Essex Named Gay-Cruising Capital Of The UK

It's the weekend and you might be wondering about possible day trip destinations.  You might be an overseas reader thinking about a potential holiday to the UK and wondering which delightful parts of this green and pleasant land that you should stop by.  Essex may apparently feature prominently if cruising is your thing.

Queerty report that www.thegayuk.com (in what I suspect is a bid to drum up Internet traffic) have stated that the cruising pages for Essex are their most popular pages, and thus they conclude it is the randiest place in the UK.  I'm not sure about that but it does reveal the continued popualarity of cruising listings, and interest in public sex.  The Queerty report also features a quote from Galop - a charity I admire and respect greatly - but their advice is a little misleading, as it doesn't take account of the specific statutory offence of sex in a public toilet.  The presence of the Police in public sex locations (where men may find themselves stopped) may also be in response to pro-active policing in relation to other offences - anti-social behaviour more broadly, car thefts, drug dealing etc.  I'm afraid I am therefore much less reassuring to would-be practitioners of public sex!

Spaces of Contention: Vapourising Cruising Objections

Twitter followers will have seen in the last few days that I was fascinated by a  story concerning the Occupy movement in London.  Pink News reported that Occupy had responded to criticisms of their site on Hampstead Heath (a well known cruising site) by suggesting that their presence could 'vaporise' gay cruising.  It was a clear example of two sub-cultures fighting over constructions, the queering, of space.

In much the same way that we see conflict between a 'boy-racer', 'chav' culture and the sub-cultural practice of dogging, once again we were apparently seeing a space in conflict.  This was the all the more fascinating for the Occupy movement has sought to position itself as a leftist group, far more in line with radical queer approaches than conservative conceptions of space.  It was - put simply - a bit rich for a group which appears to defecate on a public space to object to ephemeral consensual encounters with typically no lasting trace.

However, the story didn't end there.  Pink News has revised the story, now making clear that the 'Occupy London' comments were from one individual - Timothy Sullivan - and didn't represent the Occupy movement.

Ronan McNern, member of the Occupy London press team and co-founder of the LGBTQI anti-cuts collective Queer Resistance, told PinkNews.co.uk this afternoon: “I was furious when I saw these comments, which are not representative of Occupy London, and 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.’ “These comments are not representative of Occupy London. Occupy is made up of individuals and these are the comments of an individual – comments that run contrary to positions decided by Occupy in its very earliest days and remain at the core of how we relate to and show respect for one another."

Although Sullivan now appears to have been side-lined, he spoke an essential truth.  His presence, and that of his fellow Occupy folks transforms the space, and their permanent presence will inevitably disrupt cruising behaviour within that space.

Although the response from Occupy is to highlight their own policies and their opposition to homophobia, it's unclear whether opposition to cruising per se amounts to homophobia.  If that were the case, then some gay men - such as the author Paul Burston - who have condemned contemporary cruising, are themselves homophobic.  Moreover, it pre-supposes that men who engage in cruising are gay - a very non-queer perspective on public sex behaviour from a groups that describes itself as 'Queer'.

I don't however think that his comments were motivated by malice.  Rather, I suspect he was trying to be a little clever and it backfired.  If you assume that the same socially conservative group who object to  cruising also object to Occupy, then his argument can offer something of a moral 'short-circuiting' - would you rather have men splashing their semen about the place or a few people rustling up vegan sausages in a morning? The alternative is that he was just an idiot.  A conclusion which one can not dismiss.

The story also highlights the problems with these social stands.  If you favour x, you must also favour y.  Just as this story suggest (shock horror) that not all lefty anti-capitalists support public sex, public sex advocates do not always support lefty anti-capitalists.  It might seem simple to suggest that these positions are not mutually exclusive and yet, we often do make these very assumptions.

Of course, whether we are discussing public sex or Occupy, we are talking about the 'ownership' of public sex and conflicts of legitimate use.  That debate will continue to run.

Read the full story here.

No Sex Please, We're Cruising

There was a time when 'gay' men cruising meant wandering around parks and other public spaces in the quest for an ephemeral sexual encounter.  A fleeting rendezvous with a stranger and danger, with the aspiration of an ejaculation at the end of it, and a potential arrest.

