Forum Topic

The Hounslow Chronicle Thursday 17th 2008

Two statements appear in this paper in two different articles and they show a strange attitude to upholding the law and public decency.In one on page 6 in an article concerning gay men having sex in public places such as Gunnersbury triangle (the local nature reserve visited by children) ch insp Andy Morgan insisted the practice was not a major issue in the borough and rarely provoked complaints it’s not a crime unless someone says it is. It usually happens late at night in secluded places and between consenting adults.Having spent time having to clear up the area of Osterley by Windmill lane also, used by the cottaging/ cruising/ dogging fraternity, I say it is. The whole area was full of rubbish old needles and discarded Durex. My children, now teenagers visited the Triangle many times as they grew up and many small children still do. The idea that this is not a problem is wrong, ask anyone doing community service about their experience of clearing up these sites if you doubt the seriousness of this problem.On page nine ch insp. Andy Morgan takes a different stance on a illegal practice also often carried out late at night between consenting adults only this time in the privacy of their own homes and with out turning public places into cess pits of discarded filth.I am talking about consuming cannabis. On this issue we get this rant from ch insp Mogan who believes downgrading cannabis has sent the wrong message to users and dealers. When Cannabis became declassified (it should have been but it wasn’t, it was downgraded) dealers thought the potential for them to be caught convicted and sentenced had been reduced, he said. (Why the penalties applicable under class B are the same as under Class C for these types of offences)It created an artificial belief we wouldn’t do much about people importing cannabis.Cannabis clearly leads to other crimes because there are big profits to be made (only because it’s illegal Andy)Also as people become unstable (after smoking the drug) they become more of a problem.  (The percentage of those who may become unstable is very small and in the words of Professor Stanley Zammit one of the authors of the critical overview published in the lancet and misquoted by the right wing press and other fascist types.“In conclusion we found that the evidence concerning mental illness and cannabis to be inconclusive”).They can become involved in harassment, intimidation and other offences. (Sounds more like alcohol users to me or perhaps police officers enforcing the cannabis laws in my experience.So as I understand it there a two types of laws  one were people can be kept terrorised in their home for matters of individual  choice over life style and one were you can outrage public decency by taking it up the rear in public and leaving your discarded filth all over the place and that’s ok. What hypocrisy!

Philip Walsh ● 6399d36 Comments

I suspect they will continue to avoid this uncomfortable issue of responsible and factual statements not being issued by the police in our borough.I wasn't wrong then a truly gutless response is no response!

Philip Walsh ● 6380d

What it has to do with are the attitudes that came from the ideaology of Thatcher and her ilk, the sod you Jack pull the ladder up way of thinking.

Vanessa Smith ● 6391d

The discussion about what a person should be called is fairly irrelevant as is the sex of the participants. The fact that these activities lead to the kind of conditions that I found  when having to clean up these sites (public areas)is of more concern to me. The somewhat head in the sand approach of those that should care leaves me wondering who indeed is using these sites. If it was people having a cannabis joint we would see the area cordoned off and a large police contingent would arrive to herd those concerned into vans so that they could be prosecuted.I note that no one, not even those with political aspirations dare to address the issue of mis-information perhaps you are to frightened to deal with reality but I am not. Perhaps one of the councillors in the area could find out what the percentage increase of those stopped and searched in the borough was last year, compared to 2007 so that Chief inspector Morgans figures can be given some perspective. I suspect they will continue to avoid this uncomfortable issue of responsible and factual statements not being issued by the police in our borough.

Philip Walsh ● 6392d

Mrs Thatcher saved this country!  You needed to be around in the 1960's to know why!

Jim Lawes ● 6392d

Christopher...there is no difference. The difference exists in mind and semantics only.Let's call a spade an earth inverting agricultural implement shall we?

Keith Iddon ● 6392d

Christopher...there is no difference. The difference exists in mind and semantics only.Let's call a spade an earth inverting agricultural implement shall we?

Keith Iddon ● 6392d

Hi Mike,It is very difficult to try and explain the difference between men etc...and gay men, but believe me, it does exist. However the purpose of my initial posting was to say that Phillip's initial posting was about the disparity between the comments from  the Chief Inspector in the same paper on two separate subjects, and to try and inform people that the law is equal and applies to anyone who has sex in a public place. Your response addresses some of the issues, and I am grateful for that.

