Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay man attacked at London cruising spot

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. The attackers were black? There’s a surprise. What would they have to say about Malcolm X and his shenanigans, had they made it as far as secondary education and actually heard about him. It would be interesting to know the stats on the amount of gay white men as opposed to gay black men who have been assaulted in London. I’m guessing we’d have a higher majority of white victims.

    1. Staircase2 7 Apr 2011, 3:57pm

      of course you would you dope – theres more ‘white’ people in London than Black people!

      According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London) based on the 2001 census ‘white’ people make up 71.1& of the population so of course there are likely to be more white victims of crime than black.

      But probability is never an exact science and really I dont see how knowing the ethnicity of a victim helps unless racism had something to do with the attack in the first place.

      1. Durrr, I was making a cloaked remark that there are more militant black homophobes out looking to bash white guys than their white counterparts. I don’t think racism had anything to do with the attack, just we have more intolerant black people handy with their fists than we do whites. Or at least that’s the way I analyse it, when I read these stories the perpetrators are mostly black males.

        1. Be interesting to find out if your perception is borne out by the statistics

      2. That cencus is 10 years old, and in the last census this month it is reported that over 60% of people didn’t bother to return it.

        They don’t like questions like “On what date did you illegally enter the UK?”

        A hell of a lot has happened in the last ten years, and I would say that in London, indigeous Brits are by far in the minority.

        1. I would say that in London, indigeous Brits are by far in the minority.

          In 2007 57.7% of the population of Greater London classified itself as ‘White British”, so I think you might be getting a little over-excited here.

          1. Well, where I live, I can guarantee you that the population of the borough is less than 5% indigenous white British.

            The proof? I simply walk down the street.

        2. There are plenty of other government statistics that are taken more continually when evidence the change in ethnic composition of the UK is not of any vast difference in terms of proportions to that seen in the last census. How do you define indiginous – if you go far enough back in my family tree we originate from Scandinavia – but thats centuries back … Many Brits relate back to Germany and elsewhere on the continent. How pure is pure? I accept there are areas of London that are predominantly non-white, but there are areas that are predominantly white. Equally being non-white could still make you 3rd or 4th generation British

          1. How about all four of a person’s grandparents being born here?

        3. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:09am

          There is a £iooo fine here in the north of Ireland for failure to return the Census form or to fill it out on line.
          Is this not the case in the UK as well??

          1. There is indeed a potential £1000 fine in the UK

            The UK does include N Ireland …

  2. It is an interesting question …

    Not sure the stats are easily accessible – certainly 6 or 7 years ago that wasnt the way that crimes were compared in the north where I was a police officer.

    It would be interesting to know both numberically and in terms of proportion the difference in ethnicities of perceived homophobic attacks in terms of both victim and offender

  3. It would be interesting to know the stats on the amount of gay white men as opposed to gay black men who have been assaulted in London. I’m guessing we’d have a higher majority of white victims”

    You reckon some of those MF never miss an oppourtunity to throw an insult its in their DNA.

  4. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2011, 1:04pm

    Weither people think cruising is right or wrong, it doesn’t entitle people to hit out. Yet again these people are using Gay people as an easy target.

    1. Absolutely

      I think some cruising is wrong – not all … but appreciate not everyone agrees with that … but regardless … it is an attack on the gay community (usually in an obvious manner)

    2. My parents generation would never have gone gay bashing. It was none of their business. this lot are like fcuking animals its only a matter of time before they get to hampstead

      1. The problem there is that back in our parents’ day homosexuality was probably still illegal and thus this type of attack would go unreported, but we also weren’t as swamped with intolerant immigrants then as we are now. Plus LGBT liaison police officers are a pretty newish addition so there would have been less inclination to report a gay beating to the police. What I would advocate though in terms of dealing with these ‘fcukng animals’ (which they truly are) is that all those gay guys gagging to get in to the boxing ring to hammer the living daylights out of each other (see other story) instead use their energy in beating seven shades of sh1te out of these scumbags.

        1. Absolutely. In my parents day homosexuality was either illegal or JUST becoming legal. There were no LGBT liaison officers (and if you are scared of reporting a homophobic assault now – think about what it would have been like 20-40 years ago, things have improved. I know the police were far more bigoted in terms of homosexuality, women, race etc then – than has been accused recently. I have to say I am not convinced that all black homophobes are immigrants. I am though entertained by the logical progression of your argument – something I never thought of gay riots in London … Please not – but a humerous thought

          1. My experience from growing up in a predominantly black area ,is that there is a very dangerous level of acceptance of violent homophobia in the afro/caribean communities. However, i’m not talking black immigrants here but 2/3rd generation british black influenced by , murder music, growing religious intolerance in their countries of heritage. There is a problem with disproportionate level of homophobia in the black community that needs to be awknowledged and addressed, rather than dismissed for fear of having the simplistic racism allegations.

          2. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 11:22am

            Rapture

            I do agree with that. There is a worrying trend of superiority if you like against as you say woman, race and the LGBT community. I would also (boring I know for some) say that a lot of those is because of their parents faith and religions morals, mostly Christian in this case, passed and forced onto them. I agree most are born and bred here so the immigrant arguement doesn’t stick and nor should it.

            However there is a large part where we had over 3 million immigrants over Labours 13 years and I know many are sexist, racist and homophobic. Some of those from within Europe.

            I would like to know what safeguards Labour had in place to filter the worst offenders… the answer would be none of course. I would also like to see this government do better in protecting this country from racist, sexist, homophobic immigrants esp in the Citizenship test for entrance into the UK.

          3. @rapture and Jock S Trap

            I do concur that there is a perception of significantly violent homophobia in black youths (although I think my experience is that its more visible in certain areas of London than in other areas of the London or the wider UK where there are black populations).
            I agree that it appears to be more 2/3/4 generation afrocaribbean youths rather than immigrants.
            I think this speaks once more of the weaknesses in our education system in terms of building accepting, tolerant cultures in schools that impact on the mindsets on young people.
            I think we should be continuing to condemn intolerance, bigotry and violence whilst trying to establish whether there is the perceived 2/3/4 generation link or whether there is a link to some immigrants.
            I think some work to ensure that immigrants are a positive contribution to UK society in terms of equality and economics may be beneficial.

        2. “we also weren’t as swamped with intolerant immigrants then as we are now” – oh dear. Homosexuality and Nationalism, together like in the days of Ernst Röhm.

      2. Staircase2 7 Apr 2011, 4:04pm

        ‘this lot’……..? ‘make it to hampstead’…….?!
        anyone behaving like this isnt likely to move very far from their own home – if youre fearful enough to go up to a gay man in the dark on clapham common and then attack him then youre also too fearful to get on a bus and travel to an area you dont even know in the middle of the night just to see where the gay boys are.

        Most urban teens rarely travel outside of their own areas because they’re fearful of the unknown – to be honest urban teens are fearful full stop. Unfortunately thats what propagates this kind of ill behaviour.

        I hope the victim makes a full and speedy recovery.

        Perhaps its time for gay men to be offered free self defence classes

        1. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2011, 4:19pm

          All for defence classes, an excellent idea, so long as we don’t get sued for defending ourselves.

          1. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2011, 4:20pm

            Having said that it wouldn’t stop me.