In our modern de-sexed times in which happy clappy homosexuals play out with 'the adults' and pursue sensible recreational pursuits rather than wandering around parks at 3am, the new 'gay' man interprets cruising as a brief vacation on a floating hotel with naff entertainment, an excess of bars and restaurants, and hordes of other human beings also pursuing the same activity.  The danger element has ceased to be about whether you'll be arrested, and become about whether you'll have an Italian captain and/or dice with some stomach bug which will reduce your itinerary to a bed and lavatory (but not in a good way).

Or, at least so it was.  It was revealed today that two 'West Coast Americans' as some reports put it (I did wonder if that was code for screaming homos from California) have been arrested for having sex.  According to Pink News, two men from California (see, it was code) have pleaded guilty to charges of breaking Dominica’s anti-gay laws after being spotted having sex on a gay cruise ship which was in port.

This was a 'gay cruise', which unfortunately gives the impression that it's alright to be on a gay cruise, so long as you don't have sex.  Which - and this may just be me - seems kinda ironic.  It's a reminder that homosexuality has culturally ceased to be a sexual identity, and is instead a social label that can be disassociated with a particular sexual act or set of acts.  What exactly renders a cruise 'gay' if people cease to have gay sex?  A fondness for gratuitous photographs of Tom Daley? An uncanny instinct for interior design?  Are we reduced to an identity defined by social stereotype?

There have been those who took to social media sites to question visiting an island which has less than welcoming laws for its passengers, to which the organisers responded by commenting: 'these [anti-gay] statutes don’t pose a concern to us in planning a tourist visit'.

Needless to say, the Daily Hate - sorry, Daily Mail - has brought itself to orgasmic delight at the story with mug shots and a range of publicity photos which make it look a rather jolly holiday to me, and which are sure to leave many Daily Mail readers with sleepless nights (and not in a good way.  DM readers don't do that sort of thing).  If you want to read it, Google it.  

Anyhow, in this new world it's all about sun, sex and ahem, sightseeing.  No hanky panky, we're homosexuals is arguably the new mantra.  That said, I don't want to be seen as being critical or cruise organisers.  Oh no no.

Imagine a cruise where you could get some enlightening academic chat from someone talking about the history of cruising, or laws around the world and homosexuality, or HIV and barebacking.  That would surely add an extra sprinkling of delightful joy to your voyage.  Well...funnily enough, hello cruise organisers, I am available for booking!  Have anti-dysentery tablets, will travel (although no Italian Captains thank you).  Alongside the danger of arrest and dysentery, let's add the possibility of encountering Chris Ashford in the Oceanic Theatre talking about an older form of cruising.

Chad States: Cruising For Sex

I can't believe I've missed this project prior to today. Flavorwire reports on a fascinating art project and book focusing on the public sex as a visual performance.

The site notes that 'for Philadelphia-based photographer Chad States, whose work we spotted thanks to Feature Shoot, taking snapshots of guys cruising for anonymous sex in state parks wasn’t about passing judgement or navel gazing. Instead, his photos are a celebration of a part of gay culture that he says has been killed by the Internet, and “the sexual intimacy, however fleeting, that happens there.”'

Read the full story and check out some pictures here.  The book can be purchased from the US publisher here, and Brits can buy the book from Amazon (I've just ordered it) here.

I don't accept the assertion that the Internet is killing cruising, but it's certainly contribution to the decline of public sex but other factors - park management, policing, the extension of normative frameworks, legal equality moves and so on have had as much impact, if not more so, than the emergence of Gaydar, Grindr, Manhunt and the rest.  This project is important for capturing something of the visual experience of cruising - crucially doing so in the daylight - which probably skews the history of cruising.  I'll ponder more once I've had the pleasure of looking at this collection.

Cruising in Manchester: Operation Limehouse

The excellent Lesbian and Gay Foundation website features a news item for gay men' in Manchester - particularly those men who use the Rochdale Canal towpath for cruising.  The Canal runs through the City and the Gay Village (as the name 'Canal Street' might suggest) and has a long history of cruising and an often uneasy policing history.

This story is striking for not saying 'stop cruising' (which previous press releases from GMP have suggested) but rather focusing upon the issue of safety.  For me, this is a commendable shift in emphasis but even this story reflects the uneasy line that the Police find themselves walking when it comes to policing cruising locations.

