Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Updated: Occupy London protesters could ‘vaporise’ gay cruising on Hampstead Heath

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. While I agree to everyone right to protest, when are the laws going to change to stop these people setting up cam wherever they like?

    They have caused over £20,000 worth of damage at Finsbury Square and caused a restaurant to close.

    In regards to the issue of cruising on Hampstead Heath, depending on where they have set up camp, their presence will not make on iota of a difference as their is one specific area where the cruising mainly takes place and I doubt that they would be set up there as it would create the least impact as it is not the main part of the heath!

    1. Hampstead Heath is public space so I suppose they are free to set up camp there if they so wish.

      Why has not a single banking CEO been jailed for their crimes against the nation?

      As for the moron who said the Occupy camp would stop cruising – well if I was in the Occupy movement I’d have a stern word with that idiot.

      Could he really be that clueless?

      1. Because we live in a corporatist system where lobbyists buy regulations and rules to enforce monopolies. Which is why the Occupy movement is retarded for being anti-capitalist.

      2. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 1:24pm

        You clearly haven’t seen the damage these camps leave behind dAVID which will have to be repaired at the taxpayers expense.. let alone the problems they have created for the local business and residents.

        No-one denies their right to protest but at the end it should come with a bill if they continue to insist on damaging public spaces.

        1. I have seen the damage these Occupy camps have caused and clearly this needs to be paid for.

          I think the cleanup and maintenance of these areas should be paid for by the banks.

          How many BILLIONS of taxpayers’ money have they taken already?

          1. It is not the banks who have caused the damage to these spaces, it is the protesters. Either way, you and I as tax payers end up footing the bill for clean up and the eviction process, whether we like it or not

          2. True.

            I suppose the tax increases that we will all be paying for the next 30 years for bailing the banks out, just seem a little more abstract than the cost of the park clean up which is why people are less angry about them.

          3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:32pm

            Yes indeed responsibility is the issue here. I agree that bankers recklessness should be paid for by the banks but I also think that protesters recklessness should be exactly the same. This isn’t just about the damage the protesters do to land but also the damage it does to the local community. Yes the protesters should be footed the bill for damage done they cause but also it’s about damage to the local community too. When a business goes under because of the protesters presents that cost the local economy. With every business closed as a consequence, that’s more people unemployed, more empty shops, more people struggling in an already fragile economy with their own day to day living.

            It’s not about people being less angry about bankers, it’s about accepting and taking responsibility by not making it more difficult for those already paying the price.

          4. Spanner1960 15 Jun 2012, 9:51am

            Instead of blaming the banks, try blaming the successive governments we all voted for for not instilling and enforcing stronger safeguards in the financial sector.

            If the FSA had been set up properly in the first place, it would have never got to this stage.

        2. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:36pm

          We have to accept that those who claim land in their right of long term protest, deny others the same right in protesting or living by their actions.

          I have no problem with protest, hell I would be there but there is also common sense in the way we do things.

      3. Hampstead Heath is owned by the Corporation of London (if you’re unaware, that is a council and not a multi-national) and has several by-laws which prohibit many things on the land, one of which is camping. These people are therefore breaking a by-law and should feel the full extent of the law in moving them on.

        As I stated, I have no problem with people protesting but I do have a problem when they feel that they have the right to break the law to do so.

        1. Cruising in the park is also breaking some by-law.

          If the cruisers want to go cruising then fine.

          But equally if the occupiers want to occupy then fine.

          I just want to know if Timothy Sullivan is representing official Occupy London policy or is speaking for himself.

          1. I doubt that man is speaking on behalf of the Occupy London movement.

            People don’t realise that dogging takes place on the heath too but there is never mention of it. It is not just gay people who use the area for anonymous sex

          2. It depends on whether they have ever actually used there power to make the law of “there shall be no cruising on said land”. The issue with camping there is that it interferes with the rights of the owner to use their land as they wish.

            Im sure they wouldn’t like people to start camping in their front garden protesting against their protests and the damage they are causing to public spaces which the taxpayer has to pay for.

