If You Had A Twin, But Didn't Realise...
Family Life2 mins ago
not looking for answers ....just opinions.
what are your views on this.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp ?nodeId=144913&command=displayContent&sourceNo de=231190&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144922&content PK=18562849
personally i think things have been blown(excuse the pun) out of all proportion ...after all if this had been a hetrosexual couple nothing like this would have happened.
(hope the link worked)
Dave.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/displayNode.jsp ?nodeId=144913&command=displayContent&sourceNo de=231190&home=yes&more_nodeId1=144922&content PK=18562849
personally i think things have been blown(excuse the pun) out of all proportion ...after all if this had been a hetrosexual couple nothing like this would have happened.
(hope the link worked)
Dave.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000:-
1) It is [an offence] for a person to commit ******* with another person otherwise than in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) or (1AA) below or with an animal.
(1A) The circumstances first referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of ******* takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of sixteen.
(1AA) The other circumstances so referred to are that the person is under the age of sixteen and the other party has attained that age.
(1B) An act of ******* by one man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place-
(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or
(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
(1C) In any proceedings against a person for ******* with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of ******* took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of sixteen.
1) It is [an offence] for a person to commit ******* with another person otherwise than in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) or (1AA) below or with an animal.
(1A) The circumstances first referred to in subsection (1) are that the act of ******* takes place in private and both parties have attained the age of sixteen.
(1AA) The other circumstances so referred to are that the person is under the age of sixteen and the other party has attained that age.
(1B) An act of ******* by one man with another shall not be treated as taking place in private if it takes place-
(a) when more than two persons take part or are present; or
(b) in a lavatory to which the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise.
(1C) In any proceedings against a person for ******* with another person it shall be for the prosecutor to prove that the act of ******* took place otherwise than in private or that one of the parties to it had not attained the age of sixteen.
To answer your questions webbo;
1. Yes, the punishments were too harsh.
2. It would not have gone so far if the couple were heterosexual.
Also, I wouldn't bother telling people on this site that you aren't homophobic because most of them don't know what it means.
A phobia is an abnormal intense and irrational fear according to my Collins - none of which you have displayed.
It is a sad fact that people are not allowed to criticise homosexuality without being accused of homophobia.
Now personally I find the idea of men sodomising each other pretty bloody abhorrent, weird even, but if that floats their boat, fair play to them. Does that make me a homophobe? No, of course not, but I'm pretty sure there are people on this site who will think it does (ruby for one, who is very quick to bandy about ists, isms and obias with willy nilly and erroneously).
1. Yes, the punishments were too harsh.
2. It would not have gone so far if the couple were heterosexual.
Also, I wouldn't bother telling people on this site that you aren't homophobic because most of them don't know what it means.
A phobia is an abnormal intense and irrational fear according to my Collins - none of which you have displayed.
It is a sad fact that people are not allowed to criticise homosexuality without being accused of homophobia.
Now personally I find the idea of men sodomising each other pretty bloody abhorrent, weird even, but if that floats their boat, fair play to them. Does that make me a homophobe? No, of course not, but I'm pretty sure there are people on this site who will think it does (ruby for one, who is very quick to bandy about ists, isms and obias with willy nilly and erroneously).
Kevin Pearson, Chief Fire Officer with Avon Fire and Rescue Service, said any allegation of racism or homophobia was taken seriously.
He said: "There was no justifiable reason for that appliance to be in that location at that time. They should not have been there and there was no operational justification for their actions."
Were the firemen deciding to have a bit of a laugh and deliberately go hunting for people having sex? You'd be a bit outraged about your public money if they were...
He said: "There was no justifiable reason for that appliance to be in that location at that time. They should not have been there and there was no operational justification for their actions."
Were the firemen deciding to have a bit of a laugh and deliberately go hunting for people having sex? You'd be a bit outraged about your public money if they were...
This story has been deliberately written up in a way to elicit a "PC gone mad" response.
Which it got
Let's write it up another way:
A bunch of firemen took a firetruck up to a spot on the downs to go hunting for people having sex.
The 4 fire fighters took the �xx,000 fire truck up to the downs to use it's lights to find gay couples in the undergrowth instead of remaining on duty in the fire station awaiting an emergency.
Newspapers are scumbags and will take any opportunity to try to manipulate the gullible and invoke their sense of outrage..
Don't let it be you
Which it got
Let's write it up another way:
A bunch of firemen took a firetruck up to a spot on the downs to go hunting for people having sex.
The 4 fire fighters took the �xx,000 fire truck up to the downs to use it's lights to find gay couples in the undergrowth instead of remaining on duty in the fire station awaiting an emergency.
Newspapers are scumbags and will take any opportunity to try to manipulate the gullible and invoke their sense of outrage..
Don't let it be you
Personally I don't care whether they had a legitimate reason to be there or not. They did the right thing by disturbing these men and - I'm sure - would have done the same if it was a heterosexual "couple" (I use the term loosely). If I were walking through that park late at night on my own, I certainly wouldn't want to see two naked bums going at it like the clappers, regardless of whether they were originally wearing trousers or a skirt.
No Jake I acknowledge that it's not their business to do so. But I am still firmly of the opinion that anyone involved in Law and Order (and the Fire Brigade are involved in the latter) has a moral responsibility to ensure that this kind of behaviour doesn't happen.
I take your point about my house catching fire though. But I believe they did the right thing by disturbing these people.
I take your point about my house catching fire though. But I believe they did the right thing by disturbing these people.
I think the firemen went there because they were bored, and to cause mischief. They have been made an example of, and the punishment may or may not be just (cant be bothered to think that much about it) but shouldn't the reprimand include being away from their posts. At the station in case of a shout is where I'd like my local on duty fire personnel to be.
