CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU THE EXPERIENCE CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU OF VIOLENCE AND CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU HARASSMENT OF CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU GAY MEN IN THE CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CITY OF CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU EDINBURGH CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Colin Morrison CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Andrew MacKay CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU The TASC Agency CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU The Scottish Executive Central Research CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Unit 2000 CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU CRU Further copies of this report are available priced £5.00. Cheques should be made payable to The Stationery Office and addressed to:

The Stationery Office 71 Lothian Road Edinburgh EH3 9AZ

Order line and General Enquiries 0870 606 5566

The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or Scottish Ministers.

© Crown Copyright 2000 Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the source is acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to the Chief Research Officer at the Central Research Unit, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh EH11 3XA. This report is dedicated to those killed and injured in the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub in Soho, London on April 30th 1999.

“In these times of hate and meanness, remember that fighting to create a future free of heterosexism is fighting for love and compassion”

Joy A. Livingston

“Violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes... How we act is shaped by how we have been conditioned and socialized.”

The Seville Statement on Violence 16 November 1989 UNESCO Contents: Page:

Acknowledgements 4 Executive Summary 5 Foreword 9

Chapter 1: Context 10 Background 10 Theoretical Issues 10 The Nature of the Violence and Harassment Experienced 12 The Effects of the Violence and Harassment Experienced 16 Recent Developments in Scotland 17 Methodology 20

Chapter 2: Survey of Gay Men Living in Edinburgh 21 Chapter 3: The Police 45 Chapter 4: The Local Authority ..75 Chapter 5: Community Safety in the City of Edinburgh 89 Chapter 6: The Workplace 101 Chapter 7: Housing Associations 112 Chapter 8: The Gay Community Based Agencies and Community Based Service Providers 120 Chapter 9: Recommendations 129 The Police 130 ACPOS 133 The Local Authority 134 COSLA 137 Community Safety in the City of Edinburgh 138 The Workplace 140 Housing Associations and other Social Housing Providers 142 The Gay Community Based Agencies and Community Based Service Providers 144 The Scottish Executive 146

References 148

Appendices 153 Recent Developments: England/Wales and Internationally 154 Methodology 163 Individual Interviews 175 ACPO Guidelines for Dealing With Incidents Involving the Lesbian/Gay Community 180 Lothian and Borders Police Race Relations Policy Statement 183 Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership: A Community Safety Strategy 187 LGBT Community Safety Forum Draft Action Plan 189 Acknowledgements

The participation and contribution of the following individuals and agencies is acknowledged and much appreciated.

Members of the Advisory Group who oversaw the progress of the research: Mr. Ian Sneddon, Dr. Joe Curran, Mr. Denis Oag, Superintendent Jim Taylor, Chief Inspector Derek Wheldon, Mr. Gordon Mackie, Mr James Rennie, Mr. Michael Stewart

Simon Harding for support throughout this study - from design, through implementation to the writing of this report.

Individual gay men who contributed via the survey and individual interviews.

The survey team who undertook the face to face interviewing of gay men: Gorgie Robertson, David Pryde, Tristan Bayly, David Boyle, James Falconer, David McTaggart

Officers of Lothian and Borders Police, especially those based in Gayfield Square Police Station

Community based agencies including: Stonewall Youth Project, Gay Men’s Health, Equality Network, SOLAS, Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, Outright Scotland, Metropolitan Community Church and Healthy Gay Scotland.

And Also: The ROAM Team at Lothian Health, Lothian Victim Support Scheme, No.18 Sauna, Department of GUM Services at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, employers across the City of Edinburgh, city based Housing Associations and the Edinburgh Trade Union Resource Centre.

Officials of the City of Edinburgh Council.

Owners, management and staff of gay bars including Planet Out, New Town Bar and CC Blooms.

Manuel Perez for administrative and moral support.

The research team has strived to ensure that the views and experiences shared with us have found their way into this report. Executive Summary This report describes the findings of a study which was carried out between September and December 1998. The purpose of the study was to provide information on the extent and nature of violence and harassment experienced by gay men in Edinburgh, to use this information to help inform service provision to the gay community and to promote a gay community perspective on community safety. It was also intended that the research would provide a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community and identify issues impacting on that relationship. The research was also charged with making recommendations as to how individual gay men’s and gay community safety might be promoted within the context of community safety for the City as a whole. Finally it was intended that the research might begin to identify ways in which the experiences reported on in relation to the Edinburgh context might impact on other locations within Scotland.

The research was undertaken through a variety of means including interviews with service providers in the statutory and voluntary sectors, face-to-face interviewing of gay men and an element of self-completion questionnaires. A range of findings is described in the report, the most significant of which might be seen as follows:

In relation to gay men living in the City of Edinburgh the picture painted by the responses to the survey of gay men living in Edinburgh is one of worryingly high levels of violence, harassment and discrimination. Such victimisation undermines the quality of life of gay men living in the City and limits their ability to play a full and equal part in society. Understanding the process by which communities become disenfranchised and excluded is complex but the fears and experiences reported clearly have a dramatic influence on individual and community self confidence and ability to participate in the life of the City.

In relation to experiences of harassment the study found that 57% of respondents had experienced some form of harassment over the previous year - with three quarters of these incidents felt by the victims to be based on perpetrators antagonism towards gay men’s sexual orientation. In terms of lifetime experiences, bullying in educational settings and discrimination in the workplace are far from unusual for many gay men. As a result gay men are selective as to who they are open with concerning their sexual orientation. The fear and experience of harassment and violence directly affect their behaviour in public places.

In relation to experiences of violent crime the study has also shown that whilst gay men experience a similar level of ‘sexual preference neutral’ violence to heterosexual men, the anti-gay violence they also experience increases the prevalence of violence against gay victims to at least three times the national average. This estimate has taken account of age bias in the study sample and excludes attempted and minor assaults.

The oldest and youngest age groups of participating gay men were the most worried about being victims of violence. The violent crimes reported in the survey also indicate that most are committed by strangers, mainly near known gay venues or in the street late at night. Twenty six percent of men participating in the survey report being the victim of violent crime in the last 12 months with perpetrators commonly using a significant level of force. Of those gay men experiencing violent attacks 37% reported the incidents to the police and of these victims two thirds were very or fairly satisfied with the response they received. Historically the relationship between gay men and the police has been defined by police responses to public sex activity, by the view of some officers that gay men are, by their sexual behaviour, criminal and by gay mens’ reluctance to come forward to make reports of violence or harassment perpetrated against them.

However, there have been recent advances in police and gay community relationships in the City of Edinburgh, with shifts in police practices in public sex environments and the desire to encourage more reporting. Support for such changes is not universal and this study has highlighted the need for training across the Force which provides opportunities to correct misconceptions, raise awareness of gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment and, most importantly, improve service delivery.

Evidence presented in this report and elsewhere suggests that gay men experience disproportionate levels of crime and that much of this crime goes unreported. The police require effective reporting and recording systems in order to develop a clear picture of the extent and nature of hate motivated crime. Lothian and Borders Police current Race Relations Policy may well provide an effective framework for developments in relation to the gay community. In addition to improved reporting systems other proactive outreach strategies to improve police/community relations could also be usefully explored.

There is, however, no doubt that the police have taken the lead in pushing forward discussion of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) community safety issues in Edinburgh but to date this has been largely located in the subdivision which is responsible for the area of Edinburgh with the most visible gay presence. An effective and inclusive police and gay community partnership also requires that such a relationship is Force-wide and incorporated into appropriate strategy documents and action plans. Such statements should also be supported by liaison arrangements across the Force.

Outwith Lothian and Borders Police, progress on the issue of gay community safety has been slow. While ACPOS recognise the positive nature of the work in Edinburgh they have not yet taken the same progressive step as ACPO in England and Wales of adopting guidelines for police authorities on policing gay communities. No framework as yet exists for Forces across Scotland to follow.

In relation to the local authority, despite a long history of promoting equal opportunities, and the goodwill of individual officials within the City of Edinburgh Council, little has been achieved in terms of building meaningful links with the City’s gay community. The Council’s view of gay community needs might best be described as indifferent. Council Departments lack understanding in relation to how gay men use existing services and to date have not consulted with gay men over gaps in service provision. Council employees would benefit from training and support in relation to their interaction with the gay community, particularly in relation to contact with gay men experiencing violence and harassment.

A number of opportunities now exist through which the Council might improve its relationship with the gay community. The Council should consider how its Equality Strategy commitments could be delivered in relation to gay men and utilise existing consultative structures and Community Planning approaches to meaningfully engage with the gay community. The political will, and council officers’ willingness, to recognise gay community needs and re-orientate services needs to be in place before progress can be made. In relation to community safety in the City of Edinburgh The Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership was established to promote the safety of all of Edinburgh’s citizens. Its membership includes the City’s major public, private and voluntary sector bodies. Within the structures of the Partnership a LGBT Community Safety Forum has been established with staffing support from the City of Edinburgh’s Community Safety Unit. The Forum is the first of its kind in Scotland. However, to meet its potential, the Forum should ensure it develops a model of practice which is better equipped to engage with the gay community, influence mainstream service provision and build effective strategic responses to the issues.

The survey conducted as part of this study suggests that the workplace remains a significant setting for much of the violence and harassment gay men experience. Whilst most large employers have equal opportunities polices in place, and many have anti-bullying or anti- harassment polices, there is a lack of recognition of gay men as a vulnerable group. The reluctance of gay men to report violence and harassment through existing workplace structures leads employers to believe there is no issue. A growing number of trades unions are addressing LGBT rights in the workplace, however, and these unions argue that safety from violence and harassment is fundamental to the struggle for equality.

Housing Associations, as providers of one in twenty of the City’s housing stock, and as housing providers for one in twenty men surveyed, have also been involved in the study. An examination of this provision has provided some useful conclusions in relation to the importance of safe housing in gay men’s lives. As almost one third of all incidents of violence or harassment reported by gay men occurred in or near the home, the link is clear.

Whilst the social housing provided by housing associations historically recognises other equalities issues, for example how black/minority ethnic communities access housing, how poverty affects access to housing and housing conditions, many providers have not specifically considered the needs of gay men in terms of personal and community safety. Potentially, however, preventative and reactive strategies adopted to tackle racially motivated harassment and violence might be adapted to protect gay men. Housing providers should closely examine recent statutory developments such as the Protection from Harassment Act and applicable sections of the Crime and Disorder Act which may be effectively utilised to protect gay tenants.

Many of the City’s Gay Community Based Agencies and Community Based Service Providers have a history of service provision and campaigning and have witnessed a shift in societal attitudes towards homosexuality and an increase in the social visibility of gay men. However, the groups also recognise that gay men’s quality of life is still affected by inequalities in the law and organisational practices and by prejudicial attitudes. Groups participating in this study perceive that an under reporting of violence and harassment is partly due to gay men’s negative perceptions of statutory agencies’ responses and call for reporting and recording systems to be developed in consultation with gay men in order to ensure they reflect the needs of the gay community.

Community agencies report that anxiety about, and experiences of, violence and harassment restricts the participation of gay men in the life of their own community. The needs of young gay men were seen as particularly important, as was the need for the local authority to act on delivering an effective and equitable service to the gay community. There was a desire on behalf of community groups to work in partnership with the police and the recent shift in police perceptions of the gay community together with new policing practices in public sex environments, were seen as important indicators of a new phase in police-gay community relationships. It was considered that this relationship would benefit greatly from the removal of all legal distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Community agencies saw a need for the police and the gay community to engage in face to face interaction and confidence building measures. There is also a belief amongst community organisations that the gay community has broader community development needs which are not at present addressed.

The recommendations to service providers in relation to improving gay men’s safety can be grouped broadly into policy and strategy issues, provision of information and awareness raising, the provision of training, the development of inter-agency work, liaison with the gay community, the general development of services and monitoring and quality issues. Analysis of the information collected by this study has also led us to the conclusion that service providers and Central Government should address broader experiences of prejudice and discrimination and engage with the gay community to address their exclusion from existing structures and services. Some recommendations in this report are, therefore, wide in their scope in the belief that only when gay men, as individuals and as a community, feel able to share experiences and participate in the development of preventative and reactive strategies to tackle violence and harassment will real change be brought about.

It is also recognised that Central Government has a role to play in instigating discussion and policy development at the highest level to ensure that gay men, no matter where they live in Scotland, are served by police, local authorities, housing providers and employers who have a common understanding of gay men’s experience of violence and harassment and a commitment to act on it. At such a significant time in the governance of Scotland, Central Government can play a pivotal role in encouraging new initiatives based on new understandings and creative partnerships which can do much to tackle the levels of violence and harassment evidenced by this study. Foreword There is a growing body of research to support the premise that because of their sexual orientation gay men experience higher levels of violence and harassment compared to the general population. Such violence and harassment can take place in the home, in their neighbourhood, in the workplace, in the streets or in other public places. There is also some evidence that violence or harassment which is motivated by hate - be it hate based on difference of race, gender or sexuality - leaves the victim significantly more distressed than random crimes against the person or their property. These issues are discussed more widely in the section describing the background to the research.

To some extent these issues have been recognised in relation to groups other than gay men. Service providers have made some advances in understanding and dealing with victims of gender and race motivated crimes of hatred. For gay men, however, there is still the feeling that a level of violence or harassment is to be expected as part of the experience of being a gay man in Scotland today. With expectations of harassment or violence within the gay community at such a high level the threshold for reporting those experiences is also, therefore, likely to be high and under reporting may result.

To avoid threats, gay men make choices daily on how to protect themselves, often by being as invisible as they can be and, if attacked, by keeping silent in the hope that the fear, anger and distress might pass. This includes the fear of further harassment or violence as a result of reporting any incident. It would appear that few agencies have recognised or responded to the scale of harassment and violence that gay men encounter and, as a result, a handful of gay community based agencies have had to do their best to cope.

Recently, in Edinburgh, an opportunity arose to begin to discuss these issues more openly. Local community based agencies have begun to work more closely together to speak with a more co-ordinated voice. Local senior police officers have begun to actively seek to engage in meaningful discourse with community representatives about operational and policy issues and the developing city based community safety initiative has sought to engage with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) people.

This study set out to explore the experiences of gay men living in Edinburgh in relation to their experiences of violence and harassment over a 12 month period and interpret what these might mean to them. The report further records the views and practices of a number of key agencies in Edinburgh which have a day to day impact on the lives of each citizen within the City.

The research team hope that the findings and recommendations presented here will go some way in supporting the development of improved relationships and understanding. Ultimately we hope the report will lead to action to promote gay men’s safety in the City of Edinburgh and support the establishment of a policy framework which may in time be extended across Scotland. CHAPTER ONE CONTEXT

Background to the Research This research was commissioned by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit in September 1998. The main aim of the research was to provide information on the extent and nature of violence and harassment experienced by gay men in Edinburgh and to use this information to help inform service provision to the gay community and promote a gay community perspective on community safety.

It was also intended that the research would:

· provide a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community and identify issues impacting on that relationship. · support the development of improved relationships between key agencies and the gay community. · encourage the increased reporting of crime experienced by the gay community through ensuring a raised profile of the issue within community settings and the media. · consider provision and policy on aspects of community safety in relation to other groups in the community and identify best practice which might be usefully replicated. · make recommendations as to how individual gay men’s and gay community safety might be promoted within the context of community safety for the City as a whole. · begin to identify ways in which the experiences reported on in relation to the Edinburgh context might impact on other locations within Scotland.

The research involved the collection of data from gay men living in Edinburgh and from service providers in the voluntary, public and private sectors. The methodology adopted is described in more detail later in the report. The report also contains a number of recommendations. This chapter of the report, however, is concerned with setting out the broader context in relation to what is known about the nature and effects of violence and harassment of gay men in the UK and abroad and what is known about current responses from service providers. Firstly, this chapter seeks to explore the theoretical basis for the study.

Theoretical Issues

A theoretical perspective is offered here which has guided the approach taken by this study. It is hoped that this report will encourage debate and promote a better understanding and action on the issue of violence and harassment of gay men.

Homophobia and Heterosexism In the United States, Herek and Berril (1992) have taken the lead in research which has developed our understanding of violence towards and harassment of gay men. An important starting point for them has been to explore the social context in which violence and harassment occurs and to define the ideology which underpins the conditions which foster the hatred of gay men. To begin with , they argue, a clear labelling of that ideology is required, particularly in respect of the almost synonymous use of the terms homophobia and heterosexism. First used in the early 1970’s, the term ‘homophobia’ describes heterosexuals’ fear or dread of homosexual people. This fear is often described as irrational. However, Herek and Berrill argue that the term is problematic because it implies that heterosexuals, deemed to be homophobic, would usually exhibit the physiological reactions normally associated with phobia, or that homophobia is a clinical response rather than a social or cultural reaction. Indeed it is of specific concern to those committed to addressing violence against gay men that there is a growth in the legal defence submitted by perpetrators of violence known as ‘homosexual panic’ whereby the attacker’s actions are explained by an uncontrollable, but provoked, violent reaction to unwanted advances from ‘predatory’ gay men.

Concerns about the misuse of the term homophobia has led Herek (1992) to expand on his preferred use of the term heterosexism as a label for the ideological system which oppresses gay people because:

Like racism, sexism and other ideologies of oppression, heterosexism is manifested both in societal customs and institutions such as religion and the legal system (referred to.. as cultural heterosexism) and in individual attitudes and behaviours (referred to ... as psychological heterosexism). (1)

In brief, cultural heterosexism can be seen to be expressed through the “..major societal institutions: religion, law, psychiatry and psychology and mass media” resulting in the denial of equal rights, stigmatisation and hostility. Herek argues in relation to anti gay violence that it:

...cannot be adequately understood apart from cultural heterosexism. By alternately denying and stigmatising homosexuality, this ideology creates the conditions under which lesbians and gay men can be routinely victimised... Although interventions are clearly needed that focus specifically on violence and victimisation, they will not be sufficient to eliminate the ultimate causes of anti-gay violence. Making lesbians and gay men visible and removing the stigma that has so long been attached to a homosexual orientation will require institutional changes as well as personal interventions. (2)

In addition to the pervasive nature of cultural heterosexism, Herek also points to the complex nature of psychological heterosexism - the ways in which heterosexism is manifested in individuals’ attitudes and actions or, in other words, their individual prejudices. Herek has developed a complex model of the psychological functions of heterosexism which explores the benefits which must be present for individual prejudice to develop and be expressed, making links between the attitude of the White community to the Black community in the United States of the 1950’s. He believes that psychological heterosexism serves a purpose for the individual and labels the perspective a functional approach to attitudes:

Its central assumption is that people hold and express particular attitudes because they get some sort of psychological benefit from doing so. (3) This of course includes the perceived ‘benefits’ that individuals take from perpetrating violence against gay people. However, on balance, whilst examining the importance of cultural and psychological heterosexism, Herek stresses the overall importance of cultural heterosexism as being the key issue which must be addressed:

Whereas psychological heterosexism may not always be the principal reason for an anti gay attack the importance of cultural heterosexism cannot be underestimated. For it is cultural heterosexism that defines gay people as suitable targets that can be used for meeting a variety of psychological needs. And anti gay attacks, regardless of the perpetrator’s motivation, reinforce cultural heterosexism. (4)

This study adopts as its starting point the hypothesis that the causes of violence and harassment of gay men are grounded in the cultural and psychological heterosexism which exists in society today. The approach adopted by this study has been to explore the consequences of such an ideology and the strategies for change which are required to challenge it.

