That's a thorny question.....lets see.....
Does being breathalysed, searched and pushed around qualify ?
At the same time having my cars contents being dumped outside in the layby ?
Probably not.....after all, I was sleeping before being rudely awakened.
How about this:
Orr not, as the case may be.
Since there's no such offence as "dogging", it would fall into "exposure", "voyeurism" or just plain "indecent or offensive behaviour", with maybe a smidgen of "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace".
If you're a couple it may well be "gross indecency"
But then, anyone doing anything a bit naughty when there are peeps about they don't KNOW are "family" deserve to get their collars felt.
At the end of the day, keeping the regular peeps and their kids out of sight and sound is just good sense.
No. That use of the law was challenged in the european court of human rights. Consequently, to use it at all the prosecution(s) had to be seen to be non-discriminatory, so they apply to all sexual acts.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003), which came into force in May 2004, repeals most of the remaining discriminatory sexual offences targeting gay men, including buggery, gross indecency and soliciting. There are some concerns about a new offence created by the SOA 2003 of ‘sexual activity in a public lavatory’. Gay men in particular are concerned that although the offence is phrased in a neutral way, in reality it will be used by police primarily against gay men. The Home Office has provided assurances that this is not the case and that the law will be enforced in a balanced way. The term ‘public lavatory’ is defined quite broadly and includes a public lavatory to which the public or a section of the public has access to whether for payment or otherwise. Accordingly, having sex in a locked cubicle in a night club, for example, would be an unlawful act.
That is right. No.
Mind you, whether anyone would admit to being done for exposure or indecency is another thing.
That is true. However, the law is now changed....courts used to hold that the police were unlikely to be offended by such things, consequently they couldn't use themselves as complainants. that is no longer the case.
Having sex on a picnic bench, for instance, is likely to get you seen. Especially in daytime.
A load of guys playing with themselves as a couple get it on together is obviously an offence, they just need to be seen by somebody who is offended for a prosecution to be proceeded with.,
The old saying: "if a tree falls in a forest and there is nobody there, does it make a noise" is hardly applicable.
There have been many thousands of prosectutions over the years, sufficient for people to have got the message. If you do it, don't get seen.
Well, Monsieur Geee, I was not referring specifically to the game....obviously, since dogging, per-se, is not a specific offence.
You need to look at the "exposure" and "voyeurism" cases....and not just for possible game related problems..
I've been keeping an eye on prosecutions since the much-discussed sex offences act came into law last year...voyeurism seems to be going well...for the law anyway....It seems that every case is a winner, with custodials all round.
I can confirm that I ain't been done fer anyfin yet m8.....niver as anee ov me m8s'.
However...keep you eyes open, the press is still about..
Yeah we've heard stories of the press . Once again I suppose it must happen as there have been a few ( a very few) stories published with real looking pictures , but in truth the vast majority of articles on the subject involve a model posed picture with a scrawled piecemeal scrap of writing which has been put together by various rumour and the odd 'talkative lonley dogger in a carpark. Reporters , like the incredible arrest rate in dogging circles owe alot more to bored doggers creating legends in their spare hours than to truth .
I cant really include the offenses you mention in dogging arrests as they arent dogging . If someone is nicked for voyerism then there has to be a complaint by the people theyre watching - which means they arent doggers theyre peeping toms - likewise the exposure offense . Anyway we're glad you havent had your collar felt , and long may you dog without it happening ......chances are it wont :-)
Peace
At the risk of repeating what so many others have said . Neither is breaking the law unless one or the other makes a complaint .
It is reasonable to assume that any couple having sex in a car will not be prosecuted, unless they're outside a school in daylight, or similar.
However, any guy seen performing a "sexual act" outside the car with the couple in is not so fortunate. the couple do not have to make a complaint, anyone can. Even a police officer witnessing the act.
Anyway, this argument has now become circular. Anyone stupid enough to carry-on wanking when a motor is coming into the carpark deserves to be done.
At the end of the day, this game is about having fun not about carrying-on shagging and fuck everyone else.
Anyway, I was just sitting in my motor (in a carpark) and listening to R1.....nobody else there except some dope smokers....when in drove two cars....each with a couple in...after parking, each couple stripped-off to just skin and leapt into the back of an estate....and proceeded to shag each other....with me watching...
some times, just when you're getting pissed-off, life suddenly gets better....
Sometimes other people don't help. Had a great evening with two couples in Bucks the other day ruined by an idiot putting his headlights on full and parking in front of the parked car.
If you want floodlights got to football and leave us alone. Both couples drove of quite quickly and had police there in a very few minutes to see what was going on.
Big D