The Policeman's Blog

Am I first? Hehe.... childish I know... but one has to take pleasures in life where you find them.
 

I am a serving officer and if you were to play politically correct Bingo I would qualify for a full house;mixed race,under age mother,child of broken home,brought up on council estate need I go on... The only question I ask myself is how I would I expect to be treated in the same circumstances? I have applied this successfully from every type of "customer" from the usual ASBO boys to Cat A murderers. When you start down the road of according specific groups or individuals special rights,privileges or exemptions over and above what is laid down by statute you are at the top of a slippery slope. In my experience,double digits and counting, 90% of people want the police to enforce the law equally whether that applies to doggers or anyone else. We are supposed to be the Police, to paraphrase the advert lets do exactly what it says on our tin rather than pandering to politically correct causes or being the agents of social change.
 

The answer to your problem is to legalise sex in public, like the parks in Amsterdam have done. As for conflicting interests, those of the doggers trump those of the superstitious, because dogging neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson. Or you could try reading John Stuart Mill's On Liberty.
What amuses me about law enforcement is that it is spectacularly amoral with regard to sex and drugs; as the progressive moral zeitgeist brings about changes in the law, what was arrestable yesterday becomes legal today. (Take homosexuality, for example--and hopefully cannabis in the near future.)
Is policing really a matter for automatons? Uniformed robots blindly enforcing a code on which they have no opinions? What if the law were that of South Africa in the 1980s; would you zealously enforce apartheid, and break up interracial marriages? Or do coppers actually have opinions on these subjects?
Enquiring minds want to know.
 

Well, the answer to every crime issue is to legalise it, K.
Got a problem with mugging? Legalise it. OK, I know that's not your point, and I assume you draw the line at actions which harm others - but how do you define 'harm'?
The differences between arresting people for dogging and enforcing the apartheid laws are surely quite simple?
Firstly, there's a rather facile question of degree. The day world outrage reaches the point where people stop playing footie matches in the UK because we don't allow public shagging, we can argue this one.
Secondly, apartheid South Africa was not a democracy; the UK is, albeit a flawed one.
Thirdly, the people against whom apartheid discriminated were helpless and blameless: kids in the townships couldn't change their colour, and were punished for being born black. No-one knows what makes people cottage or 'dog', but it's not like there are no alternatives. If you like being watched by strangers while you have sex, join a swingers' club and do it in private. That's not illegal. If you wind up doing it in a park with 10-year-olds watching you, I think you should expect to be banged up, as well as merely banged.
Back to that democracy thing. It's imperfect, sure, but if you don't like it and you like free sex and very cheap drugs, you can always go and live in, say, Guinea Bissau. They will welcome your western ass with open arms and I kid you not, there are people hawking kilos of pure coke openly in hotel bars there, and the local girls and boys have a real Martini approach to life.
Alternatively, stay here and form yourself a political party, and include in your manifesto the legalisation of drugs and open air sex. If you win, you win.
 

Hmmmm just goes to show what DCC Cunningham likes to do on his rest days. If I was in his force I'd be finding out what his private car was and looking in every dodgy cottaging and dogging venue in the command. Imagine bagging an ACPO hypocrite with his pants down.

But seriously what planet is this chap on?. If my kids came home with tales of seeing people shagging in the local park I'd be outraged. There would be lynch mobs on the streets.

I already think that it is disgusting the fact that most of the public conveniences in my area are closed due to cottagers. You cannot even take your kids into the ones that are open without double checking to make sure that there aren't blokes at it inside.

I am no prude with Victorian sensabilities but I think that Shagging of no matter what flavour should be done in private. Those who are caught doing it in public are perverts and should be locked up to protect the innocent and vulnerable.

GEORDIEPLOD
 

Who thinks it's ok to have sex in public in the first place? No one wants to see you, that's where the phrase of "Get a room!" comes from - people aren't interested in your exploits. It's just to show off for these crazy exhibitionists, but for the rest of us its something special. Some of us don't feel like rocking out with strangers in an arena. STDs anyone?
 

Got to be careful here, would want to be labelled an 'ist or 'phobic, which I can assure you I am not.

We had a situation recently which brought up this very issue. On our patch we have a PSE ( Public Sex Environment, ironic really when at school PSE stood for personal and social education!) which is very well known locally and nationally, it is easily found on the internet for christs sake! However we were not allowed to police it, let alone actually arrest anyone caught committing offences. The advice has been given to deal with any offences as Section 5 POA ( which we know wont go anywhere because where are you going to find your harassed, alarmed or distressed witness CPS insist on when they are all stood there watching with their pants around their ankles!).