Christopher Boucher ● 6392d

You are precisely right Keith. It is total double speak to argue that a man who seeks out other men for sex in a public place is not gay. I think Christopher's distinction is that he may not be part of 'the gay community' but it isn't really relevant.However, I would agree with the police's laissez faire attitude to this kind of activity. It might be a bit sordid but nobody gets harmed and there are far more urgent matters for the police to be dealing with. At least these men have the consideration to do what they do in a place where it is unlikely that an unsuspecting member will happen upon them and if they derive pleasure from it it adds to the total sum of human happiness!

Mike Hardacre ● 6392d

Keith, Well at least we agree on one thing.I'll continue to dissuade men who have sex with men in public places to stop, any volunteers to do the same with straight people?

Christopher Boucher ● 6392d

Christopher,it really depends on what they do to/with each other as to whether they are gay or lesbian or is that too difficult for you to grasp.I don't see how a straight man can have sex with another man and not be gay and I'll wager a large percentage of people would agree with me.Whatever they are gay are hetrosexual things are best kept private and done in private.

Keith Iddon ● 6392d

Keith Shame that you can't grasp the difference. However, I suppose that by extending this to heterosexual sexual practices you would also believe that when straight people become involved in threesomes then this must, in your book, make two of them either lesbian or gay.

Christopher Boucher ● 6392d

Well thanks for that,Christopher but in my book men having sex with men are gay men.

Keith Iddon ● 6392d

Keith,No you're not being thick,nor have you mis-read my post. Most men who cottage/cruise would not identify themselves as being gay. They have no contact with the LGBT community, either through social venues such as pubs/clubs etc, or through LGBT organisations or press. Many are married, professional or from an ethnic minority or a combination of these. Some would identify as being bi-sexual, but in the main this is not about sexual orientation, merely sexual gratification which may not be available elsewhere. As I said in the article in the Chronicle my Organisation does not condone or encourage such activities, in the same way that we would not condone or encourage the heterosexual act of "dogging". Indeed OutWest have gone to great lengths to assist the Met Police in identifying cruising sites and educating and informing those attending them to the dangers of such activities and the law covering such activities. Hope this goes someway to explaining the position.

Christopher Boucher ● 6392d

Chris,I might be being a bit thick here or have mis-read your post.Some of the men are not gay but...'men having sex with men'....isn't that a contradiction?

Keith Iddon ● 6393d

Thanks, lots of mis/pre conceived ideas need to be dispelled.

Christopher Boucher ● 6393d

Happily Chris.  philip.andrews@hounslow.gov.uk.

Phil Andrews ● 6393d

I would prefer to discuss this you, in your capacity as Lead Member for Community Safety outside this forum if possible.

Christopher Boucher ● 6393d

ChrisI have to admit that I missed the issue of the Chronicle in which this article appeared, but prior to it being published I was contacted in my capacity as Lead Member for Community Safety in respect of a website which allegedly identified venues at which gay men might meet other gay men for sex.My feeling was that such a site could have the effect of leaving people who followed its advice vulnerable to homophobic attacks.Fwiw I would agree with you, and Philip, that some consistency needs to be applied by the law in respect of sexual behaviour in places used by the general public, and I take your point about cottaging/crusiing not necessarily being an activity which is exclusive to the gay community.

Phil Andrews ● 6393d

I knew that as well! However, I am trying to make a very serious point about cottaging/cruising and the difficulties in reaching those who are involved, and the reaction of people who automatically assume that these people are gay. As I stated in my first post I wasn't going to react as Phil's post was not necessarily about cottaging/cruising, more about the possible imbalance of reporting the Chief Inspectors response to both issues in the Hounslow Chronicle. I could have carried on reading the thread with no comment, however certain words and accusations about the gay community meant that I needed to respond

Christopher Boucher ● 6393d

ChrisForgive my sense of humour, it's not to everybody's taste.

Phil Andrews ● 6393d

Phil,I think you are already an "initiate".Basically for the uninformed,it is easier to to explain what LGBT means, rather than keep explaining it, but you knew that anyway

Christopher Boucher ● 6393d

"I Chair two local LGBT organisations (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender for the un-initiated)"ChrisAs you know I have always admired and supported your work in this field, but this is first time I've been aware that there is an initiation involved.  Dare you tell us more? :o)

Phil Andrews ● 6393d

Oh Dear, I promised myself that I would not enter this thread on the basis that I thought Philips original statement was about dual standards and was a reasoned argument. I Chair two local LGBT organisations (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender for the un-initiated)Both my organisations work hard to educate and inform people of the dangers and risks involved in cottaging/cruising and also of the impact that this behaviour has. However, the difficulty is that the majority of men who engage in this activity are not gay and do not identify or contact LGBT groups. The term commonly used is "Men having sex with Men" These people are very difficult to contact.As far as the law is concerned, there is no difference or treatment between a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple or those with a "straight" identity having sex in a public place. As far as sexual practices go, would it be acceptable for a heterosexual couple to be caught in the act of anal sex? Believe it or not, it does happen.

