Reader comments · Gay man sexually assaulted and robbed on Hampstead Heath · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay man sexually assaulted and robbed on Hampstead Heath

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I wish the Metropolitan police and their specialist liaison officers all the best in investigating this incident and bringing the perpetrator(s) to justice.

    I hope the survivor has appropriate support and good friends to support them in what will be a very difficult time for a long time potentially.

    I fear there will be damaging speculation on this thread that is not supported by publically known facts.

    Please be temperant in what you say.

    1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 8:02pm

      …I think the Met has enough on its plate with what is going on in London currently without stupid queens going out at night looking for trouble. The days when we could do this safely are long gone and we have clubs for this purpose. He should have went to one of CMYBs “darkrooms” or whatever they are called.
      You ask people to be temperate (i assume thats what you meant) but really why should we. This dude is lucky to have gotten off so lightly. He could have been murdered and he only had himself to blame. Frankly I am surprised that you espouse the attitude you do given you once were a police officer (supposedly)

      1. @Paddyswurds

        Time to get a few facts straight:

        No where in my comment above have I mentioned sexual activity yet alone condoned it – you clearly suspect this otherwise you would not have referred to darkrooms.

        I agree in the current climate especially due to riotting that it would be unwise to engage in public sex – however, to be fair it is speculation that this is what has occurred. Whilst Hampstead Heath is notorious for this, that is not the sole reason people frequent the Heath. Police have not made any comment as to whether this was what was happening so you speculate and that is dangerous and not helpful to the enquiry.

        I agree the Met has a lot on its hands but I am sure it is keen to investigate all major crime occuring in London – whether or not that is related to the riots.

        I meant temperate – thanks for the correction *apologies*

        Lightly! – drug rape is what I perceive in the undertones of the police comments, if you think that is light I thought better of you

        1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 9:46pm

          … Unless he was drugged elswhere and brought there or was drugged while in the company of this “Ryan” dude it would seem he was even stupider than one first thought because if he was drugged in situ he had to have accepted either the drugs willingly or accepted a drugged drink. Either way this whole episode reeks of sheer stuoidity or carelessness on the rapees part.
          I didn’t say you had mentioned sexual activity nor did i infer that. I myself was inferring that the guy was there for that perpose between 11pm and 8.30 am. I was inferring that one of CMYBs haunts would have suited his purpose better.Anyone who thinks he wasn’t there for nefarious reasons is kidding themselves.
          I do not take rape lightly, drugged or otherwise but one does have a responsibility for ones own safety and it would seem from the info available that this was sorely wanting in this case especially given the heightened state of lawlessness on the city at the time.

          1. @Paddyswurds

            Whilst stupidity is a possible explanation – there are varied other ways of passing drugs that neednt be taken by consent or in a “suspect” drink – although I agree they are the most likely and re unwise – but we do not know that this male was not coerced or forced to drink something or take something or some other explanation.
            Even if it is stupidity then that is no excuse for rape or poisoning (effectively the crime when forcing someone to take substances).

            It seems odd that you mentioned a dark room as an alternative to the Heath if you were not suggesting sexual activity.

            Given the vagueness of the hours, he may have just come out of a pub (there are several a short walk away), or given the relatively late morning been walking without any “nefarious” reason – or there may have been a sexual motive, to conclude it is one more than another is speculation.
            You speculate that this male was not taking responsibility for his own safety and that may be correct …

          2. … but without further information it is pure speculation, and in itself whilst regrettable if the case is no justification for rape or assault.
            I could equally say your dig at the supposedly at me was uncalled for.
            You may choose not to evidence your opinion and give it authority from your own experiences, thats your call and your style – I prefer to explain where my reasoning has come from.
            I have had a variety of jobs but only two careers (although I have performed several roles in both careers). I also have had an exciting life in terms of some of the experiences I have had and I am not embarrassed to share it.

        2. Spanner1960 11 Aug 2011, 10:59pm

          Stu: “No where in my comment above have I mentioned sexual activity yet alone condoned it.”
          Then what the hell is a gay man doing wandering about Hampstead Heath at 1 ‘o’clock in the morning? He’s not out to buy a paper is he?

          Sorry, but although I do not condone violence, neither should people tempt providence. This degrading practice is illegal and immoral and does the rest uf no service, if you want a shag, go on Gaydar.

          1. @Spanner

            From the timeline given by the police this could have been anytime from 2300 till 0930.

            Whilst I understand the presumption and speculation that this male may have been cruising that is mere speculation on the information known. The timeline does open up significant other options.

