|
|
|
|
By: H S Rao, PTI
January 30,2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
London: A couple making love in a private garden which can be seen from the street could face a fine or up to six months in jail, according to new laws introduced in Britain, which seek to ban sex in public places.
But the Sexual Offences Bill published yesterday says it will be safe for couples to leave their curtains wide open when they have sex in the bedroom - even if they know they can be seen from the house opposite.
This apparent confusion in the law stems from the first attempt by civil servants to define how a ban on offensive sexual activity in a public place can apply to some private premises which can be seen from a public place.
The new offence is designed to replace the old crime of gross indecency and the common law offences of outraging public decency and causing a public nuisance, which were mainly used against cottaging and overt gay sex in public.
Civil servants have tried to draft the bill so it does not put at risk every courting couple who choose a secluded spot to go about their business.
"But a couple who make love in a private garden which can be seen from the street can face a fine or up to six months in jail," the explanatory notes say.
Legal experts say that the clause will ensure that two men or two women who kiss, cuddle or hold hands in public will not face prosecution.
Home Office minister Hilary Benn made clear that couples who had sex in public toilets would no longer be prosecuted as long as they could not be seen.
"No one wants to be an unwitting spectator to other people have sex in a public place," he said.
**********************************************
Well, what do you think a change for the better or worse???
Searching for the light at the end of the bed...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice how it says nothing about those who make it their business to peep into the private garden from the public street? They are the real "pervs"! Aren't there more important things for our leaders to be concerned about? It's all so very silly!
For some reason, this reminds me of an incident that occurred back in the days when I still attended church and sang in the choir (I apologize, Gil, because it really doesn't have much to do with the topic of your posting, but I hope it provides some amusing reading).
One of the parishioners back then was a man I'll only refer to by his first name, Mike. He held a minor position in city government (town clerk). I suppose the reason I'm reminded of him is that if he were alive and living in the UK, he'd want to be at the forefront of that legistlation. Just to show you the high esteem in which he held himself, his "official" biography said that he wasn't just a "parishioner" at the church, he was a "Communicant" at the church (oh, I beg your pardon!). Anyway, choir rehearsal was on Wednesday nights. Mike had a daughter who sang in the choir. This one Wednesday it was one of the "lesser" holidays, so there was a Mass before rehearsal. As he was his daughter's ride home, Mike hung around after Mass for rehearsal. Now, one thing you have to know about Mike: he was one of those people who had a way of cornering people (despite their best efforts!) if he had something he wanted to ponfificate on (too bad the Internet and message boards weren't around then; on second thought, thank goodness there weren't, otherwise he'd jam it all up!). Well, after rehearsal that night, he cornered me at the back of the church (while everybody else, his daughter included, made a hasty dash for the exits). The target of his wrath that night was all the filth and smut on television, on which he ranted and raved and carried on about for at least a good 10-15 minutes. At one point he mentioned how a representative from the local cable TV company came to his door one day asking if he'd like to subscribe to cable television. "Get out of my house!!!" Mike stormed at the person in righteous indignation. "I'll not have that filth in MY house!!!" Meanwhile, the pastor, who had stayed after Mass to take care of some "odds-and-ends"-type chores, was up at the altar. At long last, Mike had his say, and he left. The pastor must have seen him leave; and therefore knowing that it was now safe to do so, he started walking down the aisle towards me. As the doors closed behind Mike, I said (loud enough for the pastor to hear), "Well, there he goes; the parish prude." "Who, Mike?" the pastor asked me, knowing full well who it was. "Oh, what's he complaining about now?" As we walked out of the church, I told him. When I finished, the pastor put an arm around my shoulder and said, "Ron, there's one thing you have to remember: there's nothing wrong with having sex on television, so long as you don't fall off!"
Now that story reminds me of another story (again, perhaps not entirely germane, but again it is revelatory of how foolish people can be). I've been with a local radio station for over 25 years now; and back in the "old days", before cable TV became generally established, our signal often interfered with TV reception (the frequency we're on made it a very real problem); and when the station received a specific complaint from somebody, the station was (and, I guess, still is) required by law to provide the necessary filter and install it on the "complainer"'s TV. Most of the people who were affected were very nice about it, especially when they saw how eager the station was to solve the problem for them at no cost to them; but our engineer once told me a story about this one little old lady, which I'll never forget. She had phoned in an "interference" complaint; so when the engineer went to her house, he immediately saw that her roof antenna was bent over backwards, and that the twin-lead running from the antenna into her house was all frayed and weather-beaten (no wonder she was getting interference!). The engineer told her that what she needed was a whole new antenna system, but tried to explain to her that in the long run it would probably be more advantageous if she got cable TV. "Oh, no!" she replied, "I don't want those dirty movies in my house!" The engineer went on to tell her that she didn't have to get the "dirty movies", she could just get the channels she wanted. That still wasn't enough to satisfy her. "Oh, no! Just knowing those dirty movies are somewhere in those wires; I don't want that in my house!" The engineer was about to tell her that, unbeknownst to her, "those dirty movies" were already bouncing off her pretty blue head from a satellite 23,500 miles up in space; but realizing the futility of it, he didn't bother.
