Friday, 23 May 2008


There were a number of interesting points raised in this week's Thanet Times story of sordid goings on in the public toilets in Minster.
I do not mind what people get upto in the privacy of their own home but I take grave exception to blatant sexual activity in a public place and there is something particularly sordid about such goings on in a small village public toilet. But how does Kent Police deal with it?
Thanet Times reported that Kent Police were informed of obscene acts being committed in Minster's toilets and put posters up to remind homosexuals engaging in sex in the toilets that such activity was un-lawful. Can you imagine signs on lamposts reminding burglars that breaking and entering is un-lawful? Anyway, Kent Police then mounted a surveillance operation and caught 4 men; presumably engaging in lewd and obscene behaviour in a public place. After all the effort put in by Kent Police, were charges brought? No, the men were 'cautioned'.
So Kent Police instead of 'policing' and charging, prosecuting and thus publicly naming those involved, suggested that TDC shut the toilets after 4pm and are warning homosexuals "that those participatingin these activities may be VULNERABLE people and VICTIMS OF CRIME. (Are Kent Police talking about the criminals breaking the law in Minster's toilets?) It's all confusing but the disgusting participants of sexual activity in Minster's loo can call the Kent Homophobic and Transphobic Reporting Line for help and advice.!
I despair of policing in this country when our Police Force is so 'touchy feely' and sensitive about being labelled anti-gay that it fails to charge and prosecute homosexuals breaking the law but implies they are 'victims' and that their advice is to 'close the toilet early'? Heaven help us all. The law used to be applied impartially and without favour; not any more it seems.


James Maskell said...

Minster isnt the only place where tis occurs. The College Square toilets in Margate (next to Iceland) has exactly the same problem.

Anonymous said...

Like most other people, most of us that are gay, do not like this nasty business, to think otherwise is to be homophobic

Dr.Ian Martin

Anonymous said...

I think all gays do it. It should be against the law to think like this.

People choose to be gay


Anonymous said...

People don't choose to be gay. It can happen to them after a be experience with a woman.


Anonymous said...

The toilets next to Thanet Bowls club were notorious but the locals kept calling the law and now it rarely happens. Keep reporting it and you will succeed.

Anonymous said...

We all know that most Gay people do not agree with doing this in public, so is this story a cover for would be Gay bashers to get away with being homophobic?

Dr. Ian Martin

Anonymous said...


Don't we have every right to be homophobic?


Bertie Biggles said...

No, Ian, it is not. I couldn't agree with you more about most gays finding such sexual activity in a public place as equally disgusting as any other member of the public.

Lets be quite clear that it is not the sexual orientation of the participants that is revolting but lewd and offensive sexual acts in a public place. I would be as equally upset with hetero-sexuals indulging in sexual behaviour in Minster's Toilets.

What I was trying to draw attention to is that Kent Police needs to stop being so 'sensitive' about this criminal activity just because of the sexual orientation of the participants. How can we have the law upheld fairly and impartially when our Constabulary is making a distinction because of the participants sexual orientation? I was under the impression that we had moved on in this country to a position when one's sexual orientation is not an issue; Kent Police still clearly see it as such.

RL, most gays are in loving long-term relationships. Sexual orientation is a complicated issue and choice is just one small part of a much more intricate picture.

CH, I do not like the term homophobic, simply because of its misused classical derivation and its frequent misapplication. You do have the right to be 'homophobic' but in the privacy of your own mind. I personally abhor prejudice.

Anonymous said...

Police in Senegal have arrested several men following the publication of pictures claiming to depict a wedding ceremony between two men.
The pictures were published in Icone magazine, whose editor, Mansour Dieng, has since received death threats.

Mr Dieng has also been questioned by police over the issue.

Homosexuality is illegal in Senegal but it is not clear whether the arrests were in connection with the ceremony or the death threats.

The BBC's Tidiane Sy in Senegal said that at least five of the men arrested appeared in the photographs.

According to pro-government newspaper Le Soleil, the arrested men were all seized in "a meeting house which could act as a brothel".

Police have not commented on the case but an official at the Department of Criminal Investigations told AFP news agency that an investigation was under way.

The ceremony is believed to have involved a Senegalese man and another from Ghana or the Ivory Coast, who has not yet been found.

Mr Dieng told Africa Global News that he published the pictures to dismiss accusations that an earlier article on homosexuality in Senegal was untrue.

Senegal is a predominantly Muslim country and gay men and women remain socially marginalised.

Anonymous said...

Bertie, I would take issue with you on just two points. Being gay is not a matter of "choice" at all; nothing complex, it is a natural condition. And I'm not sure that people WOULD call the police were heterosexuals to be found having sex of some kind in a public place. There was some publicity locally last year over some male/female pairings found having sex "alfresco"; nothing like the same condemnation then.

Anonymous said...

But on the main point, you are right, public toilets are for quite another activity. Hardly the sort of place for intimacy of any kind.

Anonymous said...

Public toilets are not the place for this activity. But it is concerning that hetrosexual activity is not reported or responded to the same way of homosexual activity. One cannot believe that hetrosexual behavior is also not present on our pulbic spaces.

Bertie Biggles said...

20.01 highlights intolerance that this country has moved on from, thank-goodness, in the past 40 years. Of course, there is ignorant prejudice still around but sadly,that is always going to be the case.

20.06, when I talk of the element of choice, we all have choice to accept our sexuality or to deny it or to change our behaviour, even if we deny or ignore our 'nature'.

I think you may be right concerning the 'outcry' that seems to be lacking when heterosexual sexual activity occurs in public places but having lived as a student in a 'red-light' area there was certainly 'outrage' from the local community directed at the Police to get the girls and their punters off the streets. I take the view and I hope most sensible people do, that public sexual activity is against the law and offensive and that the law should be enforced impartially.

Anonymous said...

I believe the word "PERVERTS" was used in the Gazette. Would they use this word if it were heterosexuals doing this in public.

I am Bi-sexual, and my girlfriend has asked my to have sex in public. I have never been asked this by a male.

Should the Gazette be taken to the European court of human rights?


Anonymous said...

I abhor bigotry too and some of my best friends....most in long term relationships.
BUT....what do you think the proportion of heterosexual activity in toilets is compared to homosexual?