Policing of Public Sex Environments on Merseyside.

OTTERSPOOL PARK
On 28th March members of the LGB Police Liaison Working Group were finally given details of the police operation at Otterspool commencing on 2nd April. I left that meeting with grave concerns about the operation, the harm that will be caused, and with no trust or confidence in South Liverpool Police and City Safe. Below are just some of my concerns:

THE POLICE OPERATION
On first impression the operation seems reasonable and fair. There have been complaints about unacceptable behaviour (mainly about dogging). A police operation is necessary. Warning notices have been placed around the area and warning leaflets given out (as we recommended to Merseyside Police back in 1998).

However, closer examination and a few questions reveal differing aims and actions.


A location and site plan with at least a broad outline of the development project or other reasons why a survey is needed;

Police will be going off the beaten path and behind bushes actively looking for men engaged in sexual activity.

Plain clothes police will be used as part of the operation from day one.

All men found will be arrested and processed through the criminal justice system. (Probably by formal caution. A permanent record).

Warnings will only be considered during the first week of the operation.

We were advised of no operational protocols or area wide briefings.


If it is to deal with complaints about public dogging why go searching for men out of public view? If it is intended to “clean up the area” as part of multi million pound re-development, and stop all sexual activity at that location, then you would expect a very different operation. Several years ago Merseyside Police developed a policy which would facilitate closing down a cruising ground or cottage without criminalising men, but establish trust, promote sexual health and gain intelligence about hate crimes. I have not been told why that has been rejected.

PLAIN CLOTHES POLICE
The use of plain clothes police (in such operations) is synonymous with bad practice, and is specifically not recommended by ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers). In fact they advise against such methods.

The use of plain clothes officers is to maximise arrests. It is alleged, by several sources, that plain clothes officers have been making arrests for months prior to the warning notices and operation.

VICTIMS OF HATE CRIMES
Although the police and city-safe say they recognise that men who go cruising are often victims of crime, when I raised concerns of any negative effect on reporting of such crime and homophobic incidents it was just dismissed as unfortunate. Senior officers and Hate Crime officers appear to have ignored national and local guidelines on tackling hate crime and the policing of PSEs.

Previous Area Commanders have been mindful of establishing trust and confidence, among men who go cruising, to encourage the reporting of all crimes and especially hate incidents at Otterspool. There were positive, even life saving, results. That has now been thrown aside with no protocols or arrangements to retain trust and confidence. How exactly does: calling men who cruise “perverts”, searching out of the way areas and going into bushes to arrest them and using plain clothes police, encourage trust, confidence and reporting of hate crimes by a targeted group?

The result will be greater vulnerability to Queer-bashing and robbery.

There are other issues about failings in dealing with Hate Crimes in South Liverpool.

MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENT
The description of men who have sex with men in PSEs as “perverts” in the local media demonstrates at best a lack of full and proper planning. It does not help men come to terms with their sexuality and only encourages queer-bashers.

FAIRNESS
If there is no distinction between those men who try not to cause offence and those who inconsiderately do cause complaints then it is patently unfair.

Police and City Safe have combined two issues and objectives, and used complaints about dogging to undertake a heavy handed operation against all men who use the park as a PSE. That is duplicitous, and the treatment of the majority will therefore be disproportionate.

There are also issues about legal definitions depending on time and location.

I am also very worried by the use of the “child protection card” to demolish any specific criticism of the operation. As one very astute man has said to me: “If a child is wandering in the woods at night shouldn’t the police be having a word with the child’s parents,” rather than arresting anyone it may or may not possibly encounter.

We also have to look at the proportionality in comparison with crime in the city. In a north Liverpool park children have to watch ducks they have been feeding be shot dead in front of them by local yobs. There is no police response at all to those problems.