Anyway, the inevitable happened and a serious incident took place on the site. We are now allowed to patrol but have to be discreet and dont take names, registration numbers etc.. unless relevant to the incident ( not sure how this fits in with the direction to complete stop and account forms though...). Heaven forbid anyone drives through with headlights on on looks into any of the cars.

The argument is that this is predominently an area for men to meet strangers for sex and that these men may not be 'out' to their friends, family, colleagues etc.. and so we should not risk inadvertently 'outing' them and causing them distress. How about they stop shagging strangers in public if they dont want to be outed?

Again we are told that this is the behaviour of a minority group and by dealing with them for their ofending we are unfairly discriminating against them. Do all gay men really do this or am I just too naive? Or am I right in thinking that the majority of gay men and women are able to meet other like minded people and commit to monogomous loving relationships without ever feeling the need to perform in public woods and toilets?

But what really gets me is that this site is alongside private dwellings and businesses. Yep, families live next to the site and respectable people are trying to run businesses there. What about the rights of these people to not have to shut their children in at night for fear they might see something which will upset them, or be propositioned using their own house. What about the plunge in the value of their properties which they will never be able to sell while this is allowed to go on. What about my right to be able to take my children into public toilets without having to worry about what they are going to be exposed to. Yet again the rights of a small minority group are taken over the rights of the majority for fear of offending someone. If the residents were instead reporting groups of youths socialising at the same place ( i.e. not committing any offences) then this would no doubt be an anti-social behaviour hotspot which we would have to patrol.....

Like I said at the begining, I do not consider myself an 'ist or a 'phonbic. Frankly I do not care if there are people out there who want to have sex with strangers or want to be watched while doing it. Just do it in private. Meet in toilets and lay-bys if you want but then go to a hotel to do the deed, take your new friends if you feel the need. In the modern times of the internet I am sure you dont even need to leave your house to arrange such a meeting so why not do it and stop intefering with the lives of others who do not want to partake in your lifestyle!
 

The sort of left wing idea that only persons with a vested interest in that kind of recreational activity may appreciate. It's so silly that I am surprised my own force didnt think of it first.

(westyorkshirepolice.blogspot.com)
 

Anon 1:58 - great post.

How about they stop shagging strangers in public if they dont want to be outed?

Well, that made me spit coffee on my screen. It's not like we want to 'out' anyone - we just want them to obey the law, or at least face sanction if they choose not to.

Again we are told that this is the behaviour of a minority group and by dealing with them for their ofending we are unfairly discriminating against them. Do all gay men really do this or am I just too naive? Or am I right in thinking that the majority of gay men and women are able to meet other like minded people and commit to monogomous loving relationships without ever feeling the need to perform in public woods and toilets?

Couldn't have put it better myself. Homophobia and swingerphobia (?) aren't the issue here - as The Coppersblog Team comment above says, it's not like they don't have a choice. Fifty years ago, maybe even 20 years ago, people with 'unusual' sexual proclivities had to meet in public. But that's not the case any more. Just get on the internet for five minutes, and meet up in private. What goes on behind closed doors is no-one's business.

If the residents were instead reporting groups of youths socialising at the same place ( i.e. not committing any offences) then this would no doubt be an anti-social behaviour hotspot which we would have to patrol.....

And this is the real problem.

Great post.
 

I wonder what Senior prosecutor Faisal Abdelmalek Ahli would make of the Crown Prosecution Service? Maybe an exchange should be organised so CPS lawyers could go to Dubai and see how it should be done and Mr. Faisal Abdelmalek Ahli could come to England and..... well clearly not learn anything from the CPS..... maybe he could go on the Millenium Wheel or something.
 

What would Senior prosecutor Faisal Abdelmalek Ahli make of the Crown Prosecution Service?

Er, mincemeat?
 

We're bending over forwards for these people....
 

While I served I was proud of the fact that no-one could order me to prosecute or not prosecute an offender. Has the law changed? What action can this type of idiot take if members of their force police the known areas and report offenders against the law of the land? Does their "law" overrule Parliament? Come on, you're not all playing along to be promoted. Strike back when the law is on your side.
 

You can tell the author of this post is either a police officer or associated to the police.

