lovingboth

From the version I read earlier, the firemen are said to have taken their engine for a strictly unofficial drive to a park where they could embarrass alfresco shaggers.

I have to say that the phrase "disturbing gay sex act" makes it sound a lot more interesting than that.

Aye - that's roughly my interpretation. OK, people shouldn't have been shagging in a public place (sexuality aside), but then neither should the firemen have deliberately targetted them - particularly if they were supposed to be on duty at the time.

I mean, what if a kitten got stuck up a tree?

The Telegraph headline, rather delightfully, makes it sound as though the firemen were reprimanded for indulging in "disturbing gay sex".

I'll tell you all the answer tomorrow...

yep, eventually found this story

ie the firemen drove some way out of their way towards the Downs with the specific purpose of turning their big lights onto the men shagging there, for a laugh.

And...?

If they did worse than shining their lights, it doesn't seem to have reached the Internets.

Actually being fined for taking their fire engine on an unofficial and presumably therefore uninsured jolly to go looking for some people to embarrass?

I'm dying to know what happened, but when the story broke I assumed that the fire crew were actually participating - ie they heard about the session and decided to head down there with their floodlamps to light up the scene and improve the fun for everyone. After all, it's hardly unknown for police to be off having casual sex while on duty. Now that I read about the complaint, I'm not so sure.

So... tell us what you know!