TESTING
A possible test of whether the operation is heavy handed or not will be the number of arrests. In 1907 the City of Liverpool Police arrested nine men for “indecency with males” and secured eight convictions. A relatively high number in those days, when all homosexual acts were illegal.
How many arrests will be made at Otterspool in 2007?
How many have already been made?
It is also worth considering the number of homophobic hate crimes recorded for South Liverpool in 2006. Will the number of arrests be greater than the sixteen homophobic incidents recorded?


CASTING JUDGEMENT - A POINT OF VIEW.
To those in the “out” Gay community who take a moral high ground about cruising I would point out that: homophobes, religious or otherwise, make no distinction between men who have sex with men whether behind an oak door or an oak tree. It is only recently that most of us can enjoy a legal existence. In seeking social acceptance we should avoid condemning others the way we were once condemned. Queer-bashers will just as readily smash house windows, vandalise your car and spray abuse on your walls as they will beat up and even murder men who go cruising. And precisely what injury or damage to person or property do men who go cruising cause to make proportionate a permanent criminal record, loss of job and break-up of family?

I accept that there is a need for police intervention to stop unacceptable offensive behaviour by a minority of men who go cruising, and people who go dogging. But it should follow national guidelines, be reasonable, fair, proportionate and an example of best practice. The operation at Otterspool is not.

Paul Keogh
Concerned member of the Liverpool LGBTI community
Re-posted by the Administrator from the Outsiders website

thanks for this. As an Otterspool regular, it is refreshing to hear some common sense from an 'official' gay source (compared, for example, to the deafening silence from Armistead about the policing of Otterspool).

My perception is that the police crackdown has been going on for well over a year - well before the regen work in the park started - and I have personally expereinced plain clothes police engaged in entrapment activities, and torch-light searches of the woods after dark. Any level of trust which might have been re-built by the police after the big murder enquiry has surely been lost now.

However, I do want to challenge your seeming opposition between crusiers and the 'out' gay community. I've been out for years, and cruise regularly. I see a lot of guys on the gay scene who I know from the prom. We really need to get away from the idea that cruising areas are for sad and lonely married/bi/closeted guys who haven't expereinced the joys of the welcoming and inclusive gay community, and acceopt that in fact, crusing areas are the most diverse of gay contexts.

I have been asked if there is an update to my original posting. There is some good news, some confusion, some continuing cause for concern and some information and advice. However, I delayed posting the update until after a meeting with the Area Commander.

The revised update to follow in a few days, if not sooner.

The comment from Andy is further confirmation of some of the issues I've raised. Thanks.
I agree that many openly gay men who use the "scene" also go cruising. The update will include an explanation of the view of other members of the Liaison Group.
I will refrain from commenting on the role of the Armistead Project on this issue, over the last twelve months.

POLICING OF PSE’S ON MERSEYSIDE.
An August update from a concerned member of the community.

I have been asked if there is any update of my comments about the police operation at Otterspool. There is some good news and some confusion, and some continuing cause for concern. There has been an initial complaint, a reply from the Chief Constable, and some clarification from the Area Commander. I must also impart the opposing arguments.

THE GOOD NEWS…
The warning notices and high visibility policing have been successful in discouraging cruising activity, and the more blatant behaviour (of a minority of men) which resulted in complaints. The police have also extended the one week only warning period to cover the entire first and main phase of this operation. So, warnings have been given rather than arrests being made. However, I am advised that in future that may not be the case, so anyone who has been warned - has been warned.
There has been an assurance, at long last, that officers have been briefed on supporting victims of hate crimes.
There has also been reassurance about the future conduct of police.

THE CONFUSION …
It had not been entirely clear which officers are part of the operation, and who has or has not been briefed.
On the issue of plain clothes police there has been some confusion and disagreement within Merseyside Police. There have been three different versions of the operation and policing methods. Whether plain clothes are being used, are not been used, will be used, won’t be pro-active, are just passing …………
I stand by my argument that: The use of plain clothes police is specifically not recommended by ACPO, and for very good reasons. It is a throwback to homophobic policing methods and damages trust in the police and, as was evident from the failure of the operations last year, are ineffective.
There has been further reassurance that plain clothes police are not now currently being used as part of the operation.