"What will Lancs Police do if a mosque opens near a 'known site' used by gays for cottaging? Whose 'rights' trump whose? What about if heterosexual doggers start using a layby near a Methodist chapel?"

Just ensure that all examples are as broad and as fair as possible, lol ;)
 

Why would you be arrested for walking your dog?
 

I think you're missing the point, Nyseria (perhaps deliberately?).

The post is all about the competing rights of different groups - thus the juxtaposition of gay men and - and the nightmare that ensues when the police try to balance diametrically opposed rights and beliefs to keep everyone happy.

The people most likely to complain about homosexuality most vociferously are muslims - that's just a fact.

Thus, if homosexual activity is complained of near to a mosque, the question is which 'side' will the police take?

(Despite the fact that this all makes you 'lol', this is actually a very real, very live and potentially very nasty issue - see this excellent post, and the associated links, including most interestingly that which leads to the Pink Paper, by Laban Tall. Not too many gay men 'lol'-ing in that story.)

Equally, if heterosexual sexual activity takes place in sight of a chapel, whose 'rights' will be respected?

The answer USED to be very simple: the police will support whoever is NOT breaking the law against whoever IS breaking the law.

Thus, the Imams and the Ministers and their congregations would get back-up, and the extramural shaggers would be advised to desist.

This actually worked, albeit imperfectly. But as we know from the DCC's comments, it's no longer that simple.
 

oops:

The post is all about the competing rights of different groups - thus the juxtaposition of gay men and mosques - and the nightmare that ensues when the police try to balance diametrically opposed rights and beliefs to keep everyone happy.
 

If we don't have a supreme law of the land to which all subscribe and to which all are subject, it just becomes a question of who shouts the loudest, or has the best-funded PR team, or who can rouse the media on their side on a given day.
 

Nyseria: "You can tell the author of this post is either a police officer or associated to the police."

I too have noticed that a disproportionate number of Coppersblog postings seem to concern policing, and in many cases I suspect from an inside perspective.

The team should be warned that, despite their cryptic blog names, some of their sharper readers have begun to suss them.

Re. dogging. If you legalise sex in public maybe you should legalise flashing too. Does the number of people exposing themselves somehow affect the threshold of decency?
 

Good points, Dave H.

Has anyone asked the Flashing Community for their views on this very important issue?
 

"You can tell the author of this post is either a police officer or associated to the police."

Nothing much gets past you, eh Nyseria. You must be an SIO?
 

oh get real please
 

This is a totally pointless argument, because the police already do use their discretion when it comes to people having sex in public. Generally, if there have been complaints, the parties get nicked, because it means they've been too indiscreet and people have seen them. If police come across a couple in a tucked-away spot where only police officers looking for drug-takers or prostitutes are likely to find them, they are usually sent on their way.

As for: "the Dubai Police showed more moral fibre, courage and respect for their law"... I hardly think we can judge that based on one public case which they probably chose to make an example to other British tourists thinking they can flout the law. I imagine people are shagging on Dubai's beaches in and out of marriage the same they are on every other beach in the world, and I equally imagine that the police choose when and how to deal with each case.
 

"I think you're missing the point, Nyseria (perhaps deliberately?)."

Yes, quite deliberately - just pointing out that even in those that choose to speak out against the system that they dislike, they still have it ingrained in them to ensure equality for all.

Not saying it, a bad thing, just point it out, that's all :)
 

I happened to speak to a MOP regarding this yesterday when the story was on BBC teletext.

The female stated "So this means that I cannot let my son go into male public toilets for fear of what he might see due to Police ignoring the offences."

Its all about public perception and the Lancs ACPO rank buffoon has clearly failed to take into consideration that a 'large' part of the population will find such acts lewd and disgusting.
 

An excellent article, which along with many of the posts raises some interesting points.

I must disagree with the comment from PC Bloggs though.You state "this is a totally pointless argument". I disagree. The article's main thrust was not concerning the "rights" of person(s) to have sex in public places. This article raises the issue of the unintended consequences that arise when politically correct ACPO rank officers decide to promote the rights of various minorities over the implementation of english law. In effect we have senior police officers condoning unlawful acts.

A second point, you state police "use their discretion" in such cases. This is true up to a certain point. Usually when officers on patrol stumble across such acts. I can assure you though, that when some colleagues implemented a proactive operation aimed at men having gay sex in the public toilets of a prominent central London store, discretion was not in evidence. They spent quite literally days submitting reports to ACPO, liaising with the Supt., obtaining "advice" from the gay police association, and informing various police departments of the operation.