          2. urban myth – people are never “sued” for defending themselves. Use of uneccesary force has got people into trouble that that usually refers to things like vengance attacks (getting your mates to kick S**t out of the supposed attacker) or shooting someone in the back.

          3. @Jock S Trap

            I know of no successful litigation or prosecution where anyone was defending themselves.

            English law fully protects in an unambiguous way the right of an individual to defend himself or protect his property or others, provided the level of violence used to defend is necessary and proportionate to the perception of the threat.

            I fully agree the self defence classes are a wonderful idea.

            The fears of prosecution are from people like Melanie Philips who have screamed out in favour of cases where people have used either unnecessary or disproportionate force.

      3. My parents generation would never have gone gay bashing. A myth, I’m afraid, James! Read your Quentin Crisp. Gay-bashing, or rather the bashing of anyone seen as a powerless minority, has been around an awfully long time. The only difference is that, as has been pointed out here, until fairly recently it wouldn’t even have been reported.

        1. Fair enough

          Must be a class thing then I couldnt imagine my dad and his mates going out gay bashing

          1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 11:25am

            Difference really in our parents days was that they didn’t just to assumptions then. If two men slept in the same bed people wouldn’t bat an eyelid. Most certainly wouldn’t think it was because they were Gay.

            Now with the way the media is everything has to be questioned. It does make a huge difference.

          2. where I grew up in London there were 2 lesbian commune houses and one gay couple who ran the local shop never a problem they were part of the community and it wasnt a problem

  5. The right wing nutters and their religious bigot supporters will have a field day with this one. I can just hear Stephen Green and Melanie Phillips’ commentaries.

    That said, cruising is one thing but when it resorts to having sex in a public place, and it does happen now and then, then I draw the line for both gays and straights alike. It does our quest for full equality no good.

    1. Robert

      On the whole I agree with you regarding both it being a field day for Melanie Phillips et al and your views on cruising. However, I would probably go a little further. I certainly have no problem in cruising per se. I do think sexual activity in a public place is a different issue – and can be the natural progression of cruising (although not always). However, if the participants have taken care to ensure they are not seen – I don’t really think it is a major issue – other than, given attacks like the one reported it puts themselves at a different sort of risk to that which they may find sexually gratifying.

    2. Why are you even dignifing those idiots you give them way too much power.

    3. Paddyswurds 7 Apr 2011, 2:41pm

      @Robert….
      ……Hear, Hear!!!

  6. Stu, even if cruising does lead to sex out in the open but not visible by the public, why can’t they go to one another’s home, assuming they’re not living with anyone? I can understand the excitement to some extent having sex out in the open but in this day and age of increasing violent crimes committed against gay people, this only adds fuel to the fire. I for one would never do it. I prefer the comfort of a bed.

    1. @Robert
      I agree on the whole with you. I personally would prefer (even in the rare occasions in the dim and distant past where I have cruised) to be warm and indoors somewhere reasonably comfortable. I do like outdoor sex – but in the heat of the summer, somewhere totally secluded on private land where there is no chance at all of ever being discovered – not in a park! … although I can understand the attraction. However, if no one is offended because they can’t see it – I don’t see it is a problem – although they are putting themselves at risk and arguably acting unwisely.

  7. Paddyswurds 7 Apr 2011, 2:53pm

    UNless one is homeless i just can’t see the need for having it away in public be you gay or breeder. i know “dogging” has become fashionable of late but it think it is so degrading for both the participants and onlookers. We aren’t chimpanzees in the jungle ffs. As for this cruising the common, i thought we had moved on from this sort of thing with the advent of the interweb, social networking and so on. Not to say that that is an excuse for being attacked in the street just because of how one is perceived. He could have been “straight”, how would these morons know. Was he robbed as well i wonder??
    I think it is time we brought back National service fo anyone who hasn’t finished High school wit at least 5 A levels and an acceptance to a third level Institution. Also reinstate the birch to be administered by the victim.

    1. I’ve had my knuckles rapped for using the term ‘breeder’ on here before, dunno why. Anyway with regards to not understanding why some dude would to Clapham Common for a poke, maybe he doesn’t have the ‘interweb’ or social networking sites.

      1. @CMYB

        Not comfortable with the terminology breeder – but not going to tell someone not to use language unless its clearly offensive … and I guess we all know whats meant by the term … just not one I would choose to use

        I have to say Clapham Common wouldnt be a place I would choose to frequent for two reasons – a) if I want to cruise there are social networking sites etc that can lead to home or some other safer location and b) my understanding is it is quiet there anyway …

        I have to say @Paddyswurds – I am tempted by national service being reintroduced to bring a sense of pride, respect and discipline into this nation – having seen some of the behaviour of the youth (and some “respectable” people) in the UK in my time as a cop and paramedic has largely appalled me. I wonder about exemptions for 5 A levels etc – that would be an academic elite you would excuse from that service – and some of those have been the most arrogant and repressive people I had a joy to arrest.

        1. To be honest not even the promise of sex would make me go to Clapham Common. I see Hampstead Heath was mentioned in an earlier post with regards to being a cruising ground, I’m pretty sure there have been acts of violence against gay men there also but Hampstead is just a little too off the beaten track for a load of vigilante lads looking to beat up gays whereas Clapham is just rougher in general. There have been plenty of reports about gay bashings on Clapham Common in the last year or so, says a lot about Clapham.

          1. As I said CMYB, there are plenty of other “safer” alternatives to locations such as Clapham Common and Hampstead Heath.
            My preference if looking for sex would to be to consider the safer alternatives or use internet options etc
            That is not to suggest in the slightest that the victim of this assault was in anyway to blame for the offence.

          2. The internet maybe safer for now but in the US people have been murdered by meeting strangers online.

          3. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2011, 3:49pm

            James!

            One of my friends was murdered 4 years ago this month in the US by exactly that way.

          4. @James!

            Indeed there have been people murdered by meeting online.

            People should take sensible precautions when meeting a stranger and have plans in place.

            However, there is a risk in doing anything. If I cross the road, I migh get knocked over. If I stay in – most accidents happen in the home. If I go clubbing – I might get hit by a flying punch that I was innocently in the way of. If I go shopping in certain places I might get caught in gunfire (unlikely) or stabbed by a mugger (again unlikely).

            I am aware of cases from the media of people who have been murdered or assaulted by people they have met on the net. I have met a number of guys – many of my gay and some straight friends have too. Yeah, many of us have met people we were not as comfortable with as we anticipated but we were all grown up enough to deal with those scenarios. I have also met some lovely guys (including my ex) through the net.

            Caution yes – but lets not over-react and assume we will be murdered …

          5. Sorry to abouot your mate Jock.

            Stu youre right not much stops me if I want a bit

    2. Hetrophobic and stupid , you get lower with every comment.

      1. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:16am

        @ everyone hung up on the “breeder” thingy
        ……The use of the term “breeder” was meant to be ironic……and to be honest is pretty mild compared to some of the terminology used by hetrosexuals to describe us.

        1. I got that it was ironic

          I appreciate it can be viewed as mild

          I just don’t like it – that’s all I was saying

          You and others may and thats great – I am entitled to say I don’t like it or find it helpful …

        2. Here we go , the “i was being ironic” rubbish , you sound like a teenager on facebook. More like foot in mouth, and a desperate attempt at backtracking. You are a failure at being witty , best not try it.

