what he was doing there, White allegedly said he was going to the bathroom.
White was charged with criminal trespass, as he was fully clothed at the time of the arrest.
On a second foot patrol through the trails, an officer came upon William Vickory, 60, of Pembroke, and Stephen Savoy, 43, of Manchester, who appeared to be pulling their pants up, Pinardi said. Both were charged with criminal trespass, he said.
Pinardi said Hooksett police will continue to patrol the area, as they believe this is a common place for people to commit such acts.
The ground in the area, Pinardi said, is littered with trash and condoms.
If Blais and Corey are convicted on the indecent exposure charges, they will have to register with the states sex offender registry.
All five men are due to be arraigned in Hooksett District Court on May 21 at 8:30 a.m.
The reaction from the community was unanimous cheers for the officers. Such is Northern New England. If you can't deal with that...don't live here. Massachusetts is a lot more permissive of immorality.
Post by: Stetson on July 11, 2008, 07:13:38 AM
Yet, there is P-town on the Cape, parts of "Fa' Rivah", Worcesters East side....Downtown Boston where the people of New England(Mass) seem to tolerate all kiinds of behavior. Is it markedly different where you are?
Post by: Manedwolf on July 11, 2008, 07:18:03 AM
Im just a bit confused. You say the people of New England have a problem with this...
Yet, there is P-town on the Cape, parts of "Fa' Rivah", Worcesters East side....Downtown Boston where the people of New England(Mass) seem to tolerate all kiinds of behavior. Is it markedly different where you are?
Yet, there is P-town on the Cape, parts of "Fa' Rivah", Worcesters East side....Downtown Boston where the people of New England(Mass) seem to tolerate all kiinds of behavior. Is it markedly different where you are?
No. That's not Northern New England. Northern New England is Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. Here, the white-steeple churches are still churches, and people are modest. Vermont's significant abberation is Brat-Boro, a leftist hole, but the rest is pretty conservative.
Massachusetts is liberal hell, and Provincetown is as disgusting as San Francisco. The people in Provincetown even yell slurs at families with strollers, calling them "breeders".
It's a totally different world. Hell, even look at the gun laws. NH = Sure, anything you want. ME and VT aren't too bad, either. MA is pretty much "NO".
Draw a line between NH and MA. We wish we had a wall.
Post by: HankB on July 11, 2008, 08:05:16 AM
Wouldn't it be a LOT simpler to just forward the Bristol firefighters a couple of pounds of poison ivy seeds?
Post by: StopTheGrays on July 11, 2008, 08:17:03 AM
Wouldn't it be a LOT simpler to just forward the Bristol firefighters a couple of pounds of poison ivy seeds?
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2008, 08:36:01 AM
Personally I thought they should have solved the problem not with the police, but by letting a couple of squads of Marines loose on them. I'm sure that would have given more than a few people the idea that some things are not meant to be done in some places, and that the consequences for doing so can be severe.
Post by: roo_ster on July 11, 2008, 08:38:20 AM
Quote
The ground in the area, Pinardi said, is littered with trash and condoms.
As an unrepentant retrosexual, I find the idea of any sort of sex in and about an area littered with trash & used condoms nastier than a vomit sandwich with a side of toejam.
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2008, 08:41:09 AM
And, in the age of AIDS, nothing says public health hazard like a filled Coney Island Whitefish.
Doesn't matter the sexual orientation of the individual who filled it, anyone who drops one should be arrested for creating a public hazard.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 11, 2008, 08:49:44 AM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on July 11, 2008, 09:37:24 AM
Post by: lupinus on July 11, 2008, 09:39:22 AM
It's disgusting, improper, offensive, and a public health hazard.
You wanna have sex outdoors? Buy enough land to do it on your own property, go deep enough into the woods someone just out on a stroll isn't likely to walk up on you, or just keep it in your pants and get a room.
Post by: K Frame on July 11, 2008, 09:43:38 AM
That is such an untolerant attitude!
You hater you!
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 11, 2008, 10:17:09 AM
Quote
Coney Island Whitefish
LOL!
Never heard that one before. Thanks.
Post by: G_P on July 11, 2008, 10:46:25 AM
If a used syringe is found in a park it makes the news headlines and everyone is in an uproar about the potential disease hazards, yet when a used condom is found nothing is done about it at all when it is equally as dangerous as a health hazard.
If anything they should make any people caught having sex in that park clear the undergrowth as part of their community sevice if they are convicted.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on July 11, 2008, 11:33:12 AM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on July 11, 2008, 01:06:41 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on July 11, 2008, 02:08:19 PM
It's England.
Enough said.
But we're supposed to be more like Europe, according to Obama.
Enough said.
But we're supposed to be more like Europe, according to Obama.
Carpet bombing is fairly orientation-neutral.
So is napalm.
Did my high school History class omit important information? Did the Magna Carta enshrine some sort of "gay rights" that the teachers failed to tell me about?
Post by: lupinus on July 11, 2008, 04:42:29 PM
Lupinus, I am shocked!
That is such an untolerant attitude!
You hater you!
I try That is such an untolerant attitude!
You hater you!
Post by: Bigjake on July 11, 2008, 05:03:55 PM
Quote
I'm just trying to figure out why anyone would be for tolerating sexual acts of any kind in public parks and land? Why is that a good thing? Most especially why it would be okay for one type of sex to be okay? That goes way beyond simple personal freedom.
You nailed it, If i may use that term.
Gay or straight, get an effing room already! The only time sex in the park is ok is when it's practiced in the privacy of your tent or RV.
Where the hell do the homos get the idea that it's somehow ok for them to do their thing in public, on public property no less??
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 11, 2008, 05:45:35 PM
That and they must think we all want to see icky gay sex in public. I've been chased out of a park before, but it was with a girl and around 11 at night. Not on a path in broad frickin daylight. We had our clothes on too.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 12, 2008, 12:52:58 AM
Quote
I'm just trying to figure out why anyone would be for tolerating sexual acts of any kind in public parks and land? Why is that a good thing?
I for one have no problem with sexual acts of any kind in public parks and land, provided of course that the person in question disposes properly of their condoms/other stuff (broken beer bottles are as much, if not more, of a health hazard than condoms), and does it behind a bush or somewhere whether the widdle chidren cannot see it.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 12, 2008, 02:52:36 AM
Post by: wmenorr67 on July 12, 2008, 06:37:26 AM