          2. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 8:39am

            Shortminded view Spanner…

            Not everyone has access to the internet and not everyone wants to go to clubs and bars so why the hell does it matter how people choose to find sex, so long as it doesn’t innocent peoples space?

            It’s been going on since the dawn of time and will be to the end of days. It still doesn’t entitle others to use violence.

          3. Spanner1960 12 Aug 2011, 12:52pm

            So has murder and rape. Just because it goes on does not justify it’s existence.
            If these people do this, then they should be prepared for the possible consequences.

          4. Spammer one straight couple dogging does not speak for all straight people.

            You seem to have a problem accepting gay people are as diverse as straight people you probally do the same to black people and women. We are not all the same only an idiot would think that. Oh wait….

          5. Spanner1960 13 Aug 2011, 6:39pm

            James!: One straight couple dogging is a bit like having one gay man shagging. It doesn’t exist.
            Public sex is both illegal and immoral, and should be wiped out. Simple as that.

          6. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:22am

            Trouble is Spanner once you start banning something some Gay people do, what’s next?

            It’s a dangerous path.

            I accept it because it’s a part of the Freedoms we all enjoy and thankfully it will never be ‘wiped out’ even if it means the bottom end of the list of Equality.

          7. Staircase2 15 Aug 2011, 4:03pm

            The issue isn’t that he may or may not have been there for sex – the issue is that he was assaulted and robbed….

            You’re falling into the idea that victims of rape deserve it for not wearing a long enough skirt – grow up.

            …And what ‘degrading practice is illegal and immoral’….?

          8. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2011, 8:52pm

            Jock: This has damn all to do with equality. Public sex is not only illegal, it’s a nuisance and potentially dangerous.
            As far as I am concerned, I don’t care what sex or sexuality you are, get a fcuking room.

          9. Dr Herbert Shellface 17 Aug 2011, 6:45pm

            1 a.m. in some bushes away from the general public is not public sex, in fact, legally, it is in private. It’s not most people’s cup of tea, nor mine, I prefer a comfortable bed, but if a straight couple were to engage in open air sex well away from the general public in the early hours, no one would bat an eyelid. Has no one seen Deborah Kerr getting it on the beach in “From Here to Eternity”? This sort of thing is far from uncommon.

            For some people to claim that sexual activity that is not indoors is somehow wrong and dirty betrays an underlying self repression that somehow considers all sex to be “dirty”. And that attitude is what leads the mentally unstable to physically attack gay people, murder women out on their own because they are “sinful”, and so on.

          10. Here is the provocative poster from that 1953 film:


      2. … I think the supposedly comment from you regarding my former profession demeans you more than me. I am quite happy with my honesty and experience and whether you believe I am honest or not is of no consequence to me – its cheap, wrong and perverse to recurrently make such idiotic comments.

        Indeed, you have sought clarification from me on legal points in the past on here from me – seemed happy with my background then.

        As for a police officer being balanced, not rushing to judge, not speculating, seeking answers based on fact rather than jumping to conclusions – thats the sort of police officer I want … shame you seem to have a differing view

        1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 9:54pm

          …. the “supposedly” dig was uncalled for i guess but one gets a little tired of your countless references to your various jobs especially as you always seem to have had some experience in dealing with almost whatever problem the relevant story is about. I have no idea what age you are but those of us of greater age and with more experience of the world don’t feel the need to reference those experiences in every comment. It is tiresome especially when we have heard it all before for the umteenth time and tends to make your comments laborious.

          1. I agree your dig ws uncalled for and I accept your apology

          2. I agree your dig was uncalled for and I accept your apology

      3. so someone who could have been murdered only has themselves to blame??????? you’ll be saying next women who wear short skirts deserve to get raped. what a weird puritanical comment paddy.

        1. @Paddyswurds No one deserves to be raped, robbed, drugged or murdered. What is wrong with you?

          1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 10:15pm

            …exactly where did i say the stupid dude deserved to be raped, drugged or murdered?. What i did say walking alone in the middle of the nite on Hamstead Heath is extremely careless especially on a nite when there was a heightened state of lawlessness in the city at the time. Dont start the old ruse of trying to put words in my mouth or in this case my comment that aren’t there. Other people can read my comments too and will see your stupid ruse.

          2. @Joss

            I must agree that the natural progression of Paddyswurds argument is that it is the survivors fault because he put himself at risk. Thats disappointing.