Christopher Boucher ● 6393d

Totally agree Philip !...If you notice no one questioned my fact earlier if a man and a woman were caught having sex in a public place they would be arrested...why is it considered acceptable for two blokes to "BUGGER" each other in public and nothing done?

Mark Welland ● 6395d

What the hell has thatcher to do with the local police misrepresenting facts in 2008, which is what the post is about. Or is it like the war we don't like to mention or aren't brave enough to discuss, in this modern democracy of 'truth and equal representation'.

Philip Walsh ● 6396d

Blimey, Thatcher was well over twenty years ago, some voters weren't even born then.  I blame the war, but I think we are not allowed to mention that!

Jo Smith ● 6396d

Agreed,not fond of Thatcher but she was stronger and more electable than anyone offered up by Labour at the time. They certainly were a busted flush.Modern ills in society started before her,with the liberal Guardianista tyranny that has pervaded and weakened all our institutions and helped to breed a society where no one accepts responsibility or blame and crimiunals and n'er do wells are perceived to have the whip hand a lot of the time.

Keith Iddon ● 6396d

While I agree many of today's problems stem from the Thatcher 'era of greed' today's teenagers are Thatcher's Children, born from the period of greed, those that are parents are few and their children would be young. This however has nothing to do with my posting.Which was about double standards and the willingness of those in authority to lie for political purpose, something our police are supposed to stay out of and remain neutral about.Mick I am not sanguine about Cannabis having first used it as a ten year old I do not recommend it to children or teenagers. I have a thirteen year old son and a sixteen year old daughter. I dearly wish for factual truth to be told on the subject instead of the current 'lies, dam lies and statistics' approach currently being used.I sited one example the distortion of the figures due to the anti terror stop and search proceeder's being carried out in the borough and the fact that the police are as aware of this distortion as I am. They are after all creating it.As someone committed to legalisation of cannabis I would like the same level of control as there is for the much more dangerous and anti social and socially damaging drug alcohol. I would also like an end to the over statement of harm and cannabis use.Lets look at the claims made in the press about what was said in the Critical over-view about the dangers.When Professor Zammit (one of its authors) was interview by the Lancet, he was asked ''can we be certain that cannabis use leads to an increased risk of Psychoses''. His reply was ''No I wouldn't go that far..I don't think you can be certain that the results show a causal relationship''.How does that fit in with the daily mail headline the next day - Smoking just one cannabis cigarette raises the risk of mental illness by 40%. this was an out right lie.In another report its claimed that in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire health authority the cases of people admitted to hospital (presumably Mental Health hospitals but this is not made clear) has risen 1000%. The facts are this, it has risen from 2 in 1996 (Presumably this was the first time the words Cannabis and psychosis appeared together on an admission form)to 26 last year. I am not sure how many people live in this Health authorities catchment area but it must be several million and these facts get lost in the reporting.To put some balance on this point, it is claimed that the number of people admitted to hospital because of cannabis use in England has risen to 73% (again we have to presume these are admissions to Psychiatric Hospitals) in ten years from 1996 (430 people) to 743 people in 2006. When you consider that cannabis is the most widely used of all illegal drugs, 743 from a population total of approx 60 million is not a lot even if only 5% were smokers it is still a tiny proportion.How can we have informed debate or give out factual advice when we are being lied to.

Philip Walsh ● 6397d

From my point of view I don't thing all the ills that abound these days lays anywhere near Thatcher's doorstep. Go back two centuries or so and London was a lawless place.  There is even a programme on TV these days trying to educate peoples into the formation of a police force to combat the rise of nastyness, but originally funded by a 'toff'who misguided thought he could make the world a better place.Or go back further.  Cities have never been a 'nice' place to live.  I'm sure the shitty things that are around these days are because of the 'you reap what you sow' mentality of the uber-negative Guardian type readers and their ilk who thought their was good in everyone.

S Passmore ● 6397d

Please do read things properly - no-one said it was ALL Thatcher's fault - but the fact remains this selfish, greedy, inconsiderate of others culture started with her. In my view- and I hate the old bat - she has one hell of a lot to answer for, irrespective of what has happened since.The younger generation of parents today are 'Thatcher's children'.