The news item begins with context, noting that: 'The Canal’ has long been a popular cruising ground but city centre regeneration schemes have caused an increase in complaints about ‘public decency’ due to the fact that many people live and work in the area.'

So we begin with a  reminder of the price of gentrification.  As the Canal Street area has become redeveloped, new apartments, businesses and even a school move in.  This means that people might witness homosexuals or men engaging in acts regarded as 'homosexual'.  It's a gay space, in which gay visibility must conform to certain - sometimes regarded as heterosexist - norms.  Cruising become defined as an act of historical desperation.  An affront to our new liberal assimulationist society.  The absolute failure to assert a "we were here first" or "this is a queer space"  philosophy within Canal Street continues to result in a high cultural  and - as we increasingly see - legal price.

The story then goes into a pretty hardline section, revealing the purpose of Operation Limehouse:  PC Sam Tennant of the Village Neighbourhood policing team based at Bootle Street, Manchester says:

"Over the last few months, officers from Operation Limehouse - which has been established to help address an increase in reports of Anti-Social Behaviour along the Rochdale Canal tow-path - have spoken with many people at Piccadilly Basin Undercroft, providing them with crime prevention advice and have found the vast majority of people are willing to discuss matters with Police.

"However, there has been a persistent minority that seems determined to continue with illegal activity in the area.

"In the early hours of Saturday 18th February 2012, two arrests were made where one of accused was detained under suspicion of offences of Possession of a Controlled Substance, Assault Police, Section 47 Assault and Outraging Public Decency. The other male was arrested under suspicion of Outraging Public Decency.

"Whilst the first male has subsequently been charged for the aforementioned offences, the second admitted his actions at the scene and as a result was de-arrested, receiving a Caution for his behaviour. 

"Operation Limehouse will continue and Police (in uniform and plain clothes) will continue to engage with the public in this location and anyone found to be taking part in illegal activity will be liable for arrest."

So, in order to protect you, we will arrest you is the faintly barmy policing reality that affects men as part of this operation.  The Police have clearly tried softly softly, and men - shock horror - continue to want to have sex in these dangerous locations despite the risks that are presented to them.  At the same time, people are complaining - although the Police don't provide figures - about the men cruising the towpath.

To some extent, I'm reminded of Lord Denning in Miller v Jackson which involved people who lived in houses adjacent to a  cricket club complaining about cricket balls inadvertently landing in the neighbouring properties.  You might think - as Lord Denning did - that if you buy a property next to a cricket club that it's reasonable to expect the occasional sound of leather on willow and cricket ball on conservatory window.  Similarly, if one chooses to buy an apartment in a gay village, overlooking a cruising site used for over a hundred years for men to engage in sexual encounters, that the occasional moment of erotic naughtiness is likely to be witnessed.  However, just as Denning found himself expressing a dissenting view, so too do I in our current sexual paradigm.

The news story goes on to suggest that if you really must ignore us and continue having sex, please don't let anyone see you - as that's the key bit legally.  A bit more on this and the question of safety would have been welcomed.

Operation Limehouse is once again a reminder - for I am struck by how many people need reminding and for whom this comes as a surprise - that policing resources continue to be deployed in the policing of men engaging in consensual sex in long-established ephemeral public sex cultural locations.  Moreover, Limehouse reminds us of the competing agenda relating to safety, nuisance and equality that the Police must seek to navigate.

Read the full story here.

Lambert, the Sexual Homo

I don't think I've ever listened to Adam Lambert sing.  I've certainly never been one of those men who lust over the American Idol star but he is a global celebrity and successful musician.  He's also done much to clearly position himself as an out gay man.  No small thing in the American marketplace.

It was therefore interesting to read over the weekend that Lambert is soon to release his new album entitled 'Trespassing' in which he aims to create some controversy.  Given this is his second album, it's perhaps inevitable that he should seek to drum up some publicity and so he reveals that: “Cuckoo is about me acknowledging I’m insane and celebrating that fact. “And Shady is a sleazy, disco funk about cruising for sex, so it will be interesting to see how Middle America interprets that.”

Yes Adam, it will.  Quite what he means by cruising is interesting - is he talking coming over (if you pardon the phrase) all George Michael and producing a video with spinning urinals and restroom disco balls?  I suspect not.  Yet, even if he means cruising as a broad term - to merely denote behaviour that might be regarded as that of a sexual predator - it is an important step in positioning him not merely as a celebrity homosexual but as a celebrity homosexual who has sex with men.