            His comments are not only puritanical (a strange dichotomy given his views on RC’s) but also inappropriate, outdated, insensitive and wrong

        2. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 9:58pm

          @Uh oh ..
          ….Childish response to my comment. If one stands too near the fire one should not be surprised when one gets burned was my point.
          Your comment about womens dress is redundant as I made no reference to how the dude was dressed and your racist dig at the end was no surprise from someone so intellectually bereft.

          1. @Paddyswurds
            “exactly where did I say the stupid dude deserved to be raped, drugged or murdered?”

            “He could have been murdered and he only had himself to blame.”

            “Other people can read my comments too”


            Also shortening your user name to Paddy is NOT racism, at best it’s a little bit lazy and obviously irritating to you.

          2. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 10:24am

            …“He could have been murdered and he only had himself to blame.”
            In what universe did you see a comment where I said the above. The only one saying it is you. Like I said dont attribute quotes to me that I haven’t made!

          3. @PW you say “He could have been murdered and he only had himself to blame” in the middle of your first comment and as for Paddy its not racism its shortening if you don’t want to be called Paddy don’t include it in your name!!

          4. @Paddyswurds

            Your exact words were:

            “He could have been murdered and he only had himself to blame.”

            The universe you said them was this one.

            It appears you are backtracking but there is no changing the vicious and inappropriate comments that you made, and trying to blame others for that is frankly cowardly

          5. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 11:27am

            ….oops, point taken. perhaps i should have gone back and reread my own post. Senior moment I guess. However I still say it was sheer stupidity to be out “walking” on such a night when the lawless ruled the city.

          6. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 11:37am

            Actually, logic dictates that with all the problems going on in the city Hampstead Heath should have been one of the safer places to be being that there is nothing there worth stealing.

          7. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 12:42pm

            …From now on I intend to ignore anyone who replies to or debates with me using Paddy or Paddysno matter how strongly I feel about the reply. My tag is Paddyswurds end of!

          8. @Paddyswurds

            You really should calm down and get your BP checked – and for the record I always call you Paddyswurds, you don’t always return the same courtesy

          9. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 9:47pm

            …”You really should calm down and get your BP checked – and for the record I always call you Paddyswurds, you don’t always return the same courtesy”
            Perhaps you could decipher as I have no idea what you are talking about. What have I ever called you other than Stu? What exactly is BP and exactly why do you think I should calm down? Is psychiatry another of your professions or is your superiority complex coming through as usual. You are spending way too much time agreeing with Jock S Trap and CMYB, you are starting to sound suspicously like them.

          10. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:25am

            Oh dear, someone’s loosing the plot again!

          11. @Paddyswurds

            Psychiatry has never been a profession of mine … if you feel you need it, I can suggest someone reputable …

            BP – Blood Pressure, likely to rise at times of agitation (whilst the abbreviation I accept may not be common parlence, the fact it rises when agitated is well known .. also a common tool used in my daily work as a paramedic).

            As for any superiority complex, I know I am not superior to most people, although my knowledge in some areas will be more informed due to learning and experience. Consequently, there will be areas where my opinion is also less informed. If you think I have a superiority issue – thats your perception and your problem.

            I didnt say you had called me a different name, you have others …

            As for agreeing with others – I agree and disagree with Jock in almost equal volume, and the last time I commented on a CMYB comment was over a month ago and we profoundly disagreed with each other – Try again …

            Or better still, calm down … Chill

          12. Paddyswurds 13 Aug 2011, 2:56pm


          13. Paddyswurds 13 Aug 2011, 6:10pm

            …Oh dear someone still cant spell…..

        3. Spanner1960 11 Aug 2011, 11:01pm

          I think “deserved” is the wrong word, but you don’t go sticking your head in a lion’s mouth. This is the real world, and it’s far from perfect.

          1. If the speculation is correct then you certainly have a point, Spanner, particularly given events of the last week

          2. @Spanner “if you want a shag, go on Gaydar.”

            Meeting people for sex on the internet has just as many associated risks as cruising on Hampstead Heath.

            This is in no way me agreeing with public sex and illegal sexual activity. I merely would like to point out that if on the one hand you think that this man was taking unnecessary risks by being on Hampstead Heath and on the other think that Gaydar is an alternative, then I think you might be a little bit naive.

            Correct me if I misunderstood your comments.

          3. Spanner1960 12 Aug 2011, 12:55pm

            Any form of meeting with other strangers has it’s potential risks; However, creeping around the undergrowth in the dark at 1am seems to be a far more perilous exercise than pulling someone online or in a bar.

