UK Police Instructed Not to Interfere with the “Human Right” of Anonymous Public Sex

Below is an interesting article which shows how far “human rights” can take us. It is political correctness gone wrong that Britain should think that homosexual people should have the right to have sex with anonymous partners in public toilets and parks and the police’s role is not to be the “moral police” (a similar argument to that made in Auckland re. Boobs on Bikes)- should straight people be able to too? No I don’t think so.

It is a completely misguided worry about not wanting to seem judgmental that leads to stupid guidelines like this. When will people learn that there are things that are just wrong, and saying that openly is completely different to judging an individual person’s worth as a person.

Yes let’s not be judgmental of anyone, but let’s not lose our morals and sense of right and wrong along the way…

UK Police Instructed Not to Interfere with the “Human Right” of Anonymous Public Sex

By Kathleen Gilbert

LANCASHIRE, United Kingdom, October 17, 2008 ( – Public homosexual activity in parks and public bathrooms must not be impeded by law enforcement officials except as a last resort, says a new set of draft guidelines for UK police.

Deputy Chief Constable Michael Cunningham of Lancashire Police, who drew up the 21-page report, titled “Guidance on Policing Public Sex Environments”, wrote, “In any event it is not for the police to take the role of moral arbiter.” Rather than arresting those who have sex in public, the police should instead guard the “human rights of those people who frequent open spaces” to seek anonymous copulation partners, an activity known as “cruising.”

“The police role is to ensure that any complaints are dealt with fairly and professionally and that where individuals are engaged in lawful activity they may do so safely,” said the report. Mr. Cunningham is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) spokesman on homosexual issues.

The constable encouraged police to study sex websites for insight into the whereabouts of homosexual sex hot spots. Such websites show, among pornographic advertisements, dozens of public haunts for homosexual men seeking anonymous sex – among the most notorious being Dartford Heath, where public sex has been said to have spiraled “out of control.”

The report complained that previous activity on the part of police officers to stop public sex has alienated the gay community. The report blames law enforcement for leading to homosexual “self-harm,” citing the fact that some homosexuals have attempted suicide who “may have been arrested, charged or come into contact with the police in such a situation.”

“The impact of enforcement can also be severe and rarely resolves the community problems associated with the existence of a public sex environment,” wrote Cunningham.

“This impact can be extreme and can include humiliation, breakdown of relationships and the ‘outing’ of men living in an opposite sex relationship being perceived as ‘gay.'”

“The ACPO already enforces guidelines for police officers handling the public indecency claims against homosexual cruising, which emphasize “the value of building trust with local LGBT communities” to ensure that action against homosexual activity be “fair, necessary, and legitimate.” The guidelines were authored by the ACPO Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Working Group in 2000 to provide “a comprehensive LGBT policing strategy centered around anti-homophobia.”

Cunningham’s report will now be submitted for approval by a committee of senior police officers before it is put in place across England and Wales.

Be Sociable, Share!

    Comments: 2

    1. dave-morgan November 3, 2008 at 10:57 am

      morning peeps, 8)
      how was everybody’s weekend? i am refreshed and ready for another week in the Lord’s service. ;)

      i see that all is well on the bfranken front, haha! everything is good :D

      eyewitness, thanks for your blog. it’s amazing isn’t it.
      tolerance is going too far. when and where will it stop?

      i wonder whether it will get to the stage where bibles won’t be allowed anywhere because of what they say about homosexuality? it could happen i suppose. in protestant england the catholic Mass was outlawed and thousands were martyred for hiding priests or having Mass said. and that all happened within about 40-50 years after henry 8th broke with rome. incredible.

      when life and the pursuit of happiness is reduced purely to sensible pleasure (at the level of the senses, and sensitive life), then attainment of that, and indulgence in it, and the natural result of that reduction, tends to be the only thing worth living for, it begins to dominate our life.

      the homosexual culture is very much steeped in this way of life – sensible indulgence within a disordered sensitive/sexual orientation.

      this is all a consequence of a materialistic (no spiritual dimension) and scientific positivistic (only what can be measured and quantified is thought to be true) ideology.

      so therefore, human ethics, and human life, becomes whatever we make of it (ie, there is no common objective truth in our personal subjective experience) because we can’t really ‘measure it'; we make it up as we go along, and develop our ethics according to what makes us feel happy in the moment; and in what we can create.