That's all, folks!
We do not remember days...we remember moments.
Cesare Pavese
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you put a 'Private Property' sign on the gate? Is it still a public place?
I think not!
Just my humble opinion...
Billy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
Four London cabbies, having some time off, were in the back of a black cab, playing poker. They were arrested for "Gambling in a public place", and prosecuted. I seem to recall a great fuss about it. This was over thirtyfive years ago. I think the outcome was that they were convicted.
Relevant, I think.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
I quote: "Home Office minister Hilary Benn made clear that couples who had sex in public toilets would no longer be prosecuted as long as they could not be seen"
This brings mind a particularly nasty bit that took place in Toronto, Canada, some 25-years ago now, and well after Homosexual behaviour had been decriminalised in Canada.
Police raided a substantially sized men's room in a large downtown subterranean mall which provided access to at least six Subway points, more than half-a-dozen Hotels, sundry Commercial Towers, the City Hall, and notably the City, County and Provincial Supreme Courts.
In all some 200 hundred youths and men were rounded up in this debaucle, and I call that because it was labelled as such by the media. The arraignment hearings became a feeding frenzy until some enterprising young para-legal (which the best one youthful offender to do for himself) cited an obscure, and evidently forgotten, clause in the Public Bath Houses Act (which was, and still is, the Law used to prosecute these types of felonies in Ontario) which stipulated that if a "patron" of publically supported facilites used for the expressed purposes of cleansing, bathing and/or voiding of bodily functions, and "paid" a fee for the express use of those facilites, how he/she chose to avail himself/herself of the use of those facilities was no longer subject to public perview, or feloneous scrutiny.
What this meant for the miscreants at the underground "tea-room", was in effect, that because each and every stall was in fact a "pay-toilet", for which each had paid a dime to gain entrance to use the indiviual "facilites", those apprehended inside those stalls could not be prosecuted, and the charges had to be withdrawn. This actually only benefitted some 75-or-so of those charged, but the uproar that ensued over the whole drama, required that all charges against all those apprehended on that particular raid had to be set aside.
Within 24-hours, all fee-based locking devices had been removed by the management of those premises, and within a week, they were removed province-wide by a general order from the Solicitor General for Ontario's Office. This accounts to this day for their being very few "pay-toilets" anywhere in Ontario.
As a counter-pane to this ludicrous bit of arcania, I provide, in addition, another which stipulates that the Crown is required to provide for hitching-posts and watering toughs on all of the King's Highways. This explains away why, whilst it is still poosible to get a parking ticket should one be foolish enough to abandon his/her automobile/vehicle on a King's Highway (these are the ones identified with a "Crown" prominately displayed above the name or number) presenting your self to the residing Judge, or Justice, at the appointed time will void the ticket immediately upon your making it known that it was served upon you whilst on a King's Highway.
What makes this so ludicous is that four of the main drags in Toronto are nominally King's Highways - with two being east-west, and the two others north-south - all traversing the city-core. All have parking meters; but, under the Law no-one can be forced to put the coins in them to use the adjacent parking spaces.
Go figure!
Warren C. E. Austin
"The Gay Deceiver"
Toronto, Canada
2003.01.31 23:07 Hrs EST
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No Message Body
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warren c. e. austin
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 247
|
|
|
The first part of my apparently worthless comments related to and again I quote: "Home Office minister Hilary Benn made clear that couples who had sex in public toilets would no longer be prosecuted as long as they could not be seen"
The second was just side bar respecting an other of the same sort of "silly " little Laws that remain on the books in our country, just like the other which referred to "sex in public places".
But, Marc, in your usual blunt fashion you've made the point that I'm not wanted here. I've heard you for the very last time; and quite loud and clear. I won't return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I do wish you would stop writing your own meanings into what I say.
It is somewhat annoying.
But is you insist in stomping your foot..... Then by all means that is your privilege.
Rediculous laws exist everywhere. How silly I would look if I stopped my car at the Massachusetts state line and fired 3 flares into the air before crossing into Rhode Island.
I would have mentioned that one but I couldnt see the connection there as well....
Silly me.... Trying to keep to the subject at hand and all...
Just my opinion....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stephen
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Location: UK
Registered: December 2002
Messages: 31
|
|
|
No opinion on any subject is "worthless" - it is, quite simply, just that - an opinion. People may agree or disagree, that is what debate is about. Because one person did not see the connection to the debate in question does not mean you are not wanted here. Part of a debate is to widen the confines of the issue, allowing further debate to take place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
True.....
But in this venue... Threads of conversation can be easily lost by changing the subject midstream....
It more often than not is to our advantage to begin a new thread.
Just my opinion.....
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13771
|
|
|
I thought that Warren gave an example of public sex that became private and then suddenly became public again. Or did I miss it?
By the way, I have never heard of this Home Office minister.
To be fair, sex in public might frighten a horse, so is worth keeping private.
