Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.........

#1
Four firefighters were reprimanded and heavily fined after disturbing an illegal outdoor gay sex romp - because the men accused them of being homophobic.

The crew were travelling past a notorious common popular with gay men and "doggers" when they shone their torches from the engine into bushes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485404&in_page_id=1770

PC Correctness proves yet again to be a complete and utter joke. Its ok to commit an act of grose indecency in public without the fear of prosecution........
 

wet_blobby

War Hero
Moderator
#2
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

I'm suprised they didn't get there hoses out and have a quick squirt... :w00t:
 

slim

War Hero
#3
I think of particular relevance is the comment from the gay man stating that the firemen should have their punishments canceled and the four gay men should be prosecuted.
 

OSLO

War Hero
#6
And the alleged "victims" weren't charged with carrying out an indecent act in a public place because....?

To be fair (after all, this did come the Wail), we don't know all of the circumstances of the incident, seeing as the crew has been "gagged" from discussing the incident. Still, if the "victims" were engaged in an indecent act in a public place, why no charges against them? Too many unknowns need clarification before we raise the anti-PC banner.
 
#7
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

Can you be charged for a sexual act carried out beyond the sight of a member of the public? I think not.
Why were these firemen/women shining their lights on the spot in any case. Had there been an emergency call? What business had they being there.
If not on official business then they may well be guilty of professional misconduct.
Theorectically should the police have raided the place who would they arrest? The seeming gay men engaged in a sexual act, or, the doggers engaged in equally seedy 'straight' sex.
Is a courting couple in a car, of whatever sexuality now liable for arrest?
Clifton Downs is I should imagine like thousands of other sites up and down the country rife with such activity.
And to think years ago when I stayed with my godparents in their flat on the downs (overlooking the suspension bridge) that I thought the moans I heard at night were coming from the zoo.!!!!
I agree with the other correspondent that calling this some sort of pc thing is incorrect.
If what they did is true then the 'professional' firefigters deserve some sort of censure for their act.
Anything read in the Daily Wail should be taken with at least a bucket of salt.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

In accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Section 66: Exposure:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and

(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
So if 'intent' cannot be proved, then there is no offence. However if the sexual act took place in a premises:

Section 63: Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is a trespasser on any premises,

(b) he intends to commit a relevant sexual offence on the premises, and

(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, he is a trespasser.

(2) In this section—
“premises†includes a structure or part of a structure;
“relevant sexual offence†has the same meaning as in section 62;
“structure†includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.
..., then an offence may have been committed, but judging by the article then that does not seem to be the case.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#9
OSLO said:
And the alleged "victims" weren't charged with carrying out an indecent act in a public place because....?...
Assuming all parties were consenting adults then no 'indecent act' was committed (actually an NDA offence, not a SOA offence!)
 
#10
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

Thanks for that Sgt P...
More or less what I thought and given that no one likely to be offended would be on Clifton Downs in the hours of darkness, and that no one would have been trespassing etc
Like the way it mentions 'he' which I presume covers both sexes.
 
#12
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

Thanks for the SgtP!
Mind you how many of us matelots and ex-matelots have been down a back alley, on a beach, or some other public place (but out of plain sight) to have a bit of sexual shenanigans? I remember the first visit of HMS Cardiff to the city of Cardiff and me and my oppo ending up with two local girls down a side alley outside a grotty club doing the dirty deed (in rig to boot).
I must stress I was a younger man then and still had not "come out" so I was still experimenting with women (and public places at that time)..... :lol:
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#13
"The firefighters were suspended on full pay during a three-month investigation"

Was this really necessary, what purpose was served by them being suspended. Once more the tax payer is made the mug.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#15
janner said:
"The firefighters were suspended on full pay during a three-month investigation"

Was this really necessary, what purpose was served by them being suspended. Once more the tax payer is made the mug.
Common practice in the real world.

"Suspended" = to take them out of pubic eye, to prevent confrontation with critics of the sitation, and to provide them with time to prepare their defence at the forthcoming tribunal.

"On full pay" = because they have not been found guilty of any offence, they cannot be penalised in any way. To do so might prejudice the outcome of the subsequent tribunal.
 
#16
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

sgtpepperband said:
In accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

Section 66: Exposure:

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and

(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
So if 'intent' cannot be proved, then there is no offence. However if the sexual act took place in a premises:

Section 63: Trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence

(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is a trespasser on any premises,

(b) he intends to commit a relevant sexual offence on the premises, and

(c) he knows that, or is reckless as to whether, he is a trespasser.

(2) In this section—
“premises†includes a structure or part of a structure;
“relevant sexual offence†has the same meaning as in section 62;
“structure†includes a tent, vehicle or vessel or other temporary or movable structure.
..., then an offence may have been committed, but judging by the article then that does not seem to be the case.
The s63 offence (trespass with intent to commit a sexual offence) does not appear to apply as there appears to be no structure in which an act of trespass has been committed (this offence replaces the Burglary with intent to rape offence.)

The indecent exposure doesn't apply either, as SPB pointed out, unless you can prove intent,

HOWEVER...

Don't forget the common law offence of OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY "...to commit an act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature..."
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
I've been in the real world for some time now!

Simplest solution, give them a temporary move to another station, this takes them away from where the problem of any confrontation may occur.

Firefighters belong to the most left wing union in the UK IMHO, believe me the Union man would have been there very quickly and started sorting out the legal side, you don't need three months to prepare a defence.

If this had been a private company it would have been handled differently.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

KLNA-Cessna-Jockey said:
...HOWEVER...

Don't forget the common law offence of OUTRAGING PUBLIC DECENCY "...to commit an act of a lewd, obscene or disgusting nature..."
In the eye of the beholder! And as I assume none of the firemen (or any other 'independent witnesses' at the scene of the incident) made a complaint, then this offence was not committed either.

As already stated, why were the firemen there in the first place? Assuming it was common local knowledge, then surely the reputation of this 'site' was known to them so they had no reason to be there - unless to respond to an emergency, or to engage in sexual activities themselves? That's another topic of conversation entirely... 8O :wink:

But my interpretation is that they were out in the wagon, got bored, thought they'd go to that particular spot to 'take the piss' out of whoever was there, assuming that the people would be too embarassed to report the firemen... but that little plan backfired when a complaint was made following advice from the Terence Higgins Trust legal adviser.

Sounds fair enough to me.
 
#20
Re: Firefighters reprimanded and fined after disturbing.....

sgtpepperband said:
But my interpretation is that they were out in the wagon, got bored, thought they'd go to that particular spot to 'take the piss' out of whoever was there, assuming that the people would be too embarassed to report the firemen... but that little plan backfired when a complaint was made following advice from the Terence Higgins Trust legal adviser.

Sounds fair enough to me.
And the real consequence of this if it is skylarking is the station is now undermanned and the rest of the crew will have to double up on their shifts and this leaves people at the mercy of the station being unable to perform it's role...
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top