The concept of community Throughout this study the term gay community will be used. Recommendations will be made with reference to gay community needs. But what does this mean and is it valid to claim that a gay community actually exists? This study is based on the belief that the experience of community can be seen as a foundation for learning, change and empowerment and that, despite what might be seen as flaws or weaknesses, a diverse and vibrant gay community does exist. The concept is discussed in more detail in Appendix B.

The Nature of Violence and Harassment Experienced by Gay Men

In order to understand the context of this study it is necessary to explore the nature and impact of the physical, sexual and emotional abuse, theft and attacks on property which gay men experience. It is also important to examine the settings in which such attacks are experienced.

Physical Violence The small number of studies conducted in the UK on gay men’s experiences of violence all point to the broad range of behaviour which might be described as violent and to the frequent severity of many of the attacks. Furthermore, as this study will show gay men are significantly more likely to experience violence or harassment than heterosexual men.

The largest survey of violence and harassment of gay men and lesbians in the UK was the 1996 postal survey commissioned by Stonewall, a national lobbying group which campaigns around civil rights issues. The survey produced 4,216 responses (76% from men, 24% from women) to questionnaires and resulted in publication of the report ‘Queer Bashing’. In the survey, respondents were asked to report experiences of violence from the previous 5 years. The results showed that 34% of gay men reported experiencing violence, with 18% reporting that they had been hit, punched or kicked, 10% reporting that they had been beaten up and 5% reporting that they had been assaulted with a weapon.

Derbyshire (1994) also examined the victims’ perceptions of why the physical assault had taken place. Typically, victims reported that there appeared to be no provocation known to them while others believed the only possible explanation was their being known as, or perceived to be, gay. Many attacks took place in the vicinity of known gay bars or clubs as people were leaving. It also appeared to many victims that, while the initial motive for the attack may have been hatred of them as gay men, opportunities were also then taken to rob the individual and take personal possessions and money. From Derbyshire’s study it is also clear that a number of men report being assaulted on more than one occasion. Repeat victimisation is also reported by participants in GALOP’s 1998 study of Lesbian and Gay Youth in London in which one in five of the attacks reported were repeat assaults.

At its most extreme, physical violence results in death. The Stonewall report also presents information collated by Gay Times journalist Colin Richardson who has researched the murder of gay men and lesbians in the UK between 1986 and 1996. It is reported that:

For the 10 year period... Richardson has records of 181 gay murders, of which 174 were men and 7 were women. He emphasises that these figures do not include all lesbian and gay murders. There are no official statistics on gay murders and these figures are based on information from local newspaper reports and information passed on to him. The clear up rate for these murders is 79%, well below the average for murder which is 92%. (5)

As these figures include only those definitely known by Richardson to have involved a gay victim they are likely to present an underestimate of the true picture.

In addition to the numbers of gay men murdered it is also the case that the violence used in such attacks, and in those in which the victim may have survived, is often more extensive than the violence experienced by non-gay victims. Millers and Humphreys (1980) studying the murders of gay men in the United States found stabbing to be the cause of death in 54% of cases with gay victims compared to only 18% of murders nationally, with overkill and excessive mutilation common to these murders of gay men. The question of the severity of physical assaults on gay men is also identified by Berrill (1992) who quotes a staff member from a Victims of Violent Assault Program at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan as saying:

.. attacks against gay men were the most heinous and brutal I encountered... they frequently involved torture, cutting, mutilation and beating and showed the absolute intent to rub out the human being because of his sexual orientation. (6)

Sexual Violence Garnets et al (1992) identify that:

Male-male sexual assault is largely an invisible problem in American society, often presumed to occur only in prisons and similar settings. (7)

This also seems to be the case in Scotland. Edinburgh based agency Gay Men’s Health, in a press release (May 1998) concerning a training session for people who work with men who have been raped or sexually assaulted, stated that: Rape and sexual assault of men is a subject little discussed and greatly misunderstood... some research suggests that around 1 in 4 women may have been raped, sexually assaulted or abused at some point in their lives. People are often more surprised to discover that around 1 in 7 men in the community may have been raped or abused... (8)

A study conducted by GALOP of Lesbian and Gay Youth (Telling it Like it Is: 1998) indicates that 1 in 3 young gay men responding had experienced sexual abuse, defined in the survey as being groped or flashed at, indecently assaulted or raped or a combination of these. However little is really known about the true levels of male rape and sexual assault. How men conceptualise what rape and sexual assault actually is may also need to be further explored.

There is no offence of ‘male rape’ as such in Scots law and when the possibility of male rape is considered it is often surrounded by misconception, one being that perpetrators must be gay men. There is clearly a need to establish male rape alongside women’s experiences of rape as a crime of violence which in the case of male rape will be perpetrated by men who will identify as either homosexual or heterosexual.

Emotional or Psychological Abuse The physical or sexual violence experienced by gay men will often have an element of emotional or psychological abuse. In studies undertaken to date, significant numbers of gay men report experiencing name calling, harassment through abusive phonecalls, hate mail or having malicious comments made about them. Such insults or intimidation have the effect of belittling the victim, challenging their visibility as known gay men and damaging the individual’s self worth and self esteem.

The Stonewall “Queer Bashing” (1996) survey found that nearly 1 in 3 respondents had been harassed because of their sexuality - experiencing threats or blackmail, having offensive graffiti written about them or harassed by co-workers. For young gay men it is perhaps this emotional abuse which is so worrying as it has led this group to be considered one of the most ‘at risk’ groups amongst the growing teenage suicide rates in the UK. Hunter (1992) reports from the United States on the role which verbal abuse plays as a trigger for physical violence:

Emotional and verbal abuse are probably even more common than physical violence... attacks typically were preceded by an escalating sequence of emotional abuse, name calling, verbal attacks and threats of violence. (9) Attacks on Property Vandalism and robbery have emerged as other key experiences of gay men in relation to the expression of other people’s psychological heterosexism. Gay men report, both in the UK and the United States, attacks on personal property and instances of robbery or muggings which are disproportionately greater than those experienced by heterosexual groups.

Berrill (1992) in a review of US anti-gay violence and victimisation surveys between 1988 and 1991 reports that while acknowledging differences in sample characteristics, geographic locations and sampling strategies the median proportion of respondents who had experienced vandalism against personal property as a result of their sexual orientation was almost 1 in 5. The Settings in Which Violence or Harassment Occurs A common perception is that attacks on gay men most commonly occur in dark streets or parks or other locations used as public sex environments. However, there is no doubt that gay men’s sexual orientation increases their potential risk of violence and harassment within any setting in which they find themselves. This means that gay men are potentially victims of violence and harassment in schools, in colleges, in the workplace, in their neighbourhoods or in their own home or the homes of people known to them. The Stonewall “Queer Bashing” survey found that in relation to physical assaults (with figures given including both gay men and lesbians):

27% took place in the street 21% in or near a bar or club - most commonly a known gay venue 15% took place in the individual’s home or neighbourhood 13% took place in a public sex environment or cruising area 8% took place at work, school or college 4% took place on public transport 12% took place elsewhere, for example in the attacker’s home.

The survey which forms part of the present study will offer an insight into the settings where gay men experience violence and harassment in the City of Edinburgh. However, in terms of understanding where gay men might be attacked or harassed, a key issue appears to be that of visibility. If a gay man appears to fit the stereotypical image of a gay man, he may well be more vulnerable to attack. Gay men living in neighbourhoods with high numbers of men who are visibly gay appear to be more at risk of being harassed or attacked. Men leaving gay bars or clubs and men using known cruising areas would also be more at risk of attack. As a consequence Harry (1992) believes that:

These phenomena no doubt persuade many gays to stay closeted in the hope of avoiding victimisation. (10)

The invisible nature of heterosexism The nature of the violence and harassment described so far in this section of the report has been largely about reported events or instances. However, the nature of the violence and harassment experienced is often very subtle and so it is necessary to consider how heterosexism operates in more discrete ways. Kitzenger (1996) points to this important area by describing the hidden nature of heterosexism and how lesbians and gay men respond to it in order to avoid actual instances of violence and harassment. She writes:

It is quite difficult to read... (heterosexism) as meaning silences, absences, evasions. Yet when there is no anti-lesbian explosion from your parents, because you have de-dyked your apartment before their visit; when there is no queer-bashing after the gay disco, because you anticipated trouble and booked a cab to get home; when you are not dismissed from work because you stayed in the closet; when you are not subjected to prurient or disgusted questions, because you talked about your weekend activities in sentences that meticulously avoided the use of any pronouns - when these non events slip by as part of many gay men and lesbians’ daily routine, has nothing really happened? Rather, heterosexism has been working in its most effective and most deadly way. In an oppressive society it is not necessary, most of the time, to beat us up or to murder or torture us to ensure our silence and invisibility. This is because a climate of terror has been created instead in which most gay people voluntarily and of our own free will will choose to stay silent and invisible. (11)

The Effects of Violence and Harassment Experienced by Gay Men

All victims of violence and attacks on property will be affected by these experiences to a greater or lesser extent. Each of the UK and US studies highlighted in this section of this report indicate the nature of the impact which these attacks have. GALOP, in their research with young lesbians and gay men point to the psychological consequences of anti gay violence and harassment. These consequences include increased feelings of isolation or of being disempowered, shock, both immediate and long term, and fear of going out or of being perceived to be gay in case of further attacks. Long term anxiety and nervousness are commonplace. There may also be physical consequences of attacks and the severity of these will leave individuals with long-term pain and possibly permanent injury.

Both the physical and psychological consequences of attacks are seen by Derbyshire (1994) as being profoundly important in terms of gay men’s sense of self worth. Attacks based on hatred of homosexuality are perceived by victims to be “directed at a crucial piece of one’s identity” and Garnet (1992) argues that:

When individual victimisation and societal prejudice converge in anti- gay hate crimes, lesbians and gay male survivors face additional, unique challenges. (12)

Garnet also identifies the challenges faced by the whole gay community as a result of every individual attack which “...constitutes a symbolic form of violence and a routine reminder of the ever present threat of physical assault” (13). An attack on the individual serves to reinforce a climate of fear for the whole community and reinforces the need for reporting and for more effective responses from police and other key agencies.

Herek (1998) also addresses the impact of anti-gay attacks in a study of nearly 2,300 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals from the Sacramento area in California, the most extensive study of anti-gay hate crimes conducted to date. His study shows that:

· lesbians and gay men who were subject to hate crimes show significantly more psychological distress than lesbian and gay survivors of non bias motivated crimes. · much of the distress arises from increased feelings of vulnerability which becomes directly associated with their sexual orientation - he believes that “..this association can be psychologically harmful because sexual orientation is such an important part of the self concept.” (14) · the negative effects of hate motivated crimes may be longer lasting than those of other crimes.

One final element which must also be considered is the effect which non reporting of violence or harassment has on the individual. This needs to be considered not only in terms of formally reporting incidents to the police or other authorities but the very basic sharing of experiences of violence or harassment with another person who might be able to validate feelings of anger or distress and to offer support. The issue of non-reporting to police in particular will be discussed later in this report but at this point it is worth noting that the lack of opportunity for many gay men to share their experiences for fear of further stigma or violence, or because their homosexuality is not known to others, can only serve to isolate these men further and increase emotional damage.

Individual stories told by men in the course of this research project (reported in Appendix C) describe many of the issues raised above.

Recent Developments in Scotland

In 1990/91 a number of gay men were murdered in Edinburgh. These murders highlighted some of the difficulties which existed in the relationship between the gay community and the local police force, Lothian and Borders Police. Those difficulties centred on the gay community’s suspicion of police interest and activity which, in turn, hampered local police efforts to collect information as part of their enquiries.

At that time no study had been undertaken which could provide hard evidence to support the growing impression amongst gay men that violence against them, particularly around the developing gay village and the cruising areas (public sex environments) which border it, was on the increase. To respond to this lack of information, and to arm local gay campaigning groups and service providers in the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow with information to encourage the police to enter into dialogue with the community, two local help-lines - Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard (located in Edinburgh) and Strathclyde Gay and Lesbian Switchboard (located in Glasgow) - undertook a survey, via self completion questionnaires. The survey asked local lesbians and gay men about their experiences of violence and harassment. Nine hundred and sixty three questionnaires were returned, almost 90% of them from Edinburgh and 90% of these from men. In brief, the survey found that of male respondents in the previous 12 months, approximately:

· 30% had experienced verbal abuse · 10% had been physically assaulted · 7% had been sexually harassed · 2.5% had been raped · 3.5% had been blackmailed as a result of their sexual orientation · no reports of blackmail or rape had been made to the police and, of the reports made concerning verbal abuse, physical assault and sexual harassment, none of the complainers were satisfied with the police response.

As a direct result of publicity the survey received in local and national press and from further pressure by local gay organisations the first of an on-going series of police and community liaison meetings took place in Edinburgh. The local Community Safety Partnership, which includes police representation, has also recognised the need to address the specific needs of the LGBT community and in 1998 a LGBT Community Safety Forum was established. This development is considered further later.

By contrast, little or no progress was made between Strathclyde Police and Glasgow based community organisations despite the city’s large gay population and growing number of commercial gay venues and known cruising areas. Indeed the stalemate in the relationships between police forces and gay communities across Scotland continued until, in 1998, as a result of tragic circumstances a new dialogue emerged.

Following police activity around public toilets in two police force areas, and a number of arrests of men either seeking or engaging in consensual adult sexual activity, two of the men arrested committed suicide. In response the public sector Trades Union UNISON and the campaigning organisation Equality Network jointly organised a conference in March 1998 entitled ‘To Serve and Protect: A Conference for the Police and LGBT Communities’ at which 12 police representatives (from 5 of Scotland’s 8 police forces and the Scottish Police Federation) attended along with 25 other individuals mostly from LGBT organisations. The conference addressed current policing strategies including the developing partnership approach of Lothian and Borders Police. It also explored lessons which might be learned from progress in England and Wales and workshops on discrimination, community liaison and policy allowed delegates to discuss issues together.

The key recommendations of the conference were, in summary, as follows: · community liaison should be characterised by mutual knowledge of each party’s structures and responsibilities and be appropriate to the area in which they are being developed. Liaison should take place at all levels and with police officers of all ranks. The police should be proactive in their outlook and committed to mandatory training around the issues. · the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) should draw up and promote a charter which proposes how discriminatory practices within police services are to be eliminated. Police force equal opportunities policies should address sexual orientation and gender identity, with LGBT police personnel being supported in ‘coming out’. · inclusive community safety partnerships are essential and these should take account of policing practices in relation to policing public sex environments.

Since this conference, both Strathclyde and Tayside Police have begun to develop new liaison arrangements with the gay community but progress outside the Lothian and Borders area has been slow and much work needs to be done to put in place effective and mutually respectful working partnerships.

Recent Developments in England and Wales and Internationally

Further information on recent research and developments in England and Wales and internationally in relation to what is known about the experiences of gay men with regard to violence and harassment is presented in Appendix A.

Conclusion

This chapter suggests that because of their sexual orientation gay men experience more violence and harassment than their heterosexual counterparts. The chapter has also discussed what is known about the nature of the violence and harassment experienced by gay men and highlighted the finding that the impact which hate motivated violence and abuse has on victims is often more profound and longer lasting than other crimes of violence, harassment or theft. A review of research undertaken in Scotland, the United States, Australia and Eire (Appendix A) shows that anti-gay attacks and harassment are of international concern but that effective responses to the needs of the gay community, identified by research undertaken to date, is still at an early stage.

The remainder of this study, based on the hypothesis that anti-gay violence and harassment is grounded in the cultural and psychological heterosexism which permeates our society, will explore the experiences of individual gay men and service providers and will end with a series of recommendations to broaden knowledge and understanding and help develop a community safety perspective inclusive of the needs of gay men living in Edinburgh. Methodology

In order to gain the confidence and support of gay men and to secure the views of both individuals and community agencies it was essential to the study that the methodology used reflected an understanding of Edinburgh’s gay community. The methodology adopted was based upon an in-depth knowledge of the community, its organisation and its anxieties. In order to capture and personalise real experiences, qualitative as well as quantitative research methods were utilised. The chosen methods also reflected a sensitivity to all other stakeholders in the process - the police, the local authority and major voluntary, public and private sector agencies - in order that understanding, involvement and commitment were maximised. to fully address the aims and objectives of the research the following complementary work was undertaken.

Desk research sought to explore what was already known about gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment and service providers and community responses to it.

Focus groups were used to explore experiences, feelings and ideas in relation to the theme of the research in a non-threatening environment.

Face to face interviews with gay men living in the city. 246 face to face interviews based on a set questionnaire allowed the study team to gather detailed information which has provided a robust statistical base for the research. Findings from a further 54 self completion questionnaires were also incorporated. A small number of in-depth interviews were also carried out to explore individual experiences in more detail.

Key agency input via semi-structured interviews allowed the Police, the local authority and gay community based agencies to outline their level of awareness and understanding of the issues at hand, to detail policy and practice in relation to it and to identify their own needs in terms of development of best practice.

Key agency input via self completion questionnaires facilitated the input of other agencies - Housing Associations were asked for their views on the issues, large employers in the city were also involved in relation to their understanding of gay men’s experience of violence or harassment in the workplace and Trades Union responses to these issues were also examined.

Further detail on the methodology adopted by the study team, and a discussion of why the study addresses the issues as they affect gay men and not lesbians, is offered in Appendix B.

From all these sources, and within the limits of the resources available for the study, a picture of current experiences and service provider responses has been developed along with a number of recommendations for future development and action.

CHAPTER TWO SURVEY OF GAY MEN LIVING IN EDINBURGH Introduction

This chapter sets out the findings of a community safety survey of 300 gay men living in Edinburgh and aims to provide a picture of gay men’s experience of violence and harassment in the capital over a twelve month period to December 1998. To set the findings in context, several other data sources have been drawn on:

· The 1996 Scottish Crime Survey (SCS 1996) comprising 5,045 interviews; · A Safer Cities Project survey of 242 gay men in Lewisham, London in 1992 (SCP); · A police-commissioned survey of 139 gay men in New South Wales, “Out of the Blue” by Price Waterhouse in 1995 (NSW); · A Stonewall national survey of hate crimes against lesbians and gay men “Queer- bashing”, 1996, involving 3,204 questionnaires returned by gay men; · A GALOP survey in 1998 of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth experience of violence and harassment “Telling it like it is”, comprising 137 questionnaires returned by young men.

Some of the above surveys employed small sample sizes, which has obvious implications for reliability. The SCS 1996, Stonewall and SCP samples give the most reliable results.