          3. David Myers 17 Jun 2012, 1:53am

            Did you even read the full article? I doubt it or you would know there has been lots of negative feedback for this self-appointed blowhards’ homophobic comments.

        2. If the Suffragettes had listened to your advice then women would still be effectively owned by their husbands and denied the right to own property or vote…

  2. Yeah, cruising takes place in a particular area and generally doesn’t cause a problem or nuisance for general users of the Heath. This Occupy guy sounds a tad homophobic to me.

    1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:41pm

      Exactly and the majority of it is done at night when no others are around so I really don’t see the issue. The bloke is being homophobic in his generalisations.

  3. A bunch of student types in tents getting away from parental supervision for the first time pretending it’s the summer of love again on Hampstead Heath… yep, can’t see any opportunities for gay sex there.

    1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:43pm

      I don’t most of them will be there at night when people are cruising… more like on the town getting pissed, using their iPhones (ironic) and sleeping in the comfort of their beds…. I guess it depends on the weather.

  4. Is this their Brave New World, then? That gives them something in common with other totalitarian ideas. Scary.

    1. I hardly think the Occupy movement is totalitarian.

      At least nowhere near as totalitarian as the banking industry – look at how it destroyed the world economy, yet not a single bank chief has been jailed for his crimes and the public has to bail them out.

      1. In fairness, anything other than voluntarism is totalitarian.

        1. I think there is middle ground too

          Its likely that only totalitarians would accept there is no middle ground

      2. You are not addressing the point, dAVID, though, are you? Which, in the example here, is the talk about ‘vaporizing'; the article refers to a claim by an Occupy London mouthpiece that the presence of gay men here was some kind of social evil to be eradicated. Please stick to the point.

        1. And when Occupy confirms that Sullivan is their official spokesperson and that ‘vaporising’ the gay element of Hampstead Heath is their official policy then I will be 1st to condemn them.

          They need to clarify this.

          At this point we have 1 quote by 1 person in Occupy.

          How can you make a claim the whole movement is totalitarian in such a circumstance?

          1. I don’t, Occupy cannot claim that anyone is a mouthpiece; everyone’s opinion is equally valid, right? So this one is as valid as anyone else.

      3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:45pm

        Well in a way it is totalitarian because by occupying land they deny other the freedom of using it.

        1. Being devils advocate – its not strict totalitarianism unless they prevent others access to the land and ability to utilise it.

          Given that they engaged in community events at St Pauls – such a prohibition is unlikely.

          1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 5:32pm

            The same couldn’t be said about Finsbury Square though. It probably won’t be usable for ages while the council try to get it back to a state of use.

          2. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 5:33pm

            Nor the businesses that have closed or suffered as a direct consequence of the camp.

          3. Were the business failures not due to the recession – caused by the bankers?

          4. Jock S. Trap 15 Jun 2012, 11:43am

            No Steve at least one business I know of collapsed as a direct result of the protest camp in Finsbury Square. If you’d been there you’d see why. Many others struggled because of the site.

  5. Rebels without a cause…

    1. I think strict regulation of the financial markets is a very noble cause – if only to prevent the banks from destroying the economy again and getting off scott free for their crimes.

      1. What’s Hampstead Heath got to do with the financial markets? What’s driving cruisers away got to do with it?

        No – these people are there to get a buzz out of protesting. I’m all for standing up for things, but there are some activists who do it as a kind of hobby to give their life meaning…and that for me lacks authenticity, credibility and effectiveness.

        1. “What’s Hampstead Heath got to do with the financial markets? What’s driving cruisers away got to do with it?”

          Nothing.

          And what does gay cruising in public parks have to do with LGBT rights?

          People who cruise the Heath do so for sexual kicks. Not because there is nowhere else for them to go.

          And good for them. But they know that doing this is illegal and not everyone approves.

          I really can’t be bothered worrying about people who deliberately engage in risky and probably illegal behaviour such as cruising.

          Let them do so if they wish, but let’s not pretend that cruising is some major equality issue. It’s not.

          1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 5:13pm

            punish the bankers! punish the cruisers! the cruisers caused the world economy to collapse by not picking up their used condoms!

            are you serious david?

