Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Alleged male sexual assault at Prince Harry’s airbase

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Are we so certain of the accused party’s sexuality that we can call this a “gay sex attack”? No. When two men fight it’s not a “gay fight”! When a man rapes a woman we don’t call it “straight rape”.

    This doesn’t help the victim (especially those who are scared to come forward in case they are labelled as “gay”) nor does it help our community

    1. Sadly, it is a case of a male being sexually assaulted by other males, so in that regard it can be described as a “gay sex attack”. It doesn’t make it right, but the description is technically accurate.
      I just hope they catch the bastards who did it. THAT is the important part.

      1. Absolutely the important issues are identifying those responsible and bringing them to justice and supporting the survivor of the assault.

        That said, I do not feel the term “gay” rape is ever justified, for reasons I have clearly given in comments below. Thankfully, PN have been sensitive to the concerns that have been expressed and altered the terminology they use in the article.

      2. True. But the Daily Mail would have us believe the most important point was that Prince Harry wasn’t there and that if he had been he’d have been ok as his quarters are well away from the area. Ah, that’s journalism for you. But not as we know it.

    2. Ignore the troll!

      1. Thankfully some of the insensitive and offensive comments that the troll did make were removed by PN. Thanks PN.

        Those of you who choose to continue to mark down my comments because I stand up for myself and others who have been raped – well it speaks more of you than of me ….

        1. @Stu

          I agree with you about the thumbs down thing. If someone doesn’t agree with what I’ve said, I’d much rather they replied to my comment giving their reasons.

          1. Thanks BennieM

    3. Rape is rape. To qualify as straight or gay makes no sense but does spice up the headline for titillation of the masses.

  2. Surely this article should be closed to comments as it is a matter that is subject to the rules of subjudice?

    1. I think Stew should get a life (and probably a job)

      1. Do you have either? The level of intelligence you display below would suggest otherwise.

  3. I don’t think “gay sex attack” is appropriate at all. I think you meant “sex attack” – homosexuality has exactly *nothing* to do with it.

    1. Agreed…they don’t say a man who rapes a boy is gay they say he’s a pedophile…..And I have heard where ‘straight’ men have raped a guy before for the hell of it. But as you say a sex attack is a sex attack..regardless!!!

  4. Edmund Broch 1 Apr 2012, 4:25pm

    That is how the complaint seems to have been lodged. We can only report what the alleged victim has said, right? Hence, the scary quotation marks.

    1. Well the BBC managed to report it with the scare quotes, or the gay sex attack part. They instead reported it much more soberly (which given the subject is a good thing) as a sex attack.

      1. With = without.

    2. Then report that misuse of language in the body of the story. Don’t use such a terribly wrong phrase as the headline draw, scare quotes or no scare quotes – especially if you’re not going to attribute the quotes in the body.

    3. Rape or serious sexual assault of any kind is rarely about orientation and is all about power and control.

      There are only three news outlets describing the matter as a “GAY” sex assault – Pink News, The Sun and the New York Post.
      The BBC, ITN, East Anglia Daily Times, Australian Telegraph, Irish Examiner and other outlets have all referred to the matter as a sexual assault and made no comment on issues of orientation.

      I think the description of any sexual assault as a “gay” rape is wrong and unwise and I am disappointed at PN for using such terminology.

      As a gay man I am offended that you seek to link my orientation with the offense of rape. As a survivor of rape I am alarmed and horrified that PN would use language which (I perceive) as dismissing the seriousness and horror of rape by inferring that it is linked to something normal such as orientation.

      I ask PN to urgently withdraw this description and recognise the distress this wording has caused.

      1. I also think that justice is undermined by allowing speculation of an active criminal investigation that could lead to court proceedings. Care needs to exercised that comments do not undermine the ability to bring anyone who has raped to justice (or equally ensure the impartiality of the trial to ensure those falsely accused get a fair trial).

      2. Oh get over yourself. Survivor of reged ape. Did your alleged attacker try to kill you? If not, you hardly survived.

        I’ve had unwanted sexual attention forced on me several times; with associated violence; usually by intoxicated heterosexual men. I’m in my forties – and when I was younger – this just went with the territory.