The Edinburgh sample was achieved through face-to-face interviewing in city centre venues which attracted a substantial gay clientele, and by self-completion questionnaires that had been distributed through a number of local gay men’s support organisations. Trained experienced interviewers used a structured questionnaire lasting up to 25 minutes to elicit detailed information on violence and harassment. The interviewers completed 246 interviews over a one-month period, augmented by 54 self-completion questionnaires. The total sample of 300 gives reliability to +/-5.6%, or better, at the 95% level of confidence. The refusal (i.e. non-response) rate, at 20%, was low.

The quality of information is believed to be high although there are two main caveats to note:

· the sample contained very few over 55s and thus the findings cannot claim to be representative of older gay men – this is discussed further later in this chapter. The problem of identifying older gay men in surveys has been widely experienced and similar surveys have suffered the same problem, · that targeting venues with a substantial gay clientele, it could be argued, would tend to bias the sample towards socially active gay men which would over-emphasise the incidence of crime. However, in this regard it is worth noting that there were no significant differences between the face-to-face and self-completion sample results.

Profile of gay men

It was important to identify the defining characteristics of gay men in Edinburgh as these can influence the prevalence of violence experienced. The SCS 1996 showed prevalence of violent crime was higher among people who were young, male, from lower social groups or who lived in rented accommodation or in cities with populations between 100,000 and 1 million. Respondent Demography Profile

The age profile of respondents is important – according to the SCS 1996, males aged 16 to 24 were 20 times more likely to experience violence than were those aged 65+. The Edinburgh sample (shown in Figure 1) comprised a higher proportion of younger men than the Scottish population as a whole.

Figure 1: Age of respondents (n=300)

45 40 40

35

30 25 26 25 % 20

15

10 6 5 3 0 0 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Two thirds of the survey population were aged up to 34 years and only a small minority (9%) aged 45 or over. This compares with the population of Scottish males (1997) aged 16+, in which 37% were aged up to 34 years and 42% were 45 or over, suggesting that, in particular, the 45 and over age group was under-represented in our sample.

The NSW survey showed a similar profile with over 50s comprising only 3.5% of the total sample. The Stonewall survey, via self-completion questionnaires, reached more men over 40 – 15% were aged 41-50 and 7% were 51+. All these studies indicate the hard-to-reach nature of the 45 or over age group and indicate the need for further research into their experiences.

It is generally accepted that the experience of crime is linked with socio-economic factors. For example, the SCS 1996 showed that people in social group A (i.e. managers and some professionals) experienced less than one third the level of crime experienced by those from social group E (i.e. unemployed people). Employment status is a key determinant of social group and Figure 2, below, shows a significant proportion of working men in the sample. The employment profile of the Edinburgh sample below is similar to the Edinburgh and national profile and suggests no social group bias in the sample.

Figure 2: Current employment status (n=300)

Other 2%

Education/training Retired 14% 1% Carer 1%

Unemployed 4%

Working 78%

More than four fifths of respondents (82%) were economically active (working or unemployed seeking work) and of the 78% in work, most (90%) had full-time jobs – slightly higher levels of economic activity and full-time working than at national level, but not dissimilar to Edinburgh’s general profile. Four percent were unemployed - the same rate as the city average.

‘Economically inactive’ includes retirees, carers and non-working students. In all, 16% were identified as economically inactive: 1% had retired, 1% had caring responsibilities and 14% were in full-time education/training. Two percent of the sample indicated their status as ‘other’ and thus nothing is known of their economic activity.

The profile exhibits a relatively high proportion in study or work, and very few in retirement. This could be expected of random samples of young males in urban, UK city-centre locations and does not appear unique to gay men. The Extent and Distribution of Harassment

This section gives an overview of gay men's experience of harassment covering:

· Nature and extent of harassment experienced · Relationship with the perpetrator(s) · Place and time of incident · Motivation in relation to victims’ sexual preference.

Nature and extent of harassment experienced

The extent of harassment was quantified in terms of:

· Incidence rates – the number of discrete harassment incidents experienced, expressed as a rate per 10,000 people. Incidence rates can also be termed victimisation rates. · Prevalence rates – the percentage of all respondents who experienced at least one harassment incident.

Table 2 shows the prevalence and incidence of harassment.

1.1.1 Table 2: Incidence and prevalence of harassment in last 12 months (per 10,000 population) 2. Harassment Incidence rate Prevalence rate Followed on foot 3,900 18% Followed by car 2,867 13% Verbally insulted 17,700 40% Verbally threatened 5,100 20% Hate/abusive mail 1,067 2% Offensive/abusive telephone calls 10,700 9% Offensive graffiti written about you 366 3% 2.1.1 All harassment 31,800 57%

2.2 Nature and extent of harassment

Fifty-seven percent of respondents had experienced some form of harassment in the last year. Forty percent and 20% of respondents had experienced verbal insults and threats, respectively, in the last year. Around one in five experienced being followed on foot and one in seven followed by a car. Smaller proportions had received abusive mail or had had offensive graffiti written about them, although 9% had received abusive telephone calls. Harassment is much more prevalent than violence. People in the youngest (16-24) age group were three times as likely as those in the oldest age groups (45 or over) to have been the victims of harassment. Those who were completely open about their sexuality were more likely to have been verbally insulted or threatened than those not completely open.

By comparison, 48% of the NSW sample had experienced verbal abuse or other harassment in the 12 months prior to survey. The Stonewall survey also indicated high levels of verbal abuse and other forms of harassment. Although Stonewall’s reporting was on a last-five- years basis, 72% of gay men indicated that they had been verbally insulted and nearly one in three had experienced other forms of harassment based on sexuality. The GALOP survey indicated that over two thirds had experienced verbal abuse and half other forms of harassment at some time. Figure 9 below shows the relationship with the perpetrator of harassment.

Figure 9: Relationship with perpetrator of harassment (n=170)

70 60 60

50

40 % 30

20 11 9 10 4 4 4 3 2 1 1 0

Partner Don't know Someone else Friend/relative Neighbour/local Work colleague Someone unknown Someone else knownSomeone seen before Someone I picked up

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding

The majority of incidents (60%) were ‘stranger harassment’ and people that were known only by sight committed only 9%. One in five victims knew the perpetrators to some degree (more than by sight alone). The Stonewall survey also indicated that the majority of verbal abuse and harassment was perpetrated by unknown people. The reasons why victims thought the perpetrators knew them to be gay are shown in Figure 10. More than one response was allowed for in this question.

Figure 10: Why victim believed perpetrator of harassment knew they were gay (n=170)

50 47 45 40 35 30 25 24 24 % 25 21 19 20 18 15 10 10 5 5 0

Other

Don't know

They knew me I think I look gay

Was in a gay venue Was with gay people Near/leaving gay venue They called me names Wasin/near cruising area The key reasons appear to be associated with the area in which the offences occurred. A majority reported that perpetrators knew they were gay because they were either near/leaving a gay venue (47%), in a gay venue (18%), or cruising area (19%). One in four felt the perpetrator had identified them as gay because of the way they looked while one in four victims knew the perpetrator.

Figures 11 and 12 below show the time and place harassment occurred.

Figures 11/12: Place and time of harassment (n=170)

Place Time

Elsewhere Morning 6% 4% At home Street near home Afternoon 12% 23% 15%

Early hours At work 37% 7% Street near work 2%

In pub/club/disco 9%

In park/open space 4%

Street elsewhere Evening 37% 44%

The majority of harassment incidents occurred in the street (62%), one in four in the street near the respondents' homes and 37% in the street elsewhere. Only one in eight incidents occurred at home but one in thirteen occurred at work, a similar level to that experienced in pubs and nightclubs.

Four fifths of incidents occurred in the evening and early morning and more discussion of this is given in the violence section below.

Degree of heterosexism behind harassment

Respondents were asked to consider the one most upsetting incident of harassment in the last 12 months and to say whether, in their opinion, their being gay had motivated it. Notably

· 77% of respondents felt that the incident of harassment had been anti-gay motivated. · 16% felt it had not been anti-gay motivated. · 7% were unsure.

If the above is accurate then the prevalence of harassment of gay men could be as much as four times that of the general population (one quarter was not believed to be anti-gay motivated). Potential over-reporting of crime

Before moving on to examine the extent and distribution of crimes of violence it is worth addressing the reliability of the figures of both harassment and violence reported by the Edinburgh sample.

One can examine the potential for over-reporting of crime by comparing what we have termed ‘sexual preference neutral’ crime, with national averages, in order to test for any over- reporting (reporting bias) by respondents. If reporting bias was not significant one would expect such neutral crime to be similar to the average. Housebreaking and vehicle crime are fairly neutral to respondents’ sexual orientation and provide a good basis for comparison.

An assessment of respondents’ experience of housebreaking and vehicle crime was made by asking about theft from vehicles and houses. The rates of vehicle crime for the 58% of the sample with vehicles are shown in Table 3, as are rates of housebreaking (for all respondents).

Table 3: Prevalence and incidence of ‘neutral’ acquisitive crime per 10,000 population Crime Incidence rate Prevalence rate Theft of, or from, the vehicle 1,000 9% SCS 1996 vehicle theft comparison 1,033 11% Theft, or attempted theft, from the house 600 5% SCS 1996 house theft comparison 386 3%

Table 3 reveals that one in ten gay men (prevalence rate) had experienced theft of/from their vehicle and one in twenty had experienced, theft from their house in the 12 months prior to survey. The incidence rates for theft were not much higher than the prevalence rates, indicating low victimisation. Respondents were unlikely to experience more than one incident of theft in the last year.

Comparison with the SCS 1996 reveals vehicle theft prevalence rates of 11%, only marginally higher than the 9% in the Edinburgh survey, and a housebreaking rate of 3%, marginally lower than the 5% in the Edinburgh survey. Equally, incidence rates show a close similarity between the two samples. Findings from SCS 1996 for the age group of 16-44 year old males (i.e. matching the Edinburgh sample’s age composition) show an incidence of vehicle theft of 1,583 (higher than the Edinburgh sample) and an incidence of housebreaking of 538 (slightly lower than the Edinburgh sample). Whether using an ‘all males’ or a ‘males 16-44’ SCS sample, there are insignificant differences between gay and heterosexual men’s experience of vehicle or housebreaking crime.

The above analysis suggests that Edinburgh gay men’s experience of ‘sexual preference neutral’ crime is, in the round, similar to the Scottish average and particularly so if one refers to SCS 1996 findings for males in the 16-44 age group. The fact that ‘sexual preference neutral’ crime does not appear to be affected by reporting bias in our survey lends support to the view that reporting of harassment and violence is also relatively free from such bias. Respondents’ personal income levels are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Incomes of respondents (n=300)

30

26 25

20 20 17

% 15 12

10 9 8 7

5 2

0 Under £2,500 £2,500- £5,000- £10,000- £15,000- £20,000- £30,000- £40,000 or £4,999 £9,999 £14,999 £19,999 29,999 £9,999 more

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The income profile (gross income per person) shows a normal distribution around the median income of £15,000 to £19,999. The average, full-time, non-manual salary for men in Edinburgh (1996 New Earnings Survey) was £17,900 per annum, firmly in the median income range shown in Figure 3, revealing sample earnings to be fairly typical. While one in six had incomes under £5,000 per annum, one in ten earned £30,000 or more per annum.

Housing tenure analysis (Figure 4) shows owner occupation among our respondents was 50%, compared to the Edinburgh average of 69%. The majority of renting occurred in the private rented sector although 6% rented from the Council compared with 16% of Edinburgh residents as a whole, and 4% rented from a Housing Association, very similar to the city average. The level of private renting at 34% was significantly higher than the 9% city figure.

Figure 4: Housing tenure (n=300)

Rented from Other council 6% 6% Rented from HA 4%

Owned 50%

Rented privately 34% Respondents generally lived with someone else - only 28% lived alone. The average household size was 2.03 adults, although the numbers of children in residence are not known. The breakdown of adults in households was:

· 1 adult living alone 28% · 2 adults 51% · 3 adults 12% · 4 or more adults 9%

The majority of gay men were long-term Edinburgh residents - three-quarters had lived in Edinburgh for at least the last five years, and just under one third had lived in Edinburgh for more than ten years. Two thirds had been living at their present address for 2 years or more.

Fifty-eight percent of respondents (n=174) were vehicle owners and, of these people:

· 74% had one car, van or motorcycle · 20% had two vehicles and · 6% had three or four.

Whether the above profile of household size, duration of residence and car ownership is typical of gay men is unknown because of the lack of comparable data. However, in summary, the demographic analysis revealed that the sample of gay men interviewed:

· were younger than the national male population · showed an economic activity rate and incidence of full-time working typical of the wider population · had average incomes and · were much more likely to rent privately than the city population as a whole.

Experience of discrimination

Respondents were asked about their lifetime experience of discrimination due to sexual orientation:

· at school · in the workplace, and · when using services.

Figure 5 shows the prevalence of discrimination experienced at any time in the past. Respondents were allowed more than one response. Two thirds (66%) of the sample considered they had experienced at least one of the above

Figure 5: Lifetime experience of discrimination due to sexual orientation (n=300, multiple response question)

50 43 45 40 66%had experienced discrimination 35 30 % 25 19 20 16 15 11 11 10 9 10 5 3 0

Bullied at work

Been fired from a job Evicted/denied housing Bullied at school/college Been denied employment Denied insurance/mortgage

Received an unfair work appraisal Refused services in bar/restaurant

forms of discrimination because of their sexual orientation. The sample reported discrimination across many areas of professional, personal and social life, especially being bullied at school. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation appears to be fairly common throughout the lives of many gay men in Edinburgh, and from an early age. It is not difficult to imagine the negative impact such discrimination is likely to have on individuals’ quality of life.

High levels of bullying at school have also been suggested by other studies. Young people under 18 responding to the Stonewall survey indicated that 50% of all violent attacks took place in school. While 31% of those in the GALOP survey had experienced harassment, 34% of these incidents were experienced at school.

Feelings of safety

Respondents were asked:

· how safe they felt when walking alone at night, and · how worried they were about being the victim of housebreaking and physical assault.

Figure 6 shows that 15% of respondents felt unsafe to some degree when walking alone at night near their home, compared to 20% when near gay venues. Figure 6: Feelings of safety when walking alone at night (n=300)

60 56

50 46

40 38

% 30 24

20 17 12 10 3 3 0 Very safe Fairly safe A bit unsafe Very unsafe

Safety near home Safety near gay venues Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The SCS 1996 identified that 16% of Scottish men aged 16-44 felt unsafe to some extent when walking alone after dark, suggesting that gay men were no more or less likely to feel unsafe walking alone at night than the average Scottish male of a similar age.

Respondents’ degrees of worry about housebreaking and physical assault are shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Degree of worry about physical assault and housebreaking (n=300)

60 53

50 42 40 30 % 30 20 20 20 20

10 7 7 0 1 0 Very worried Fairly worried Not very Not at all Don’t know worried worried

Physical assault in street Housebreaking

One in four in the sample (27%) were very or fairly worried about both housebreaking and about physical assault in the street. The SCS 1996 revealed 32% and 48% of Scottish males aged 16-44 felt very or fairly worried about physical assault and housebreaking, respectively. A similar proportion of Edinburgh gay men was worried about physical assault but only half the proportion of gay men worried about housebreaking, compared to Scottish men of similar age. The NSW study also examined worry about physical assault and found it to be much higher - 66% of gay men were ‘very concerned’ about the possibility of assault. The level of concern amongst the NSW male population (34%) was half that of gay men’s, unlike that in Edinburgh. Fear of crime in the Edinburgh sample was generally consistent across age groups. There were no significant differences, across age bands, in the levels of worry about either housebreaking or physical assault in the street. However, the youngest age group (18-24) was twice as worried when walking alone after dark compared to the rest of the sample. By comparison, the SCS 1996 showed that 16-24 year old men were half as likely as men aged 65 or over to feel unsafe when walking alone after dark. However, the reverse was true in the case of worry about being the victim of crime – the SCS 1996 showed the young age group (16-24) was twice as likely to worry about becoming the victim of crime compared to those 65 or over.

Edinburgh gay men’s concern about violent crime was much lower than that found in Sydney despite a similar prevalence of violence. It may be that levels of fear are poorly explained by actual experience of crime as it is likely that there are more significant factors than actual experience of violent crime, which influence fear of violent crime. The SCS 1996 noted the complex interplay between the perceived risk and impact of crime in influencing public anxiety. Behaviour patterns are partly driven by fear and the next section shows how gay men in Edinburgh have altered their behaviour.

Behaviours

Respondents were asked about how open they were with friends about their sexual orientation, with family and work colleagues. Figure 8 below shows that gay men are selective about those to whom they reveal their sexuality.

Figure 8: Openess about sexual orientation (n=300)

80 75

70 60 60 52 50

% 40 29 30 24 21 19 20 16

10 4

0 Completely open Partly open Not at all

with friends with family with work colleages

Over half the sample felt able to be completely open about their sexuality in the workplace, or with family. One in five was not open at all in work, and one in six not open at all with their family. Openness about sexual orientation has been examined elsewhere. In particular, 58% of the NSW sample hid their sexuality, in some way, to avoid harassment, a higher level than that of the Edinburgh sample.

It is perhaps not surprising that many gay men did not reveal their sexual orientation, bearing in mind the levels of discrimination experienced (shown in Figure 5).

Respondents were asked if they ever modified any of six specific types of behaviour in order to avoid the possibility of anti-gay harassment or violence. Table 1 below shows, for the Edinburgh sample, that the most avoided behaviours were holding hands and kissing in public – the figures in brackets are those from the Stonewall survey (figures for the first two categories were combined in the Stonewall survey).

Table 1: Behaviour change to avoid harassment or violence1 Behaviour Always avoid Sometimes avoid Never avoid Holding hands in public 39%} 41%} 20%} }(43%) }(45%) }(12%) Kissing in public 41%} 40%} 19%} Telling people I’m gay 6% (24%) 18% (35%) 75% (41%) Appearing obviously gay 16% (12%) 27% (53%) 57% (35%) Using public transport at night 10% (22%) 9% (26%) 81% (52%) Leaving gay venues alone 7% (16%) 40% (32%) 53% (52%) 1 Note: rows sum to 100%, n=300

Two fifths of gay men did not show physical affection in public (holding hands or kissing) for fear of harassment or violence and only one in five never avoided it. One in ten never used public transport at night and half always, or sometimes, avoided leaving gay venues alone in order to avoid anti-gay harassment or violence.

The Stonewall survey figures (in brackets) show greater levels of avoidance of certain behaviour than in Edinburgh. Looking further afield, 25% of the NSW sample were not affectionate in public (holding hands or kissing) and 81% of the SCP sample avoided public shows of affection

From our survey it was also found that:

· 22% of those who always avoided kissing in public experienced some violence in the last year compared to 31% of those who never avoided it, and · 18% of those who always avoided holding hands in public experienced some violence in the last year compared to 32% of those who never avoided it.