  8. Stu, yes, I agree with you mostly, but definitely NOT in a park. There’s nothing quite like a comfortable bed to fall asleep in after some very active sexual pleasure with a very sexually appealing hunk who knows what he’s doing.

  9. Which brings us to “what’s wrong with pulling at a gay boozer”, they’re no longer the smoke filled dens of iniquity they once were, now its the smell of poppers you have to shake out of your hair on the way to work the next morning. You’re never too old to pull in a pub, unless its bloody G.A.Y Late, I have milk in my fridge older than some of the embryos that frequent that place.

    1. There are plenty of pubs and bars that one can go into throughout the UK (and internationally) that do not have the smell of poppers … Some bars I would also choose not to frequent

      1. But if you’re looking for anonymous sh@gs as the guy on Clapham Common was then you’d be better off going to one of these. Maybe he didn’t have the price of a pint either.

        1. On different occasions one will be looking for different things.

          I have a particular type of bar I go to if I want to sit and chat with friends, another if I was a bustling atmosphere but to socialise, another to be romantic, another to dance and another to pull ….

  10. The idea of what constitutes a “public” space is more complex than the Daily Mail homos who habituate these comments would be able to grasp. If an area is only peopled by men cruising, as certain heaths, commons or parks after dark tend to be, then there is a good argument that these have become colonised as private gay (or straight) spaces. What else is anyone doing there?

    Too easily do human beings fall for the notion that sex must be confined to a limited definition of private space, and there are all sorts of reasons why people cannot or don’t want to have sex just in what is rather fancifully thought of as “the privacy of their own homes”.

    1. Ah come on Joe, your theory is a bit fanciful and wishful thinking. If a public place becomes ‘colonised’ by guys looking for cock or straights dogging it doesn’t mean its off limits for people who are passing through. If the chavs who habitually take over a phone box every night of the week and hang out there does that mean no one else should expect to use the phone box or even walk past without fear of reprisal. And who says certain heaths are only used by guys cruising? There are probably plenty of people genuinely walking dogs, jogging or whatever. There is zero complexity in determining what is a public space.

    2. Joe

      I do agree with you that there are plenty of reasonable explanations as to why a person may not want to have sex (on particular occasions) in their own (or sexual partners) home.

      I disagree with the logical progression of your argument that because certain places have been “colonised” as places for cruising and public sex or dogging that they should not be viewed as public places. If I move to a new area and I want to take my dog for a walk with my mother, I don’t want to accidentally come across people shagging in what are, legally, public places.

      1. You want to take your dog out for a walk with your mother in an unlit area of Hampstead Heath at 3.30Am in the morning? If you don’t expect to find anything untoward happening, you yourself (and your old mum) are guilty of the utmost naivety; if you DO expect something, then kindly respect that it goes on and look the other way.

        Perhaps I don’t want to see people with their dogs or mothers (or noisy kids) in a park – yet if I go there on a sunny Sunday afternoon, I have to accept that these type of people have colonised the space. It is, to an extent, private property for their own particular interests. You see, it’s quite complex. Not admitting how complex it is = buying into the idea that when people do “normal” things in public, that’s acceptable, but when they don’t, it is not. Which is just acquiescing to the argument of reaction.

        1. Steve@GayWebHosting 7 Apr 2011, 5:34pm

          I completely agree… As you said, at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon, I would not expect to see people having sex in a park etc…

          However, at 3AM, I would certainly expect to see such things if I were to go delving deep into unlit woodland on Hampstead Heath!

          1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:13am

            Yep, thats how I feel. So long as it doesn’t affect anyone who doesn’t consent then I don’t see a problem. If it’s at night when no families around then so what. During the day when they’re are families about, well thats different.

        2. Joe – at what point did I say the walk was at 0330 or in Hampstead Heath … You added those embelishments …

          I am perfectly happy for cruising to happen – indeed (if you read the thread you will see I have mentioned this earlier) I have partaken in the past. What I am not happy about is for someone to say that just because an area has been adopted by gay men for sex that it has been colonized and is a public no go area. I would have thought my semi tongue in cheek nature of comment was obvious.

          You also presume that all cruising happens in the dark. As someone who has both cruised, dealt with gay men who have been assaulted in cruising grounds (either as a police officer or paramedic) and from mere observation – my experience is that cruising is not limited to the hours of darkness. So your cosy Sunday afternoons for dog lovers and children and parks for sexual activities at night doesnt wash.

          You can call it private property but it isnt – they are public spaces.

          1. “Joe – at what point did I say the walk was at 0330 or in Hampstead Heath … You added those embelishments …” Well, you didn’t mention a time, but you and I know damn well that most if not all cruising in parks and heaths does happen after dark or at least in secluded areas.
            “my experience is that cruising is not limited to the hours of darkness” – but it doesn’t tend to happen on, or in view of, a footpath.

            “I am perfectly happy for cruising to happen…”
            That’s big of you. Since when did your voice become The Only Reasonable One?

          2. @Joe

            If I’m going to debate then its going to be based on my own opinions, perhaps informed by other experience or others views – but my opinion. We all debate on what we consider is right or wrong. I am more than prepared to be proven wrong. So, think it big of me if you like, and of course I am not the only person capable of reason – there are many others on here.

            It is true that a lot of cruising does occur in the hours of dark. It is also true that cruisers are not the only users of parks during the hours of darkness. It is also true that some people cruise during daylight and it is also true that a minority of people who cruise do so in places where either they are clearly visible to other park users or easily able to be discovered.
            Not everyone in the wider community is aware of cruising “hot spots” – my mother and father for example are aware of the concept but I doubt they would know where it occurred. So would you blame them for their ignorance if they stumbled on…

        3. … someone cruising whether dark or light.
          I have no moral stance on cruising – i can’t I have done it – and may again. I am trying to say people cruising need to take care and that cruising grounds are not places gay men can expect to have exclusivity in – whether you regard them as “colonized” or not.

  11. Staircase2 7 Apr 2011, 4:36pm

    youre all sooo uptight!

    This didnt happen because the man was having sex outdoors – this happened because these idiots attacked him.

    There is nothing inherently ‘safe’ about meetin people for sex anywhere nor is there anything inherently UNSAFE about meeting people for sex anywhere.

    I dont get the ‘people shouldnt be having sex outdoors’ bollocks which so often rears its ugly head on here.
    People do – they always have – they always will. Its a social construct to suggest that its somehow morally ‘better’ to have sex in a bed than a park.

    People should have sex wherever they choose to, wheneever they chose to, with whoever they chose to.

    Next you’ll be out trying to convert rabbits and selling them mortgages just to stop them from a life of vice by having sex in the countryside!

    its NONSENSE

    You lot spend far too much time on here

    1. There’s a song going round in my head, its…umm.. let me think….its “The Drugs Don’t Work” by the Verve, clearly they’re not working for you or whatever it is you’re on. So ”People should have sex wherever they choose to, wheneever they chose to, with whoever they chose to”, fair enough, so if some fat straight chavs started getting it on against your front door at say three in the morning you’d be ok with that? If they left their used johnny (not that they’d have one) in the letterbox you’d be ok? Cause from what you’ve said it should be a free for all? I have no qualms about traipsing around a field for a shag but your logic is just ridiculous. I don’t even know what you’re saying about rabbits and mortgages, to be honest I tuned out.