          2. “the cruisers caused the world economy to collapse by not picking up their used condoms!”

            That’s really not what dAVID said or implied is it.

      2. I agree tackling bankers greed is a noble cause – but I fail to see what that has to do with Hampstead Heath, cruising or homosexuality!

        1. Cruising on Hampstead Heath has nothing to do with LGBT rights either though.

          Cruising is a dangerous choice of activity for a segment of the gay / bi male population.

          I think the council who has to pick up the used rubbers on the Heath every day will be well able to maintain the Occupy site as well.

          1. I wasnt suggesting cruising did have anything to do with LGBT rights

            What I was suggesting is that Hampstead Heath has nothing to do with dealing with banking immorality

            Linking cruising to an organisation whose raison d’etre is tackling banking immorality is odd.

            Linking this tactic to then irradicating what some media commentators have quoted Sullivan as saying as “tackling militant gay rights groups” is also odd.

            Hampstead Heath is a counter productive location for Occupy to choose.

          2. Cheers for not really acknowledging our responses there, dAVID :-P

  6. TheGreatSpaces 14 Jun 2012, 12:13pm

    This kind of vigilantism has no place in a society of law. What next? Prostitutes? Then what, immodest women?? Witness the unironic parallel dogma to sharia that is about to be imposed by the spoiled naive mob on a few consensual thrill seekers…

    1. Timothy Sullivan is a moron and probably a bigot.

      But you do accept that the Occupy people have as much right to use Hampstead Heath as the gay cruisers do, I hope?

      1. Well, good to see you stopped being Sullivan’s apologist. Pity you hadn’t stopped to consider his bigotry before you turned on me.

        1. I was never his apologist.

          Nowhere have I defended his words.

      2. Maybe they do, but setting up camp illegally is not the way to be doing it!

      3. Wow dAVID, ruffing feathers I see.

        The Occupy movement have as much right as the cruisers to visit the heath, however the bylaws of the Heath, which is public common-ground, are very clear: no camping. If everyone camped there then it would cease to be a public space wouldn’t it?

      4. TheGreatSpaces 15 Jun 2012, 4:13pm

        Of course they have the right to use the Heath – however it’s their stated intention of disrupting others’ use of the Heath that gets them on PinkNews (pink being a common euphemism for Gay) and not just on SexuallyNeutralNews. That’s why we’re talking about it. From my luxuriously mediocre Australian perspective, I certainly would not even register an Occupy protest unless it lengthened my commute.

  7. Laughable. LOL…really! How to get some people on your side…. and London has more than a few LGBT people…is to set yourself up as the rightful people to police their sex life…LOL..HA HA HA HA and then expect them to support your ideals…ha ha ha ha ha!!!! too obvious that the spokes person is as homophobic as they come…move along boys and girls…nothing to see here.

    1. Timothy Sullivan is the person who made these statements.

      If the Occupy movement has some brains (and I hope they do) then they will realise how Sullivan is damaging their cause and they will keep him away from a microphone.

      1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 12:28pm

        a bit like Anonymous and the guy who bombed the web sites of abortion providers eh David?

        meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

        1. Plus ca change, mon ami…

  8. Ah, yes. Let’s make an anti-capitalist issue an anti-gay issue.

    I’m in full support of the Occupy movement, but to seemingly extend their quarrel with the obscenely rich into the apparent intimidation of private citizens is cowardly, petulant, and more than a little desperate.

    As this goes directly against the principles of Occupy, it would appear Timothy Sullivan has joined up for entirely the wrong reasons.

    1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 12:29pm

      against what principles? have you been keeping an eye on them? they lost my support long ago for their disgusting gender politics.

      this is entirely in keeping with the movement.

      1. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater now.

        The Occupy movement is the most visible and most known anti-capitalist movement at the present time.

        Can you give a better alternative to support than the Occupy movement.

        I mean the banks are still unregulated, the criminal banking CEO’s have not been charged with their crimes and the public is still bailing them out to the tune of billions?

        And nothing has changed in the political or financial landscape to prevent this happening again.

        You must accept that this situation must cease.