The above suggests that either the experience of violence places pressure on gay men to change behaviour, or that those who do not change their behaviour experience greater violence as a result. Potentially, both explanations may apply although, either way, the finding raises concern about the cost to gay men of behaving naturally. The Extent and Distribution of Crimes of Violence

Overview

Violent crime is relatively rare amongst the Scottish population generally – only 3% of male respondents to the SCS 1996 reported being the victim of violent crime. However, 18% of gay men in this survey reported being the victim of actual violence, in the last twelve months. If attempted physical assault is taken into account, the proportion of gay men experiencing actual or attempted violence is significantly higher at 26%.

Of those with experience of violence, most (58%) experienced only one violent incident in the last year although 30% experienced two, and 12% three or more. The pattern of victimisation was found by the SCP study to be similar to that occurring in Edinburgh – a small proportion of gay men had a relatively high victimisation rate.

3. Incidence and prevalence of violent crime

The survey questionnaire was designed to enable estimates of:

· Incidence rates – the number of discrete violent incidents experienced, expressed as a rate per 10,000 people. Incidence rates can also be termed victimisation rates. · Prevalence rates – the percentage of all respondents who experienced at least one violent incident.

The experience of violent crime is shown below in Table 4.

Table 4: Incidence and prevalence of violent crime (incidence per 10,000 population) Crime Incidence rate Prevalence rate Spat on 500 3% Something thrown at them 633 5% Attempted physical assault 1,567 8% Mugged/robbed 200 1% Physical assault in own home 267 2% Physical assault in someone else's home 200 2% Physical assault in street 1,000 8% Physical assault in park/open space 400 3% Physical assault in entertainment venue 467 4% Sexual assault/rape 300 3% All violent crime 5,633 26% Actual violent crimes (excludes spitting, thrown 2,867 18% objects and attempted assault)

The table shows that physical assault in the street, and attempted physical assault, are the most common types of violent crime. Parks/open spaces and entertainment venues were also common locations for assault.

Both incidence and prevalence rates confirmed that gay men experienced disproportionate levels of violence compared to the average for Scottish men. The central issue that was identified at the outset of the study was to be able to reliably compare gay men’s experience of violence with that of the wider male population. The complexities of our comparisons are discussed next. 4. Comparisons with SCS 1996

The SCS 1996 shows that the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime is correlated with:

· age (younger people experience more crime), · frequency of evenings away from home (those spending more evenings away from home experience more crime), and · place/type of residence (rented property and council estate dwellers have greater experience of violent crime).

Gay men in our study were more likely to be young and socially active and less likely to be owner-occupiers. Thus, one would expect gay men in our study to experience more violent crime per se. A central issue is to quantify the prevalence of violence that one would expect to be experienced by these younger, socially active men.

It is possible to estimate the effect of the age bias in the Edinburgh sample. Fifty-eight percent of the Scottish adult male population is under 45, whereas our sample of gay Edinburgh residents had 81% aged under 45. If SCS 1996 prevalence rates, across age categories, were similar for gay men our sample would over-represent the prevalence of violence. In the SCS 1996 males aged 16 to 24 were 20 times more likely to experience violence than over 65s. If the sample of gay men were to be ‘topped up’ by adding 57% more interviews with over 45s, the sample would closely resemble the national age profile and therefore would be representative of the general population. If we assume a negligible prevalence of crime among the older interviewees the prevalence rate of actual violence would reduce by one third to 12%. As this is still four times higher than the SCS 1996 average, age bias, therefore, provides only a partial explanation of the significantly higher incidence of violent crime experienced by gay men.

By comparison, 14% of the NSW sample of gay men had experienced physical assault in the 12 months prior to survey. Gay men were found to be four times as likely to be the victim of violence as the general male population of Sydney, very similar to the Edinburgh findings. However, the NSW sample was also biased towards young age groups.

The Stonewall survey also showed significant levels of violence against gay men 34% had experienced violence due to their sexuality in the five years prior to survey. In the SCP sample 45% were found to have been physically attacked, at some time, as a result of their sexuality. These victimisation rates are not comparable with ‘last 12 months’ figures but demonstrate how extensive the experience of violence can be amongst gay communities.

The (adjusted) prevalence rate in Edinburgh, at 12%, is not out of line with findings from other studies and one can be fairly confident of concluding that gay men experience disproportionate levels of violence. This is discussed further under characteristics of violent crime.

Characteristics of Violent Crime

Respondents’ experience of violence was gauged by asking questions about: · Nature and extent of violence experienced · Place and time of incident · Relationship with the perpetrator(s) · Existence of a motivation related to victim’s sexual preference. Nature and extent of violence

As shown in Table 4, 26% of all respondents (n=77) had experienced some form of actual or attempted violence in the last year.

Figure 13 below shows the type of physical force experienced by the 90% of victims that mentioned force. More than one response was allowed to this question.

Figure 13: Physical force experienced by victim (n=77)

60

50 48 43 40

% 30 27

20 12 9 10 7 7 7 7 4

0

None Kicked Raped

Stabbed/cut Being spat on Hit with weapon Grabbed/pushedPunched/slapped Sexually assaulted

Something thrown at me

In relation to the violent incidents, a high degree of serious physical violence was experienced in the majority of incidents, involving grabbing/pushing, punching/slapping and/or kicking. Note that 9% stated no force was experienced – such respondents were subject to attempted, rather than actual, force.

Younger respondents (16-24) were twice as likely to have experienced violence as older respondents (45+), although where older respondents were the victims of violence, they were more likely to experience serious physical force in the attack. As a consequence, they were more likely to say that the level of violence and wounds was the worst thing about the incident.

On average, there were 3 perpetrators involved in a violent incident – male perpetrators comprised 93% of all assailants – although in some cases up to nine people were involved.

Figures 14 and 15 below show the time and place the violence occurred. Over 90% of violent incidents occurred in the evening or early hours and half of the incidents occurred in the street, although a significant level of violence occurred in entertainment venues and open spaces.

Figures 14/15: Place and time of violence (n=77)

Place Time

Elsewhere Morning 4% 7% Afternoon At home Street near home 3% 8% 21%

At work 3%

Street near work 4% In pub/club/disco Evening 17% Early hours 38% 55%

Street elsewhere In park/open space 27% 13%

The majority (64%) of violent incidents in the NSW sample also occurred in the street, usually near entertainment venues and in 81% of cases the victim did not know the perpetrator. It might be thought that entertainment venues would be a likely location for alcohol-related, stranger violence in general. However, the level of violence experienced by residents living in ‘venue-dense’ areas of Sydney was found to be one third that of gay men. Thus, spending time in areas with many licensed premises offers a poor explanation of the high rate of gay victimisation.

The SCP study revealed that 66% of respondents did not know their attacker and that attacks outside gay pubs and clubs were those they felt most vulnerable to, more marked than fear around other areas known to be dangerous for gay men, such as cruising areas.

Violence against gay men in Edinburgh was predominantly committed in the early hours and to a lesser extent in the evening, usually by someone not known to the victim. The Edinburgh respondents’ relationships with perpetrators are shown in Figure 16 below. Figure 16: Relationship with perpetrator of violence (n=77)

70 61 60

50

40 % 30

20 12 8 10 5 5 3 1 1 1 1 0

Other

Don't know Your partner Friend/relative Work colleague

Someone I picked up Seen before/did't know Neighbour/local resident

Someone never seenSomeone before you know by name

Note: percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

As with harassment, stranger violence was the main category accounting for three-quarters of all incidents. Partners, friends and relatives committed only 10% of all offences reported in the survey.

Those who were open about their sexuality were most likely to have been targeted by perpetrators in, near or leaving gay venues. Those not completely open were more likely to have been with other gay people when violence occurred and were more prone to stranger violence. Further, the older the respondent the more likely they were to experience stranger violence than violence by a known person.

In terms of the motives for violent crime in Edinburgh:

· 65% of victims felt the one most upsetting violent incident was committed because of their being gay · 34% felt it was not, while 1% were unsure.

Based on these figures, two thirds of the violence may be explained by heterosexism. Thus, one third of the adjusted prevalence rate (12%) can be assumed to be ‘sexual preference neutral’. Excluding the proportion of crime that is homophobic gives a prevalence rate of 4%, very similar to the SCS 1996 rate of 3%. In effect, the 4% crime rate is a ‘background’ level to which a further 8% is added through homophobic violence.

Further afield, 78% of the NSW sample felt that the most recent assault they had experienced had been motivated by homophobia, not out of line with the Edinburgh findings, although the NSW sample size was smaller at 139 and therefore one can have less confidence in the results.

The reasons why victims of violence in the Edinburgh survey felt the perpetrator(s) knew them to be gay are given in Figure 17 below.

Figure 17: Reasons victim thought perpetrator of violence knew they were gay (n=77, multiple response question)

45 41 40 35

30 27 25 22 % 19 19 20 15 15 12 10 7 5 5

0

I look gay Don't know They knew me They stared at me I was in a gay venue Was with gay people They called me names Near/leaving a gay venue In/near gay cruising area Taken together, location (being in or near a gay venue) was the most common reason for believing the assailant knew the victim to be gay. Being known to the assailant was given as a reason by 27% while appearing gay or being with other people who appeared obviously gay was given as a reason in 22% and 15% of cases, respectively.

Feelings about Being the Victim of Crime

The most upsetting types of violent crime, according to our survey, were attempted and actual physical assault. Figure 18 shows what victims considered the worst aspects of the violence.

Figure 18: Worst aspect of violent crime (n=77)

35

30 29 25 25

20 % 15 13

10 9 7

5 3 3 3

0

Fear Other

Consequences Knew perpetrator Embarrassment Shock/unprovoked Powerless/no help

Level of violence/wounds The worst aspect usually centred on the shock of unprovoked attacks (29%) and the feeling of powerlessness (25%). In 13% of cases the worst aspect was the fact that the perpetrator was known to the victim. A further 8% felt miscellaneous factors other than those listed were the worst aspect of the violent crime, and thus do not appear in Figure 18, previously.

The way that victims felt about the incident at the time, and at the time of the survey, is shown in Figure 19 below.

Figure 19: Feelings about the violent incident (n=77)

60

49 50

40

29 % 30

21 19 20 16 14 14

8 10 6 7 4 3 2 1 0 Angry Shocked Afraid Irritated Vulnerable Numb None of these

How felt most at the time How feel most now

Anger was victims' predominant and most enduring feeling. Initial shock and fear appear to give way later to feelings of irritation and vulnerability, and one in five victims of violence said they were left feeling vulnerable. In addition to the above responses for ‘How feel most now?’, a further 6% felt other emotions that were not listed, and thus do not appear in Figure 19.

Reporting Of Crime

The proportion of Edinburgh victims that reported violent crime to police was 37%, compared to 18% of the NSW sample. The Stonewall survey found that 31% of all those who were attacked reported the incident to the police and that the reporting rate of young people under 18 was lower at 18%. The GALOP survey of young people in London also showed low reporting, 19%.

The NSW survey found that the likelihood of reporting was four times higher if the perpetrator(s) was known to the victim, than if they were unknown. Thus, high levels of stranger violence might explain the low reporting rates found by many studies. However, in Edinburgh, gay men’s reporting rate of violence perpetrated against them (37%) was only slightly lower than the range (38-52%) of general crime reporting determined by four national crime surveys carried out between 1981-1996. This reporting level by gay men may be partly accounted for by the finding that they were as likely to report stranger violence as they were acquaintance violence. The reasons for not reporting violent crime to the police are shown in Figure 20 below.

Figure 20: Reasons crime not reported to Police (n=48, multiple response question)

35 33 37% did report to Police 30 25 25 21 21 19 19 20 17 % 15 15 15 13 10 10

5

0

Too trivial

Dislike/fear of police Police not do anything I was too embarrassed No loss/damage/injury Dealt with matter myself

Previous poor expPolice with police wouldn't be interested Inconvienient/too much trouble Private/personal/family matter Didn't want police to know im gay

One third of victims felt the incident too trivial to report and in a quarter of cases the victim believed that the police could have done nothing, possibly because where incidents occur in street, the perpetrators can effect easy escape. However, one third claimed that previous poor experience of the police, or the expectation that police would not be interested, influenced them not to report incidents. One in five reported a dislike or fear of the police and one in six stated that they didn’t want the police to know they were gay. Embarrassment and inconvenience also accounted for significant minorities of non-reporting.

Young respondents (16-24) were half as likely to report the incident to police as older respondents (45+) were. Those who were not open about their sexuality were more likely not to report to police for reasons of ‘triviality’, embarrassment, reluctance to reveal their sexuality to police and a belief that the police wouldn’t have been interested.

Similar reasons for non-reporting have been found elsewhere. For example, 41% of the NSW sample had not reported to the police because they did not consider the incident serious enough, 23% failed to report because the police “couldn’t do anything” and 15% because of a negative view of the police.

Satisfaction with Police The level of victim satisfaction with the police is shown in Figure 21. The findings are based on a small sample size because only 37% of respondents were asked about satisfaction (i.e. those who had experienced and reported violent incidents to the police).

Satisfaction with the police was fairly high with 70% satisfied to a greater or lesser degree, although younger respondents (16-34) were half as likely to have been satisfied, as were older men (35+). The satisfaction level appears much higher than that determined by the SCP study, which revealed satisfaction at 34%.

Figure 21: Satisfaction with Police (n=27)

50 44 45

40

35

30 26 % 25 19 20

15 11 10

5

0 Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied

The largely heterosexist nature of violent crimes against gay men, and the scale of the problem, has been illustrated. The location and timing of most violence offer the police a great opportunity to target perpetrators, by effective policing of areas around gay venues, especially in the early hours. Such action might effectively reduce the high level of violent crime against gay men in Edinburgh. Sources of support sought by gay men after violent incidents were varied, as Figure 22 shows.

Figure 22: Sources of support sought (n=64, multiple response question)

90 78 80 83% sought some support 70

60

50 % 38 40

30 23 19 20 16 16 11 6 10 5 3 0

Friend Police Other Partner Doctor Family Passer by Neighbour Victim support Gay organisation

Informal networks of friends, partners and families provided the majority of support for victims. One in five required the services of a doctor or GP but relatively few, 11% and 6% of victims respectively, contacted gay or victim support agencies. Overall, 29% of victims sought support from some external organisation. The reasons given for contacting support agencies were the need for understanding/sympathy (65%), support (47%), advice (18%), medical treatment (12%) and miscellaneous other reasons (12%).

In the NSW sample 54% of victims sought support after the violent incident and the sources of support were similar in some respects to those used by Edinburgh victims – 12% medical, 31% friend and 26% partner. While medical and partner support was sought to a similar degree by NSW respondents, the Edinburgh sample made much more use of friends as a source of support.

5. Improving gay men’s safety

Finally, gay men were asked ‘Which of the following do you think would most improve the safety of gay men in Edinburgh?’ As the list below shows, a number of options were given and respondents asked to indicate up to three that they believed would improve safety. The answers were:

· more sympathetic police 47% · public awareness raising 41% · known gay liaison officers in the police 39% · more police on the street near gay venues 34% · better ways to report violence or harassment 33% · self defence classes 23% · assertiveness training 20% · more sympathetic council 13% · telephone helpline for victims 13% · more police patrolling cruising areas 10% · more discussion about community safety 10% · use of personal alarms 9%

The list indicates the high priority respondents give to improving police practices. Three of the top four proposals to improve gay men’s safety are ‘more sympathetic police’ (47%), ‘known gay liaison officers in the police’ (39%) and ‘more police on the street near gay venues’ (34%). The second most chosen option by gay men (41%) was in relation to increased ‘public awareness raising’ to improve gay men’s safety in the city. Key points

· The age profile of the survey sample was different to that of the Scottish male population, with under-representation of older age groups especially the 45-years-or-over group. Gay men had a typical rate of economic activity and income level but were much more likely to rent privately than the city population as a whole. The effect of the sample’s demographic difference from the SCS 1996 ‘norm’ was to increase the relative prevalence of crime experienced by survey respondents, relative to the prevalence rate for the average male respondent to the SCS 1996.

· Gay men’s behaviour was affected by the discrimination they experienced throughout their lives and by worry about violent crime and feelings of being unsafe. However, such feelings were less pronounced than suggested by similar non-Scottish studies.

· Gay men in Edinburgh modified their behaviour in a number of ways on a day-to-day basis to avoid the possibility of anti-gay violence or harassment.

· Gay men had had extensive experience of harassment - 57% of respondents had experienced some form of harassment in the last year, a level similar to those determined by studies elsewhere. Verbal insults and threats were most prevalent, experienced by 40% and 20% of respondents, respectively, in the year prior to survey. Harassment was much more prevalent and the level of victimisation very high, compared to the experience of violence.

· The majority of incidents were ‘stranger harassment’ and a significant minority were committed by people respondents knew only by sight. The perpetrators' motivations appeared, in 77% of cases, to have been driven by heterosexism. The majority of harassment took place in the street or in (or near) gay venues or cruising areas, generally in the evening and early morning.

· Gay men’s experience of ‘sexual preference neutral’ crime (such as acquisitive housebreaking and vehicle crime) was very similar to the rates reported by the SCS 1996. The absence of evidence of reporting bias in acquisitive crime lends some support to the accuracy of the rates of harassment and violence rates reported.

· 26% of gay men in the survey had been a victim of violence in the last year.

· Gay men experienced a similar level of ‘sexual preference neutral’ violence to heterosexual men, but anti-gay motivated attacks increased the prevalence of violence in the gay community to at least three times the national average. This estimate attempted to account of age bias in the sample, and excluded attempted and minor assaults (being spat on, or having objects thrown).

· Violent crimes against gay men were usually committed by strangers, mainly near entertainment venues or in the street, in the evening and the early hours. A significant level of physical force was the norm.

· One third of victims (37%) reported incidents to the police and of these victims 70% were satisfied with police to a greater or lesser degree. The reporting rate was lower than, but comparable to, those determined by the four most recent Scottish Crime Surveys. · In relation to what could be put in place to improve gay men’s safety respondents gave high priority to improved police practices and a more sympathetic response from police alongside the need for public awareness raising on the issues CHAPTER THREE THE POLICE

Introduction

This chapter of the report presents the material gathered in a number of interviews with officers of Lothian and Borders Police, the force charged with policing the City of Edinburgh and its environs. The interviews with police officers supported those research aims concerned with:

· providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · considering best practice around community safety with other groups in the community · reflecting on how learning with regard to the City of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

Before considering methodological issues and presenting findings from the interviews it is important to mention that participating officers appeared to be both open and honest and, whatever their personal values, feelings or opinions about homosexuality there was a clear concern for what they continually referred to as “doing a professional job”. There was clearly no effort to present the interviewer with an official ‘line’ that would represent Lothian and Borders Police in the most positive light. The interviewer gained the strong impression that officers at all levels were open to honest dialogue on the issues surrounding the policing of the gay community.