          4. @Spanner

            Except we dont know it was at 1am

          5. @Spanner

            We don’t know it was at 1am, so your argument does not stand regarding this specific case

            *apologies if this is a duplicate post PN is being a bit strange and not appearing to allow posts at moment*

          6. @Spanner

            We dont know that the incident occurred at 1am

          7. Apoplogies for duplicates … PN has some gremlins today it seems

        4. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 10:38am

          …..”If the speculation is correct then you certainly have a point, Spanner, particularly given events of the last week”
          I made the exact same point as Spanner earlier and you jumped all over me and someone else called me puritanical which in itself was silly …. Do try to be consistent.

          “His comments are not only puritanical (a strange dichotomy given his views on RC’s) but also inappropriate, outdated, insensitive and wrong”
          Your comment to Joss tells me you have completely misread me viz RCs and the idea you think I am puritanical.
          Firstly while I as a former RC do have a problem with its homophobia and paedophilic ethos, my opposition isn’t confined to Catholicism alone but the whole idea of worship of deities.
          Secondly my comments re the current story are not puritanical otherwise i wouldn’t have recommended the dude visit darkrooms or was that a feeble attempt by you to belittle my comment……..

          1. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 10:53am

            ….As far as i’m concerned he could stup camp 24/7/365 and shag everything that moved. My problem wit his behaviour was not moralistic but the sheer stupidity of a Gay men going out in the wilderness in the middle of the night (even if he was only walking his ferret) when there was such utter lawlessness afoot in the city at the same time and which the police just stood back watching in a display of cowardice.
            Why or how do you find that puritanical?.

          2. @Paddyswurds

            Perhaps Spanners lack of suggesting if the victim had been murdered that he would have deserved it and actually pointing out that deserved was an inappropriate word meant that a more measured response was appropriate.

            I certainly havent misread you re RCs and having sparred with you and agreed on some issues about the faith debate and disagreed on others, I think its disingenuous for you to suggest that I have no understanding of your viewpoint – you parade it often enough, its hard not to notice it.

            I think on this issue you are puritanical and it appears I am not alone in that perception, and far from being feeble it was a well thought out argument. Live in the real world, deal with the issues rather than demonising victims.

          3. @Paddyswurds

            I agree that the timing of going out given the violent distrubances across multiple locations in London was unwise.

            However, your comments about cruising are not to do with the riots. You have made repeated and more virulent anti-cruising comments well before the riots on other threads on PN.

            That is why I personally perceive you to be puritanical.

            Also gaydar, a darkroom or other opportunities also present dangers – arguably (in some manners) higher than cruising but in some ways more managed, to suggest they are ‘safer’ is not an accurate, sophisticated expression of the risk factors of the various options

          4. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 11:33am

            ….I accepted that I said he had himself to blame which he did given the circumstances of the night in question, but I never said or inferred that he deserved it.

          5. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 11:38am

            ffs…. while i may have made “virulent” anti cruising comments on other threads , they were in relation to the stupid place they took place , like straight sauna, bushes on the side of the motorway or what ever but anti cruising. I don’t think so i have and still do occasionally cruised extensively but i always hav regard for my safety and that of others. I AM NOT ANTI CRUISING just ANTI stupidity!!

          6. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 11:40am

            ….excuse the typos in the last post…grrrrr!

          7. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 11:42am

            Indeed Stu, I lost a friend to murdered in 2006 via someone he met on an internet chatroom so their are risks to whatever you do.

          8. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 11:43am

            Sorry that could have been worded better.

            In 2006 a friend of mine was murdered via someone he met on a internet chatroom.

          9. @Paddyswurds

            Typos disregarded – its a foible that affects us all from time to time, sometimes exacerbated by PN systems lol

            Not how I recall your comments on cruising – but maybe my recollection is incorrect, if so, I accept your safety cautioning – but the virulence of your unwise comment at the beginning of this thread made me particularly concerned about a lack of perspective with the situation and a lack of sensitivity to a potential rape survivor.

            I can see Jock S Traps argument re the Heath being safer but currently I personally wouldnt take that risk, that said others might …

          10. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 12:50pm

            …still waiting for you to reference where i said the stupid dude “deserved” the attack. If you can’t remember things half way down the page then it is more than possible your recollection of my comments on other threads is incorrect.