We often forget about the whole sex business in the modern social and legal construction of the homosexual and so it will be interesting to see how 'middle America' react to the reminder/realisation that Lambert's homosexuality is not merely expressed by an excessive fondness of eye liner.

Check out the full story in that most illustrious of British organs *cough*, the Daily Star.

Cop and Preacher Latest 'Victims' in Public Sex War

Queerty reports on the latest set of public sex arrests in the USA.  This time, the focus is on Tampa Bay in Florida and included the arrest of a preacher and a retired cop.

Polk's Sherrif Department also put out a press release last week regarding the arrest of another 8 men in Florida.

On Friday, February 3, 2012, PCSO Vice detectives conducted an undercover operation at the Saddle Creek Park located on Morgan Combee Road between Lakeland and Winter Haven in response to complaints of lewd activity taking place there. During the operation, male undercover detectives made contact with various men in the park, six of whom asked the detectives to perform sex acts with them, and two of whom were trespassing. The two arrested for trespassing had been previously arrested at the park for lewd acts, and as a result were forbidden from being at the park.

Once again, names, dates of birth, and addressed were all published alongside information of how each man was arrested.  In most cases it is also indicated that they were married.  The accompanying quote from Sheriff Grady Judd in the press release offers some insight into the thinking of law enforcement agents:  “Let me be perfectly clear about this – we will not tolerate lewd behavior in our public parks or at any other place where people and their families go to relax and enjoy the outdoors. The fact that two of these men have already been trespassed from this area for the same behavior proves that they will not heed our warnings, and that they belong behind bars.”

“We witnessed the horrifying spectacle of several elderly men wandering around naked"

Apologies for the lack of posts recently.  Life has become increasingly busy and I'm not going to be able to blog as much over the next couple of months as I spend my time with various academic projects that are pressing.  However, I'll still be blogging - just less frequently - so don't go away!

Anyhow, take a look at the photo for this story in the Hull Daily Mail and this story from the Northampton Chronicle.  They are different lay-bys in different parts of England but their similarity highlights the common structure of these public sex spaces. Signposted, removed from the main road and screened from the road - even in winter - by trees and shrubs.  They are also clearly designed as points to stop off on a journey to rest, or to make repairs, phone calls etc away from the busy main road.

Both locations have featured in public sex related stories in the last few days.   The Northampton incident is curious in many ways.  It occurred at 2pm in the afternoon on a Sunday.  A time when many people will be driving about, and the light is good.

The newspaper reported that “We witnessed the horrifying spectacle of several elderly men wandering around naked. “My daughter was very upset by this. “We then saw two men having sex in a coppice, and later on, more sexual activity. “At no point did any of these men attempt to cover up.” She said another man was performing a sex act in full view of passing traffic.

'Later on' is the phrase that struck me.  How long were they there?  Presumably the sight of 'naked' elderly men (what do they mean by make din this context, complete nudity is unusual especially in the middle of winter?) was so shocking they went back to their car?  'Later suggests' that they ere so horrified they carried on taking the dog for a walk.  Curious.

We also have the allegation that another man (obviously an unusually popular spot to have such  concentration of men) was performing a sex act in full view of passing traffic.  The photo accompanying the story suggests that this is unlikely unless the man was stood by the entrance and even there there are questions about visibility whence are are flying by at 60mph.

Another fascinating of the report from the complainants is the observation that “Someone had even left an obscene message on the car windscreen,” he said.  I come back to the earlier question, how long were they there?  Why was someone so agitated as to leave a message?  What did that message say?  It is clear that we are only getting half the tale but what journalist wants to truly investigate a story of this nature when the easy thing is to condemn the men involved and portray the complainants as straight forward victims.  Perhaps she was, and perhaps the complaint was justified but this piece of journalism does not clearly establish that.

Finally we turn to the response from the Police who indicate that “We have long been aware that these lay-bys have been used as a gay meeting place, however, we were not aware that the area was being used beyond initial encounter. “I will brief my staff to patrol the area and deal with any offences they find.”