Make no mistake, when political correctness overrides english law it is not a "pointless argument".
 

It makes much more sense put like that, Hamish, especially when you have been involved in trying to plan operations that may impinge on a certain groups perceived "human right" to breach laws.

It should be quite simple, really, you don't break the law regardless of gender, race, religion (especially, considering it's fictional nature imho ;)), sexuality, choice of shoes, colour of hair, penchant for fine wines, whatever...

Discretion should always be a tool in the box for police officers, but a lack of discretion should always fall on the side of upholding the law, not allowing breaches.
 

I am the dog of Thisendbites

He and Metcounty come to me and put peanut butter on their "truncheons" and then close their eyes when I .........
 

Is this "dogging"?
 

Has anyone thought about the term "dogging".... To me it reads thus:-

Shagging in public = acting like an animal i.e. a dog.

Animals are incapable of higher thought which includes having moral values. Surely the purpose of law and law enforcment is to protect people from amoral and animalistic behaviour.

What next?... Lioning?. Where we allow packs of strong agressive people to prowl around and prey on the weaker herd... Oh thats most council estates in the land... Sorry what was I thinking?.

GERODIEPLOD
 

As an 'uptight Daily Mail reader', I can't believe the Old Bill are missing so many easy 'detections' here.
Real ones, not administrative ones.
I mean, indecent exposure, obstruction...there must be loads of offences you can add together and throw at doggers and all of them can be added to the 'detected' figures.
Why is this 'senior' uniform being so liberal about this when he could easily have a crackdown on this behaviour and seriously prop up his woeful detection figures?
Is he a dogger himself, or what?
 

GERODIEPLOD @ 2:02pm
What next?... Lioning?. Where we allow packs of strong agressive people to prowl around and prey on the weaker herd... Oh thats most council estates in the land... Sorry what was I thinking?.

I would prefer Hyena'ing. Looking and acting like...

Dave the Dog
 

Mrs Cunningham: Had a good day dear and did you do hand in the note threatening suicide if you didn't get the Met job; like I asked?

DCC Cunningham: Not bad. I'm saving saving that as a trump card darling but I did play a political blinder.

Mrs Cunningham: If this Country wasn't going to the dogs you would have the job already.

DCC Cunningham: Any calls today darling?

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, that nasty yucky man from the Dubai police said he had torn up your job application but Gary called twice to ask if we were going to the park tonight.

DCC Cunningham: Gary who?

Mrs Cunningham: You know, that friendly ex pop star we met.

DCC Cunningham: Won't be long darling, just popping out to the loo...........
 

Mrs. Cunningham: Oh, you're back darling! What happened? You're all dishevelled and sweaty?

DCC Cunningham: Erm...I was chasing a serious offender. Someone had called one of our horses 'gay'.

Mrs. Cunningham: Anyway, while you were out, that other nice pop star rang. You know, George something.

DCC Cunningham: Just popping out again, darling...
 

I think it is worthwhile realizing that many "doggers" ply their trade late at night, in deserted areas, specificaly free of children, many of them being parents themselves. They do not want to offend but to partcipate in a no strings attached ilicit activity with consenting adults. not everyones cup of tea but human sexuality is a complex business.

If, as in my area, your local dogging spot, which is renowned nationally, is an out of the way carpark, used only at night when no-one is around surely police have more pressing calls to attend?

Or as I often come across while on patrol young asian or mixed race couples who tell me "our parents disapprove so this is the only place we can meet" surely police have better things to do.

The point is that someone has be offended for it to be an offence.
 

I'm offended that when I'm dogging in the car park no one wants to shag me.
 

anon 12:27

Its all about public perception, read the earlier posts.
 

"I mean, indecent exposure, obstruction...there must be loads of offences you can add together and throw at doggers and all of them can be added to the 'detected' figures. "

Neither are sanctioned detections, iirc :)
 

In the Met the Senior Officers were scared off by the establishment, telling us to lay off the public toilets, you never knew who's collar you were about to feel. To justify a visit to the toilets, we made a couple of complaining phone calls, which were logged, so justifying our action. Me lord and his mates never forgave us, oh happy days.
 

Cunningham is now back tracking and saying the media were irresponsible for misquoting him on order to stir up controvesy.