h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

How do you know they didn't ?

Maybe the 'straight' courting couples they interupted didn't go running to the police.

I don't, but, if they're habit of going for joyrides so often, I'm even more glad they 'caught out' this time.

Well it was on the way back from a callout, and fire-fighters are generally considered to have a fairly 'robust' sense of humour, so I'd say it wasn't out of the question that it was the type of thing they did regularly.

Many of us break rules to make the monotony of work more bearable, be it browsing the web, playing games, having quizzes, or shining torches onto courting couples.

It does smack of a Pink Guards cultural re-education putsch and a management with no experience except the rule book.

"Now then, wot ave we got ere then. Clause 6, Para 7, Line 3, Fire Bobbies returning from stand-bye shall return all vehicles for polishing and not shine lights at shirt tails being lifted. Yeah that should cover it."

"the issue isn't that someone got caught having sex outside"

You're right, the issue isn't that.

It SHOULD be that. But pathetically, it isn't.

"it's that the firefighters used their job to practice homophobia"

Practice makes perfect, eh?

Anyway, bollocks. "Used their job"???

And whether they interrupted straight or gay CRIMINALS IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME is surely irrelevant, isn't it?

I have one question only - has anyone, at any stage, EVER suggested that these men would hesitate for a *second* to perform a rescue if the rescuee was gay?

No.

In which case, as far as I'm concerned, accusations of homophobia are just so much queenie whining.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHiSsf5-EDE

SoRB

As far as I know having sex outside is not illegal when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hidden in the bushes at night at a well known gay cruising spot and needing powerful spotlights to pick it up would probably fit that, I would have thought. Just my £0.02. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

I did not use the term homophobia. I don't doubt that the location repute for gay cruising was indeed factor in them being there. Nor have suggested that any of them would leave someone to burn based on their sexual identity.

Anyway the firefighters got caught prating about. And were punished for that. Good.

That the people that caught the firefighters being morons where carrying out a crime is irrelevant to their superior when deciding what action to take against the for behaving like retarded teenagers in control of an appliance.

The crime here is having sex. Not really a nasty one that is it. A lot of people actual do have sex. And enjoy it too.
You say the crime took place at 10:30. So, just who do imagine was going to be psychologically damaged by some guys having sex at 10:30, at night? Kids just on their way home from school?

Here is a link...
http://www.illwillpress.com/
It a site where rants and misanthropy are done by someone with a talent for it. When he goes too far, it's funny, not tragically pathetic.

"And whether they interrupted straight or gay CRIMINALS IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME is surely irrelevant, isn't it?"

But they're *firefighters*, not police officers. It's not their *job* to arrest people for committing minor crimes. It wasn't their *intention* to detect crime, and they didn't report the crimes to the police. If they were passing by on the way back from a call and saw something suspicious, it might be more understandable. But the facts are that they took it upon themselves to take the fire engine on a jolly, and to amuse themselves at the expense of others. I'm not sure whether it was homophobic, strictly speaking. It would still have been wrong for them to take a fire engine to a known 'dogging' site, where similar crimes are being committed.

Obviously having sex in a public place is against the law. But it's worth giving some thought to why gay men choose to have sex under bushes in parks late at night. Doubtless it's all part of the thrill for some, but for others it might be because they feel unable to be open about their sexuality because of prejudice.

And I can't help wondering what harm they were doing? It was a public place, but it was very late at night/early in the morning, and it was obviously well known what went on there for the firefighters to have known about it. So it's unlikely that anyone would likely to be innocently walking by in order to be outraged and appalled by lewd conduct.

If it is a crime, it's a victimless crime. I find it very hard indeed to feel any kind of outrage about 'criminals' having sex in a secluded public place that is well known for being used for that purpose - it's not like it was a public toilet on the number 47 bus. I similarly don't care about people going skinny dipping on secluded beaches late at night (also probably illegal), about couples (gay or straight) indulging in al fresco sex while camping in an otherwise deserted field (also illegal), or about 'dogging'.

Of course we don't want people copulating everywhere, but neither do I want to live in a society that is so prudish that we think that al fresco sex in a secluded, private place away from the non-consenting is such an awful criminal offence that it's okay for fire-fighters or any other members of the public to go around proactively seeking out 'criminals'. Imagine that you're out camping somewhere remote and you see a couple heading for a completely deserted beach at 1am with one intention in mind. Is it okay for you to round up some mates, get some torches and go and follow them and shine torches at them? Or would that make you a pretty despicable sort of person? Would you take seriously any defence from such a person which involved saying that 'the couple were breaking the law'?

It may well be that the disciplinary action taken was harsh (I've no idea, without knowing what usually happens and what their service record was previous to this), but it seems to me that what they did was completely wrong.

