Reading this headline under the Pink News banner made me think that this was a death as a result of a homophobic attack. At the end of this article it states ‘At this stage, police say they do not believe homophobia played a part in this man’s death’. If and when homophobia has been a proven part in this death then it should absolutely be widely reported to get as much coverage as possible but until then I don’t feel it is necessary to report it on a gay news site. Are you covering other crimes in other gay areas? Half of your Twitter followers would have just read the headline and not the article. It’s very misleading.
Of course the death of a person in suspicious circumstances at a cruising spot is news. Gay bashing or not. Also the guys arrested could be gay, it could be that something happened during sex.
I didn’t read any suggestion of homophobia in the headline. My initial thought was “Whoops, someone’s been mugged and killed while cruising”. However I do agree with you, Pat, that so far there appears to be no gay connection yet.
It’s a moot point, talking generally and without reference to this incident, whether if someone is mugged and killed in the course of the robbery, and the offence takes place at a gay cruising spot at a time when all circumstances indicate that the victim was indeed cruising, as to whether the offence was a homophobic attack albeit with the purpose of robbery. The victim was picked as vulnerable by virtue of where and when they were and what they were doing. Especially if at the time of the attack he had his trousers around his ankles and was thus unable to run.
you are a cnut
Stunning contribution to debate, James!
My understanding is that it should be conceived in a similar way to which race related offences are construed. In the case of an offence, the Home Office guidelines are that if anyone perceives the incident to be racially motivated then it is. Therefore, if someone believes an offence in a cruising ground is homophobically motivated (or indeed anywhere) then it should be treated as such.
Usual rider, these comments are general and not specific to this incident.
and you dignify Dans comment. A man is dead and he’s making quips about his possible state of undress. You didn’t even address it you should be ashamed
No Dan has not commented on this particular incident in terms of the mans state of dress. He very clearly stated “without reference to this incident”. It is perfectly reasonable to talk about issues on a general basis after a specific incident without it being about the details of that particular incident.
of course you’re right again stu
On this occasion – not always right – often have opinion and prepared to be be convinced I am wrong – unlike some on here …
No I was not commenting on this particular case but a hypothetical situation to illustrate circumstances in which a mugging might be possibly reasonably be classed as a homophobic crime.
That would be my take on the general position
And this is a gay news story BECAUSE?! Where did it state he was gay,or the two men who were arrested are gay?! The police haven’t even made an identification yet! Other than the fact he was in a ‘known cruising spot’ everything else is simply speculation! The Pink is acting like an old queen with a bit of juicy gossip!
Don’t buy that, Paul. If I were into cruising, I imagine I would want to know of any serious crime in a place that I normally considered safe. There is always the chance that someone is targeting that spot, and I suppose I might cruise elsewhere for a while until more information was available. I live close to one of the main gay cruising areas of Brighton, and every now and then there is a crime, which all gays here are glad to know about, not least because we all have friends who DO cruise, even if we don’t. Admittedly, being Brighton, it’s never far to another cruising spot, so it’s not quite like everywhere, but I think the idea still applies.
We don’t even know a crime has been committed yet. The death is at this stage unexplained – which usually means that there is no obvious cause of death eg assault marks etc nor any obvious other crime eg sexual assault, robbery etc. The post mortem is inconclusive – this may simply be natural causes or may be self inflicted overdose etc.
I agree, which makes it difficult to comment on not knowing the facts of whats happened.
Tweedle Stu and Tweedle Strap agree, therefore they must be right.
Welcome back to the kindergarten, Eddy two – hope your finger paints have dried …
Perhaps we agree because we are correct on the evidence presented.
Your right about that, you and Strap on do make this site into a kindergarten. And guess who the school gang bullies are, Tweedle Stu and Tweedle Strap. The SS of kindergarten. They’ve arrested two men Tweedle Stu, why is that? Usually means a crime has been committed, you big queen.
Where do you have information that two have been arrested in relation to this? I can find information on the internet of two arrests in connection to a death elsewhere in Clapham today, but not this death. I am happy (as always) to be corrected, with appropriate evidence.
On the information I currently have, there is no evidence a crime has committed. The Metropolitan Police have stated this is an unexplained death. If they were certain this was a murder, manslaughter etc then they would describe this as a homicide or suspicious death.
There does not in English law have to be certainty of a crime in order for an arrest to take place. There must merely be reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence and reasonable grounds for suspecting the person who is arrested of committing said offence. Very often people are arrested in order to preserve forensic or other evidence and then released with no further action if further investigation proves no offence occured.
I have now found the story of the arrests and accept they have occurred. Nonetheless, the Met Police are still dealing with this as an unexplained death and not a suspicious death or homicide. It may turn out to be a crime – but as yet, we do not know this.