But let me get this right:
I can shag indoors in full view of the window, and that is private. But if I shag out of doors, EVEN in an enclosed garden with a reasonable expectation of not being overlooked, then that is public?
I must write to my Member of Parliament and ask his opinion.
I wonder. Does sex include solo exploits?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smith
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 1095
|
|
|
"Sex in public might frighten a horse" >>>giggle<<< You can't have sex on a parked motorcycle over there either, timmy.
In the US it's illegal:
In Illinois, to have a public erection. (the high schools must be empty with all the boys in jail)
In Minnesota, to have sex with a live fish. (dead is okay?)
In Detroit, to have sex in a car unless it's parked on your own property. (what fun would that be?)
In Nevada, for any member of the legislature to conduct official business in a penis costume. (unofficially, it's okay?)
In Wisconsin, to shoot off a gun when your partner has a orgasm. (YaHooo!)
In Pennsylvania, for toll booth collectors to have sex with truck drivers in the confines of the booth. (maybe that's why we can always run them late at night)
In Oklahoma, to masturbate while watching a couple having sex in the back seat of a car at the drive-in movie. The peeper would be jailed for 'molesting a vehicle'. (now, that's cold)
In Virginia, to masturbate while riding in a sidecar. (interesting concept)
In California, for cats or dogs to have sex without a permit. (do they tell you first?)
In Kingsville, Texas, for pigs to have sex at the airport. (remind me not to change planes there...ever)
MY FAVORITE::::::In Florida, to have sex with a porcupine. (sorry Spikey, maybe next time)
But, commenting on the original question.....
In Connecticut, (haha to my friend who lives there) it is forbidden to have any kind of private sexual behavior between consenting adults. (So, my suggestion.....move to Connecticut, where it MUST be okey dokey to do what you want in public!!)
Smile on this beautiful Saturday if for no other reason than smith doesn't have to go to school :):):):):):):)
JJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, smith, just be grateful you don't live over here!
Law: All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy.
Explanation: This law dates from the middle ages when there was no standing army, so in times of war each gentry was required to produce a quota (depending on its size) of knights, archers, infantry, etc. As the church was the only centralized instrument of beauracracy (the lords were independent for the most part), they were used for such tasks.
Some other bizarre English laws, all courtesy of http://www.dumblaws.com:
London Hackney Carriages (taxis/cabs) must carry a bale of hay and a sack of oats.
It is legal for a male to urinate in public, as long it is on the rear wheel of his motor vehicle and his right hand is on the vehicle.
Explanation: The London Hackney Carriage Laws covers hackneys in other towns too and have remained unaltered for over 100 years. Firms have been known to manufacture very small bales of hay to carry in a taxi during disputes during local councils (who license the hackneys everywhere except London). Also the vehicle has to be tethered at a taxi rank, and the council have to supply a water trough at said ranks (that could be fun on a Saturday night!). The one about urinating against the back wheel is a Hackney Carriage Law too, and has also been done, on mass, during taxi/council disputes (allegedly).
It is illegal for two adult men to have sex in the same house as a third person.
Explanation: Introduced to outlaw "molly houses" which began to appear in the big cities of England in the late 16th Century. In these bordellos, homosexuals engaged in sex, sado masochism, transvestitism etc., and they were perceived as a threat to public morality, and so outlawed.
Any person found breaking a boiled egg at the sharp end will be sentenced to 24 hours in the village stocks (enacted by Edward VI).
The severest Penaltys will be suffered by any commoner who doth permit his animal to have carnal knowledge of a pet of the Royal House (enacted by George I).
It is illegal to stand within one hundred yards of the reigning monarch when not wearing socks (enacted by Edward VI)
A bed may not be hung out of a window.
It is illegal for a lady to eat chocolates on a public conveyance.
Mince pies can not be eaten on Christmas day.
Any boy under the age of 10 may not see a naked manequin.
You may not make out in public.
Interfering with the mail or sleeping with the consort of the Queen is classed as treason, and as such, carries a maximum penalty of death.
Placing a postage stamp that bears the Queen (or King) upside down is also considered treason.
A licence is required to keep a lunatic.
In York, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, the origional thread was concerning an alteration in the statutes in the UK.....
Warren was talking about rental property in Toronto, Canada....
Sorry, but I still don't see the connection....
Just my observation.......
Marc
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stephen
|
|
Toe is in the water |
Location: UK
Registered: December 2002
Messages: 31
|
|
|
"In York, it is perfectly legal to shoot a Scotsman with a bow and arrow, except on Sundays."
Damn! I wish I'd seen this yesterday!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robert bryce
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 414
|
|
|
HEY TIMMY--JUST SEND ME AIR FAIR ILL COME OVER THERE AND STRAIGHTEN OUT YOU BRITTS robert
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
robert bryce
|
|
Really getting into it |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 414
|
|
|
THANKS A BUNCH GUY I LOVED IT. AND MANY ACCUSE AMERICA OF GOING DOWN THE TUBES
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: UK introduces law banning sex in public 
Re: UK introduces law banning sex in public 
A few weird US laws... 
Re: i thought 