    2. Paddyswurds 7 Apr 2011, 5:53pm

      ….And we know where you should be spending some time. Surely you are joking . If you had your way we would all be acting like Bonobos and shagging anything that moves except our mothers. And apparantly anywhere we please. Can i borrow your front room for a shag fest some Sunday afternoon when you are having your gran round for a Devon cream tea. Catch yerself on ffs.

      1. I thought bonobos even shagged their dear old shagged out mums too

        1. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:23am

          @ viejo……….
          …….no they shag everyone but their mothers and and then only sons and their mothers. Everyone else is acceptable and homosexuality is common as is incest and pederasty. they are at it almost every waking minute. They are by the way closer to us DNA wise than common Chimpanzees and mostly walk upright.

    3. I’m not saying sex shouldnt happen outdoors. I’m not even saying that sex outdoors isnt a choice I have made (I have) or that I would again (almost certainly). That said I usually prefer a longer more comfortable session indoors.

      Im not judging anyone for having sex outdoors. I can’t.

      Im not saying this guy was asking for it – he categorically 100% was not – the viscious thugs who did this to him are the only ones to blame.

      I’m not saying cruising is a bad thing. In fact it can be a good thing. Don’t think its my bag these days – but have happily enjoyed it in the past.

      What I am saying is two things – we do need to be careful (but be realistic about risk – that is by recognising that police have warned of particular problems in this specific area which means we should take precautions if we are going to be there for whatever reason and knowing that cruising is disliked by many and some see it as an easy opportunity to gay bash) and, as much as it may be “known” that sex ….

      1. … happens in certain parks (arguably particularly at night but not exclusively). Not everyone will be aware of this knowledge. We need to be aware that some people for all sorts of reasons may want to walk at all times of the day and night (insomnia, distress, bereavement, etc etc) as well as there are all sorts of reasons why people may want or “need” to have sex out of doors. If we do so then we could offend those people who are legitimately walking in a public place and we can expect potential police attention in some situations. If you want to cruise and then have sex in the open air, make sure no one can see you …

        1. “If we do so then we could offend those people who are legitimately walking in a public place…” – legitimacy, illegitimacy – your very language gives you away. Who is to say what a legitimate action in a night-time park is? Of course, you could simply refer to contemporary mores but then you have to remember that less than 20 years ago, it was thought unacceptable that two men should be intimate in the most anodyne ways in public together. Was homophobia “legitimate” then? For goodness sake, reference to what’s normal is not an argument.

          1. Joe

            You are putting words in my mouth

            I said legitimately because your preposition of colonized areas of public space makes people walking through them illegitimately there. It is the logical progression of your argument. If the public space is no longer public, as you contend (which I categorically disagree with) then any other person being there is illigitimately there. I disagree in the strongest terms.

            No where have I said that anyone who is cruising is illegitimately in a public place. No where. I would argue they have as much right as anyone else to be there.

            I don’t much care whether you like the word legitimate or not it is part of the English language. I don’t care if you don’t like that other people have access to public places – thats part of common law.

            Where have I referred to anything being “normal” …

            If you are going to argue against me – try not to argue against things I am not saying

    4. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:16am

      Good point Staircase2.

      This was an attack on a Gay man regardless of where he is, or what he was doing.

  12. Helen Wilson 7 Apr 2011, 4:47pm

    Is it not the pentecostal churches that so many young African and Caribbean young people are forced to attend that pollutes young minds with the idea of violent homophobia.

    Nobody is born homophobic because of the colour of their skin, other environmental factors are at play. Like fundamentalist Christianity coupled with rappers who spout homophobia in lyrics and so called community leaders like John Fashanu create the culture that promotes homophobic hatred.

    1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:18am

      Excellent point again, Helen.

      I think you hit the nail there. We can have the best schools teaching that Homophobia is wrong but if these young people are being taught differently in church, how do you deal with that?

      1. @Jock S Trap

        I do agree with Helens point, particularly about rap and community leaders …

        Fundamentalist christianity has a part to play in this but its more complex than this …

        As Helen rightly says

        “Is it not the pentecostal churches that so many young African and Caribbean young people are forced to attend that pollutes young minds …”

        I do think we should hold those churches to account that do teach prejudice and bigotry – but we need to not make it appear that it is all about them

  13. Paddyswurds 7 Apr 2011, 4:49pm

    ….my standard for being excused National Service of 5 A levels was intended to perhaps give an incentive to finish school with some qualifications, but i see your point.

  14. He won’t be going back to Clapham Common then.

    Hopefully this will send a message, to the gay community that crusing is not acceptcable.

    I wonder if they have taken any action agaisnt this individual for soliciting on Clapham Common. I hope so.

    1. your childish comment doen’t deserve a reply….so I wont write one.

      1. I actually agree. I live in Clapham and it sickens me that so many people go cruising on the common when there is a gay bar and club on the High St. There really isn’t any need in this day.

        1. Helen Wilson 7 Apr 2011, 5:40pm

          Its normally the closet cases with a wife and kids at home that go onto the common or into the toilet. I doubt they would ever go near a gay bar or club for fear of being recognised by somebody.

          Its probably the attitudes of the likes of Joe that keeps them living the double life instead of coming to terms with their sexuality.

          Also what would closeted Tory MPs do without Clapham common?

          1. Its really silly to try to make this party political. The last “MP on common shock” story was about a Labour MP.

          2. “Its normally the closet cases with a wife and kids at home that go onto the common or into the toilet.” That’s absolute rubbish. Many types of gay man, from completely out and proud guys to down-low closets, go cruising. Your generalizations show you are someone with little to know experience of the subject.

            (I’m the Joe who is the one who talks about public/private spaces, btw, not the one who is an uptight twit about sex)

          3. @Joe

            I have to agree that a wide range of men cruise – some of whom fit the stereotype of married men with children many of whom do not. Some of whom are high achieving individuals – some of whom are intensely struggling. Some of whom are confident gay men, some of whom are not.

            When I was cruising reasonably regularly, I was a fairly confident out gay man successful in his chosen career. I had other reasons for choosing to cruise – and sometimes if I pulled I took them back to my flat, sometimes we had sex in the open air (but we found somewhere highly unlikely to be discovered and we respected that where we were was not a gay cruising ghetto by virtue of the fact we were there and using it for that purpose).

        2. I totally go with John.
          Cruising should have disappeared into the history books like Polari when they legalised homosexuality in 1967.

          There is absolutely no justifications for it. Cruising always was a risky practice and remains so, and although I don’t condone the violence, you take the risk if you do want to you are likely to be arrested, beaten up, or ripped off.

          Just don’t complain that someone committed a crime on you whilst you were committing another.

          1. Spanner blaming the victim what a tool.

            Cruising isnt dangerous its anti gay peoples reaction to it that is dangerous. And i reckon most anti gay people are gay like you. I bet you hate sex

          2. James!
            It’s always been dangerous, because there have always been queer bashers. At one time it was the only way gay men could connect up, but now there are loads of alternatives. Many gay men cruise *because* it has an element of danger.

            As for sex, as Johnny Rotten once put it:
            “Sex is three minutes of squelching noises.”

          3. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 11:35am

            Three minutes?

            Well I guess it’s no wonder your a angry man!!

            :)

          4. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 11:40am

            Spanner

            You say there are alternative but you seem to disapprove of most of those to.

            Fact is we don’t hear stories of a straight couple being attack while out dogging so why should we be the same?