We do know a crime has been committed as 2 people have been arrested.
Can we assume a crime has been committed just because the Metropolitan Police have arrested someone?
We cant assume a crime has been committed purely due to an arrest being made (see my comment above)
@Alf N Spit…
…..Being arrested does not necessarily mean a crime has been committed, merely a suspicion.Thousands are arrested every week and released without charge. You should get out more.
I think all four of those comment are right for the story.
It does seem a confusing story with little facts but just pockets of news which kind of means we’re left filling in the gaps.
Being that a death has occurred, I feel respect for the man who died should have been paramount.
If people police are looking for witnessess then say so but this item is clearly an important story that strangely doesn’t say much.
Stu, the fact that two people were arrested sort of suggests that the police think there may have been some sort of time
The important word in your comment is “may”.
If I was a police officer who was at the scene of an unexplained death and there (I am guessing I admit here) were two people who may have been near the deceased prior to me getting there – I may arrest them if they were unwilling to voluntarily attend the police station so that potential forensic evidence and an initial account could be obtained whilst it was established if a crime had occurred.
I am speculating that this is why the men were arrested – and its an explanation. Equally there could be more evidence that is suggestive of murder/manslaughter – but again that is speculation, although if that is the case it seems odd the police arent referring to the death as suspicious or a homicide. There may be a reason and there may be a crime, thats not obvious – yet.
I guess at this stage we can only assume that those arrested are just helping with inquiries.
This site is full of trolls don’t even try to have a serious discussion. Pink news is happy to have these anti gay commentators are the traffic is high and they get well paid for maintaining a supposedly gay site. go to http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/latest.htm if you want facts not opinion. It also has no comments which is a good idea
Nice generalisation there, James!
Thanks for the link James!
At least we’ll be spared the bad grammar.
How ironic that you should be celebrating the fact that there are no comments on another webpage whilst simultaneously placing information about it on the comments board of Pink News (which you comment on regularly!) lol
Its those things that make yer go ‘hmmmmm’…….
I realise that unmoderated comments and unregistered commenatorrs make this site pointless.Everywhere else commentators need to register. Anti gay people can pretend to be gay and have a valid opinion and there are a lot of fake people here who take every opportunity to put LGBT people down. I’ll mention no names
No one is asking you to stay mate. Feel free to make yourself scarce. I dare say that the many that have been the object of your vile comments wouldn’t shed a tear.
….and you are probably the foremost guilty party. Your comment above to Dan Filson can hardly be called intelligent debate. You call everyone whose comments you don’t understand a troll.
On average 5 people are found dead throughout the UK every week in unexplained ciircumstances. Their state of dress where they were found and numerous other factors are all taken into account by the constabularly dealing with the incident. Any found in a Gay cruising or area frequented by GLBs will be reported by Gay media. This does not mean they all died because of murder or homophobic attack.
I’m not sure about the figures of 5 such deaths a week – but have no reason to doubt them.
We don’t agree all the time, but I totally agree with your post above.
I do worry about some people who presume that an arrest means a crime has certainly occurred. Is the next supposition they are going to jump to is that if someone is arrested they must be guilty? Its a similar jump of twisted logic to make.
Arresting someone to preserve evidence eg forensic where a serious offence may have occurred is a reasonable act for the police service provided they release without charge if there is no crime or the evidence they subsequently obtain determines the arrested person is not involved. Equally, if the person is clearly implicated into what becomes an obvious crime – they should be charged.
@Paddyswurds, I agree that no assumptions can be made, people do have sudden hearts attacks and so on. But a sensible police officer will have regard to location, time of day, behaviour of those present, states of dress etc. The absence of the word “suspicious” in relation to this death may indeed mean that there is nothing suspicious about it, or simply that as yet they cannot class it as such.
I agree a sensible police officer will have due regard to a wide variety of factors in determining how to proceed in any investigation. In the case of a death the police have a dual role – investigators of homicide or other crimes and agent on behalf of HM Coroner. In some cases it is impossible to determine whether a death is suspicious or not for quite some time but due to the potential seriousness of any crime (should it have been) arrests may be made to preserve evidence that would otherwise be lost eg forensic or first accounts (which could be contaminated if that person is allowed to speak to others). It may then prove to be non-suspicious. If it is clearly suspicious then the police will almost always describe it as such.
I’ll give that a go, James. Thanks. I must admit that the reporting here is about of the quality of a flailing local newspaper, but the comments are significantly sillier and ruder than anything I’ve read on the Brighton Argus.Which I think is still ok as a business.