        1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 12:37pm

          and must i accept occupy? I’m sorry but supporting ‘the lesser of two evils’ is still supporting evil.

          I have a long history of Activism and i never once marched with people who had views like they do.

          1. So you are happy to do nothing to prevent the banking industry destroying the economy again?

            I don’t support Occupy in its entirety, but I damn well support their efforts to get the financial markets regulated, and their efforts to make the super rich pay for the mess they have got us in.

          2. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 1:07pm

            i just had a look at the occupy london blog.

            they’re concerned for all those local residents and how the space should be preserved for them – people out with prams, dog walkers…not a bloody mention of the fact that the heath is a long standing autonomous queer space.

            this idiot seems to represent something in the heart of the movement itself.

            ‘So you are happy to do nothing to prevent the banking industry destroying the economy again?’

            and the only option is to support the hatred of Queers and the subjugation of women is it?

            I repeat – the lesser of two evils is still an evil.

          3. In that case don’t you think you should get down to Occupy to educate them.

            Or alternatively you can start a queer inclusive Occupy chapter.

            The lesser of 2 evils is probably more easily educated than the greater of 2 evils.

          4. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 1:17pm

            so then you are admitting that this does not look good for occupy?

          5. Hello theotherone. dAVID seems to think, and I may be wrong, that not engaging in the argument, or by disingenuously refusing to see that we are talking about homophobia and not the banks in this thread, mean he’s making his point. He’s not. He’s dodging and slithering and won’t face up to the raw, and frightening, anti-gay violence suggested in Sullivan’s threats.

          6. Actually if you read my posts you’d see that I was simply querying whether Sullivan is an official spokesperson of Occupy?

            If he is then I would not support them.

            However I would still support regulation of the banks. financial markets, increased tax for the megarich and criminal charges brought against the heads of the banks which got us into this mess.

        2. They’re anti-capitalist because they don’t understand that corporatism IS NOT capitalism, it’s a product of the state, not of businesses. The banks ARE NOT unregulated, the problem is that the industry is far too heavily regulated, it’s done that way deliberatley to muscle out competition. That makes the system we live in as far as possible from capitalism. The main problem is inflation, the newly printed money is given to the banks so they can spend it, but once it’s spent that’s it, the currency is already devalued and it’s useless to whoever receives the money afterwards.

          Does power corrupt? No, that’s a fool’s view, but it’s magnetic to pathalogical personalities and the easily corruptible (or aalready corrupt). The answer to the problem is simply to remove the central sphere of influence (government) and let the free market self-regulate.

          1. It’s central banking and a bloated public sector that got us into this mess,not private banking.

          2. ‘Let the free market self regulate’?

            So you support the removal of all immigration controls and protectionism.

            A truly free market involves truly free movement of labour. and a removal of all subsidies to British or American or European farmers for example?

            Good luck with selling that idea.

          3. And the super-rich should be paying more to get us out of this mess,

            And all banking CEO’s should be fully investigated and charged for any crimes they have committed.

          4. Robert in S. Kensington 14 Jun 2012, 1:30pm

            Let the free market self-regulate? Are you for real? Aren’t you aware that there was NO regulation on Wall Street since 1999 which brought about the financial global collapse in 2008? Aren’t you aware that the Glass-Steagall Act passed by the U.S. government in 1933 prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities and dodgy derivatives deals, the main culprit in the global meltdown in 2008?

            The act was dismantled in 1999 under pressure from mostly republicans. Consequently, the distinction between commercial banks and brokerage firms has blurred; many banks own brokerage firms and provide investment services. The abolition of this act brought us to where we are today. Regulation is necessary and vital to prevent another meltdown. It served America extremely well after the Depression. Only recently JP Morgan Chase had a mega loss of over $2 billion, a bank that was bailed out by taxpayers.

          5. That kind of dangerous market-fundamentalist nonsense is precisely why we’re in this mess. The banks used to be far more heavily regulated, and far more prudent because of it. Then the regulatory infrastructure was dismantled in the 80s and 90s by free-market fundamentalists like Thatcher, Reagan, Blair and Bush, and that caused the rampant speculation and subsequent collapse.