            OK it’s not for all but if it’s late at night and doesn’t bother anyone else who cares? It’s not bothering anyone else expect those consenting.

            There is no excuse for violence, I don’t care what the situation. Yes there have always been ‘queer bashers’ and sadly I guess there always will be, though hopefully it’ll decline. If its not this it’ll something else.

            There is no excuse for it and we should feel we have to hide just because there are closed minded people out there.

          5. Spanner

            3 minutes of squelching you should seriously see a sex therapist

            and you argument is like saying women who wear short skirts and get raped only have themselves to blame.

          6. @Spanner

            I agree there are lots of alternatives to cruising – we need to encourage some of those locations rather than criticize every opportunity some gay men use to find sex.

            In terms of sex – I have never had a session as short as 3 mins … maybe I am doing it wrong – although I tend to enjoy it when I do …

            Nothing can justify the attack on this man. Whether or not we are comfortable with cruising – it exists and is not a reason to assault anyone.

            @Jock S Trap

            There are cases of doggers being assaulted – I have treated two of them when I have attended as a paramedic. I don’t know if the gay cruising attacks attract more publicity or there is a higher volume of them … I suspect the latter but I don’t know.

            @James!

            I wholeheartedly agree – no reasonable person would attempt to justify an assault on a women because she was wearing a short skirt – likewise no gay man should be assaulted because of the location they are at

          7. If you leave your wallet on the bar in a pub when you go for a pee and expect it to be there when you get back, is that misplaced trust, or are you just an idiot?

            The same rules apply, there was, is and always will be an element of risk involved in cruising, which is why many men do it. the frisson of danger adds the the fun.

            However, some of that risk is real. I disapprove of cruising, but that’s not to say I support people attacking others for doing it. The bottom line is, if you dont want to risk attack, don’t do it. You know the odds.

        3. Joe an John, your opinion is revolting!! The attackers are black is a fact, Clapham Common is a fact too! Go to the bars, sauna, home…? why? there are tastes as there are colours! There are many cruising heterosexual parks, where anything goes! The issue, the main point is that this is an homophobic attack. You are moving from this point. This should have never happened! If you do not like what you see in Clapham why didn’t you make your research before you moved there? Would you like to be attacked just because you are heterosexual, or because you look gay one day when you are walking pacifically without asking for it in your lovely Clapham? You both make me sick. Wake up is 2011!!

    2. monkey for sale 7 Apr 2011, 6:48pm

      @Joe
      If there is any justice , a couple of wogs will knock you about for being queer.
      Blacks make up 2% of the population and 20% of the prison population. This pattern is repeated throughout Europe.Muslims and blacks have been a very for Europe.

      1. Sod off you racist twat.

        1. FFS we have enough problems with homophobia on here without racism too …

          Joe, if there is any justice – you will not be the person being knocked out ;-p

          1. Dr Robin Guthrie 7 Apr 2011, 10:28pm

            Labels Labels Labels.

            Wouldn’t it be nice if we all said.

            “A person did it, irrelevant of color sexuality religion etc. “

        2. monkey for sale 8 Apr 2011, 3:20pm

          @Joe
          Piss off and get rolled by a dodgy immigrunt.

          1. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:30am

            @monkey for sale…..
            …….we have enough to deal with without racism as well. Fit you better you spent some time in school learning your native language rather than spewing racism on a gay web page.

      2. Robin Guthrie:
        Yes, it would be lovely. it would also be nice to have candy floss trees where it never rained.

        Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world and cope with it’s inherent facts. Gay men get beaten up predominantly in London by Black men.

        1. “Gay men get beaten up predominantly in London by Black men.” Where do you get this statistic from, I wonder?

          I wouldn’t be surprised if most gay men who get a beating get it from their partners or by members of their own families, as most statistics show that we are in more danger from our “loved ones” than strangers.

          1. @Joe

            Though (for obvious reasons) there are few sources of statistics to confirm it – there are several authoritative reports that suggest domestic violence is particularly underreported in the LGBT communities … so you may well be right on that point

        2. I have been asking for evidence for similar views to those you make in your comments Spanner …

          Can you provide any, since you raise the same thoughts?

        3. CMYB compared me to spanner he needs a good slap.

          Spanner you are entitiled to an opinion that does not make it fact. You think gay men get beaten up by black men then just say that.

          1. That’s just what I did say.
            Just read the reports of gay assaults in PN for the last year or two and do your own vox-pop.

            But then you would likely come out with some BS about “they only report it when blacks are involved” or some other PC cr@p.

          2. More assumptions and prejudice why don’t you take the time to find the facts out first

          3. @James! and Spanner

            I do agree there are ground for speculation that there are assaults carried out by black men on gay people. Whether there are statistics to suggest it as endemic as some seem prepared to suggest is unclear. I would like to see statistics – the unscientific vox pop – is not a basis to spread fear in the gay communities.

          4. Well, apparently people *do* try to find out these facts, but people like the police, although they record the ethnicity of both victims and perpetrators, do not give out the statistics.

            I somehow think this partly because they don’t want to seem biased, and possibly that they have something to hide, and would not be able to cope with the inevitable backlash.

          5. @Spanner
            Not convinced police actually have the information that would prove any correlation between race of offender and victim in homophobic attacks and I think the police are keen to increase reports from the LGBT community so if they could encourage more reporting from the release of factual evidence am sure they would do
            That said, havent seen any stats to support or refute any correlation between race of victim and offender in homophobic attacks

          6. Stu: You obviously have not been arrested like I have, otherwise you would know when booked in at a police station they give you a form to fill which includes a race / ethnicity and place of birth section.

            (and they have been doing this for last 15-20 years to my knowledge)

          7. @Spanner

            I was a police officer for seven years so am fully conversant with custody procedure

            I don’t see anywhere in crime recording that compares ethnicity of offender and victim and correlates that to hate crimes of any sort … I may be wrong – but I cant recall it or see it any recent crime recording I can find online

          8. I never said they correlated any statistics. I merely stated that they took the data. They have the numbers, but won’t do anything with them, because like I said earlier, it would open one almighty can of worms, and they don’t want to be seen as exacerbating racial tension.

            One of the papers got hold of some of it a few years back under the Data Protection Act, regarding ethnicity vs crime in London, and it merely confirmed what everybody already guessed, but then the usual PC types tried to protect it by stating the “poorest members of society are non-British” etc.

            Whatever one says about Muslims, they don’t break the law very often by comparison to everybody else.

          9. @Spanner

            I wholeheartedly disagree – I accept it is arguable that the police possess the information that would identify ethnicity of victims and offenders of assaults – but for a number of significant reasons not necessarily homophobic assaults.

            Reasons:
            1) a significant proportion of victims do not report homophobic assaults
            2) not all assaults of any type have an offender identified
            3) not all homophobic assaults are charged as homophobic crimes for a range of legal reasons – and therefore would not be linked to homophobia on a database
            4) There is the right of the individual victim or offender to refuse to disclose their perception of ethnicity

            It would be flawed statistics if they were correlated on the basis of police statistics

            If you believe they possess them in an unflawed manner, then seek a release of the information under the Freedom of Information act?

          10. Stu:
            I admit, it’s not the most honest or unbiased of nationals, but read this article and tell me if you think the Police don’t bend the figures to fit their quotas:
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1375009/Political-correctness-crippling-police-force-Gay-Pride-badges-army-medals-out.html

          11. @Spanner

            As you rightly say it is not the most unbiased of national newspapers. The article is very much based on views you would anticipate in the Daily Mail.