Vanessa Smith ● 6397d

I agree that Thatcherism was where it started, but New Labour enthusiastically latched on to Thatcherism and have been promoting it ever since. The collective sense of responsibility for each other which was in many ways a traditional feature of British life - especially in working class communities, has been destroyed by successive governments - and then they wonder why there is no "community cohesion" and blame the people rather than themselves.Going back to Phillip's original point - irrespective of the arguments regarding cannabis (and from previous posts people will realise I am not so sanguine about its effects as Phillip having worked closely with young people using cannabis for many years) I would agree that the police and government seem intent sometimes on hitting easy targets, rather than sort out things which really matter. The case of the woman who is shortly appearing in court for selling fruit & veg in pounds and ounces rather than those nasty foreign measurements is a classic case. Sometimes those in power get their priorities completely wrong!

Mick Brent ● 6398d

Vanessa,Agreed Thatcher's influence in the 'me me me'society was pernicious but it is fair to say also that was a long time ago and subsequent administrations have done little that I can see to promote either an individual or collective sense of responsibility for behaviour.The gap between rich and poor is wider,there are more people off their heads on drugs and more people in the underclass.Schools are no better,many young people feel disaffected and will never be able to buy their own home.Immigrants are doing the jobs many should have been trained to do rather than doing'meeja studies'etc.at a Uni. they should never have needed to go to.Laying it all at Thatcher's door is lazy and untrue.

Keith Iddon ● 6398d

It's not the sex of the persons concerned that troubles me, but the hypocrisy of the two stances being taken. As stated in the first post I have had to clean up one of these sites (forced to due, to Cannabis persecution laws)and it is a problem in the borough. Although community service projects keep the clear up cheap.The dis-information that the article contains, by which I mean the manner in which the information being presented by the police to the public is also misleading. ie. The number of cannabis warnings handed by police in the borough over the last 12 months has nearly trebled since 2005/6 he goes on to imply this was down to re-classification giving dealers the wrong impression. The real reason is that over the last twelve months Hounslow police have been operating stop and search procedure's in the name of the war on terror and many more young people are being searched. They are not being search because of terrorism but because the laws are being misused as part of the war on drugs. The result is that the figures are distorted then misquoted.

Philip Walsh ● 6398d

I thought the reason criminals are being let out of prison early (or not even being given a deserved custodial sentence) is because there are no prison spaces.

Lynn Clark ● 6398d

Although I do not agree with some of the more colourful descriptions in Philip's letter - I do however have a lot of sympathy with his views regarding the peculiar way law is interpreted and enforced. On the news this morning was an item about the amount of people with large gardens selling them off to property developers or selling their houses to developers after they have decided to retire/downsize in order to take the money and run.Of course no-one can dictate to people what to do with their own property, but isn't it just another sign of the times that the attitude displayed is one of me, me,me? Perhaps some of those people should stop and think of the impact this has on their community in terms of what it does to an area. This unfortunately is the type of attitude which is permeating down to the younger members of society? And then we wonder why we see kids on the streets with little respect for the law or other people, who think they can intimidate others and be a general pain in the butt You really can't help thinking that they have very few examples of consideration for others shown in today's world. I then read about a poor woman in her sixties who has the most appalling injuries inflicted by some 22 year old charmer when she would not give him a cigarette, he had already done time for manslaughter, let out after 18 months served because of the time he spent on remand. 18 months for taking a life, and now he has nearly taken someone elses. There are many theories as to why all this is happening - but the one I saw in today's 'Mirror' really tells it all - 1) Margaret Thatcher - 'There is no such thing as society' - well there sure ain't now since she bred the culture of putting yourself as no.1, the list further cited the Police, parents, courts etc., it's pretty hard to disagree in my book. And this is where in my view, Philip is right - why oh why are the Police and the Government wittering on about Cannabis users when people who kill get nothing like the level of punishment for a much less serious offence.It is all out of proportion. Clearly our laws where drugs are concerned are failing big time, after nearly forty years of trying - they just do not work. Legalisation just might, a sensible debate on these issues cannot wait much longer, will someone please find the guts to start it.

Vanessa Smith ● 6399d

If a man and a woman were caught having sex in a public place you would be arrested and charged...HOW COME IF YOU ARE GAY ITS A DIFFERENT STORY?

Mark Welland ● 6399d