          11. @Paddyswurds

            Two points – I have not said that you stated that the survivor deserved anything – I have meticulously checked and rechecked everything I have written on here – where on earth are you getting that from? What I have said is that the natural progression of your argument is that it is the survivors fault – a very different proposition to deserving it. Nonetheless, one can see from your comments regarding him “only having himself to blame” that here is a fault/sense of deserving perception from within your argument.

            Second comment, your juvenile comments “if you can’t remember something halfway down a page” don’t really play out here, since the comments you refer to you have fabricated. Please act your age.

          12. Apologies (like you, Paddyswurds, I can miss things!) I have now found the deserved comment I made

            I stand by the translation of what you said in my comment above as bringing me to this interpretation

          13. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 5:45pm

            ..oops again about the deserved thing, that was meant for Joss.

          14. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 5:59pm

            …just had a look in the Oxford Concise thinking I must be wrong in my understanding of the word puritanical, but no i’m not so I stand by my assertion that I simply am not and never have been puritanical.
            Again my problem is with the dudes stupidity on the night. If you knew me you’d say I was anything but puritanical.
            I have, so you know for future reference , only two hangups, one the need humans have for worshipping deities and abortion. Thats it basically, the latter singleminded and the former covering the entire spectrum of religion in all its evil guises from the paedophilic RC and xtian churchs to the homophobia of Islam and Hinduism and all the other ridiculous fantasy cults humans use as crutches.

          15. @Paddyswurds

            I am seeing puritanical in the sense of straight laced – which is in the Oxford thesaurus related to puritanical issues. Being puritanical is not restricted to religious issues

          16. @Paddyswurds
            “Nonetheless, one can see from your comments regarding him “only having himself to blame” that here is a fault/sense of deserving perception from within your argument.”

            What Stu said fairly accurately sums it up

          17. Jock S. Trap 13 Aug 2011, 8:27am

            “Please act your age.”

            I think that might be the problem, he is… sadly the mind is going!

      4. @Paddyswurds
        What a complete dickhead you are. A man got sexually assaulted, you have no idea of the context, yet your first instinct is to say he brought it on himself. What is your attitude to rape anyway? That everybody it happens to was asking for.

  2. Hope the guys is making a good recovery and the scum that carried out this act are caught.

    Its always a risk cursing outside -there be someone on here later saying you deserved it for cursing outside blah blah.

    I don’t have any issue and don’t believe anyone deserve to be robbed etc for having sex outdoors

    1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 8:05pm

      …how do you know the dude was cursing and if he was since when did cursing outside become illegal. Now if he were cruising then he was looking for trouble, but cursing??

      1. Depends what you call trouble , I guess …

        You might find it interesting what police views on public sex environments are:

        Although, I would reiterate it is speculation that cruising was what the victim/survivor was doing when attacked

        1. Paddyswurds 11 Aug 2011, 10:05pm

          …. One assumes then from your comment that its speculation that looters of shops in London and else were wern’t really looting but may have been shopping.
          Perhaps he was out on the Heath in the middle of the night counting bats or some such other nighttime activity. How very naíve of you.

          1. @Paddyswurds

            No we have evidence they were looting

            We have no evidence as to why this male was at the Heath

            Your facetiousness belittles you

          2. Spanner1960 11 Aug 2011, 11:02pm

            And your gullibility makes you look stupid.
            For an ex-copper, you really appear naive.

          3. @Spanner

            As an ex copper I was paid not to jump to conclusions – to bear in mind what ws the most likely is not always the solution. That is my point – he may have been cruising, we dont know that though

          4. @Paddyswurds The looting was recorded on CCTV the world watched it unfold on live television.

            Forgive us all if we missed the live broadcast of this man’s rape. Maybe it was on pay per view.

            Police aren’t paid to make assumptions they are paid to collect evidence.

          5. Spanner1960 12 Aug 2011, 12:57pm

            @Stu: There are always exceptions to the rule, but if you were someone that bet on horses, you tend to pick the short odds.

          6. @Spanner

            I acknowledge the reasonableness of what you say in terms of generalities but in terms of fact and in terms of criminal investigations – fortunately, police do not go to bookies to see which is the most likely solution to a crime … ;-p

      2. Spanner1960 15 Aug 2011, 8:54pm

        I kept shouting “I want a fockin’ SHAG!!” :)

  3. What is going on with PN – I know I have made a comment and the total says 12 comments yet the screen says no comments yet!

    1. I think it’s a secret plot between Pink News & Mr Jock S Trap to make sure he wins the comments race – AGAIN!!!!!

      1. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 8:45am

        Er… crazy says what now?

        I’m here to debate but if it’s all about numbers with you, well then… there you go!