So once again we have the Police responding to a complaint but also admitting they were aware men used the location as part of a hook-up process.  However, the Police also indicate that they have not policed the location (otherwise he wouldn't need to tell Police to now patrol the area).  If ever there was a case study in the complexities of policing public sex locations it would be this.

Then we travel to Hull to another lay-by and picnic spot that has apparently been used for dogging. According to the Hull Daily Mail, Police have confronted 18 people using a family picnic spot to have sex with strangers in public. Officers vowed to tackle the problem after residents of Skirlaugh and Coniston repeatedly complained about lewd activity in three lay-bys off the A165. Since making the issue a priority less than one month ago, officers have stopped 18 people at the sites, sometimes during the day. Although they were not found to be committing any offences, all were issued with a leaflet with guidance on public sex. There have been no complaints from members of the public since police made it a priority.

So, 18 confronted and zero were seen to be committing an offence.  So what were people complaining about?  As ever, it is the sight of people or cars rather than actually witnessing acts - or the Police would presumably have seen something. The behaviour complained about is 'intimidating behaviour' which I find puzzling.  Does this mean just sitting in a car, telling someone to "bugger off",  playing with an air freshener in a suggestive manner before driving off?  What on earth are they talking about?

The Police admit to using both plain clothed and uniformed police as part of the operation.  Why use plain  clothed police in this situation?  It is an admission that if someone using the spot for public sex sees someone entering who is clearly not interested, that person or persons will not see something.  By entering in plain clothes they appear 'legitimate' in the space.

Finally, we have the ultimate irony, that the local authority has cut hedges so as to make the location more visible.  Yes folks, previously you would not see any sexual activity from the main road due to the presence of shrubs but now you would, thus ensuring that an offence has taken place.  Truly, the barmy logic of Alice in Wonderland.

Public Sex Entrapment Exposed

Extraordinary, truly extraordinary.  My reaction on read a report by South Flordia Gay News (SFGN) after a year long investigation of Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office. According to SFGN, more than 600 arrests were made by Detectives Peter Lazar and his partner Vaniclov “Van” Garner, from 2005 to 2010.

SFGN reviewed more than 300 of those police reports starting with the year 2007, but PBSO acknowledged their operation began two years before that. Only a handful of the arrests – four to be exact -- were between two men; the rest of them involved an undercover detective soliciting another man for sex using tactics that one lawyer called “disgusting” while another lawyer questioned the legality of the detectives’ behaviour.

The figures are staggering, the tactics despicable.  These tactics were challenged in the UK by the brilliant reforming 60s Home Secretary Roy Jenkins.  My forthcoming book on public sex will reveal government memos within the home office and minutes of meetings between Jenkins and the Met Police for the first time; minutes that document his battle to stop the police using agent provocateur tactics.   Although they persisted in the UK for some time, this approach is largely unknown in the UK today.

The tactics are unethical, homophobic and crime-generating.  By inducing men into committing  crime, the police ensure a soaring crime rate which in turn results in more policing (using these tactics) which means more 'crime', more police and so on.  It is bewildering to see these tactics  alive and well in the USA.   Six hundred arrests in five years for this offence is mind-blowing.

Read the story in full here, and  South Florida Gay News should be praised for this important investigation and report.

Overexposed and Policing Public Sex

I was alerted to these stories via David Downs on Google+.  Two police forces in the US recently appear to have swung into more public sex operations.  I'm sure there are more incidents out there but these are the ones reported recently.  It's a reminder that around the world, public sex venues continue to be assaulted by law enforcement agencies.  In England and Wales, some Police forces try and balance public complaints against their other priorities and diversity missions, but whether in the UK or USA, law enforcement officials still seem to spend an amazing amount of time criminalising consenting individuals who really aren't harming anyone.

First up, Westchester County Police who released the names and photographs of sixteen men.  A disgraceful breach of their privacy and ensuring devastation to the lives of these men. The Police were unrepentant, stating:  “We are going public with Operation Overexposed in the hope that it will be a further deterrent. If you come to Saxon Woods Park for this purpose, you will be arrested and your name will be released to the media.”

The men were aged from 37 to 75.  Quite the threat this 75 year old and his dick represents to the good folk of Westchester County alludes me but there we go.  Read more on that here.