[simpost with Crescent and Azathoth]

Well said, Otto.

"I have one question only - has anyone, at any stage, EVER suggested that these men would hesitate for a *second* to perform a rescue if the rescuee was gay?

No.

In which case, as far as I'm concerned, accusations of homophobia are just so much queenie whining.


So as long as someone does there job properly and without bareing a grudge against any group they are in the clear?

Sorry that just dosent stack up right. Look at it like this. You could easily have said that because no one went around with proof that the police treated crimes on black youths by white youths differently that the police werent racist. Obviously this would have been an incorrect assumption.

Until he was caught out Harold Shipman was seen as someone who looked after peoples' health.

Now Im not suggesting that the firefighters concerned are raging quee bashers or anything like that or that they would let their feelings about *anyone* get in the way of attempting to save them from a fire, collapsed tunnel etc...etc..., but it doesnt mean that they arent homophobic or that they didnt target that place and those people because they think its amusing to put the willies up gay men.

one love

"they didnt target that place and those people because they think its amusing to put the willies up gay men."

Was that intentional? Because I nearly spat tea all over my monitor.

We had to go to a fire station and interview some firefigthers last year plus I used to play rugby with a fair few, less now because these days the brigades take a dim view of highly trained personnel having time off with bruised rib cartillige and twisted ankles.

Anyway from what I heard just like any other bunch of people firfighters have their fair share of grifts, japes and capers that arent going to be looked on kindly by their superiors and might shock the general public.

One of the things that really gets up the noses of the top brass is bringing the service into disrepute. It's not such big news but I know of people getting demoted for targetting schools for informatinoal talks which were primarily for them to get the numbers of staff in the schools.

There is more news mileage in this story and it has negative conotations in terms of their attitude towards a group of people who deserve the same level of service and respect fromt he brigade as do any other group of alfresco wick dippers.

Dogging isn;t technically illegal. It's one of those strange 'I'm offended by it' crimes where people indulging in it could be prosecuted for lewd behaviour.

However, the whole point of dogging and dogging spots are to be secluded out of the way and not be disturbed or indeed disturb anyone else who could walk in on them.

The police do sometimes try to close down dogging sites and there are cases of the general publlic attacking people dogging which brings us to the firefighters.

It's easy to locate dogging spots etc via the net. Therefore, it would be easy for some firefighters to discover a spot and then go in for some 'fun' however the firefighters were technically assaulting the people there who were not harming anyone. So, they have probably got off lightly.

As for the firefighters being homophobic etc...why would they go out of their way to to what they did...normal people would just avoid going to those areas if they didn't agree with what was happeneing and did not impinge on their normal way of life in anyway.

Also, as has been said before: they are not the police and should have reported the incident of lewd behaviour that they had come across while out for a leisurely evening drive.

"the firefighters were technically assaulting the people there"

That's the first time I've heard that suggested. Link?

SoRB, do you have a personal objection to people having sex outside in a public (but discreet) place? Or is it simply that it's illegal (allegedly) that makes you think the people having sex are in the wrong?

My objection is not so much to the having of the sex, it's to the queenie whining about being caught at it, and to the fact that this whining has resulted in disciplinary proceedings for people who were guilty of nothing more than a bit of goofing about.

As I think I said in my first post, what kind of people, when caught having sex in a public place, rather than ruefully admit they were in the wrong, instead make an official complaint? Answer - petty minded vindictive indignant whiners.

SoRB

What is one person's 'goofing about' is another person's harassment.

SoRB, to rephrase something I said earlier:

Imagine that someone is out somewhere remote and sees a heterosexual couple heading for a completely deserted location late at night with one intention in mind. Is it okay for them leave their jobs to round up some mates, get some torches and go and follow them and shine lights at them? Or would that make them a pretty despicable sort of person? Would you take seriously any defence from such a person which involved saying that 'the couple were breaking the law'?

Should the couple just 'ruefully' say "it's a fair cop, you caught us doing something illegal"? Are they in the wrong, or are the peeping toms in the wrong? Because that's what they'd be called if it was a heterosexual couple. Perverts. Sickos.

As for 'queenie whining'.... I think if you use phrases like that, people might start inferring, rightly or wrongly, that you're a homophobe. It could have been butch yelling for all you know . More seriously, in a country where people are still regularly beaten up because of their sexuality or their perceived sexuality, are you so lacking in empathy that can't you understand why they wouldn't want strangers wandering round with torches shining them at people. How were they to know that it was 'goofing around' rather than imminent assault?

I'm frankly amazed that you see nothing wrong with this behaviour.

This thread is hilarious .