It is worth clarifying at this stage the scope and the limitations of this part of the study. Lothian and Borders Police is the second largest of Scotland’s eight police forces and is divided into six divisions, three of which cover the City of Edinburgh. Within Edinburgh, it is B Division which is responsible for policing the geographical area which encompasses the part of the city where gay bars, venues and PSEs (public sex environments) or cruising areas are located. In turn, each division is organised into subdivisions. Within B Division it is the officers of the subdivision working out of Gayfield Square Police Station who interface on a daily basis with the most visible aspects of the gay community. To date it has been officers of this subdivision who have represented the Force in major developments in relation to community liaison. Police participation in this study, also, has come largely from officers from Gayfield Square subdivision.

This section of the report addresses how the work of Gayfield Square subdivision is being disseminated across the service. Whilst the officers involved in this study police areas where gay men are more visible than in other parts of the city it seems likely that the opinions shared by the officers are representative of views across the Force. As such they provide at least a starting point for others to understand the issues which underpin the police perspective on day to day policing of the gay community. Individual uniformed officers were selected by the research team at random from a complete list of officers working at Gayfield Square Police Station. Selection was based on length of service and sought to include a number of female officers. Senior officers were represented by the Superintendent and Chief Inspector who managed the team at Gayfield Square subdivision at the time of the study and by the Inspector now filling the role of Gay Liaison Officer for Lothian and Borders Police based at Force Headquarters. Information on the participating officers is as follows:

Total personnel involved: 14

No. of male officers: 11 No. of female officers: 3

Uniformed police constables: 8 Uniformed Sergeants: 3 Inspector: 1 Chief Inspector: 1 Superintendent: 1

Length of service ranged from 2 years to over 20 years.

Officers were informed that their views and opinions would be treated as confidential and no views or opinions presented in this report would identify the interviewee. Accordingly, comments from officers given below do not include names, gender or badge numbers. Interviews with rank and file officers took place during November/December 1998 and with senior officers during the period October 1998 to January 1999. To maintain open and uninhibited discussion and to ensure confidentiality, interviews were recorded by note taking only. Further information on the methodology adopted is contained in Appendix B.

Interviews: Senior Officers

The first interview with senior officers in Gayfield Square subdivision explored the purpose of the research, the methodology to be adopted, timescales and the role of senior and uniformed officers at Gayfield Square Station in supporting the study. The researcher and senior officers were also able to explore some of the underlying reasons behind the partnership based approach being taken by the subdivision towards policing the gay community.

The second interview with senior officers at Gayfield allowed the core questions (see Appendix B) around attitudes, experiences and police practices to be explored.

The third interview with senior officers allowed the researcher to explore further areas which had arisen and the following additional questions were put: Would it be possible for you to provide any written information or feedback about the training around LGBT issues which is offered within the subdivision? Do you have any record of the number of complaints by telephone, letter or verbally from local residents living in the vacinity of the known PSEs? Is there any record of how many men are approached by officers and what that interaction entails? How are the practical lessons being developed out of Gayfield subdivision being disseminated or replicated across the force?

The final interview was with the Force’s Gay Liaison Officer and was based on the core questions identified in Appendix B plus discussion of the following questions: Is there an annual policing plan and does this mention the gay community? Is it known how gay men experience reporting or contact with the police across the Force? What can be learned from developments taking place in relation to policing other communities? What can you tell me about the equal opportunities training officers receive?

Senior Officers’ Descriptions and Perceptions of their Jobs

Senior officers within Gayfield Square subdivision (superintendent and chief inspector) are directly accountable to their divisional commander, one of six chief superintendents in Lothian and Borders Police.

The senior officers at Gayfield report working closely together to maintain the “...key link, the direct link between policy and practice”. In terms of policy decisions and their operational implementation, it was reported that major decisions, such as the divisional order concerning policing local PSEs, ie. those public areas, such as parks or public toilets, used by men for same-sex sexual activity, are made in consultation with, and approved by, divisional management meetings.

In broad terms the senior officers reported that a key task for the Force was to develop effective policing plans which took problem solving approaches to problems which had seemed intractable or which had existed for some time. A typical operational issue where a problem solving approach was taken, was the linking of shops and bars in the area via radio to ensure communication about potential incidents and a quick response to actual incidents. The policing of local PSEs was seen as an issue requiring attention because it had demanded police resources for some time with little progress being made. To their knowledge, senior officers believed the first prosecution resulting from male/male sexual activity on Calton Hill was in 1926 and that a new approach was now required:

We’ve been chasing people away for 72 years, we need a policing plan to address a 72 year old situation.

The post of Gay Liaison Officer within the Force changed hands during the early stages of this research project. The post is now located within the Force’s Community Services Department, having previously been filled by a CID Officer within the Serious Crime Squad. The new postholder believes that this was a highly significant move both in the recognition this gives that gay community needs are broader than previously thought and that they are not based solely on police responses to serious assault or other crimes. Whilst the formal job description of the new Gay Liaison Officer was being drawn up, the officer had a clear perspective on the post which is reflected in this chapter of the report.

Attitudes towards homosexuality There was a belief amongst senior officers that there is a need to change both organisational and individual practices within the police in relation to homosexuality. Officers recognised that at an individual level some police officers will have belief systems which view homosexuality negatively. A key issue in the interviews, however, was whether this psychological heterosexism (the individual’s prejudices, beliefs or actions) was matched by an organisation which could be viewed as culturally heterosexist. Views differed on this matter:

It’s a bit like the race question. Are the police racist? Well generally we try not to be but some are. If you relate that to homophobia, is the police service homophobic? Well no but some people will be and they let us all down. and: An intensely homophobic culture has existed (in the Police), this is beginning to change... reactions have been getting better. and: I’m aware that some police action has amounted to persecution, utilising the law as justification yet having no impact on the (PSE) activity in the area...

There was recognition that while individual officers’ belief systems might not change, the task of senior officers was to bring about change at an operational level and that such change needed to be characterised by “openness and communication” and by an emphasis on this via training and supervision:

Police officers will all have as much baggage, they’re prejudiced as much as anyone else but what you can do is encourage them to think about another viewpoint but, bottom line, they’re expected to behave professionally.

There was also an understanding that the gay community’s views of police attitudes might be framed by the actions of individual officers and that the “...assessment of the community is often based on our weakest link in the street”.

One officer raised the issue of gay or lesbian police officers being open about their sexuality within individual stations or the Force more generally. There was a recognition that this might help support relationships with the community but also that in an organisational climate which created “fears of ostracism” it was unlikely, in the foreseeable future, that ‘out gay officers’ would have a role to play in changing attitudes or building community links.

Dealing with gay men’s fear and experiences of violence and harassment

The officers interviewed recognised that little is known in terms of actual levels of violence and harassment of gay men and pointed to this study as one way for data to be gathered. It was thought that such new data would impact on future police responses. In addition to information relating to levels of violence and harassment the officers also pointed to the:

...need to know what people are looking for and to recognise that the gay community and especially men using cruising areas are hard to reach.

The officers reported that there were occasions on which gay men who had experienced violence or harassment in other parts of the city had come to Gayfield subdivision because they believed they were more likely to receive a better response there than elsewhere. It was also reported that another division within the Force had recently been in touch to discuss the approaches the subdivision was taking in responding to gay men’s experiences of crime.

The officers interviewed seemed to have a genuine interest not only in discovering the levels of crime perpetrated against gay men but also in finding out what responses the community wanted in place to tackle it - assumptions were not being made that simply encouraging reporting would be enough. Comparison was made to police responses to racially motivated crime where change in police practices had initially brought about more reactive strategies from police but, as a result of community liaison, police activity had now been moved towards more effective preventative and early intervention problem-solving approaches. It was recognised that the development of new approaches to identifying and meeting community needs must be based on a better understanding of the complexities of individual experiences and of inequality. Officers recognised that approaches to date had failed but were also keen to stress that gay men could not expect to receive special treatment.

We’re not trying to make the gay community a special case but trying to establish an equal service.

We don’t want to look for easy solutions, we want to encourage officers to look at recurring problems creatively, rather than treating the symptoms, treat the problem. With a bit of common sense, time and sensitivity we can move away from this constant ‘fire fighting’ response.

Constraints to the implementation of any new strategies which might emerge from greater knowledge of gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment were also recognised. Senior officers admitted that their approach to gay community needs, especially in terms of policing PSEs, felt like “...treading a line along what is seen as publicly acceptable in an emotive area”. The officers were sensitive to potentially negative and ill informed media responses but in terms of policing PSEs:

It’s hard to say it publicly but it isn’t possible to stop people using these areas, we need to manage it... we need to identify what the problems are, and that’s not gay men but it’s fear of local residents and sex litter.

As a strategist I have to look at making the area safe and meeting the needs of gay men but the disturbance to residents also needs addressed.

A further block to effective responses to violence and harassment towards gay men was seen to be the Police culture: The internal culture is a huge block to sensitising officers to gay community needs, whatever their own moral judgements, it’s key people like sergeants and inspectors who create the environment.

Another difficulty was seen as:

...Obtaining the trust of the community in the face of years of hostility, harassment, judgmental comments and a tacit lack of sympathy.

These issues were seen as making the reporting of sexual assault particularly difficult:

...given the way masculinity is constructed can we really expect a man to come into a police station to report sexual assault?

On balance the officers interviewed did feel that progress was being made in relation to responding to the needs of the gay community:

It’s a matter of judgement and at this particular time we feel we are doing it better now than we did before.

Dealing with PSEs and sexual offences

During interviews, senior officers based in Gayfield Square subdivision discussed their reasons for seeking to develop a new approach to policing PSEs in the area.

The new divisional order on the matter was discussed. The order (no.15/97 Policing of Calton Hill) seeks to lay out a broad approach to liaison with the community and also focuses on the use of known public sex environments by men. It attempts to define a more positive police response than has characterised past practice. Part of the order instructs officers that their attention “...should be focused on the main streets and pathways nearby with the emphasis on public safety. Under normal patrol circumstances there should be no need to enter the green area of the park. No specific action is required other than tactfully dealing with overtly unlawful activity which should thereafter be reported to the Gayfield Station Inspector.” Officers were aware of inconsistencies of past approaches in relation to policing public sex activity dependent on whether users were homosexual or heterosexual and of the current misinterpretation of, and hostility towards, the new divisional order, but insisted that it was appropriate in light of:

... policing in areas where heterosexuals have sex in cars like at Marine Drive, lovers lane type places, where people aren’t charged or moved on.... we’re giving a message about what is acceptable or not.

The new divisional order was explained by senior officers as being a concern with:

...talking to the men, emphasising safety... it’s the nature of the interactions that matter.

Senior officers were clearly willing to make potentially controversial decisions but also to use their authority within the Force to implement them. These officers also sought to clarify misconceptions amongst uniformed officers and highlighted the following sections of the order where, in terms of general intention, it is stated:

1.3 The policing of the area has been adapted to the sensitivity of the issues involved with the attention given dictated by the nature of the specific incident at the time. The purpose of this order is not to create any preferential treatment for the gay community over any other group, but the promotion of equality of service both to the gay community and local residents.

2.1 It must be recognised that in achieving an equality of service, public co- operation and consultation with all interested parties is essential. With this in mind, the policing priority will combine short term measures with a pro- active long term approach to provide a public safety led strategy through implementation of the following action plan: a) Consultation with the representative bodies for the Gay Community to promote good practice. b) The organisation of regular meetings with the Force Gay Liaison Officer regarding the policing of the area. c) Preventative high profile patrolling to deter open unlawful activity. d) A focused reactive policing policy which is structured to identify alternative solutions other than the enforcement of legislation, and e) A promotion of an inter-agency approach bringing together agencies who can assist in making Calton Hill a safer environment for all concerned.

Such an approach is understood by senior officers to entail both preventative and reactive approaches which are also discussed in the order and is based on close inter-agency liaison between police, the City of Edinburgh Council, local residents and service providers within the gay community. As already stated, senior officers recognised that the parks in the area have been used by cruising men since the beginning of the century and as such:

3.13 The problem associated with Gay Community assembling in the Calton Hill area is likely to continue in the future. The longer term objective must therefore be viewed as a consolidation of the measures already discussed. In addition the creation of a safer environment along with the support of locally led initiatives by various agencies will contribute to the successful policing of the area.

Clearly, current approaches to the policing of PSEs is led by senior officers’ recognition that strategies to date have been resource intensive and ineffective in the long term. When asked, however, if current policy around policing of PSEs and developing relationships with gay community organisations was, therefore, dependent on these officers’ presence in the subdivision, it was felt that “...we’re so far into it now it’s almost unstoppable”. Before completion of this study both senior officers in the Gayfield subdivision had moved on to other posts. Whether policy advances will be maintained will be answered by the developing relationship between new senior officers and the gay community.

Policing and Partnership with the Gay Community Senior officers were keen to make any Government recommendation for partnership working a reality at both policy and operational levels. A legislative framework, such as that introduced in England and Wales (Crime and Disorder Act), which requires police to work in partnership with relevant parties in developing responses to crime was seen as unnecessary for the Force and the existing Lothian and Borders Police Community Safety Strategy Document was described as an example of the Force’s openness “...to appropriate interested organisations who can inform debate and policy in a particular area”.

Legislative frameworks for partnership working were viewed as generally unhelpful and only useful if the work was not being done effectively anyway:

In Scotland we’re more enlightened historically and so there’s no need for legislation because it’s happening and because if it’s written down it can be too restrictive.

In terms of partnership working there was some feeling that agencies other than the police were somewhat slower at responding to current developments. Indeed it was felt that other agencies might not give partnership with the gay community as high a priority as the police currently do, with officers reporting:

...it’s good to develop shared ownership but multi agency responses often progress at the pace of the slowest individuals or groups.

...standing still is not an option.

Identifying needs

A number of key needs were identified by senior officers including the need for trust between police and gay community organisations, the need to change the culture within the Force itself to ensure gay men are dealt with without prejudice and the need to work out effective reporting, recording and monitoring systems which encourage gay men to report crime. There is a belief that effective action on the issues requires practical partnerships. The following comments were made:

It’s not about resources, it’s about entering into a reliable and robust partnership and the formation of trust with the gay community through their representatives and inevitably we can’t do this ourselves.

We need to work out practical partnerships and foundations before public promises.

We need to change the culture amongst officers, this means they need to understand the experiences of gay men, we need to communicate policy to grass roots officers so they know what we’re trying to achieve.

Other issues Outwith the core questions put to senior officers further information was sought on a number of other areas in relation to the following matters.

Complaints about PSEs/Police Contact with men: Interviews with uniformed officers had highlighted some officers’ concerns on behalf of residents living near to the cruising areas used by gay men. A primary concern for these officers was the belief that new divisional orders on policing the area were interpreted to mean officers could not properly respond to complaints received. A search for information on the number of complaints received from local residents in the Calton Hill area revealed that in 1998 three complaints from residents were made, two of these concerned with numbers of men gathering and sitting on a public bench. The police response was to have the bench removed and no further complaints concerning that problem were made. Whilst it must be recognised that the number of complaints made to the police may not reflect the actual level of annoyance or fear of local residents, it is clear that some police officers perceptions, and the action they want to take, are based on a belief that a larger number of complaints are being made by residents than appears to be the case.

Senior officers were asked if any information was recorded in relation to the number of men stopped or spoken to by police officers patrolling the area but reported that no such details are recorded. In terms of police patrol responses to criminal activity linked with men using the park areas, police responded to a total of five assaults in 1998.

Knowledge and Dissemination Across the Force: There was recognition that with the primary focus of police and community liaison being located firmly in Gayfield subdivision to date “...best practice is not being set across the Force” and that whilst “...common sense tells me there will be gay people with issues elsewhere” little had been done to date to affect how gay men experience policing in other parts of the city.

Senior officers highlighted the structures which do exist across the Force in terms of policy development and the informal networks which foster learning on any issue. The most senior officers in the Force were viewed as operating an ‘open door’ policy and positively encouraging policing which might be viewed as ‘radical’ but which at the end of the day helped the police meet their objectives. The problem identified at this stage, however, was how to translate a new approach which had arisen out of specific operational demands in one subdivision into a force-wide strategic response to a whole community.

Specific suggestions were put forward by senior officers which might actively foster a broader understanding of the issues and dissemination of best practice. These included the possibility of chief inspectors from all city divisions attending the LGBT Community Safety Forum (as they do for the Black/Minority Ethnic forum) and training on LGBT relations in all city subdivisions, not just Gayfield. The introduction of force-wide systems to record anti-gay motivated crime. The establishment of gay liaison officers in all divisional teams and the development of the role of the centrally based Gay Liaison Officer based in Force HQ.

Police Planning: To date, whilst partnerships between police and the gay community are being formed at a local level, no official force-wide statement has been made concerning the needs of the LGBT community or police commitment to addressing the specific needs of LGBT people. Senior officers suggested that changes to reflect the needs of the LGBT community were required to the key policy document ‘A strategy for safer communities towards 2000’ which lays out principles in creating safer communities and addresses the needs of “vulnerable communities” other than LGBT people. It was also suggested by officers that the inclusion of LGBT interests in this policy requires a commitment to implementation and that “we need supportive structures before statements”.

The study also allowed senior officers to explore the scope of the developing partnership between the police and gay community organisations. The view was expressed that the relationship between police and the gay community needs to be more than partnership within the context of ‘community safety’ which is only one of the Force’s six operational priorities. A fairly complex and broad relationship outwith the structures of the Community Safety Forum may therefore be required to explore issues effectively and ensure a community perspective is put into all aspects of the Force’s planning.

Training: Senior officers were asked to comment on current training with respect to policing the gay community. They reported that existing training on equal opportunities issues was approximately a one day compulsory session with probationary constables at the Police College and one optional day via Lothian and Borders Police Community Services Department. This training addressed a broad range of equal opportunities issues and was not considered able to address, in any detail, the needs of the LGBT community. In addition to this core training, the Community Services Department can also offer further half day events for officers on a voluntary basis but this requires their release from other duties which may be viewed as operational priorities.

Specifically for Gayfield Square subdivision, an additional training input was delivered by a gay community organisation, allocated around one hour annually for each of the Station’s five teams of officers. The session is attended by uniformed officers only and the facilitator reports back to senior officers. No formal or written evaluation of the input is currently undertaken.

A model for training on the specific needs of, and relationship with, Black/minority ethnic communities across the Force is now being developed. This was raised by one officer as a model of good practice which linked training with the need for officers at all levels to understand and implement force policy on Race Relations. Whilst the officer recognised it had taken 15 years for the Force to reach this level of understanding and commitment to the policy, and to allocate resources for implementation, he believed this progress was indicative of the Force’s ability to face up to new demands.

Policing Other Communities: The relocation of the Force’s Gay Liaison Officer to the Community Services Department was seen by senior officers as a positive step which recognised that police relationships with the community were not just based on responses to serious crime. The move also indicated that lessons might also now be learned from liaison with other communities.