            The dynamic of the market is not a benign one and has no concern for human welfare or social justice. Unfettered market forces reward greed and create massive inequality. It needs to be controlled by a much more powerful, much more interventionist state to prevent the gross abuses. This is why places like Germany, Canada, Australia and China are suffering so much less from the economic crisis.

  9. I wish the Occupy movement would set up camp in the reception area of Goldman Sachs and RBS and Lloyds.

    That would be fun.

    1. Yeah, that would definitely improve the economy. And then they could trash the offices and burn the buildings – the London riots were great fun, no?

      1. I think your confusing the Occupy movement with a comparatively tiny number of vandals the media seized upon during last year’s student protests. Some perspective, please.

        1. I think that you are missing Elegirs irony in his or her comment

  10. Yeah right, because 50 or even 500 people camping on Hampstead Heath is going to bring down capitalism. And now the ‘occupy movement’ seems to have an anti gay cruising campaign. Must have been a sentiment they picked up whilst singing around the campfire outside st pauls cathedral.

    1. Does Timothy Sullivan represent the entire Occupy movement?

      I’d like some clarity on that.

      If he does then screw Occupy.

      If he was speaking for himself then I still support Occupy.

      1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 1:18pm

        well they don’t mention the heath as an autonomous queer space on their site so i think he does speak for them.

        1. Hampstead Heath is a public park that is popular among a segment of the gay / bi male population for cruising.
          Public sex can be dangerous and it’s illegal. That’s not an exaggeration, that is merely a statement of fact.

          The Heath is only an ‘autonomous queer space’ if you live on the fringes of legality.

          A gay sauna is an ‘autonomous queer space’. A public park is a public park – Mr and Mrs Bloggs and their snivelling brats, or the Occupy camp are just as entitled to autonomy on the Heath as the cruisers.

          1. Theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 2:21pm

            No, a sauna males you pay and therein lies the diffrence

          2. Are you suggesting that the cruisers’ autonomy on the Heath is more important than the general public or Occupy then.

            It’s a public park. The clue is in the word ‘public’.

            Any gay / bi man who cruises on the Heath does so in the full knowledge that it is both dangerous and illegal.

          3. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:48pm

            “Mr and Mrs Bloggs and their snivelling brats, or the Occupy camp are just as entitled to autonomy on the Heath as the cruisers.”

            Yes and because of the Occupy camp “Mr and Mrs Bloggs and their snivelling brats” will also be denied their freedoms to use the park.

          4. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 5:09pm

            ‘Are you suggesting that the cruisers’ autonomy on the Heath is more important than the general public or Occupy then.’

            no but you’re suggesting it’s less important.

            would you prefer it if they cleared sex workers from the park too?

      2. Well, it was bout time you faced the real issue of this thread. Well said.

  11. Have a wash, get a job, Mr Occupy spokesman.

    1. LGBTory?

    2. God you’re a knob…

  12. Stop me if I’m wrong, but I can’t image they are camping anywhere near the cruising area…

    1. Not that I am familiar with the precise area, but I doubt an encampment would be very cohesive in the cruising area!

      1. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 3:51pm

        I haven’t been up there for years but I might have to visit one night in the interest of research! lol

    2. Cruising does take place mainly in one specific area and as you say, I can’t imagine them being in that area, wouldn’t be high profile enough as it is too far away from the main part of the heath!

  13. a group didn’t say it – 1 man said it. grow up

    1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 1:22pm

      but occupy refuse to discuss the heath as an autonomous queer space

      1. It’s not ‘autonomous queer space’ – it’s a public park that some men use to have anonymous sex in and leave used rubbers lying about for the council to clear up.

        Get a grip.

  14. Jock S. Trap 14 Jun 2012, 1:21pm

    LOL… ‘no camping’ indeed… who is that aimed at? lol

    Anyway… I live near Finsbury Square and have seen the damage these demo camps have done to the area. The plot is ruined and no doubt will cost a lot of money to restore. This I believe should be paid for by the demo camps organisers Not the taxpayers. Plus as already stated the problems it has caused to local residents and businesses.