THE REASONS AND THE FUTURE …
The different reasons for the operation have been clarified. In policing terms there are complaints about cruising and dogging, and general anti-social behaviour at Otterspool. There are also concerns about the number of homophobic incidents and targeted crime at what has become a well known PSE. Combined with years of neglect by the City Council, the area has developed a “certain reputation” that has attracted muggers.
A decision has been taken to improve the condition of Otterspool Park and for it to be a Family Friendly park. It is the long-term objective to change the perceived reputation of the park and for it to cease being a recognised cruising area and PSE.The police operation is therefore ongoing and long-term.

IMPORTANT REASSURANCE …
Anyone who is the victim of crime at Otterspool, whether there for sex or not, can still seek help and support from Merseyside Police. You can use the confidential Shoutline 0800 328 2244, or telephone the switchboard and ask for the local Hate Crimes Officer or Community Relations Officer. In an emergency call 999.


CONTINUING CAUSE FOR CONCERN …
The first cause for concern is the ease with which Merseyside Police ignores policy procedure and guidelines when it applies to homosexual men. Add to that a continuing insistence on using the old discredited methods, poor liaison, and conflicting official versions. It adds up to an organization which can, at times, be difficult to trust or have confidence in.

The second cause for concern follows changes in legislation in 2004.
The operation last year involved searching for homosexual activity after dusk in out of sight places and the “pro-active” use of plain clothes. Although some assurances have been given with this new, more reasonable, operation there remains this issue:

It is neither reasonable nor proportionate, let alone fair, for men to be arrested where there is “… no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.” *
If Merseyside Police and Liverpool City Council establish in practice that the statutory defence (*Public Order Act 1986 section 5) does not apply to homosexual men, then it is an underhand return to the hated and now repealed Sexual Offences Act (Importuning and indecency between males) of 1956.
Such an interpretation of the Public Order Act has far reaching and worrying implications for us all. I do not believe that is what Parliament intended when legislation was changed in 2003/04.
Further advice is needed, and we must wait and see how the operation progresses.

COMMENT …
NEGATIVE …
I have referred to previous police activities through the second half of 2006 and the start of this year, which allegedly included: searches at night using torchlight to find men engaged in sexual activity, and the use of agent provocateur. No warning notices.
Trust and confidence, which had been built up over several years, has been damaged and the ability to tackle hate crimes has probably been compromised. Following that, a more reasonable and proportionate operation has been badly handled.

It demonstrates that Merseyside Police can never be relied upon or trusted in regard to the policing of cruising areas, and that there remains some propensity to homophobic attitudes and policing methods.

Although I can not accuse the local Councillors of homophobic malice, I can’t think of anything to thank them for. Lives will have been needlessly ruined. As for the City Council and City Safe the concerns expressed throughout apply.

POSITIVE …
That said, Merseyside Police have now responded to those concerns, and from the most senior levels. The Area Commander has given reassurances about a more reasonable, fair and proportionate approach. We are reminded of the, successful, determination to secure the conviction of a murderer.
It is that ability to liaise and the practical command/ownership structure which enables Merseyside Police to move forward and succeed. It is in marked contrast to the failings of the City Council on LGB issues.


AN APOLOGY…
There was mention of problems at Otterspool late last year, but I failed to check what exactly was happening. I assumed guidelines and consultation would ensure there would be nothing to be concerned about. I was complacent.
I apologise for being complacent and for being slow on this issue.


THE OTHER POINT OF VIEW …
Fellow members of the Police Liaison Working Group have been concerned that members of the wider community (you) may have assumed that I have been writing on behalf of the group. I am happy to clarify that is not the case, and continue to use “I” as often as possible to make it clear that the opinions and arguments expressed by this member of the working-group are my own and not necessarily shared by all other members of the group.