      so in that sense ethics is reduced to an artistic creative expression of self, where “i’ll act according to whatever i think will make me feel happy, or good, at a particular moment”; or whatever “will ‘realise’ myself in a personal self expression”, in an artistic way.

      normally people these days still have a sense that if they live this way, they must still respect another’s boundaries and pursuits of pleasure; but even this is falling away, and anything that restricts this self-realisation or self-actualisation is considered to be ‘evil'; and therefore the State must enshrine and protect this individual-pursuit-of-pleasure by its own authority. this article that you linked to eyewitness is a great example of that.

      if happiness in life is thought to be found only in sensual gratification, and further, is falsely thought to be the only end in life, then in follows naturally that this must be allowed, and protected by the State, even if some members of the community don’t like it.

      it is a mistaken understanding of happiness and an erroneous view of what the true finalities are, of each level of human life. in one way it is understandable, and a natural consequence of our evolutionary thinking, reducing all life to a merely materialistic evolution (no spiritual dimension). so that if we have no real spiritual capacities, then the fulfilment of our sensitive sensual life at the level of our body and the way that these interact with our imagination (our ability to create, or invent), is paramount, and must be allowed to be attained, otherwise, “i am being hindered from achieving my happiness, and my end in life”, and anybody who hinders me is my enemy! — (hence the militant nature of the homosexual culture – these also are effected by a revolutionary ideology, of using revolt to achieve these ends)

      and when it comes to attainment of happiness at a sensual level, there are multiple ways that this can be achieved; and in this, we have all the different artistic and creative means that our current pleasure seeking culture employs to seek for this.

      what is not realised nor understood, is that our true happiness is found in a union in love with our finality, and that is another spiritual person: (God as our ultimate supernatural finality, or a friend as our natural proximate finality).

      happiness can’t be reduced to mere sensual pleasure. sensual pleasure and the enjoyment of sensible goods, in themselves are not a finality of man’s life, they are only a means to achieve other ends, and they must be employed in prudence.

      our rational will is a spiritual appetite, and gives us a natural attraction of love towards the spiritual good (a person); this spiritual good attracts our love, and is something that we don’t “control” artistically.

      whereas our sensitive appetites are ordered towards sensible goods, and seek to possess them and revel in the pleasure that they give the person at a bodily level. if a person only seeks to revel in that pleasure, they become slaves to that, and begin to lose their natural freedom, (eg, alcohol addiction, sex addiction). temperance is need here to help order man’s sensitive appetites.

      when we give ourselves in love to our finality, ie, our friend; and choose him/her as our finality, and if that gift is reciprocated by the friend, we grow and flourish as a person, we develop our personhood, and become happy. happiness consists in my intelligence knowing that i am fulfilled in loving union with my finality, my friend. this obviously reaches its height in friendship with Christ – who is the perfect friend, and our ultimate end. “I no longer call you servants, but friends…”

      when we unite ourselves in love to our finality, we discover the reality of the other in the most profound sense. this knowledge is more objective than that which can be measured, or quantified, because i attain to the truth of the other as other in a deeper way. so this knowledge, this experience is more true, and known to be more true, than scientifically verified knowledge.

      this is the great irony. today people only think that what is true, or what is more true, is what can be measured empirically, but when we enter into the reality of another through love, in a finalized union (we’re not talking about sex), the knowledge obtained is more objective than if we measured their biology – because we discover the reality more fully, through love.

      a marital union draws together the instictive sexual drive, and consequent sensible appetite of the body to procreate (which obviously involves pleasure), and the spiritual appetite for another spiritual being, unique friendship.

      love is indispensible for discovering reality! love is also indispensible for growing in freedom! and both these are essential for happiness, but especially love.

      peace all, i hope that is not too much (oops) :???: sorry eyewitness :oops:

      anyway, have a good day cobbers, 8O

    2. Un grano de trigo November 4, 2008 at 12:19 pm

      Good post eyewitness. Another example of our “human right” to anything as long as it doesn’t cause non-consenting people or property visible physical harm.

      As D-M has pointed out this is the natural progression of the pervading ideologies in our society. If sex is not something special reserved for married heterosexual couples, for procreation and intimacy, then why should there be any limit on where and with whom it is performed?

      You’re right D-M, change has to begin with believing there is more to a person than the physical and physiological. i.e. with true friendship