    One can only imagine the damage that will be done to the Heath and no offense who are they to think they can police an area? The local council would be wise to nip this in the bud as soon as possible.

    The demos have had there day… time to move on.

  15. Camden New Journal says they are already gone: http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2012/jun/occupy-protest-hampstead-heath-lasts-one-day-police-move-campers

    Mr Sullivan is quoted here as well, moaning that nobody does anything about cruising because it’s not upsetting Big Business.

    1. Haha. Amazing. Thanks for the link, @G*.

      That quote in full:

      “Demonstrator Tim Sullivan, 46, said: “Close to this part of Hampstead Heath there is a cruising ground, and they never get arrested. So it’s OK to have sex in public, but not to want shelter when money problems push you on to the streets? That’s because the Occupy movement is a threat to the big corporations, but a cruising ground isn’t.”

      I love how this faction (that being Tim Sullivan) speaks of hardship and oppression, completely oblivious to the irony that certain gay men meet on Hamstead Heath BECAUSE society at large sees fit to ostracise and alienate them from the mainstream.

      Basically, an impotent man at the ar_e end of an anti-capitalist movement wants to puff out his chest and reinforce his masculity by picking on what he sees as an easy target.

      *slow hand clap* Well done, you! Well done YOU. Goldman Sachs must be sh_tting themselves.

      Tim Sullivan’s next winning move: ‘Occupying’ the skin on a rice pudding.

      1. “certain gay men meet on Hamstead Heath BECAUSE society at large sees fit to ostracise and alienate them from the mainstream.”

        Rubbish.

        The men who meet for sex on the Heath get a kick out of anonymous cruising.

        London is NOT a place where there are no options for men seeking anonymous sex – there’s saunas; bars; websites.

        In the year 2012 it is a blatant falsehood to pretend that men cruise the Heath because they have no other choice.

        They do it for their own sexual kicks. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but it’s idiotic to pretend that the Heath is a refuge from the big, bad homophobic world.

        1. TheGreatSpaces 15 Jun 2012, 5:09pm

          dAVID you should really read up on Cruising and beat culture (#gay not #beatnik…). The people doing it have often been doing it for a long time and it’s all they know. Saunas have well lit entrances, are on streets with other people. Bars require socialising, websites require the semblance of socialising. Cruising offers something for some people that they can’t get elsewhere; for some it will be just one of many options, but for most it is the only option they see for themselves.
          And if they have suffered, who are we to say when they should get over it? Maybe they’ll never get over it. Sad but true and it doesn’t threaten anyone else – this Occupy fellow has. And you seem to be exploring every possible way that Sullivan could be ‘right’. Why is the burden of proof on a bunch of people who up until this Occupy rubbish were not considered a problem?

  16. What has Hampstead Heath got to do with raising awareness of City Banker imorality and greed?

    1. I would imagine that many of them saw that it is owned by the Corporation of London and just assumed that they are a large multi-national, not a council, which they are!

    2. This is a fundamental problem with the whole occupy movement. They always wind up occupying places that have next to sod all to do with ‘the man’ they intend to stick it to.
      I doubt there are many city bankers who’ll be loosing sleep over not having access to St Pauls cathedral or Hampstead heath (barring a tiny minority of regular churchgoers/ doggers).
      It’s like saying you want to protest against Japanese Whaling by occupying the toilets at the Cardiff branch of B&Q.

      1. You mean my campaign’s not working?! Damn it!!! 6 months I’ve been living in that stinking lavvy!!! :P

        1. If it makes you feel any better, if any of those DIY customers were wearing a whalebone causet and got caught short on your watch it’ll make them think long and hard about what they did ;)

  17. I’ve just read this on the Camden New Journal website “They were full of bold words about how they would not leave until the City of London relinquished control of the Heath, accusing the management body of commercialising one of London’s oldest and most loved open spaces.”

    I fail to see how they are commercialising the heath? Do these so called protesters actually know what their aim is anymore?

  18. Oh, dear. A lefty (and I speak as one) showing yet again that lefties can be as homophobic as anyone else. Another current expression of this that you see on various comment threads is the ‘why bother with the frivolity of gay marriage when financiers are looting society etc’ line.
    I would also guess that folk camping out in a public space is a lot more hazardous than gay men shagging among the trees.