The opposing argument is roughly as follows:
With the introduction of Civil Partnerships, extensive gay ‘scene’ and internet dating, it is no longer necessary for any man to go “cruising” in parks etc. They argue that if the gay community wishes to gain acceptance and integration with the wider community we must accept complaints about such activity and support any action taken to stop it.
Some members of the group insist Merseyside Police should adopt “zero tolerance” of all such activity in all cruising areas. It is further argued that guidelines should be abandoned, and that police should use any means to stamp out cruising activity.

Whilst I accept that legally we have never had it so good, the reality for many gay/bi men in Liverpool still leaves much to be desired. The shocking statistics in the Stormbreak Report prove there is still a long way to go.
Nor do I believe we should ever return to the policing of the 1950’s, 80’s and 90’s.
No one is supporting inappropriate behaviour in a public park in daylight and with families about the place. Such behaviour is not acceptable and is indeed a public order offence. But such activity out of public view is NOT malicious or intentionally harmful. I stand by my previous posting.
Finally I would point out that during the recent operation at Otterspool, on the other side of town some of us were woken in the early hours by the local Post Office being ram-raided.
A north Liverpool park has been a no-go area. Not because of homosexuals but because of local yobs attacking and shooting the swans, ducks and geese, with NO police response at all. In fact in 2006 whilst officers were searching Otterspool for homosexuals, I was out with the RSPCA searching for wounded birds. Children enjoyed feeding them, but had to watch the baby ducks shot dead in front of them. The swans would eat out of ones hand. I miss them, and I have not forgiven Merseyside Police’s dereliction of duty in the poor part of town.


THANK YOU …
to the Lesbian and Gay Foundation and Out North West team, in Manchester, for taking an interest and asking questions, and for reporting the story. Thanks also to those individuals and national organizations that have provided advice, support and assistance. And a special thank you to Matt for allowing this on the Forum site.

Paul Keogh
A concerned member of the Police Liaison Working-group.

Well done, Paul - you've obviously been working really hard on this issue and I for one want to thank you for that. Where would we be without individuals in the community picking up and running with issues in their own time, unpaid, simply because they care?

Part of the point of the forum is the expression of diverse views - in debate our own thinking becomes clearer and our own arguments are sharpened. So no need to thank me for 'allowing' your post on the forum. On the contrary, thank you for posting.

Matt xx

error

Looks like the policies and hard work are going out of the window and into the skip!
This is pasted (and part edited) from another site posting on Thursday 13th September.

Anon poster:
The Police are doing a big operation in ALL cottaging and cruising areas in Merseyside, but more prominent in the Wirral.
There have been a large number of arrests and the police are asking men who they have caught to inform on others who engage in this sort of activity. BEWARE!.
For more information about this and safer cruising contact The Armistead Project in Liverpool.
Police have been calling at men’s houses, whether they are married or not. Ends.

I have no further details as yet, but will try to find out. There are two obviously disturbing and serious issues!
Regards
Paul Keogh
A concerned member of the Police Liaison Working Group etc.

On 27th September there was a Police Authority Community Forum for the LGBT Community. Angry members of the LGBT community, health workers, and voluntary sector support workers raised concern about the operation and made detailed allegations that:

The operation started in August.
There was no consultation, liaison or warning.
Merseyside Police policy and procedure has been ignored.
ACPO national guidelines have been ignored.
Police are using hidden cctv cameras.
There are NO warning notices.
There have been more than a hundred arrests so far. Seventeen cases are due in court, 86 cases are with the CPS and some 90 formal cautions have been issued. No warning have been used.

It was further alledged by example of individual cases, that:

Men are being blackmailed into disclosing the names and addresses of other men under threat of exposure in the local media and/or prosecution.
Police are visiting addresses and outing married men to their wives and families.
Support workers are now dealing with some suicidal men.

The operation was described as: a disgrace, undermining Hate Crimes Policy, persecution, and a return to 1950's policing.
Members of the community demanded a public meeting with the Chief Constable and Wirral Area Commander.