            The article is also one officers individual view – not to dispel it as irrelevent – but there is no counterbalance of current or past officers (such as myself) who have a very different view point on these particular issues.

            Nor does it in any way attempt to deal with the recording of ethnicity of offenders/victims or link them to homophobic crimes.

            I accept (and could provide many examples) that the police have got things wrong. I was asked to remove footwear at addresses I attended and sometimes complied, sometimes politely refused.

            The old twisting of definitions for crime recording is 10 years out of date – crime recording bureau have ethical standards to maintain.

            There are lots I could pull apart in the article but that would be irrelevant to the point that the data you seek is not available in a reliable form

          12. Stu:
            The problem is not just the police per se, but the fact that accountants and spin doctors run this damn country nowadays. Fulfilling quotas and meeting expectations affects schools, hospitals and local government, and ultimately turns them into conveyor belt sausage machines that just churn out what’s expected of them in quantity, not quality.

          13. @Spanner

            Where does the prevalence of accountants come into the argument about the existence of statistics that demonstrate (or disprove) a connection between ethnicity and homophobic assaults?

    3. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:23am

      Joe

      That is a pathetic point of view. Yet again it’s punish the victim while what let the violent thug go? I mean he was asking for it right?

      Wrong! Very wrong.

      Once we start making excuses for violent behaviour where will it end? Gang cultures, murders on the streets… oh but that’s already happening.

      There is No excuse for Homophobia, Joe.

      Just as there is dogging there is cruising. Of course it won’t stop it. People will probgably be more cautious but who are we to say it is not acceptable.

      1. I was waiting for the usual straw man bull about “They do it, so so can we.”
        Dogging is a relatively recent phenomena, gay cruising has been going on for years. Both are unacceptable, and both are illegal.

        1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 11:43am

          “Dogging is a relatively recent phenomena”

          Erm, were you born yesterday? Think you’ll find both have been around for a very long time.

          1. No way. Straights just didn’t do it, because of the social taboos, particularly with women. Gay men had no choice.

        2. Spanner you expect everyone to think like you and be like you. Gay people are as varied as straight people. If you don’t like what sopme gay people do thats ok just dont expect people to change to suit your requirements cause you’ll never be happy

          1. Precisely.

            So don’t start calling me some “Self-loathing gay” just because I don’t have the same opinion as half the fcukwits on here.

          2. Spanner I think you are a noxious anti gay sadist

    4. When did we start feeding trolls again?

  15. Jock S. Trap 7 Apr 2011, 4:53pm

    Is it me or are the mines going backwards on here, maybe its some magnetic phon, phonem, ph…thingy.

    1. Its called the ”Rocky Horror Show effect”…time warp

      1. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:26am

        Oops meant the minutes!

        You could be right though CMYB.

        :)

  16. The men were described as black, aged between 18 and 21, all about 5ft 7ins tall and wearing hooded tops and jeans.

    Yes, well that just about says it all. Doesn’t it?
    If you don’t like gay people living freely in a free secular democracy, then kindly piss off back to whatever medevil pisshole in the sand you came from.

    1. PumpkinPie 7 Apr 2011, 8:40pm

      Maybe they’re not immigrants? Black people have been living in England for centuries.

      1. Huh? There were very few blacks in Britain until after WWII, when we actively encouraged immigration from the colonies, such as the Windrush project in the 50′s. There may have been a few before then, but they were generally brought over here as slaves in the 1800′s, as they could never have afforded the trip. I hoot with laughter when I see PC crap like BBC’s Arthur with a mixed race girl in the 12th century.

        1. @Spanner

          You appear to prove Pumpkin Pies point, there have been some black people here for many generations (maybe not in large numbers until the 40s onwards) but still some – and thus the potential that they have been black Britains for many generations

    2. “Yes, well that just about says it all. Doesn’t it?” – your post just about says it all about you, but the description of the attackers says absolutely nothing. Twit.

      1. The only things we can tell about these attackers is that they were ignorant violent thugs, must likely homophobes and what they visually looked like. The may be British, they may not … They may be academically high achieving, they may not … They may be religious, they may not … They may be racist, they may not …
        There certainly are plenty of weak racists on here though

        1. I think there are some very strong racists on here, but they tone it down to stop all the PC lot from jumping on them whilst they try to ignore the elephant in the room.

          1. People are free to have intolerant views – in a liberal and sophisticated society it isnt acceptable to publicize them

  17. PumpkinPie 7 Apr 2011, 8:38pm

    I bet it was muslims! Look how much they hate us!

    Evidence 1: Mosques
    Evidence 2: The Koran
    Evidence 3: They hate us

    Nah, seriously, though, I hope they catch these creeps. See how they like having their noses broken in jail. :p

    1. I hope thier balloon knots get broken too

      1. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:37am

        @James!…..
        ….wtf are balloon knots……. we dont have any that i know of in lily white north of Ireland….where can i get one??…lol

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Apr 2011, 8:29am

      lol…

      …actually more likely to come from Christian families, I would have thought, in this case.

      Yep, lets hope they do catch ‘em.

      1. Probably if they have a faith background more likely to be Christian but lots of people with roots in West Africa and sub Saharan African will be Muslim or indeed of no faith

    3. If you want to see a balloon knot squat over a mirror

      1. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 10:01am

        Not right now ta, I’ll look later.

  18. friday jones 7 Apr 2011, 9:40pm

    Three young men all dressed alike? Probably a gang initiation ritual.

  19. @Stu [Sorry, it won't let me reply directly to yr post]
    “…my mother and father for example are aware of the concept but I doubt they would know where it occurred. So would you blame them for their ignorance if they stumbled on…”
    You seem quite obsessed with what your mother and father might see, it’s very peculiar. I don’t suppose it would do them any long term damage if they were to accidentally see some sexual activity, and if they are healthy-minded people they should be able to laugh it off.

    Personally, I think anyone who has got to an advanced age without knowing that people sometimes do things in bushes have been leading very sheltered lives.

    1. @Joe

      You seem determined to leave aside your interesting claims of “colonized” public areas and not address any of the response I have made other than to ridicule my mention of my parents.

      Odd you say. No mere examples. I could have picked any elderly people or people who live sheltered lives. Theres nothing wrong with it. I think your mocking is a more dangerous thing than any sheltered life that anyone else has. I suspect they would laugh it off – but I also suspect some people would be frightened of any sexual activity happening in public in front of them – that may not be rational but it doesnt change the fear. Having worked with many victims of sex offending I can see how distressing it can be.

      I am pleased to see you are not trying to put words in my mouth this time or saying that I am making comments which I am not.

      1. “I also suspect some people would be frightened of any sexual activity happening in public in front of them” – I have to say, I have no sympathy with them. They have every opportunity to turn around and walk away.

        “Having worked with many victims of sex offending I can see how distressing it can be.” – this is somewhat emotive; there may be victims of all sorts of crimes around, but this hardly means that other people’s behaviour should be significantly modified to accommodate them. I am pretty sure, anyway, that few people who have suffered sexual abuse will be peeking around secluded bushes.