The Lothian and Borders Police Race Relations Policy was recognised by senior officers as providing a blueprint for what could be achieved in community relations. Implementation of the policy required the Force to undertake significant learning at an individual and organisational level. There were now in place a number of procedures, resources and commitments which gave credibility to the policy. In it, Lothian and Borders Police commit themselves to proper and full investigation of racially motivated crimes and offences and to the eradication of racially motivated harassment in any form. Procedures for recording, investigating and monitoring incidents are laid down alongside the definition of a racial incident. The response to be given by police officers is highlighted, as is a commitment to supporting multi agency responses to the issue. Systems for complaints are explained. The Force is now committed to training all officers on the implementation of the policy. The policy document is reproduced in full at Appendix E .

One officer recognised that the learning process which has influenced the Force’s Race Relations Policy might influence any future LGBT Relations Policy. Key points included:

· building trust: the need for the community to know and believe that police responses to their needs will be positive.

· communication and consultation: liaison arrangements will be put in place to help individuals and community groups communicate with the police

· police training: police officers will be trained in order to sensitise them to community experiences and needs

· outreach: the police must adopt outreach strategies and engage proactively with people

· public education: there is a broader need for public education and a recognition that policing is not the only answer to hate/bias motivated crime.

6. Interviews: Rank and File Officers

Officers Descriptions and Perceptions of their Jobs:

Individual interviews were carried out with eleven officers. Eight of the officers interviewed were police constables but within the group different roles were held - one officer acted as Crime Prevention Officer, primarily with responsibility for security of residential and commercial premises, two officers were Community Officers and the remaining five constables were Beat/Patrol Officers. The other officers interviewed were sergeants.

Beat or patrol officers described their jobs as mainly patrolling the subdivision area, either on foot or in a patrol car. Responsibilities included responding to calls which come in to the station, responding to road traffic accidents and following up on enquiries. Officers work a 5 week rota, covering day shift, back shift and night shift in that period. On occasion officers were also required to support special policing initiatives, for example drugs operations.

The two Community Officers took the opportunity to talk about their responsibilities in more depth. They saw their role as akin to that of a traditional ‘beat bobby’ with responsibilities such as meeting people on the street, meeting community groups, shop owners and school groups and building up local knowledge. The role of community officer was clearly viewed as important in relation to both support for other police work and public relations:

I beat a path to people, if people see me they know others in uniform shouldn’t be feared. I allow others to get a more decent response.

The credibility of community police officers was raised as an issue. It was felt that it might have been seen:

...as a bit of a soft option in the past, even a bit now, but certain aspects such as dealing with young people in schools or other public liaison stuff is seen as challenging.

Another officer reported that:

...some people probably viewed it as an old man’s job but as the team gets younger, attitudes change... It’s still seen as a bit lazy with lots of talks and visits but at a management level they know it’s become an important aspect...

Problems with staff turnover and lack of continuity in roles such as that of community officer were highlighted but generally it was recognised that increased emphasis on the role of community policing by senior officers and the Police Inspectorate suggested that the necessary elements of time and relationship building were being put in place.

While community officers were keen to express their support for the research being undertaken, their contributions, like that of patrol officers, largely related to the gay community in terms of policing the public sex environments in the subdivision. One community officer reported that contact with gay men was as a result of the “..problems for us because of what they are doing” and another explained that contact came about “by default” because of the police necessity to patrol known cruising areas.

The sergeants view their primary role as front line managers and supervisors for a team of up to 12 officers working on any shift. It was clear, however, that on many occasions numbers on a shift could be as low as 6 to 8 officers due to illness, holiday leave or court duties. This clearly made the job of meeting all the demands on any shift a difficult task. The sergeants also reported the heavy demands of administrative work for both them and their teams. Sergeants might also attend more serious incidents with less experienced officers. Finally, a key challenge of the job was seen as developing team work, often difficult with current levels of staff turnover.

Attitudes towards homosexuality

Individual attitudes: There was a broad recognition amongst interviewees that anti-gay prejudice existed across the Force and was located in an organisational culture described as “macho” and “rough”.

Only two officers expressed clearly prejudicial views and displayed particularly poor understanding of the gay community: Doing it in the comfort of your own home is okay but with poof mountain over there, it must be a nightmare if you live next to it and they come from everywhere to it..

I suppose they’ve got to meet somewhere... at least heterosexuals build up a relationship but they’ve taken it (Calton Hill) over . We can’t stop it, could be a twisted gene or anything.

Only one officer reported his attempts to challenge offensive attitudes and language used by colleagues:

I personally know of supervisors who I have fallen out with who talk about the ‘fucking poofs’, I don’t like that kind of attitude but what can you do?

There was, however, a belief, which varied from person to person, that such views were shifting. It was felt that the police reflect the society from which they come:

Police officers joining the force now are changing attitudes because of their different backgrounds... they’re more mature, better educated and reflect the more liberal attitudes of society in general.

The separation of personal values and professional practice was a key concern of many interviewees - even if part of the motivation for the separation of the two was a fear of complaints: I would say genuinely that the police have got better at separating their private views from their professional views. You could have an individual that’s homophobic but he’d treat people on a professional basis ... you know it’d come back on you if you didn’t.

Another officer recognised the value of knowing gay men personally as a potential force for change. The officer saw it as a:

...problem that officers don’t know ‘out’ gay men professionally or socially.

Views on the gay community: Officers interviewed believed that the visibility of gay men also affected police attitudes. One general, and positive, perspective was that the community was seen as:

.. a more confident community, with the community giving people a sense of confidence.

In considering how gay men themselves might perceive police attitudes towards them there was also some recognition that gay men might not report crime for fear of the response they might receive: Gay men are scared of going to court and having to talk about their sexuality or what went on before and lawyers will pull them apart. They’d rather accept their wallet getting stolen or a slap in the face.

Gay officers in the police: Only one interviewee chose to raise the issue of gay officers in the police service and related an earlier story of a gay colleague many years ago who, when senior officers found he was gay, had been immediately forced to resign. The officer added that this reaction was:

... a sign of the times, if he was here now, probably it would be okay.

Current Divisional Orders relating to policing public sex environments: Gay men are viewed by some officers largely in relation to what they see as criminal or criminally inclined behaviour. Officers responses to the question about attitudes within the police force towards homosexuality led many interviewees into discussion of current responses to men using local cruising/public sex environments and particularly around the new divisional order (no. 15/97 ‘Policing of Calton Hill’) on the matter.

This new order appears to have been misinterpreted widely by rank and file officers and raises some key issues in relation to both individual and organisational attitudes towards gay men as the following quotes show:

I’ve had complaints from local residents but now I’m told not to speak to them. I don’t understand why we’re up there if we can’t do anything.

Senior officers are very protective, as if they (gay men) are a different entity and they ignore things they’re doing. Footmen don’t really care but just because they’re gay they’re supposed to get away with whatever they want.

Officers made mention of local residents’ “fear” as a result of men using PSE near residential areas and one talked of concerns for tourists:

...innocently walking about Calton Hill, not speaking much English and being approached by men.

Other interviewees raised the following objections to the new order:

There are officers who want to actively seek out men having sex and so feel a no-go area is established...

I do not make the law, I carry it out, it’s the policeman’s job to uphold the law...

There’s legislation in place, like with cannabis, and we can’t choose to ignore one piece of legislation, the framework laid down means that we have to ignore what they know is going on.. in this area we’re not encouraged to look for offences. ...it comes down to the policing of some areas and general annoyance to residents and fear amongst some local people, so it’s not a fear of gay men it’s a fear of how gay men conduct themselves.

Whilst many officers seek to demonstrate a separation of professional ethics from personal disapproval or hostility the new divisional order has clearly highlighted tensions between those personal beliefs and professional attitudes. The order therefore appears contradictory to some officers who view its implementation negatively.

Other views do exist within the team and some officers were able to point to the need for policing to be framed by more liberal and equal legislation and, while awaiting this, by tact and discretion:

Unless legislation is changed it makes our job difficult...

We need to have a give and take approach, if it was an area where heterosexual couples were having sex we wouldn’t be bothered and if we were we wouldn’t even get a breach of the peace charge.

Dealing with gay men’s fear and experience of violence and harassment

The experience of many officers in dealing with gay men arose largely from incidents late at night in close proximity to gay bars or in the nearby parks and public gardens used by men in relation to sexual activity. Officers reported that there were a “lot of overtly gay men” on the streets at such times. Alcohol was reported as a major ingredient of the problem. Gay men often appeared to be less conscious of personal safety after drinking and were seen as potential targets. On other occasions alcohol related violence between gay men themselves resulted.

Reporting: It appears from officers’ experiences that the numbers of violent incidents reported to them in relation to the PSEs are low but it is also recognised that under reporting may be an issue. One officer reported that the levels of violence known to the police were likely to be. “only scraping the tip of a very big iceberg”. Another reported:

The senior officers are probably getting more information from the community than what officers are getting in the street, probably because of the macho perception of the police, we’re seen as anti-gay.

The issue of how PSEs were policed was touched on again by interviewees with one officer stating that some officers “... resent the fact that they can’t police the area” but with the same officer still emphasising that “we should be concerned with their safety”.

There was clearly a feeling amongst police officers that despite earlier opinions about the sexual activity some men engage in in the Calton Hill area, their behaviour did not warrant the risk or experience of actual assault: ..while I might have an opinion about their lifestyle, at the end of the day all you’re trying to find out is if the incident is serious enough for you to intervene.

And in relation to instances of serious assault:

..nobody deserves this no matter who they are.

Officers reported that it was rare for a gay man to come into the Station to report attacks. There was a recognition that this may arise from perceptions that the men might receive a negative reception and also that in the case of men using PSEs their sexuality may be currently unknown to others. It was also reported that even if initial reports are made they are often then withdrawn:

Some gay men do come in to report, they know who’s done it but then they don’t follow through on the complaint because of the realisation that in weeks and months to come their sexuality will come up.

Domestic violence: Several officers raised the issue of responding to ‘domestics’ which involved same sex relationships. With regard to domestic violence in gay relationships there was a feeling that:

..occasionally gay men are reluctant to give you the full antecedents of the situation so perhaps we have to ask more searching questions, it can be complex in assessing whether domestic incidents for gay men are perceived to be about harassment or whatever...

One officer raised the importance of the extension of operational guidelines on domestic violence to cover same sex relationships and the need for officers responsible for supervision to implement it even within a context whereby gay men as victims may resist further police involvement:

If police are called in and violence is happening they should intervene. Domestic violence procedures policy now affects same sex relationships but officers don’t understand the policy generally so implementation can be difficult... understanding is beginning to develop and the sergeant must ensure this is put in place and that it will be checked out by the Domestic Violence Liaison Officer... but sometimes it is more of a problem to get gay men to volunteer information, or full information, to help us respond.

Community contact and the ability to act: Community Officers reported particular issues in relation to knowledge of levels of violence and harassment and their role in responding to it. They were generally not aware of the levels of violence or harassment experienced because, they believed, no specific recording of incidents in relation to gay men is made and individual time consuming trawls through records would need to be made to ascertain figures or trends. It also appears that the community officer’s role is seen largely as an expression of interest in the residents of a particular neighbourhood, with relationships built during daytime. The gay community, not a geographic one, with its large influx of numbers of people in the evenings and late at night into one area, is perceived as harder to relate to.

It was felt by one officer, with a real desire to be seen to be responding effectively, that this made the effective use of some existing laws more difficult because the police approach in relation to implementation was based on ongoing personal, day to day contact with parties involved:

We have good laws in Scotland that allow harassment to be dealt with and we try to give people options about how to deal with things, a quiet word with the person known to be harassing... most people don’t want confrontation but gay men don’t approach the police at an individual level, it’s only now the gay organisations are opening up... I know gay men are scared and apprehensive but if anything they might get a better response than other people. I think we’ve appreciated that these people have real fears.

The new divisional order in relation to policing PSEs arose again in the majority of interviews, once more with officers feeling their duty to uphold the law was being undermined.

What goes on there is an offence. We get asked by the gay community ‘haven’t you got anything better to do?’ but I get asked that by shoplifters- it’s about how people perceive themselves and they look at it from a selfish point of view and what these men don’t appreciate is that there are families out there and that teenage boys could be approached, it may be rare but the perception is there.

There is policy and there’s unlawful orders. Some cops believe they’re being asked to act unlawfully.

There was a general sense of frustration amongst some officers that whilst they recognised their relationship with individual gay men, and the gay community as a whole, required improvement, the pace and direction being set by senior officers left them somewhat confused about how those relationships should develop. One officer reported:

A lot of policy is dictated by Force HQ and the problem is that officers on the beat just don’t get told. and another:

At the end of the day we have to look after the interests of other members of the public but if you deal with any minority group that has a voice then if your actions are misconstrued or you do something procedurally incorrect for whatever reason then it is more likely that a minority group will complain leaving you feeling like you wished you’d tried to ignore the problem. Ways forward: The issue of current divisional orders was summed up by one officer as feeling like “policing between a rock and a hard place” yet some officers did use the interview situation to share other perceptions. One officer believed that difficulties about current interpretation of orders were purely about some individual officers not understanding, or wanting to understand, what they were being told to do. Other officers viewed the gay community fairly positively in terms of operational demands:

I don’t think the behaviour of the gay community is anywhere near as bad as other men out for the night - it might be the most high profile policing issue at the moment but not the most problematic by far... any dealings I’ve had, people have been pretty helpful, members of the gay community do volunteer information to help solve crimes, people know each other and this helps.

The way forward in relation to police responses to experiences of violence and harassment was seen as involving effective liaison between the police and community, a better understanding amongst gay men that police officers will respond to crimes committed against them and the development of a more accurate picture of what crimes are being perpetrated against gay men. The following quotes illustrate some of these points:

We need to meet with gay men and communicate about expectations of each other.

Maybe the police are perceived as having an agenda by the lesbian and gay community and it really isn’t the case. Yes people have prejudices, but if you’re doing a professional job they shouldn’t come into it. The community need to know that we actively look for offenders and we get them, the community need to know this.

It would help if we were more aware of what crime was happening... even if they could let another organisation know who could let us know, otherwise we might not be able to stop crimes being repeated. We can only react if we know about it and we’re getting reports about assaults elsewhere and so we put resources there.

Training for officers in relation to understanding the experiences and fears of the gay community and the need to address gay men’s perceptions of police officers was also raised. There was some disagreement that training could impact on actual attitudes but again a feeling that it was police officers behaviour that mattered.

Mostly I would say it’s down to education, that has to be foremost. There is ignorance about how the community works, how the community interacts.

I know homosexuality bothers and threatens other men on the Force but I don’t think any amount of training is going to change them.

Remember the team I’m on is as diverse as any other group of people. Dealing with PSEs and sexual offences.

Views of officers on policing public sex activity: Many officers undeniably link gay men to the use of PSEs. This link determines their perception of gay men in general. For some officers, gay men contribute to their risk of becoming a victim of violence by using the PSEs which are known as a locus for criminal activity.

Undoubtedly the divisional order on policing local PSEs has served to focus the minds of officers on this issue. This research study has identified a number of negative perceptions of gay men but also highlighted differences between the views of officers. Such differences are most apparent in relation to the ability to separate personal views and hostilities from professional policy and action and the extent to which gay men are viewed as criminal or potentially criminal. A challenge for senior officers is clearly how more positive views can be promoted within the team. The following quotes highlight these issues:

Men seem to forget that people live locally and they don’t like the sexual activity and most people on this shift don’t like the special dispensation... it feels like special treatment and they’re committing criminal offences.

I’m surprised that local people don’t complain more, it’s just the odd letter, not many complaints. compared with the view that:

To my knowledge there’s no real complaints from local residents... I don’t see it as a huge problem and if the residents are not upset by it we’re doing as good a job as we can be doing... the current order formally brings to an end purges that any homophobic officer might have initiated, having said that we’re no worse than any other part of society, they’re useful guidelines. and in terms of positive views of the pragmatism which policing requires:

In so many ways so many people are on our back about this... I think there’s an honest effort on the part of police policy to try to square that circle because it’s in our interest to do that - to be pragmatic. Also our role is to make everyone, everyplace safe for everybody no matter the reason they’re there. Within this station there needs to be a better acceptance of us being there to protect not detect. If they catch a straight couple in a car they’ll leave them to it but legislation is a key issue for some officers, it requires change.

Sexual offences: In three interviews, officers also made broader reference to sexual offences not concerned with consensual activity in PSEs. Whilst it is the case that more serious sexual assaults will be dealt with by CID officers or the specialist Sexual Offences Support Unit these officers did report that there was a lack of support for men seeking to report assaults. A specific resource need was identified as counselling which would encourage victims to report assaults and support them through the legal process. There was also a feeling amongst officers that men who were eventually prosecuted successfully for sexual assault or rape perpetrated against another man received too lenient sentencing.

It was also reported by one officer that there was a perception that male prostitution was dealt with considerably less harshly than female prostitution and few men were harassed or charged with offences as women engaging in similar activity might be.

Policing and Partnership with the Gay Community

Recent Central Government suggestions that new partnerships between police and gay communities should be developed were treated with varying degrees of interest. Some officers gave a lukewarm response, and expressed doubt as to whether change in the nature of relationships is actually required:

..that doesn’t make any difference to me, all we want is these men to abide by the law. And we’re concerned for their safety, they’re vulnerable people in vulnerable situations. We don’t have time to harass them, their safety and that of local residents is our concern.

I don’t know what effect that will make on my policing. It may affect reporting crime if they’ve got more confidence so I’m not saying it’s a bad thing.

In practice it means very little, community officers have more of a role but in practice for those reacting to calls, they don’t have much time to get out to the community.

The response of other officers was more hostile with some questioning the suggestion that partnership working was the way forward:

It’s clearly a political response and policing should be divorced from politics and now more than ever policing is community based and community responsive but as an organisation we need to respond to everyone. The Government is highlighting an issue for their political agenda but I won’t prioritise gay community relations in front of anything else.

There shouldn’t be a need for a special partnership, but gay men should feel free to report crimes. They shouldn’t make it such an issue, I don’t feel the need. Partnership for what?

Others, however, considered that a partnership approach should be based on Government taking action where it can:

The Government has to take responsibility to equalise legislation.

Another officer saw partnership as requiring: ..consensus about what risk and safety means to people and consideration of the role of alcohol in risk taking. Policing needs to address and consider how gay men can be closeted and why they might use the Calton Hill area - police are just left to pick up the pieces.

Identifying needs

As a result of discussions which had taken place in the interviews, officers were asked finally to consider what needs they or colleagues might have in relation to policing the gay community. The overall positive responses offered included the following:

In terms of developing better understanding and defining the issues:

We need to better understand and define what the gay community is otherwise police just see the sexual activity and rent boys as the community. But the community requests of police need to be rational, clear, fair, this needs relationships that are respectful both ways.

The police need more information to base work practices on. You can’t make recommendations on tackling a problem if you don’t know what the problem is.

In terms of education and dialogue:

Mostly I would say it’s down to education, it has to be foremost... officers will resent people coming in to talk to them but once it’s established it will be accepted... as well as them telling us what they need they need to listen to what we require.

Communication is the key...the general policing policy is positive but it needs to be based on trust.