        1. @Jock S Trap

          I have some weeks where I make loads of comments and some where I make very few, much the same as you …. depending on my interest in the issues, whether I feel I have something to add to the argument and my time and inclination to take part. Its good to debate though.

          That all said, some of the PN software has been behaving oddly at times recently.

          1. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 11:49am

            I agree but my comment above was clearly placed to ‘JoBo”s strange unjustified comment, (in case you thought it was you!)

            We are about debate, I occasionally get picked up on the amount of comments or my name yet they clearly have changed there name to make the comment. Yet the amount is irrelevent to me because while I’m ill it helps me through but clearly some people are more interested in numbers whereas we’re (and most) are just about debating. I just don’t bother looking at the number thing, why would I?

            As for PinkNews software.. it is a pain in the, bloomin, ass!

          2. @Jock S Trap

            No I realised who the reply was to

            I was just agreeing with your comments

            Debate rules lol

  4. “Deserving” is not the word I’d use, “irresponsible” fits better. When someone commits a crime such as this the blame is of course on the perpetrator, and nobody deserves to be robbed and/or sexually assaulted. As adults however we have responsibility for our actions. Someone who doesn’t look both ways when they cross the road doesn’t “deserve” to be run over and killed, you wouldn’t say “they were lucky to get away with just a broken leg,” but there is a factor of responsibility for actions. Responsible people look both ways, and responsible people do not wander around the Heath in the early hours of the morning. It’s not right, but it is fact.

    It is indeed presumptious to assume he was there for sex, but conclusions can and will be drawn in circumstances such as these. Some people don’t believe in coincidence, so you can’t blame someone for assuming a gay man in Hampstead Heath late on Sunday/early morning hours Monday is there walking his dog.

  5. People like to blame anyone except those committing the crime these days.

    Just look at all those morons who excused the looters/criminals.

    1. Touche, wise words, i’m soo bored of the emphasis being put on perpetrators of crime, and how we must attempt to find some reasoning for their law breaking other than the fact they are scum.

    2. Spanner1960 13 Aug 2011, 6:41pm

      Having sex in public is also a crime.

      1. No its not

  6. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 8:34am

    A shameful attack but what concerns me is how the man may have been drugged.

    No-one deserves to be attacked even when they go to known places for sex, it doesn’t entitle others to attack, sexually or otherwise.

    Still we have to remember that the media thrive only on bad news so these things are all we hear about.

    Regardless of the media these kinds of attacks are still rare not that thats any consulation to the victim but we mustn’t take these things out of proportion.

    And to put right… so what if some people find sex this way? It’s usually discreet and at a time when no-one who’d find it offensive would go so no it doesn’t justify any attack by anyone.

    If straight couples can do it without fear of attack then so too should Gay people.

    1. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 11:50am

      …what i find wrong with it is the sheer stupidity of going out on a weekend when the crazies and lawless ruled the city and the police clearly too cowardly to deal with it.
      Hamstaed Heath would still be there in a few days time if he was so desperate.
      If he was so desperate what was wrong with staying home and having a wank for a change.
      No the guy clearly has issues and tbh I doubt if he should be ever allowed out on his own.

      1. @Paddyswurds

        I agree with your general comments on being streetwise, aware and considering safety

        What I profoundly disagree with is your leap to comments such as “the guy clearly had issues” adn “he could have been murdered and only had himself to blame”.

        To repeat, you are speculating – he probably was cruising but I don’t know that for sure, and I suspect nor do you – there are other potential explanations … and I would be amazed to hear how you draw the conclusion that this male “has issues” – Do you know him? Are you aware of the stresses and “issues” he has in his life? I doubt it!

      2. Jock S. Trap 12 Aug 2011, 12:55pm

        I guess the problem is few people could have anticipated that the scale of the unrest that happened on Sunday night or even how far it would spread so a lot of people may have not even given it a second thought.

      3. seriously paddy. If there’s anyone with issues. It’s you! what exactly are you talking about?

  7. What does the victims sexuality have to do with anything? When a heterosexual is robbed, it is not reported as ‘straight man attacked. More evidence that homosexuals are defined by their sexual orientation.
    Also, what was he doing on Hampstead Heath and drugged up? Not exactly the model recommended
    way to spend an eveniing is it. It is my guess that this man was ‘driven’ by his recvtal lusts and was about to play Russian Roulette with the HIV virus and a stranger. Nice example eh kids?