        1. @Joe
          Anyone discovering sexual activity does indeed have an opportunity to turn around and walk away.
          However, they do not have the choice whether they are going to discover it or not. That choice is for those engaging in sexual activity in the open air. They are the holders of the cards in this scenario. They are the ones who choose by both having sex in the open air – and by the location they choose to risk those who may be vulnerable seeing it. In law you take your victim as you find them – it is not reasonable to presume that anyone discovering sex happening in the open air will not be distressed by the event.
          Fair enough if the person just walking through a park had to wade through undergrowth and bushes to discover the people having sex – I would argue they had made reasonable efforts to conceal themselves but not all people do.
          I do accept mentioning victims of sex offending is emotive – I do not apologise for this – it is emotive. Equally, victims of sex abuse should …

          1. … able to walk around parks without any distress of whatever sort.
            For me personally, I have encountered guys having sex in parks (and elsewhere), sometimes when I was not cruising and not been delving into bushes or undergrowth. I have not personally found it offensive. I have smiled (or chuckled inside) and walked off, or on one occasion was invited to join in (but suggested moving to a less obvious location) – and this was in daylight.
            I am not saying cruising shouldnt happen. I am denying it all happens in darkness and in hidden locations. I am also denying that the existance of cruising makes these places a gay only zone – they dont and its irresponisble to suggest that is the case.

          2. “However, they do not have the choice whether they are going to discover it or not.”

            There are many, many occasions in life when one will see something one didn’t wish to. Nobody can have, nor should have, complete control re what they might see at every moment of their lives. I would actually be quite concerned about the mental state of a control freak who tried for such a thing.

            All the things in the world to get up in arms about – wars, famines, poverty, violence – and people are concerned about a small chance someone might discover some outdoor sex. Much more shocking they discover a beggar.

          3. @Joe

            You clearly are not reading my comments

            You have not seen that I have enjoyed cruising and have no problem with open air sex – in fact I enjoy it

            You view of colonization of areas just doesnt hold water

  20. gay men stop ruising for sex in well known trouble spots! why put yourself through this!??!?

    1. it’s all got a bit irrelevant. The main thing I am sure of is that most gay bashers in the uk are white,seen them at workand they lie in wait once in gets in their heads to do a bit of gay bashing, and you don’t need to do much to attract their attention, just be there. They don’t wait to define if you are gau bi or straight, ba ecause like all bigots, violent or not, they know what they know and they know they hate you. Lets talk more about strategies foravoiding them and being careful, as we sure as hell aren’t going to get them all locked up.

      1. The point is, this isn’t about the UK, it’s about London, which has a considerably higher proportion of ethnic people and immigrants that do not accept the British way of life as their own, and consequently have their own set of misguided morals as to what is right or wrong, and what they should do about it.

        1. Spanner

          Sorry, going to go off on one …

          Its not ALL about London there are gay guys ourside of London

          1. Yes, but the discussion focussed on London, as this is where the majority of homophobic assaults take place.

          2. I beg to differ

            There are significant numbers of homophobic assaults outside the M25

    2. Helen Wilson 8 Apr 2011, 12:42pm

      So you are using the rapists excuse of: “she asked for it looking like that, being out on her own and breathing the same air as me”

      The point is this person had every right to be on the common that night. The attackers had absolutely no right to do what they did and you can make no justification for the actions of that night.

  21. Joey Dubrovski RIP ,was murdered on the same common. From reading some of the comments on here , it would seem some gay men believe he got what he deserved .

    1. No bieng funny but if you look at the pics of his murderers the look like poofs to me

      1. Your point is, James!?

        1. Its the closet cases we have to watch out for

          1. or the angry out ones like spanner

          2. One thing that raptures insightful input reminds me of is that whenever a gay man makes the choice to go out and cruise, he ought to be aware that he is potentially in danger and be cautious (both of gay bashers and potential shags).

  22. So yet another man who puts himself deliberately in harms way gets hurt and we’re supposed to feel sorry for him? And then we’re supposed to blame every possible socio-economic factor under the sun to avoid admitting that it’s this community’s own recklessness that lands it in trouble time and again and damages its own public reputation and fight for recognition and equality by doing so?

    Not me. I’m sick of people indulging in this behaviour as though its some kind of right or trademark of the gay community which we must all defend or else be branded homophobic. It’s dangerous; not something to be encouraged or defended, and it undermines the effort to shed the image of homosexuals as sex crazed hedonists which holds us back even now.

    1. Christ
      Blame the victim
      A gay man should be able to go to clapham in a pink tutu with fairy wings and heels and not expect to be attacked.
      A woman should be able to walk down a high street at night alone and not expect to be raped.

      You have the he was asking for it mentality you come across as a bit psycho

      1. The world is not a perfect place. These “should be able to” ideas are nothing but wishful thinking. You know damn well that swimming with sharks is dangerous, however much you think you “should” be allowed to swim there without getting eaten.

        If you know it’s dangerous, because it is, then why feign surprise when it goes wrong and act as though you’re a victim of anything but your own recklessness?

        I don’t say he was asking for it, because I don’t believe he was, but he was reckless as to the consequences of his actions. Much as I am sorry he got hurt, he was only hurt because he chose to put himself in unnecessary danger.

        I’m hardly a psycho; what I’m advocating, self respect and responsibility, would prevent this kind of harm befalling people.

        1. Well fine if you too want to live in fear and accept anti gay attacks as the norm then go ahead. I think anti gay people need to be sorted out and when they attack us punish them severly. You guys are making excuses for the attackers. Anti gay attacks are not the norm and should never be accepted as a consequence of sexuality or behaviour. Just like attacks on gender or skin colour would never be accepted as a consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time

          1. well said james, nice to see there are still some gay guys with a backbone out there. There are no excuses for attacks like these, Even if he was in a full on orgy, if these peeps take such offence call the cops for gross indecency , its not their privilege to execute vigilantism ,but its obviously hate crime, like how many attacks u hear about at dogging sites?

          2. Next some of the repressed,self loathing gay brigade will be making excuses for queer bashings at /after pride because perhaps someone was too “flambouyant” and put themselves at risk by doing so ,and they should have tried the desperate “straight acting”routine so as not to offend any homophobes.

          3. Cheers Rapture. You right about them being vigilantes

          4. If you were to have a 16yo daughter, would you let her walk across Clapham Common at 1 ‘o’ clock in the morning?

            I very much doubt it.

            Nobody is condoning the attacker, but some people need to just follow common sense instead of whinging on about the status quo. That’s the way it is. Get over it.

          5. @Spanner

            Whilst if I had a 16yo daughter, I would advise her to be cautious and safety conscious and that walking alone in certain areas late at night might not be adviseable.

            I would also not expect if she happened to walk there, for whatever reason, that she would be attacked. Even if she was wearing a short skirt or dressed provocatively.

            In the same way a gay man should not be assaulted for the location he is in. If he is engaging in activity that is distressing or objectionable to someone they should either walk on and ignore it or call the police (depending on how offended they are).

            It is no more acceptable to assault a gay man who may be cruising as it is to rape a female who is “dressed provocatively”. Nor should we allow certain locations to become no go zones for gay men.

            Caution and awareness yes – consideration of risks and alternatives yes – but declare them no go zones because “they should have known the risks” is wrong.

          6. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 10:06am

            Spanner

            Pointless arguement and one that shows you have no children.

            If you have a 16 years old daughter you would advise and speak of the dangers but as with anybody that age what they hear and what they do are usually two different things. It may well seem common sense but with most of these cases we seem to question for victim who was attacked never the criminal attacking.