        Going to the Police was out of the question. And were I raped again tomorrow – I still wouldn’t contemplate going to the Police.

        Stop being such a victim.

        1. Yes my attacker did try to kill me.

          1. New Aussie 2 Apr 2012, 5:41am

            Stu, I want you to know that I (and I guess a whole lot of other people) find jonnie’s remarks COMPLETELY unacceptable. Hope you are okay.

          2. @New Aussie

            Thanks.

            Yes I am ok now, it took me a long time to come to terms with my experience – I don’t expect I will ever “get over it”. It does make me hypersensitive to comments about rape that are either callous and designed to upset (like those from jonnie) or badly chosen.

            If we are going to encourage more people to be able to either report their experience to the police to seek to ensure that the person who attacked them is brought to justice and to help the survivor get the help they need, then we need to take care in the language used.

            Thanks for your comment. Its helpful to know there are people out there who do support.

        2. Your comments are disgusting. For you to have no compassion when you yourself were supposidly raped leads me to think your story is on the BS side. How dare you tell a victim of rape to get over it.

        3. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Apr 2012, 9:12am

          Hands up whose the biggest t0sser on here. I hope your hand is up Jonnie.

          You have not got the faintest idea of the circumstances of histories of anyone posting on here, other than the fragments of their lives that you may have gleaned from their postings.

          Therefore who the hell do you think you are to start laying into someone who has just spoken about having been raped? Irrespective of whether you love, like, dislike or hate that person, you have made yourself look a complete idiot for doing so.

          If you’ve got any balls you’ll apologise.

        4. “I’ve had unwanted sexual attention forced on me several times”

          I find it hard to believe so many people would be into bestiality for this attention to be an issue for you.

          1. Well said, Will.

    4. Would you report the rape of a woman by a man as a “straight” rape?

  5. Sexuality has nothing to do with rape. It is an act of violence and ‘gay’ has nothing to do with it. If a straight man were to rape a lesbian, what kind of sex attack would that be?

  6. Despite the fact that men in uniform oozes sex appeal for some, especially in porn, this news sounded like the attempt went wrong and might gave people a peculiar impression that gay men are sexual predator. But I think the worst hit will be on that poor kid when people see him as too defenseless to fight back. Demasculated might be the right word.

    1. Isn’t Demasculated in Syria?

      1. Is that supposed to be funny? What are you, 5?

  7. If there was an attack I’m sure the RMP will investigate it like any other police force. Does it matter if it happened on or at an or near where a royal prince may or may not have been? Probably not. This is like a lot of things clutching at straws if the attack did happen I’m sure it was unpleasant and so on but no more so than it would be for any other person military or not. We’d normally hear “man attacked by another man in … ” what does the location of royalty or the persons occupation actually matter? I’d understand if it was directly connected to a royal member (no pun intended) but it’s not. Let the Monies do their jobs and it will be dealt with accordingly.

  8. Edmund Broch 1 Apr 2012, 5:09pm

    Well, I’m sorry for any upset the description caused the readers. It was not intentional, obviously. The description has been changed to the most neutral extent possible.

    1. Thanks, Edmund.

      The change is appreciated.

      I realise you did not set out to offend. Perhaps I am hyper-sensitive about these issues (unsurprising given my own experience of being assaulted).

      Thanks for listening and changing the story!

      1. Edmund Broch 1 Apr 2012, 5:15pm

        To be honest, I’m no stranger to sexual assault either, nor racial abuse. Maybe frequency does remove some sensitivities, and heighten others… Which is neither to undermine any poor souls subject to suffering, nor to say I’m not sorry to upset our readers…

        1. An explanation that doesn’t explain why the article was (eventually) corrected silently. This comes over as an attempt to rewrite history (which can only undermine confidence in your reporting – indeed, it has sunk my confidence and a lot of people’s on Twitter so you’ve lost readers by it) rather than actually correcting a humongous error that you’d’ve been the first to note if another paper had done it.