    1. @Keith

      Agree sexuality rarely has any link to robbery etc but it can on occasions be relevant …

      I note you premise your views on the motives for the survivor being on the Heath as a guess – that is all it is … as are the comnments of Paddyswurds etc

      1. And when it becomes apparent that his sexual orientation was relevant, that is the time to report it. For instance, if he was attacked because of his sexual orientation.
        However, at this point, his sexual orientation is as relevant as his religious beliefs or political stance. So why therefore are these excluded. You may say “because they are not known”. I would counter…” If they were known, would they be included?” If no, then neither should his sexuality. If yes then the article would ludicroulsly read something like… Homosexual Liberal Christian robbed!

        1. @Keith

          Fair point and I entirely concur

          1. @Paddyswurds

            I suspect (but accept it is speculation on my part) that some of the MPS press release on this matter which led to PN and others publishing the story included reference to the use of LGB liaison officers. That would lead to a reasonable conclusion that the survivor is LGBT but not that they were cruising.

        2. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 10:06pm

          …or simply “Man robbed and sexually assaulted on Hamstead Heath” Did the originater of the story assume he is gay? If so then why is it any less valid to assume that he was there cruising for risky sex.
          Maybe he was looking for any sense he was born with as he seems to have lost it somwhere along the way.

      2. Paddyswurds 12 Aug 2011, 9:57pm

        ….beginning to sound like YOU may know this dude, Stu. Where were you on Sunday night, btw?

        1. @Paddyswurds

          How on earth did you come to the conclusion I know this “dude”? Which “dude”? The offender “dude”, the survivor “dude”, the police “dude” or some other “dude”?

          I may or may not know whichever “dude” you are on about, as I have no idea who this “dude” is.

          On Sunday night I was in a friends apartment having dinner and then sleeping off the alcohol

          1. Paddyswurds 13 Aug 2011, 12:33pm

            ….The one whose stupidity you are so keen to defend, the Guy who was raped as if you didn’t know…

          2. @Paddyswurds

            Wrong again, I am not defending stupidity, go back and read what I have said… I am urging that we do not jump to conclusions a trap many make in this modern age (including some who should be old enough to know better).

            This male was sexually assaulted and robbed (the assault may or may not be a rape).

            I am aware of the seriousness and trauma associated with rape from several perspectives and do not need your lecturing.

            Regardless, even if this male has been foolish, that in no way justifies either the assault or any vilification

          3. uh oh, poor paddy, so now people are stupid when they get raped? its sick how paddy says not one word about the perpetraitor, but has called the victim many derogatory names. i feel sorry for people like paddy.

    2. The story is depressing. But it’s nearly more depressing to read some of the people’s attitudes on this website. ‘Recvtal lusts’???? wtf.

      1. Rectal lusts … FFS … these people should just grow up

        1. @Stu
          Grow up? Is it not accurate to say that the way homosexual males copulate is anal sex?
          @ Jock S Trap
          You said….”I’d rather have the right to choose all Freedoms, the choice to have outdoor consental sex with someone, not harming or being viewed by anyone likely to be offended than having a ban on it, the start to a dangerous path.”….
          Does this mean that you are in favaour of consensual incest between a father and son since nobdody is harmed? If not, why not. You keep avoiding this question but would you discriminate against such a ” loving, happy ” “harmless” couple and ban them pursuing happiness due to your bigotry and prejudice?

          1. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 8:39am

            Oh fvck off you ignorant Bore!

          2. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 8:43am

            Does anybody else think Keith is going on way too much about incest and paedophila, almost constantly as if he’s trying somehow to justify himself?

            Keith are you a paedophile having incest with your son? You keep banging on about it, you disgusting fvcking perv.

            Maybe the police should be looking into your case coz I’m worried. We certainly don’t want your sort here.

            Fvck off.

            (PinkNews… sort this, it’s edging on fvcking abuse!)

          3. @Keith

            Whilst gay sex may (or may not) include anal sex, the terminology you used was depricating to say the least and juvenile in the extreme

        2. Rectal Lust…sounds like a good name for a perfume from Jean-Paul Gautier.

      2. Totally agree with you there except I think it’s more depressing.

        1. Paddyswurds 13 Aug 2011, 9:06pm

          …What’s really depressing is that in 2011 there are gay people so stupid and single minded that they go out in the middle of the night and wander about on the Heath when they (or should) know that the whole city is in the grip of hatred and lawlessness and policed by a police force who displayed an incredible level of cowardice. Add to that, this man was walking on Hamstead Heath in the middle of the night, where Gay men have been attacked and even murdered in the past. For the criminal that night was ideal as his chances of coming into contact with the law was nil. Then we have on this thread a bunch of whingers who complain because some of us displayed no sympathy for the rapee if in fact he was actually raped. As some of the more enlightened said clearly if you put your hand in the fiire you are going to get burned, and walking on Hamstead Heath at any time is dangerous for Gay men at the best of times. Safety First Boys!!