      2. Yes, in a perfect world, that would be true.
        But we don’t and it’s not.

        If you temp providence by doing things like that that you should be prepared for the possible consequences of your own actions.

        If you don’t stick your head in the lion’s mouth, it’s going to risk getting bitten off.

        1. temp = “tempt”

        2. Jock S. Trap 10 Apr 2011, 10:09am

          Unfortunately your arguement can be used for all sorts of things. Most of like depends on risk and if we stopped doing risks we wouldn’t go anywhere but you still seem to be taking the side of the criminal not the victim. For as long as you keep making excuses for the criminal you give them the power and the right to attack others.

          1. That’s the whole point of risk. It might happen, it might not.
            It is down to the individual to decide if the odds are acceptable or not.

            However, there is absolutely no point in sticking your head in the sand and denying there is no possibility whatsoever simply because it offends your sensibilities.
            These things shouldn’t happen, but they do. We live in a real world, and sh|t happens whether you like it or not.

          2. @Spanner

            I dont think Jock, myself or anyone else on here has suggested in the slightest that anyone who chooses to go cruising in a part should not consider the risks that such a decision may cause.

            They can then be prepared (if they choose to go cruising) for how they will react to a threatening situation. Or they could choose not to go and find alternative methods of finding a shag.

            Nonetheless, the fact a risk exists does not mean someone who is unfortunate enough to experience the reality of that risk – be that being assaulted on a cruising ground or be it being knocked over whilst crossing a road, is the blameworthy person for taking that risk … particularly in a case of assault – that blame lies with the violent party

          3. Stu: I am not saying who is to blame, but simply that these assaults are entirely preventable if these people kept their dicks in their pants and found alternative means of getting their rocks off.

            Cruising always was risky, not just from attack, but also being arrested for public sex orders, and previous to that, for having gay sex. These people seem to think they have some kind of right to be there, they haven’t, but equally that is no reason for them to be assaulted. I just think in this day and age, groping about in a public park is totally outdated, and there are many other safer ways of getting your oats.

          4. @Spanner

            I get what you say, I really do … There are good reasonable alternatives to cruising … If choosing to cruise that does not justify an assault – on that I think we are agreed …

            The other risks you mention in terms of arrest etc are largely irrelevant now as they no longer exist (and rightly so).

            I do see that lots of things are preventable. In the same way as my friend would have not fractured his femur is he had not rode his motorcycle – nor would my colleague have ruptured her spleen if she had not sky dived; nor would some gay men be assaulted if they did not go cruising. This in itself is not an argument that cruising should not happen – that would be a very bizarre suggestion of the ilk that the health and safety brigade often make.

    2. Paddyswurds 9 Apr 2011, 1:45am

      @sven….
      ….i agree 100%… it’s 2011 and time we moved on.I feel the same about the crass behaviour at large “pride” events. Again Hear, Hear!!

      1. You have a moinority mentality. One gay person does not speak for all. If you don’t like pride fair enough dint expect every other gay person to agree with you

        1. Absolutely.

          There is no excuse for this assault

          He may have made himself more vulnerable by being there

          But I make myself more vulnerable when I work for a few days in an Arab state – doesnt mean I shouldnt do that – also doesnt justify the bigotry of that state

          Nothing justifies the assault

          As for pride – whether you like it or not is a stylistic issue … It has done a lot of good and is likely to again … if you dont like it, dont go …

          1. Precisely , only the very stupid/sheltered come up with the “you were asking for it” drivel. Some of the comments here remind me of women getting raped and relevance being placed on what time they was out/what they were wearing etc. so certain scum imply that somehow the victim is to blame by coincidental factors. An assault is an assault , abuse is abuse and those seeking to justify it, in any way may one day, find they are the victims and are receiving the same vile reaction that they purport. karmas a bitch!

      2. Something else you have in common with the mayor of moscow then.

  23. monkey for sale 9 Apr 2011, 12:31pm

    @Paddyswurds

    I used the word “immigrunt” deliberately.
    It never cease to amaze me how some self appointed arseholes like you, Paddyswurds, wrongly assume that you talk for anyone other than yourself. Muslims are a menace and blacks are disproportionately more likely to abuse gay people than any other race. I don’t know one gay person who has not been abused by a black in London.

    1. Again – your evidence is where …?

      1. monkey for sale 9 Apr 2011, 6:48pm

        @Stu
        I don’t know where you live, but have you never been abused by a black man ?
        Seriously, I don’t not know one, not one, gay friend who has not be verbally abused by a black.
        Look at the facts .
        http://goo.gl/QeRLS

        1. @monkey for sale

          I have lived in the north, Berkshire, Dorset and spent lots of time with my bf of 4 years in Croydon.

          I know lots of gay men who have not been abused by a black person.

          I have had banter with a black guy but nothing I found offensive.

          I have had more strident and threatening homophobic (both in London and elsewhere in the UK) from white people.

          Your link shows a google list of countries that ban homosexuality – hardly evidence that black people are more likely to engage in homophobic assaults.

          If there is evidence to prove there are more homophobic assaults from a particular race – please do share it

          1. I would have to say from living in different areas of london ,there is a disproptionate level of homophobia executed from the black community, and i also do not know any lgbt person who has not fallen prey to this. There was a very good documentary done for channel 4 by stephen amos called battyman ,highlighting the danger of increasing homophobia in the black community , try google it , it was reconfirming for me, what i had already known as its reality and no shock, but was also good to see that black gay men were taking a stand to help educate their communities with their discrimination issues. I’m sure there was a similar show bout gay muslims , that one was severely depressing.

          2. monkey for sale 10 Apr 2011, 2:08pm

            @Stu

            If you read my post it should have been obvious that it was an anecdotal point .Part of the problem is that the Government doesn’t collate the ethnicity of individuals who have perpetrated anti-gay attacks.
            I’m pleased that you have never been abused by a black man/gang of black men. Long may it continue. However, that has not been my experience in London.

          3. @monkey for sale

            I did appreciate it was anecdotal – my reference to evidence was due to the link you gave not having information relevant to the question.

            I appreciate I am fortunate to have the anecdotal experience that I have and that many of my gay friends have had similar.

            I am sorry that your experience is not the same.

            I do appreciate that there are homophobic abuse and assaults by black men – and I vaguely remember the documentary that rapture refers to, and was also pleased to see black guys trying to lead the black communities into being more accepting and tolerant in their culture..

            I think the lack of data that is available makes the issue (to an extent) an uncertain one. Its clearly an issue that needs tackling – but is it as prolific as some perceive? Only accurate reporting would identify the true extent of the problem, and comments I have made above (to Spanner) explain why police statistics may not give an accurate view of this issue.

  24. Isolated incident? Get real!! From both experience & through chatting to cruisers on line, Clapham Common has been targeted by gay bashers often this year! Hopefully, some supprt will be forthcoming eg. patrols, etc

  25. And what about those of us that would like to walk our dogs, and use public facilities such as Public Toilets and Public Lay By’s without having to encounter hoards of men, trespassing and using public facilites for sex.
    We have no rights I suppose?
    I encounter this every single time I leave my home and retrun home due to it’s location.
    What about the rights of those that would like to use these facilities but never can due to the fact that the Lay By is always full of men ‘moving up the queue’

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all