    1. Anxiety about sexuality and enjoyment of bullying isn’t confined to the “right” or the holy ones.

  19. how can people “enjoy their open space again” if it is full of a protestors’ camp?

    1. i am fairly sure Hampstead Heath is big enough for a large camp of protesters, any number of cruisers, Chipperfields Circus and any number of innocent mummy/daddy/snivelling brats combinations without any of them even meeting each other.

      1. David Myers 17 Jun 2012, 2:14am

        Exactly! Well said.

  20. “no camping” lol

  21. Craig Denney 14 Jun 2012, 4:56pm

    The Occupy London movement has been infiltrated by religionists.

    I remember in the early days of the movement outside St Paul’s they were more than happy to talk to the Church and then (religious) homeless organisations started joining in, singing to uplift the ‘down and outs.’

    I cut ties with the Occupy London movement months ago because of its homophobic ties to the church.

    1. theotherone 14 Jun 2012, 5:17pm

      the more i read of them holding frigin prayer meetings the less i was interested in their cause.

      protesting greed with representatives of the catholic church invited? don’t make me laugh.

  22. I think the occupy movement needs to work out a more feasible type of protest. If they were serious about changing things they wouldn’t be harassing the public, they’d be canvassing for a political position.

    1. I agree with you about the protests needing to change form but begin ”canvassing a political position” you’re kidding me???

      when the very system is corrupt to the core, when people/parties present certain aims promises and agendas no matter what party, yet once in position turn their backs on those objectives. Where the very system allows for more influence by corporate interests over those of the nation …again this is not a partisan view as all parties are tainted to their core

      The whole system needs a complete overhaul, and those that are in the system have no will to change the status quo, and by joining the system you merely reaffirm what already exists

      by the way I’m not an extremist in my views I’m an ex Lib Dem voter (will never ever vote Lib Dem ever again). My hope, and I acknowledge it is a hope,is that a movement along the lines of the US civil rights movement will emerge to hold those in power to account, this will take time and a realignment in understanding

  23. Like many noble, left-leaning causes, Occupy has been hijacked by Islamists. I’m sure this latest outburst has more to do with pandering to UK jihadis than adhering to the original purpose of Occupy

    1. the fact of the matter is Occupy has a problem of attracting Muslim Occupiers as they are frightened of being labelled ‘Islamists’/extremists… they verbally agree with Occupy’s aims but to be visually seen is frightening for many Muslim folk as there is a real fear for them that there will be repercussions for their actions

      Occupy is non-religious specific there are Christians, Jews, Atheists, Evangelical folk plus others all united by a need for change, to start banding around that label like you have just done is demeaning not just for Occupy but for yourself

  24. Statement from Occupy London:

    The comments reported in the Pink News and Ham & High are not representative of Occupy London and are against our own Safer Spaces Policy, which is very clear: “Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.” [http://occupylondon.org.uk/about/safer-space-policy)

    Occupy is made up of individuals and these are the reported comments of an individual – comments that run contrary to positions decided by consensus at Occupy in its very earliest days and remain at the core of how we relate to and show respect for one another. As a movement, when something like this happens, it is essential that we challenge the language used and assumptions that appear to have been made in order to understand fully what happened; to educate and make people aware of their own

    1. and the oppression of others. Occupy may be open to all, but it is not open to all behaviours.

      The individual concerned has been spoken with. He says that a number of questions were conflated in the editorial, confusing topics and lending a meaning to his words that he had not intended. The Occupy Nomad camp has had praise from locals (as well as some negative comments) for helping make them feel safer and that crime has dropped in the areas they have occupied. The interviewee contends that this got conflated with cruising as an ‘issue’ in the way the reporter asked the questions and wrote the article.