The allegations and complaints are currently being investigated.
I will keep you all posted

thanks for this - I am heartened to see that the police behaviour is being challenged so robustly. I only hope that, despite the Cheif Constable's love of Policing By Headlines, they will listen to some sense.

Many thanks to Paul (and Andy) for the info in this posting. I am often asked "Why have a gay film festival" I think this posting- not forgetting all the others, makes it eminently clear 'why'.

Following the serious complaints and allegations made about the Wallasey cottaging operation and against the new Area Commander and several officers; Merseyside Police Authority have arranged a special public meeting for members of the LGBT community.

Monday 22nd October.
7.30pm
Armistead Centre,
Musker's Building,
1 Stanley Street,
Liverpool.

There will be a response to the allegations, and an opportunity to ask questions and raise concerns.

The complaints and allegations include:
1) There was no information or consultation about the operation.
2) Policy, procedure and National Guidelines were ignored.
3) No notices were used or warnings given.
4) Hidden cctv cameras were used.
5) Men were arrested and forced to watch cctv and identify other men under threat of prosecution and being outed, ie blackmailed into identifying other men.
6) Police have been calling at addresses and outing men to their families.
7) Health workers and Voluntary Support Workers are now supporting suicidal individuals.

Paul Keogh.

PS/NB
There has also been and continues to be police activity at night in secluded cruising areas in Wirral.

An opportunity to meet with the Police to discuss these concerns is a positive move forward and we should all try to attend Armistead and work with the Police on this.

I do worry that given the nature of the concerns - for example that the Police have 'coerced' men they have arrested to give the names of others etc. will make people paranoid - will make people think that this meeting maybe an opportunity for the police to check out those who are oppossed or question their methods and help them identify other gay men.

As a middle aged (52 year old) I rarely, if ever, go out on the 'gay scene' and I have made a point of never taking a pee in a public loo that is obviously a 'cottage' in case I was a victim of attack from queer bashers or over zealous police. I also remember the experiences of other gay friends who were 'encouraged' to name names. In particular - a friend of mine was caught on CCTV by security guards. He was having an encounter in the bushes (completely privately, out of public view and late at night) - the scurity guards called the police, the police arrested my friend and his 'straight' consenting sexual partner. This partner, under interogation, said he was straight and married and denied any improper behaviour and was told by the police that either he was involved in a sexual act or he was being sexually assaulted. The partner, who was horrified and ashamed at the whole incident being caught on tape, obviously opted for the sexual assault option saying he was drunk at the time and was too out of it to realise what was happening (apparently he was drunk - but not that drunk). Consequently my friend was charged and convicted of sexual assault and no doubt had his name placed on the sexual offenders register - he was also sent to prison. If he was placed on a sex offenders wing in prison ( I can't remember if he was) the other prisoners could have jumped to the conclusion that he was a rapist or child molester and he would have been in danger of violent attack.
All this because the security guards decided that two men 'having a bit' out of view and doing no harm to anyone else, were a risk in the same way a person acting suspiciously or a thief or vandal damaging property was. What would the security guards reaction have been if it was a man with a woman? A good voyeuristic buzz no doubt.

Obviously the police are concerned and want to keep discussions with the LGBTGI community open. They obviously want to build trust and hopefuly paranoia will not prevail. It is important for us to support them in this.

Here is an update from the Meeting arranged by the Police Authority, with some details about the operation.

Here is an update from the Meeting arranged by the Police Authority, with some details about the operation.

The meeting was attended by the new Area Commander (appointed on 8th October), the Investigating Officer, and a regional manager from the CPS.
The meeting was chaired by a member of Merseyside Police Authority.

The Chair of the Merseyside LGB Community Police Liaison Working-group pointed out the damage the operation had caused to community relations and asked who had authorised a breech of policy and procedure, and why.