          Perhaps it’s time that PinkNews grew up (and grew some balls) and joined the Report an Error Alliance http://reportanerror.org/ and commit to making error reports and corrections publicly rather than pretending you hadn’t made a crass, pointless mistake in the first place?

          If you had a Report and Error Alliance button, I would’ve clicked it, you’d’ve publicly noted the mistake and we’d all have moved on. Instead you’ve lost me and a number of other readers, you’ve lost the trust of some readers, you’re fooling the rest and I’ll say so whenever you’re mentioned again.

          1. Whilst I think it would be good to see PN join the report an error alliance, I do also think that the author of the article has publically apologised and stated that they have changed the article. That is accepting that an error of judgement was made. Perhaps improvements could be made by joining the alliance – nonetheless, the error of judgement was identified and changed with an apology on here within an hour or two of the article appearing. I think that speaks volumes.

          2. Benjamin Cohen 1 Apr 2012, 8:48pm

            The article was written by a new freelance writer and in my own view wasn’t really something that should have been on the site. However, as soon as I saw it the piece was restructured. We can’t change urls of articles other than deleting the article. The point is though that the writer is well aware of the strong feelings around this issue and will learn from it.

            Best Ben

          3. Thanks Ben.
            It is a sensitive issue. I know I am not the only PN reader that has sensitivities about this issue. I appreciate that the article was reworked.
            Thanks for responding to the criticism and that both PN and Edmund are learning from this error.

  9. We are still waiting to hear what has happened to the millions of children raped by Catholic priest who are suffering from being assaulted by religious leaders. Where is this news? Who is stopping this news from being exposed? Why won’t they tell us? What are they hiding? Why?

    1. Rick

      The RC church child abuse debacle been reported many times both in articles and discussion on PN. Including in the comments of some stories on here today.

      This story has no link to the Catholic church so I can only presume that you are seeking to take advantage of the story about another possible rape to pursue your own political agenda against the RC church and that is wrong.

      1. Correct @ Stu, for once I agree with you.

        1. @Rocko

          Thanks.

          Why do I suspect we won’t be making a habit of it ;-)

          Good to know we can agree though!

  10. Lucky bastard!…I think I might enroll!

    1. If you had ever been subject to a vicious rape then you would know what you just said was crass, insensitive and wrong.

      The fantasy of rape is far different from the reality – believe me I know.

      1. jamestoronto 2 Apr 2012, 3:12am

        Far too true

    2. “Lucky bastard!…I think I might enroll!”

      You have clearly a lot of damage. If you ever become a parent, can I have one of the puppies?

    3. “Lucky bastard!…I think I might enroll!”

      Is this a sick joke?
      Why would any one want to be raped unless they are emotionally or psychological disturbed?

  11. This is irresponsible reporting. Prince Harry being stationed at the base has nothing to do with the allegations, and linking the two is rather ridiculous.
    Would you link every London-dwelling celebrity with any violent sexual crime that occurred there?

    1. To be honest, I have no problems in them reporting the sexual assault at a military base. That is newsworthy in itself. I would prefer they are more careful and sensitive in their choice of terminology (but that has been addressed!). I think that when the alleged incident occurred at the base of Prince Harry then it is understandable that the media will make mention of this, as many outlets (not only PN) have done. It would be salacious if they had suggested that Prince Harry was involved or had witnessed the events etc – none of the reports I have seen have tried to suggest Prince Harry was involved in any way.

  12. Has anyone considered that many male sex attacks are from ‘straight’ men on men considered gay or effeminate?

  13. PinkNews seems more interested in the fact that Prince Harry is stationed at that base than the fact a man may have been raped. Sad. Very sad.

  14. I don’t think “gay sex attack” is appropriate at all. I think you meant “sex attack” – homosexuality has exactly *nothing* to do with it.

    Gay rape is still rape, enough said.

    Its evil, rape btw.

    1. Edmund……did you investigate the outcome? What about the other sex attacks/assaults since then. Might be something bigger here?

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all