      It is important to remember the history of Hampstead Heath, the fight for gay and queer rights, the stigma that has had to be overcome and that which still continues, exacerbated by the actions of the Con-Dem government and their austerity measures, which are affecting LGBTQI communities dramatically. Occupy London stands in complete solidarity with LGBTQI communities and

      1. apologises for any offence these reported comments may have caused.”

        http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/8715

        1. Like you have already said and repeated, dAVID, this, too, is one person from Occupy London’s opinion. Why is this ‘explanation’ any more valid than Sullivan’s claim? You can’t have it both ways.

    2. So Timothy Sullivan claims to have been misunderstood because his comments about safety got conflated with comments about cruising in the Ham&High (and then PinkNews). Fine, let’s assume the journalists didn’t have a clue about journalism and that poor Mr Sullivan is he aggrieved and misquoted party. Can he then explain the following quote in the CamdenNewJournal by a totally different journalist:
      “Close to this part of Hampstead Heath there is a cruising ground, and they never get arrested. So it’s OK to have sex in public, but not to want shelter when money problems push you on to the streets?”

      Seems Timothy Sullivan has a particular antipathy towards gay cruising.

      It’s splendidly ironic that Occupy can’t even get 15 people to hold the corporate line on what is and what is not the group’s “core” policy that was “decided by consensus”. Welcome to the real world: loose-cannon employees is just one of the daily problems we “evil corporate business people” have to deal with!

      1. FranklyBewildered 14 Jun 2012, 10:46pm

        “So it’s OK to have sex in public, but not to want shelter when money problems push you on to the streets?”

        Point of order. How many of the protesters are homeless? Is Timothy Sullivan homeless?

  25. whata mistaka to maka

  26. I’m bemused at the idea that wishing to prevent public sex from occurring within a park is anti-gay. I didn’t realised the right to shag in public is a fundamental human right :-/

    I can only assume from the vitriol that most of the commentators have taken it as a personal attack on their social life!

    1. The point is that cruising for sex, even gay sex, is not in and of itself illegal. It may lead to a “shag in public” or a shag in private or no shag at all. Even a “shag in public” is not in and of itself illegal, but depends on how public you are about it (and the Heath has a number of very private areas, despite being a public park). Timothy Sullivan believes this should be illegal and all gay cruising should result in arrests. His views on straight cruising and dogging have not been made public.

      So I assume the vitriol of the commentators on this board actually comes from having to listen to yet another idiotic and privileged straight wanker trying to drum up public support for his personal crusade by mouthing off about “all the icky things that icky gay people are doing” and how awfully horrid such ickiness is for the good, moral, upstanding members of society. Seriously – you’re going to support that sort of moralising claptrap?

    2. Actually, Damien – Yes: “the right to shag in public IS a fundamental human right”

      Anyone who deems it otherwise is likely to be morally uptight & sexually repressed…(and clearly, in this case, homophobic…)

      Noone has a problem with rabbits shagging out in the woods – so why is it suddenly so ‘morally’ repugnant when it’s two humans doing it…?
      (or haven’t you thought that one thru yet…?)

      1. You can’t possibly tell if he’s homophobic since he’s yet to be part of a protest group that’s decided to set up camp in a known dogging area. He may well make the same comments. To call it homophobia is hysterical.

  27. Cruising is part of our history and culture. Gay men have cruised London’s parks and cemeteries for centuries. It’s part of the diverse tradition of pansys and queers and as such should be protected,cherished,celebrated and practised ! Cruise on guys!!!

  28. I fully support Occupy & I also fully support the right of people to cruise on Hampstead Heath.

    Its good to see the update quoting Ronan McNern saying that Occupy London will challenge Timothy Sullivan for his comments published in The Hampstead & Highgate Express.

    As I write this I am mindful that The Hampstead & Highgate Express may well have its own agenda in publishing these ‘quotes’.

    I would like Pink News to contact them too to ascertain their validity…

    1. TheGreatSpaces 15 Jun 2012, 5:27pm

      I can’t believe that a park has its own newspaper…

  29. Spanner1960 15 Jun 2012, 9:53am

    Another bunch of lefty layabout, socialist workshy scumbags hanging around complaining about what society hasn’t given them.

    Try going out and getting a proper job, instead of complaining about the rest of us that have to work for a living.

    Hypocritical gobsh|tes.

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