          1. Oh for goodness’ sake Paddyswurds, London is a huge city and on Sunday night the riots – which had taken everybody by surprise – were nowhere near Hampstead Heath: don’t confuse your issues.
            Men have been prowling around the heath after dark for sex for decades, perhaps centuries. Certainly it’s a risky business, but the riots that took place elsewhere are not particularly relevant to this incident.

          2. Spanner1960 13 Aug 2011, 9:45pm

            Rehan: The riots may have been miles away from Hampstead, but so was any policeman.

          3. Jock S. Trap 14 Aug 2011, 8:29am

            I’d rather have the right to choose all Freedoms, the choice to have outdoor consental sex with someone, not harming or being viewed by anyone likely to be offended than having a ban on it, the start to a dangerous path.

            Looking for sex doesn’t entitle rape or violence from another.

            The fact that I choose not to have sex outdoor is irrelevent it’s the fact that I can choose that matters.

            Though in my younger days I’ve had many a good night on the Heath. It was a lot of fun.

          4. @ Spanner1960: things turned out badly for the individual in question as it happens, but as a general rule I’d have thought those out for a nocturnal ramble on the heath are more than happy not to have policemen in the vicinity.

    3. “What does the victims sexuality have to do with anything?”
      In case you hadn’t noticed, this is a site providing news of interest to gay people for gay people by gay people.
      Presumably that’s why you spend so much time on it. If you don’t like it, bugger off.

      1. the question remains. What relevance does the victims sexuality have to the fact that he was robbed. Is his eye colour relevant too, perhaps his shoe size?
        It just shows that the so called “homosexual community” are keen to define themselves by their sexual preferences and present themselves as victims where there is no gay angle. Had it been a heterosexual, the head line would have simply read “man robbed” not “heterosexual man robbed”.. the heterosexual community don’t have this curious urge to announce their sexuality on non sexual issues such as a robbery nor do the feel the need to have heterosexual pride marches. Your sexuality should be a private discreet matter.

        1. Jock S. Trap 15 Aug 2011, 2:48pm

          Go Fvck yourself, you disgusting perv.

          1. I chose not to respond to your monosyllabic, illiterate replies some time ago -when it was clear you could not answer certain questions. When you are ready to answer as to why you believe it immoral for a consenting father and son having anal sex if they harm nobody and enjoy it, let me know.

          2. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2011, 11:04am

            Why have you turned this comment page into discussions of sex?

            This is about a man who was assulted and robbed.

            Is it because you are a sick filth disgusting bastard with sewage for brains and who needs to fvck off back to bigotsville?

            I thinks so.

            If you continue to talk about sex where is just isn’t warranted, if you continue with your blatant homophobia this is how I will respond coz it’s all you deserve.

            I don’t let nasty scum like you just get away with your homophobia, I stand up to your vile kind as we should.

        2. The answer is still the same: this is a site providing news of interest To gay people FOR gay people BY gay people.
          Presumably that’s why you spend so much time on it. If you don’t like it, bugger off

          1. So you don’t know the relevance of his sexuality. That’s ok then!
            Why am I here? I am opposed to social engineering, the gay propaganda aimed at innocent children and the erosion of sexual morality in society.
            As the righteous man Lot, who resided in Sodom, I am distressed to the point where I am willing to post on this and other sites that espouse immorality and self gratification which ultimately harms society with loathsome killer diseases.

          2. Though it’s pretty clear you’re distressed, what can you possibly imagine you can achieve here? You just come across as a coprophilic nutter whom most people would either laugh or scoff at. Nobody’s going to listen to you! Take your sandwich board, o Lot, and spread your manure where it might actually get some results!

          3. Lot?? Lot offered his daughters to be raped by angry townspeople, and later got drunk and had incestuous sex with those same daughters. Not a great inspiration really. And what is this moral decline? Society today is more moral than it’s ever been, just that there’s less emphasis on sexual morality and more on harmful things like treating each other badly through racism, sexism, treating the handicapped badly etc

          4. Isn’t sexual morality social engineering?

  8. Outrageous! Straight people having sex on a beach in 1953!

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