In terms of clearer policy around policing PSEs:

We need to be allowed to stop people on the Hill to know who’s about and for gay men to know something won’t be done with it, knowing who they are. And we need a better attitude from gay men when they are stopped.

And in terms of developing an understanding of the community and changing attitudes:

It’s about breaking down barriers and changing people’s attitudes and views on things and that’s not an easy thing to do. We tend to experience the seedier side of life in general and it’s difficult sometimes to view whole communities in a different light...overall, on my shift anyway, gay men don’t get hassled, they’re more or less left alone. My own view is they get a no bad deal but I think there’s a lot more goes on up there than we know about.

One officer had clearly considered the issues in detail and suggested a number of actions which could be undertaken including the use of an accessible ‘police shop’ outwith the formal police station where gay men could meet officers, make reports and seek advice. Communication between officers and owners/managers of gay venues was also seen as crucial but the officer reported that attempts by him to initiate such contacts previously had resulted in “..not one response from the venues concerned”. Finally the officer suggested the establishment of a number of gay community liaison officers, one based in each of the sub division’s 6 teams, to ensure a contact person was normally on duty at all times. The officer recognised however that at least initially this would be difficult:

They would be the laughing stock of the Station -they’d probably not get volunteers, they’d have to be appointed but once colleagues saw what it was they’re doing it’ll work. That single step could do more than any education, it would be just another cop’s job, people talk and it would filter through to the rest of the station. The Broader Context: Input from ACPOS

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (ACPOS) is a non-statutory body which represents Chief Constables and Assistant Chief Constables from all eight Scottish Police Forces. ACPOS consider and debate matters of strategic importance to Scottish policing. One study aim was to identify ways in which the experiences reported on in relation to the Edinburgh context might impact on other locations within Scotland. As such it was felt that it would be useful to ascertain ACPOS’s current position on a number of issues relating to the policing of the gay community. By letter ACPOS was asked:

What consideration has been given within ACPOS to how the Police deal with harassment or violence experienced by members of the gay community? Has ACPOS discussed the current ACPO guidelines in England and Wales around dealing with incidents involving the gay community and how are these viewed in relation to how they might influence practice in Scotland? How would ACPOS view developments given recent Government recommendations that the police set out to gain the trust of the gay community and work in partnership around community safety issues?

The request for information was considered by ACPOS General Policing Standing Committee which provided a written response stating that it was the policy of ACPOS to work within a recently published ACPOS Community Safety Strategy which sought “to support the most vulnerable groups in society”. The response also recognised that “..gay men are the victims of violence and harassment...we would accept that the number of reported cases does not fully reflect the extent of the problem.” The example of a shift in policing approach in the City of Edinburgh from enforcement to the promotion of personal safety is highlighted by ACPOS as positive, and an approach “augmented by regular liaison between the police and the various local groups which represent the interests of the gay community. The result has been a marked increase in confidence in the police, more shared information and a steady increase in the number of homophobic incidents reported.”

The ACPOS response ends with a commitment to continued partnership working with a recognition that “the Government’s recommendations are entirely appropriate in this context”. However the response fails to address the specific request for comment from ACPOS on the ACPO guidelines in England and Wales (see Appendix D) around dealing with incidents involving the gay community. ACPOS, therefore, appears to have no specific public policy commitment or clear strategic approach to the partnership it seeks to support. Key Points

Historically the relationship between gay men and the police has been primarily defined by: · police responses to sexual activity in places such as the Calton Hill area of Edinburgh · the view that gay men are, by their behaviour, criminal · gay men’s reluctance to come forward to make reports of violence or harassment perpetrated against them

There is undoubtedly continued mutual suspicion. The in-depth interviews have shown that amongst the police there is no single fixed view of gay men, nor a fixed view as to how a new community safety partnership between the two might develop. What has emerged, however, is an openness to enter into further dialogue and a willingness to address any blocks or impediments to developing a more positive relationship. The dialogue is in its infancy, but a number of important key findings can be determined from this part of the study.

· Whilst this study has focused on police officers of one subdivision which has the responsibility for policing the most visible parts of the gay community, there is recognition that gay men living in Edinburgh may well form their views of the Police as a result of the interactions which take place in this subdivision.

· It is the interest and commitment of senior officers within the sub division and the recent involvement of a Gay Liaison Officer, along with the support of senior officers in the Force, which has made current achievements and progress possible. This has also created a climate in which future dialogue would be welcomed. Senior officers believe that the new approach being taken toward building mutually respectful relationships has been firmly established.

· The interest shown by senior officers in the gay community, and the pace of change set by them, is not fully understood or fully supported by rank and file officers. Some lower ranking officers have reservations about current policing policy for local public sex environments and their perspective of gay men appears to be defined solely by their views on these PSEs and on how such areas should be policed.

· There was a general recognition amongst officers interviewed that gay men do experience violence and harassment based on the prejudices of others.

· Some officers have expressed concerns that current policing of local PSE’s is restricting their ability to protect and respond to local residents’ complaints - even though only three complaints had been formally recorded in the previous year.

· Interviews with some rank and file officers suggest that, as long as inequality exists in the way the law treats heterosexual and homosexual sexual activity, some officers will insist that it is their duty to seek out that homosexual activity which is unlawful. Whilst current divisional orders around the policing of public sex environments attempt to address such issues, the amount of discretion it allows may well permit those officers inclined towards harassment or arrest to behave in this way. · Some officers hold and display anti-gay prejudices. Others do not and try to tackle heterosexism where they witness it. However, such officers may not always find their views supported or validated. · There is a common desire amongst officers to be perceived as “professionals” doing a professional job - to achieve this they see the need to separate individual beliefs from professional practice. This separation of personal views from professional performance may serve as a useful way to influence the behaviour of those officers with heterosexist views, ensuring that they serve people equally regardless of sexual orientation.

· There is some suggestion that ‘out’ gay officers within the Force might make a difference to the attitudes of other officers, encouraging them to become more accepting of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle. There is no doubt however that an ‘out’ officer would need to be an extremely confident individual with the support of at least some colleagues and senior officers. This appears to be an unlikely scenario for effective change in the near future.

· The role of community officer appears so far to have had little impact on relationships between police and the gay community - a community which is not spatially determined and whose visibility is highly variable presents a challenge to conventional perspectives on what constitutes a community. The credibility of community officers amongst their colleagues is also an issue within the Force.

· Officers request that members of the gay community view them as individuals and ask gay men to be more aware that respectful relationships require reciprocation.

· As team leaders, sergeants are well placed to receive specific training on developing positive relationships between police and the gay community. Sergeants play a crucial role in relation to the correct implementation of any policies and procedures which define the nature of police:gay community relationships.

· Effective reporting and recording systems are required to develop a clear picture of current experiences of hate/bias motivated crime, even at the low levels of reporting which may currently exist. Discussion with senior officers indicates that models for reporting based on the recording of racially motivated crime could be implemented with relevant training, resourcing and community consultation.

· Officers need data on gay men’s fear and experiences of violence and harassment and information on why these men do not report incidents. The compiling of such data, and subsequent changes in reporting procedures, would indicate to the gay community that the police are taking seriously the risk of violence to this vulnerable group. Data would also provide a basis for dialogue with the community and help provide a balanced perspective for sceptical officers and local residents.

· To date, training for officers on policing the gay community is limited to one sub division within the City. Senior officers interviewed recognise that this needs to be undertaken across the Force.

· There is a view that the newly appointed Gay Liaison Officer will provide an opportunity to broaden and redefine the relationship between the community and the police. · Officers have identified a number of proactive outreach strategies which could be adopted by the Force to support the development of relationships between police and gay community - these include a police shop or drop in facility where gay men could report fears, concerns and crimes, improved liaison with gay owned businesses and the establishment of a network of Gay Liaison Officers across the Force.

· Should the post of Gay Liaison Officer within every police station be developed it was not seen by officers interviewed as the kind of job many rank and file officers would apply for. Volunteers for such a post may be scarce if colleagues perceive that holding the job is equivalent to saying they are gay. One interviewee suggested that there may be little choice but to appoint officers to such a post - ensuring that officers appointed have the personal skills, experience and ability to handle criticism from colleagues.

· The development of police and community partnerships is not required by law in Scotland. There is a belief amongst police officers that practice in the area is positive and therefore does not require legislative force.

· There are concerns amongst police officers that other partners in the developing LGBT community safety strategy are unable or unwilling to progress the initiative at a quick enough pace to deliver and effect real change. A concern is expressed that multi-agency partnerships which move at the pace of the slowest partner lead to frustration and lose momentum. Police concerns point to the need for discussion on the terms of reference for the partnership, clarity about aims and objectives, the establishment of a timetable in relation to these aims and objectives, the identification of tasks which are achievable and a level of mutual responsibility and accountability not yet evident. Failure to take on these points may well stall or defeat the partnership efforts of police and others.

· There are also concerns that the relationship between police and the gay community needs to be more than discussion of public sex activity or partnership within the context of ‘community safety’ which is only one of the Force’s six operational priorities. A relationship outwith the structures of the Community Safety Forum would help to explore such issues.

· Police forces are conscious of public reactions to policing policy and operational practices and particularly sensitive to potentially hostile media - in this respect senior officers are aware of the need to focus on the needs of gay men as members of the public whose needs they must also serve.

· There is a recognition that an effective and inclusive police and gay community partnership requires action outwith Gayfield subdivision and requires the police to utilise their experience from their relationships with other communities.

· ACPOS has adopted a Community Safety Strategy which seeks to maintain the right of individuals, and particularly the most vulnerable, to live in safety. In terms of the gay community, however, ACPOS has not taken the same route as ACPO in England and Wales who have developed a clear set of good practice guidelines for dealing with the violence and harassment experienced by LGBT people. CHAPTER FOUR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY: THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL

Introduction

This chapter presents the material gathered in a number of interviews with officials of the City of Edinburgh Council and from desk research examining a number of relevant Council policy and strategy documents. The interviews with officials, and the consideration of broader local authority responses to the gay community, supported those research study aims concerned with:

· providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · reflecting on how learning with regard to the City of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

The City of Edinburgh Council is one of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. Following the reorganisation of local government in Scotland in 1996, which introduced a new system of unitary local government, the City of Edinburgh Council assumed responsibility for a wide range of services including Education, Social Work, Economic Development, Environmental Services, Housing, Planning, Property Related Services, Recreation, and Transportation as well as an involvement in Police and Fire Services. The Council has developed the following vision for the City:

To secure the highest quality of life for all in the City of Edinburgh, through the provision of excellent public services, by being close to the community and through strong civic leadership.

To create a city where culture, the economy and the local environment can prosper and where all sections of the community can participate in, and be committed to, its success.

To develop Edinburgh further as a major European and International city, with pride in itself, its services and its unique character. (15)

It is worth clarifying at this stage the scope and the limitations of this section of the study. In relation to this study, City of Edinburgh Council participation has come primarily from officials of a number of Council Departments (Social Work, Housing, Education, Community Education, Recreation and the Equalities Unit) who have been nominated as representatives on the newly established LGBT Community Safety Forum. The Council’s own Community Safety Unit manages the City’s input to the multi-agency Community Safety Partnership and, as facilitator of the LGBT Community Safety Forum, has played a key role in support of this study. Input from the Community Safety Unit, and a broader discussion of the Community Safety Partnership, follows in the next chapter of this report. The participation of these officials has allowed the research to address how key Departments within the Council view and respond to the violence and harassment experienced by gay men. The study also places these views within a broader equal opportunities framework and examines what place there is for the gay community in the developing discussions around local government responses to social exclusion and more effective community consultation.

It should be appreciated that few Council Departments have considered in detail what their role in the LGBT Community Safety Forum actually means. However, given that these issues are still being considered, it can be fairly assumed that the opinions shared by the officials are probably representative of views across the Council. Furthermore, as will become clear from this chapter, little has been achieved in terms of delivering the Council’s Equalities Strategy in relation to the gay community and it is hoped that the views expressed to the research team provide at least a starting point for others to better understand the issues which underpin the local authority’s perspective on serving the gay community on a day to day basis.

In order to promote frankness of responses officials were informed that their contributions would be treated in confidence and no comments quoted from their interview would be directly attributed to them. With this in mind, comments given below do not include names or departmental location. Interviews took place during November/December 1998. To maintain open and uninhibited discussion and to ensure a high priority for confidentiality interviews were recorded by note taking only.

Interviews with City of Edinburgh Council Departmental Representatives on the LGBT Community Safety Forum.

The core questions put to officials were as follows: · how would you describe the authority’s and your department’s attitudes toward homosexuality? how has this developed? · to what extent is gay men’s fear/experience of violence and harassment considered or dealt with by you or colleagues in terms of specific incidents or broader policy or practices? · does the consideration of these issues raise any particular difficulties? what do you see as the way forward in this area? · does the policing of the gay community or Government recommendations that the police set out to gain the trust of the gay community and work in partnership around community safety issues have any impact on your practice? · what are your needs in relation to progressing understanding of, and action on, the issue of violence and harassment experienced by gay men?

In addition, the Equalities Unit was asked to consider: · how do Council policies around equal opportunities impact on the services delivered to gay men?

· are any consultation, monitoring or evaluation systems in place which inform the relationship between the authority and gay community?

Attitudes towards homosexuality

Individual staff attitudes: Whilst officials expressed positive personal attitudes towards homosexuality there was a general belief that these attitudes would not be reflected by staff across their departments. In terms of individual attitudes one interviewee believed that most Council employees would be ‘neutral’ on the issue, however others believed that prejudicial attitudes were deeply held:

... it’s the last great bastion of prejudice in society. It’s okay to use offensive language or behaviour in relation to sexuality and so when you’re dealing with this issue this has to be considered. It’s still okay to be prejudiced.

People think anti-discriminatory practice means race, gender or disability. To integrate sexuality into their understanding is harder. Homophobia is far more ingrained, homophobia is a sickness.

A Council wide view: Agency attitudes were believed to have shifted since local government reorganisation in 1996. One of the old authorities within the previous two-tiered system, Edinburgh District Council, was remembered as being more vocal and proactive in relation to equal opportunities issues. One interviewee reported:

We’re not out there positively promoting positive attitudes anymore.

One official summed up his view of the Council’s attitude towards homosexuality and to supporting gay community based service providers as “...there, but not overt”.

In addition it appears that concerns around funding of gay community organisations remains as a result of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 which sought to ban the promotion of homosexuality and the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship. Whilst the legislation has never been used in the courts to prevent a local authority from supporting any LGBT community based service provider, Section 28 has resulted in some funders avoiding grant giving for fear of prosecution. Others have sought to interpret the relevant provisions within the Act in order to legitimise their own prejudicial attitudes. Officials considered that the City of Edinburgh Council was wary of direct grant giving because of ‘Section 28’, instead using awards via other Council funded trusts or voluntary groups.

There was recognition that ‘out’ gay men within the Council had a role to play in the development of more positive agency attitudes. However, there was also a concern from interviewees that out gay men should not themselves be expected to act as agents of change. It was also reported that when they were ‘out’ at work gay men were under some pressure to ensure that they distanced their sexual orientation from decisions or actions made in the course of the job. There was no sense of a worker’s homosexuality being seen as a resource for the local authority to utilise creatively. One interviewee suggested that the individual’s homosexuality should:

..inform practice but only as long as that subjective experience is a tool, not in charge of you. Overwhelmingly, officials believed that in their individual practice they would seek to treat gay service users equitably but found it difficult to define what the Council’s strategic view of homosexuality might be, other than indifference.

Generally it’s invisible.

We give support to (name of gay community organisation) but if you went out into any centre we support I couldn’t honestly say it’s on the agenda.

The biggest issue is that gay people don’t access services, there’s a fear that if you try to use services you might get a negative response.

Dealing with gay men’s fear and experience of violence and harassment.

The visibility of the issue: It appears to most officials interviewed that the issue of violence and harassment of gay men “...won’t surface because workers just don’t identify it. The problem is invisibility”.

Another reported:

I’m not aware of any individual instances but I recognise that our monitoring of racial harassment and violence also gets ‘nil’ returns. There’s probably a lot of it but people turn a blind eye or people deal with it and forget it.

And in a similar vein:

..violence stuff just doesn’t come to the Council, literally I think they take a beating and get on with it.

This general lack of recognition of the issue, and the resultant lack of response, was seen as increasing gay men’s vulnerability to further violence or harassment. Particular emphasis was placed on the needs of young gay men:

I know of young gay men who have had to put themselves at risk of abuse because they have nowhere else to go. I don’t think the Department thinks about it.

Training and monitoring issues: The purpose of training which might sensitise staff to the needs of gay men was raised. While officers saw the value of shifting antagonistic personal values or beliefs they saw the key importance of training lying in:

...how they provide the service. You can challenge misconceptions and share information but you can waste time on attitudes, you need to get to people’s behaviour. The service provision needs of LGBT people should be assessed and met but the value judgements and subjective attitudes of individuals get in the way, we need to control their attitudes.

And from another interviewee:

..the bottom line is about the ethics of our work, you can’t change fundamental attitudes but you can change behaviour.

However, even where officials reported that training had been provided to staff, specifically around responding to violence or harassment they witnessed in the course of service delivery, there were still doubts as to how they might respond:

We do equalities training across the Department which presents different scenarios including the harassment of lesbians and gay men, all based on actual cases and staff are encouraged to regard each individual’s perspective and try to act as counsellor or advisor...staff are under a remit to intervene if they see or hear violence or harassment... but I recognise that people might feel incapacitated by the behaviour.

One departmental representative reported attempts to monitor levels of harassment or violence but little was known as to whether this behaviour was motivated by hate or bias based on heterosexism. It also appears that in relation to this departmental monitoring any anti-gay motivation has to be specifically identified and reported by the victim:

We collect information... we don’t chase complaints or concerns, we wait for them to come in. Some undoubtedly have an element of homophobia attached to them. It often comes up as a secondary issue...

In considering how to develop responses, training opportunities for staff were seen as “urgently needed”. The catch 22 situation which officers find themselves in, however, was that: ...we really need evidence from practice, we need to point to operational needs and demands.

I think the Council is quite clear about ensuring equality for all and that barriers which produce fear or violence are removed but I’ve never had a complaint.

Nobody could deny the legitimacy of the issues but we need to present the evidence and tackle stereotypes of gay men....

Social exclusion: Several officials reported that new departmental initiatives around social exclusion may well provide appropriate forums for further discussion of the issues. It was suggested that these working groups would require information about the ways in which gay men might be excluded from using Council services. One interviewee suggested that work had to be done to explore whether, and how, LGBT people experience disproportionate levels of poverty and that this too should influence how services to LGBT people are structured and delivered.

Contracting services out: The Council’s role as a contractor of a range of services was also raised. It was pointed out that the Council was in a position to make demands of private sector companies and trusts who managed and delivered services on behalf of the local authority in that those services should be delivered in an inclusive way. This is also true of Council grant aid support for the broad range of voluntary sector agencies in the City.

The Community Safety Forum: The key role of the LGBT Community Safety Forum, on which all these officers were departmental representatives, was raised by several interviewees in relation to how individual departments and the Council as a whole might develop responses to violence and harassment. We do need to work out what our role is and the Community Safety Partnership can help us work that out.