MPA are still investigating the operation and have not yet been able to find out who authorised the operation, but will now start looking at the documents.
The Police have refused to identify:
Who drew up the operational plan.
Who authorised the operation.
Who authorised the covert surveillance.

The Wirral Chief Superintendent gave an account of Operation Winchester.

Firstly he accepted that there should have been consultation, and he gave an assurance that he would not authorise such an operation while Area Commander.A member of the community pointed out that we already had such an assurance and a published policy, which are clearly worthless.

CCTV:
The operation had used: Two hidden CCTV cameras.
1st camera recording genital area, 2nd camera recording faces.
Two separate cameras were used to avoid collateral intrusion.
Traffic cameras and an additional hidden camera were used to record vehicle license plates for identification.
Covert CCTV surveillance was during the last two weeks of July, for 12 days. CCTV Video footage was studied for four weeks by an investigating team.

Statistics:
126 offenders were recorded on CCTV and were sought by police.
86 were identified.
21 passed to CPS for prosecution.
The remainder have been formally cautioned (permanent criminal record)
Charges were/are under the new Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The prosecutions include men with no previous convictions, with no charges of violence, assault or rape, or any other additional/or “serious” offence eg: drug dealing.

RIPA Directed (covert) Surveillance.

I asked questions about compliance with Home Office Guidelines on covert surveillance, and the authorisation requirements (necessity, proportionality, particular sensitivities, proportionality to what it seeks to achieve)
Officers were unable to answer those points or how the operation could comply. When pressed it was made clear the information would be refused.

Given that no attempt was made to discourage or stop sexual activity at that location (either by Wirral MBC or MP) the police were asked what the intended Operational Outcome was. (What was the operation intended to achieve?)
The information was refused.

This drew a comment from a member of our community that the operation was clearly intended to notch up arrests not stop public indecency.


Officers tried to claim the operation was urgent due to a “serious offence” , and there was no time to liaise or follow procedure. But there was no evidence of this and no charges for any serious crimes eg: assault, rape, drugs etc. The timescales clearly did allow for liaison.

An Investigation Officer was appointed after the covert CCTV recording was completed.
The Investigation Officer did adopt some recommendations from the THT about the sensitive handling of arrests.
Letters were sent out (did not indicate an offence) and were followed up by visits 5 days later. Police visited addresses in plain clothes not in uniform.
However, the allegation that at least one man was “outed” at home has not been resolved.

Police strongly objected to the perception and allegation that men were “blackmailed” into identifying other men. The charge process was outlined by the investigation officer and CPS.
However some of the men claim they were terrified of what would happen to them and felt under pressure to co-operate with the investigation.

It was the case that arrested men were asked to identify other men from CCTV footage. Those identifications were used to find other offenders and determine some additional seriousness of offence.
Men who arranged to meet others at that cottage or who knew other offenders and regularly visited the cottage have been charged and prosecuted with the more serious “premeditated” offence.
This drew gasps from the community and accusations of: “a vindictive operation”.

Support referral arrangements were put in place, but after men started seeking help and advice from Health Workers, not as part of the original operational plan etc.

Police say they have a tape recording of a man thanking them for the way they have handled the operation. That is to be expected in most Caution cases. However, the community are aware of several men who are not happy with the way they were treated and some men alledgedly left police custody in a suicidal state, requiring urgent support.

The CPS indicated they would oppose any request made in court for procedural considerations to avoid harmful publicity in the local press.

Comment:
NB all of those objecting to Operation Winchester consider “cottaging” unacceptable behaviour and accept the need for police intervention to stop it.
The law should be used to properly to discourage and stop offensive behaviour, not used by homophobic police officers to notch up arrest figures in a malicious and vindictive operation.

Had MP followed their own policy and procedure, let alone national policy and procedure, they would most probably still have been able to arrest and prosecute the worst offenders, but without any complaint from the LGBT community and without causing the complete breakdown of trust in MP and its CC.

That said there is now some progress being made in addressing the situation.
Regards Paul.