Dan Wilson comment is having a laugh at a dead man, I know he prefixes it with not in reference to this inceodent but that like saying “no offence” before you insult someone.And hes not challenged by the Japanese knotweed of commentators
I must admit the brief look I had yesterday at the other site didnt impress me, but part of that was due to the layout not being visually appealling or a great font to read … those are minor things though and will give it another go.
In terms of Dan Wilson’s comments – you perceive he is having a laugh, I don’t – believe it or not some people genuinely use a rider because they perceive their intentions will be misinterpreted if they don’t. The only person who really knows what his intention was is Dan.
If you disagree with some of the commentators on here, contribute … its that simple – but juvenile name calling does nothing to add to your argument. I know you arent the worst offender for name calling – and I sometimes agree with your comments on some threads – but thats the nature of message board – you will agree sometimes and not others – some users on here only seem to remember the disagreements and take them personally – for me, I merely express an opinion.
I was not having a laugh at anyone but positing a hypothetical mugging and considering whether it should be regarded as a homophobic assault, and the final line about trousers around ankles was to focus attention on whether in the hypothetical case cited that would be any help in determining whether a mugging (a robbery from a person involving intimidation or violence) should be classed as a homophobic assault.
Wasn’t the not so long back Camden homophobic attack first reported as a possible homophobic attack ( I’m on my phone so can’t check) just saying though. But as for the time of the attack …well not many people would be walking their dog.
Again, we don’t know this to be a crime yet.
There certainly was a homophobic attack relatively recently there – and if this were to be a crime, then that may be a concern – which I am sure LGBT groups and the media will not allow the police to fail to consider.
As this is a death – the time of discovery of the body may or may not be relevant – the body may have been there for moments, hours, days ….
Why do you feel the need to comment on everybody else’s comments. You’re like a garden weed. You grow over other peoples thoughts and try and choke them so you dominate and there’s nothing left but Tweedle Stu and Tweedle Strap On. It must be the policeman in you, or maybe some terrible incident that you both share in your past that makes you want to force your opinions on every one else. Do Pink News pay you, you big queens.
lol of course you’re doing exactly the same thing you’re accusing other people of doing.
Only least they’re only …er…..’commenting’ (which is fairly explicable given that it is in fact a comments page!)
So what’s your excuse then?
Perhaps I have something to contribute to the debate other than infantile insults which is all you seem able to offer
Debate, what debate? Whether two people have been arrested or not, which is in the first line of the news story?
Debate – yeah opinion, speculation, discussion – as to whether a crime has been committed or not ….
Like you, Eddy two, I make mistakes – unlike you I am prepared to hold my hands up to them and be educated where I have made errors. I also, unlike you, have an open mind and try to be rational and balanced. I missed a line when I first read the story and was distracted – so what – its a mistake – nonetheless an arrest does not prove or even significantly suggest a crime has occurred particularly when the possible offence is of a serious nature.
You do have plenty to contribute Stu, just like most on here.
Prehaps eddy two would like to make the rules up for debate and commenting on this site?
But then that wouldn’t be Freedom nor debate would it.
Prehaps if you learnt to debate and joined in you might enjoy it, be a part of it rather than express your jealousy through sniping and bitching others.
“Two men in their 40s have been arrested after a man was found dead on Clapham Common, London.”
But what have they been arrested FOR?
The article says that its not being treated as suspicious and not assumed to be homophobic and the post mortem is unconfirmed….
Thanks for some rationality in this, Staircase2
Sometimes I despair at the paranoia and juvenile insults from some on here. (from people who are supposedly educated)
I guess thats the problem with debate.
There’ll always be those that enjoy debate, weither they agree or disagree, like the majority on here.
But with that comes some who try to silence debate and instead get personal, jealous and anything else that hinders debate.
I’m guessing like me, not much is going to stop us enjoying debate and enjoying it, no matter the hurdles.
Absolutely. I enjoy the debate – whether I agree with others or not – and sometimes people persuade me that I am wrong or that I haven’t considered an aspect of an argument – and thats part of adult, considered, rational debate.
I enjoy the debate on here because there are plenty of intelligent, thought provoking people who contribute in a measured and honest way.
Yes there are some trolls. Yes there are some who infantile and whose first resort is to name call and insult. They are in the minority – and on the whole seen for what they are.
…..’Education’ is often the problem….lol
love this place, been sucked off so many times in da bushes
The comments to this story are so strange.
50+ at the moment when the article says so little, is there really a need for us to say so much?
And we are saying so much about what?
I am merely cautioning against jumping to conclusions …
Which is clearly enough to start a riot! lol
God forbid someone should urge caution……!
How are we expected to jerk our knees higher than Jack McJerkKneePants whilst holding onto caution? (…friend of many a non-politician and general foe of knee jerkers everywhere throughout this splendid Sun loving nation we call home (o)!)
lol lol . do you laugh after everything you say? lol lol