Next up, we cross to Lee County Sherrif's Office and the news that on December 16, 2011, members of the Lee County Sheriff's Office Narcotics/Vice Unit conducted an undercover operation at 18021 John Morris Road (Bunche Beach), due to receiving complaints of men participating in acts of lewdness in public. During the two hour operation, three men approached undercover male detectives at separate times and engaged in conversations indicating they were looking for sexual activity. During the course of these conversations, all three men exposed themselves further indicating they wished to participate in sex acts.

Three men were named and charged.  You can read more on that incident here.   The three men on this occasion were aged 81, 73 and 62.  Personally, I'm rather in awe of an 81 year old still horny enough to go cruising, but society apparently expects 81 year olds to sell Werther's Originals and sip their food through a straw while rotting in some hell hole care home.  The pensioner as a sexualised being challenges so many of our societal norms, and that he does so in a cruising context seems to blow our minds.  Yet, why not have an OAP cruising or dogging outing?  It's got to be beat yet another trip to Blackpool.

Of particular interest in the Lee County incident was the use of agent provocateur tactics - something English police forces claim to no longer use.  The exposure it seems follows a conversation and it seems reasonable to assume that had the undercover police officer rejected the initial attempts at conversation, no exposure would have occurred.  These were not men wandering around a beach with their penises flapping in the breeze.

Ahh I hear you say, they were responding to complaints.  Yes they were, and as I said above, the Police do have  a tricky hand to play when it comes to public sex but these complaints are often vague: men wondering on a beach 'looking suspicious', men spending overly long in a public toilet or men regularly seen visiting a location by someone who works there.  It is rare to hear of a complaint that someone witnessed an actual sexual act.

Whatever your view on these Police operations, these reports evidence - once again - that Police forces continue to spend time and energy on policing public sex and that men - despite a changed legal landscape - continue to engage in it.  We can't go on like this.

Policing Public Sex

I've recently been working on a book chapter for a Routledge book to be published next year entitled Policing Sex, and edited by Paul Johnson and Derek Dalton. The book can be pre-ordered here. My chapter focuses on the policing of public sex, specifically 'dogging', but as with my ongoing book, Public Sex and the Law: Silent Desire, the issues of how the police police public sex is discussed. ACPO documentation and individual force policy documents (where they exist) offer us a comprehensive 'by the book' explanation of tactics, whilst the media offers is insight into one or two strategies of a wider strategy.

Nonetheless, there still appears to be different approaches by different police forces and Northumbria Police in North East England appear to remain one of the most hardline forces. Last week, they released a press release which served to prompt cruising alerts and news report warnings. The original press release an be viewed here. The BBC faithfully reported the story in a bid to 'scare off' cruisers from visiting one North East cruising venue.

The police begin the story with some humour to catch the attention of journalists -an interesting strategy in itself - stating: 'Don't get caught with your pants down urge police.'

They then clearly outline their rationale - complaints from the local community before extolling their protection of the public. Never known to miss an opportunity to evoke 'families and children' in the policing process, they comment:

"We want all people, including children and families, to be able to enjoy the woods so our officers will be conducting regular patrols and taking action against anyone committing public sex acts in the area around Hedley Hall Woods."

Fair enough, if cruisers are engaged in acts during school holiday at mid-day, and I can understand policing at that time. However, does policing a venue at midnight or two in the morning protect 'children and families'? Could the Police have therefore advised of a directed campaign? Of course they could. Did they? Of course they didn't.

The press release moved on to issue a pretty serious threat and one that's been reported on a number of cruising and dogging sites for some time, but for which I was lacking independent evidence for. The Police state that:

"Our patrols will be taking the registration of any vehicles suspiciously parked in the area and the owners of these vehicles may be subject to a home visit by one of our officers."

So, home visits. The Police drawing up outside some suburban home to tell a husband that they recorded his vehicle in a car park the other evening. Was it him? What was he doing there. His wife, sits in another room, their tea going cold. Her mind races as she wonders why the Police have arrived, what do they want? What has he done? Is he some paedophile, some sexual eviant? Is this the moment that their life starts to fall apart?

It all sounds like some naff plotline from a film of life in 50s Britain. The trouble is it is a potential reality for many as the Police engage in this unfocused tactics, spending hours driving up and down country lanes and sat in isolated car parks. At a time of police cuts,

(1,143 posts at Northumbria), how much of a priority is this?