However, in order to do so several problematic issues were identified. Firstly, interviewees believed that their role as departmental representatives required clarification. One officer had written a paper for the Community Safety Forum with respect to how hate or bias motivated violence or harassment impacted on the service which his Department delivered but was prevented by senior officers within his own Department from presenting that formally to the Forum because it highlighted problematic aspects of the Department’s ability to respond. The officer felt that this lack of openness to scrutiny prevented informed discussion by Forum members. As a result of such control and intervention by senior departmental staff it was felt that a danger lay in officials doing little more than “reporting back”.

There was a concern that departmental representatives who lack motivation to make changes might find that:

..it would be very easy to sit there and say and do very little when we need to be asking the questions and the Department needs to respond. I don’t think the Department take it that seriously at the moment.

It was also suggested that the Community Safety Forum needed to properly articulate its purpose and produce a focused action plan on the issues of interest to it.

It was suggested that gay community based agencies ran the risk of bringing too many other, ie. non-community safety issues, to the Forum because there were few other opportunities to be heard. One official highlighted that:

..the Community Safety Forum can’t become a community development forum or a place where community organisations present residual resentment about other issues.

Finally, in terms of broader policy or practices, it was recognised by officials that the Community Safety Forum would only be able to fulfil its potential as a key resource to the partners involved if resourcing levels matched its needs.

Policing and Partnership with the Gay Community As representatives on the Community Safety Forum, officials were given the opportunity to consider the importance of partnership working in respect to policing the gay community. There were concerns expressed around the basis for the new approach with questions asked about whether partnership was predicated on police/public relations or on straightforward operational demands in the case of investigating serious assaults. There was a hope that the new relationships developing were concerned with broader problem solving and proactive approaches and a commitment to more accountable and respectful relationships.

There were clear links made between Council services and problem-solving police approaches. Environmental changes enhancing public safety around public sex environments were highlighted as important, as were links between housing providers and police in relation to responding to tenants being harassed or assaults taking place on Council property.

Other partnership working opportunities around women’s safety and racially motivated crime were highlighted by officials as positive examples. It was hoped that the LGBT Community Safety Forum, as well as other independent police and Council links, might also progress the development of services such as those to male survivors of abuse and sexual assault.

Identifying needs

City officials identified a number of needs which required further attention.

In relation to how officials of the City of Edinburgh Council understand the issue of violence and harassment of gay men there is a need for:

· reliable data on gay men’s fears and experiences to be collected and collated and for assurances that such information will be shared with relevant departments · Departments within the Council to address how current policies and practices on violence and harassment take account of gay men’s experiences and needs - for example around domestic violence or harassment by neighbours

In relation to broader equal opportunities issues and equity in service provision there is a need for:

· targeted services to address the specific needs of young LGBT people · the Council to explore how gay men actually use services and not assume that gay men’s concerns are largely around more obvious service needs such as those arising out of HIV status · front line staff who deal with the public to have training which sensitises them to the experiences and needs of the gay community and which equips them to respond appropriately · contractors, trusts and voluntary sector agencies delivering services on behalf of the Council to be required to adopt and deliver equal opportunities policies and practices which respect and meet the needs of gay service users · existing policies around equal opportunities and access to services to be more widely shared with the public and the means by which the public can complain or challenge current practices to be more transparent · the diversity of the LGBT community to be recognised as a positive aspect of the community and not used as a reason for not responding · more gay men to relate to the Council and other partner agencies as ‘out’ gay men and to talk about their experiences and needs · Councillors, as elected members, to set the tone and nature of Council policies by making public their support for services which meet the needs of the gay community.

In terms of the Community Safety Forum officials identified a need for:

· the local authority to take a strategic view of LGBT community safety issues and give clear direction to individual departments that they are expected to work within it · the role of departmental representatives to be clarified and the necessary authority given to them to act on behalf of their departments · links to be built with the commercial gay scene which might enhance the role of the latter in community safety strategies · an action plan, with objectives, milestones and performance indicators which gives the Forum direction.

Broader equalities issues

This study is based on the premise that violence and harassment experienced by gay men results from cultural and psychological heterosexism. Hate or bias motivated violence or harassment, therefore, cannot be separated from a broader understanding of equal opportunities issues, an area of practice which the City of Edinburgh Council prides itself on developing. Across the Council’s key City, Urban Regeneration and Anti-Poverty strategies there is a commitment to equality which is to be evidenced and enhanced by partnership working, monitoring of effectiveness and support for other agencies to ensure they “..do not replicate the discriminatory attitudes that are otherwise so common in much of society”.

In terms of its equal opportunities perspective, the City of Edinburgh Council has adopted an Equalities Strategy in which it states:

The Equalities Strategy makes explicit a commitment on the part of the Council to addressing the root causes of prejudice against children and young people, people with disabilities, lesbians and gay men, people from ethnic minority groups (including travellers and refugees), women and older people. (16)

The strategy states that the following is required for effective implementation: · effective monitoring systems in employment and appropriate employment practices and conditions which protect all employees · an annual action plan which lays down a strategy for implementation of the Council’s equal opportunities approach · the active participation of members of the identified groups through targeted outreach and development work and the provision of adequate support to sustain the groups’ involvement · the active involvement of the targeted groups in the management of services.

The monitoring systems set out by the Strategy require feedback from a number of equality fora, from research into community needs, the delivery of set departmental performance indicators and action on complaints and suggestions for improvement from the communities themselves. Within every Council department it is expected that mechanisms will be put in place to ensure a strong internal focus on equalities, ensuring that equalities issues “are woven into the fabric of the Council’s approach to serving the people of Edinburgh”. (17)

The Council has established an inter-departmental working group examining how the Equalities Strategy has been progressed and has asked each Council department to report by September 1999. While this report is keenly awaited, this study has sought to examine what has actually happened to-date in relation to the provision of services to the gay community.

Commitments to the process of discovering and meeting the needs of the lesbian and gay community are unclear. While the Council is pledged to the “...routine collection of data on disability, race and gender” (18) no such commitment is made in terms of homosexuality.

A pledge is also made to “setting up and supporting...equalities fora for people with disabilities, people from minority ethnic groups and women” however no such commitment is made to the gay community who merit only a commitment to “...exploring with lesbians and gay men which forms of representation best suit their needs..” (19). However, no evidence has been made available to this study that this commitment to exploring gay community views on representation has been undertaken. The commitment to gay community needs is described by officials interviewed in this study as:

..flagged up because of lesbian and gay staff, nobody would have turned around and said you’ve left them out... In reality Councillors aren’t particularly interested. Council policies do have equality issues as a thread through them but when you come to put it into practice there are officials who simply don’t have a clue.

The development of individual departmental equal opportunities implementation strategies was described by officials as “...all in different stages of development” and “patchy”. There was also doubt as to whether any consultation with the gay community had taken place regarding the development of Departmental Service Plans and that by the time most were available to the public “...equal opportunities has been left out”.

When asked if the Council had ever specifically delivered a service which gay men might recognise as being targeted at them one interviewee suggested that there was “...nothing overt, you’d need to look for clues”. With no work underway it is difficult to envisage how progress on the Equalities Strategy of the Council as it impacts on the gay community might be measured.

Other Council Developments

In the course of interviews with officials as part of this study attention was drawn to the establishment of two particular initiatives which have the potential to improve consultation with, and service provision to, the gay community in relation to responses to violence and harassment as well as other issues.

Firstly the Council has established a Citizens Panel which, with 2000 members, is intended to be representative of Edinburgh’s citizens. Departments within the Council can access members of the panel for consultation purposes, perhaps pulling together all members of a certain age or employment status for discussion around key budget debates or policy developments. In drawing up panel membership certain characteristics of individuals were sought - age, gender, employment status, racial origin, housing tenure etc. - but the opportunity was not taken to ensure that LGBT people were represented, the view of one officer being: “...We’re trying to be representative but where do you draw the line?”

The Council has also recently established The Lord Provost’s Commission on Social Exclusion in Edinburgh whose remit is as follows:

· to assess and define the causes and effects of social exclusion in the City of Edinburgh · to consider and recommend how an effective response can be developed and implemented across the sectors of City life and call upon a real contribution from all the City’s major institutions and companies · to consider and recommend on the involvement of all the City’s communities and relevant organisations in developing and implementing action to reduce social exclusion · to operate as an independent Commission, taking evidence and gathering information as widely as practicable, leading to clear recommendations from the Commission within one year of their first meeting · to prepare a report and recommendations for the Lord Provost, and through him for all relevant agencies, organisations and communities in the City.

The Commission is to hold seven full-day hearings at which evidence is to be gathered. The fourth of these hearings, in May 1999, heard evidence from “local communities and communities of interest”. Council officers supporting the initiative invited gay community organisations to make presentations. The current national and local interest in social exclusion - as opposed to equality of opportunity - needs some clarification. However, it would seem that local gay community groups within the city, and elsewhere in Scotland, might do well to take opportunities available to them to participate in local authority led discussions around social exclusion, particularly where such debate might influence how Council services respond to gay community needs.

Developing a Framework for Consultation and Planning with the City’s Gay Community.

While good practice may exist at the level of the individual practitioner there is little evidence that the City of Edinburgh Council has developed an appropriate strategic or Council-wide relationship with the City’s gay community. What, then, might be the way forward? What might provide structure and help clarify what a positive set of relationships between the Council and the gay community might be like?

In addition to acting on its existing Equalities Strategy the Council need look no further than some of its own public statements, referred to and shared by officials in the course of this study, particularly the documents ‘The City Strategy Two Years on: Progress, Achievements and Future Commitments’ and ‘Consultation Matters: A Guide to Consultation’. In addition the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) along with The Scottish Executive has produced the document Report of the Community Planning Working Group, membership of which included the City of Edinburgh Council’s Chief Executive. Key elements of each of these documents are reviewed here and the contribution they make towards helping frame future Council/gay community relations, of which responses to violence and harassment are a part, is examined. This chapter began with the vision which the City of Edinburgh Council had set itself. The main aspects of that vision are a concern for quality of life and participation and pride in the City. In addition there is a belief that there is “an Edinburgh way of doing things” which includes a commitment to social justice, the allocation of resources to meet the needs of those whose quality of life is affected by poverty or prejudice, a commitment to openness, to community consultation and to partnership with community groups.

From these values and philosophy comes the Council’s strategic aims which are given as: · to provide quality services · to promote the city nationally and internationally · to develop the local economies · to reduce poverty and disadvantage · to promote a healthy and sustainable environment · to communicate and consult effectively · to develop the organisation and its staff. In 1998 a further aim was added: · to promote safer communities and to reduce crime.

This last aim is based on the following premise:

Crime and inadequate community safety are considered major problems in the city. However, feeling safe at home and in the streets is essential to everyone’s quality of life, and everyone in Edinburgh should feel free and able to play a full part in the daily life of the city. The Council will take the lead role in implementing a strategy to promote community safety to the year 2000 and beyond. (20)

Whilst the document goes on to identify progress and future intentions with regard to a number of groups within the City no specific mention is made of LGBT people. There is, however, a stated intention that the Council will be committed to “..consultation with communities about their concerns and priorities” and a “promotion of corporate action to ensure that community safety is a priority for all Council Departments”. (21)

Of course the Council’s response to the community safety needs of LGBT people is now reflected in the establishment of the LGBT Community Safety Forum, part of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership. This has required the allocation of resources by the City as a major partner. What is now required is that this early practical development is supported by Council wide and Departmental-specific action, ensuring that the community safety needs of the gay community find an in-road into the Council’s strategic thinking.

But what of other issues which need to be addressed if both cultural and psychological heterosexism are to be addressed or challenged? As a starting point, how might the Council begin to consult meaningfully with the gay community and bring about better understandings and equity in service provision?

Again, the Council need look no further for a framework for consultation with the gay community than its own publication Consultation Matters: A Guide to Consultation. In it Council staff are encouraged to recognise that: Consultation benefits you and your Department. It helps you to do your job more efficiently on the basis of good information. It can improve services by identifying and anticipating problems which can then be addressed and it can encourage new users by making services more attractive or accessible to non users. Finding out what people think and value will help to direct scarce resources to where these are most needed or demanded.

Furthermore, the report argues: Collecting the views of users can demonstrate that users have contributed to policy and service development and can add strength to the role of local authorities as the democratic voice at the local level. (22)

The document continues with a comprehensive range of suggestions around practical and methodological approaches to community consultation which might be used to successfully engage with the gay community.

Finally the COSLA/Scottish Executive Report of the Community Planning Working Group addresses how “Councils and other public bodies could work more closely together in addressing the needs of their communities”. The term ‘community planning’ is defined as follows:

We took ‘community planning’ as embracing any process through which a Council came together with other organisations to plan, provide for or promote the well-being of the communities they served... community planning could operate both across an entire Council area and at the level of local communities within Council areas. We carried into our work the belief that councils, as democratically elected bodies, have a community leadership role which must be reflected in any new arrangements, and also a belief that ways must be found to enable communities themselves to participate effectively. (23)

The aims of community planning are seen as being :

· to improve the service provided by Councils and their public sector partners to the public through closer, more co-ordinated working · to provide a process through which Councils and their public sector partners, in consultation with the voluntary and the private sector, and the community, can agree both a strategic vision for the area and the action which each of the partners will take in pursuit of that vision, and · to help Councils and their partners collectively to identify the needs and views of individuals and communities and to assess how they can best be addressed and appropriate services delivered.

The report explores in detail current practice amongst some local authorities and recognises the need to engage with ‘communities of interest’. The results of community planning are seen at three levels - strategic, specific and local. The view of the working group is that existing local authority powers can do much to facilitate the process and that then Secretary of State (and now the First Minister) already has necessary powers to make community planning happen. The key issue of political priority for the process is raised, however, and the following proposal made:

We believe that it is important... that community planning is seen to command a high political importance. It should be seen as a key part of the role of major appointed public bodies as well as of local authorities. We therefore recommend that the Scottish Parliament should legislate to provide a statutory basis for community planning... we suggest that it might take the form of a duty on local authorities to work with a range of partners to draw up at regular intervals a community plan setting out how the Council and these partners are going to work together to promote the well-being of the people in the Council area... community planning is important and must be made to work if councils and their partners are going to serve the people of Scotland as best they can.

The working group concludes:

We therefore recommend that councils and their partners should take forward community planning processes, with a view to producing community plans for their areas... (24)

In order to progress community planning approaches five Pathfinder councils were selected by The Scottish Executive and COSLA to develop early responses. Learning from the process is to be used to inform how other councils approach the task which is to be completed by all local authorities by December 1999. The City of Edinburgh is one of these Pathfinder authorities yet no evidence has been made available to this study which indicates that gay men or gay community organisations have been invited to contribute to, or inform, the process to date despite the claim that “...the community planning process is truly inclusive of all interests in the city.” (25)

The three documents referred to in this section of the report suggest that the framework for effective partnership between the City of Edinburgh Council and the gay community is in place. Some initial progress is being made at a specific level with the Council support for the Community Safety Partnership’s LGBT Community Safety Forum, but, in the scale of Council responsibilities, this is a small and indirect initiative. It appears that what is missing is the political will to address the relationship between the City and the gay community - resulting in a lack of strategic and Departmental action around identifying and meeting gay men’s needs in relation to community safety and a number of other areas in an equitable way.

Key Points

Despite the long history of equal opportunities in local government, and the goodwill of individual Council officials, the City of Edinburgh Council has made little effort to build meaningful links with the City’s gay community. Officials interviewed as part of this study talked about the ‘invisibility’ of the gay community and painted a picture of indifference toward the community’s needs. Officials report that the promotion of ‘equality’ is less of a political priority than it used to be. However, despite this scenario, several important issues have been identified in this part of the study: · Notwithstanding the Council’s support for the LGBT Community Safety Forum, the Council’s strategic view of gay community needs is described by officials as indifferent and uninformed.

· Robust data on how gay men use Council services and on gay men’s experiences and fears of violence and harassment is required in order to influence the meeting of gay community needs or the re-orientation of services.

· The Council’s role as grant giver and as a contractor were highlighted as opportunities for the local authority to encourage the adoption of equal opportunities practices by others, but it is suggested that this influence is little used or monitored.

· Departmental representatives on the LGBT Community Safety Forum report that their role on that Forum lacks clarity. Representatives recognise that they do not have the authority to speak on behalf of their Departments or reflect openly and honestly on Departmental practices. Interviewees also expressed a view that the Forum itself needs a clear action plan which makes demands of Council Departments.

· Council representatives on the LGBT Community Safety Forum believe that gay community groups need to clarify their expectations of the Forum and focus on the issue of community safety.

· Council officials expressed a wish to support the development of partnerships between the gay community and police.

· Officials identified that young LGBT people are particularly vulnerable to violence and harassment and require particular attention.

· From interviews conducted there is little sense of the Council delivering its Equality Strategy to gay men and no action plan as to how equity in service provision might be developed.

· The Citizens Panel initiative and the Lord Provost’s Commission on Social Exclusion in Edinburgh offer some possibility for the Council to recognise and take account of the lives of gay men and the socially excluding effects of violence, harassment and discrimination.

· A framework for effective community consultation and liaison exists within current Council policies and documentation. The Council’s own report on the development of the City strategy, guidelines for officials in undertaking effective community consultation and the COSLA/Scottish Executive support for Community Planning together provide an approach which might yet be effectively utilised. CHAPTER FIVE COMMUNITY SAFETY IN THE CITY OF EDINBURGH

Introduction

Ekblom (1996) defines community safety as “an aspect of the quality of life” (26). This chapter of the report examines the issue of community safety and supports those research study aims concerned with:

· providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · reflecting on how learning with regard to the City of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

Background A Safer Cities Programme in England was announced by the then Conservative Government in March 1988 as part of the programme ‘Action for Cities’. Over the next three years 20 Safer Cities Projects were established in England and Wales by the Home Office. In Scotland, The Scottish Office launched its own Safer Cities Programme in 1989 established four projects in Central Edinburgh, Castlemilk, Greater Easterhouse and Dundee North East. Originally intended as three year projects, later extended to five years, the projects were intended “to reduce crime, to lessen fear of crime and to create safer cities in which economic enterprise and community life could flourish”. (27)

The Safer Edinburgh project was to cover the city centre area in which approximately 10% of the capital’s population lived. The Edinburgh project expanded in 1992 to take in part of Leith and a key legacy of the early initiative was the setting up within the regional authority Lothian Regional Council of a Community Safety Unit which, following local government reorganisation, was located within the City of Edinburgh Council. The Unit now supports the work of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership (ECSP) whose aim is to promote a joint approach to reducing crime and fear of crime and to create safer communities. The major partners in this ECSP are: · The City of Edinburgh Council · Lothian and Borders Police · Lothian and Borders Fire Service · Edinburgh Voluntary Organisations Council · Scottish Business in the Community · Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce and Enterprise · Lothian Health.

These partners have worked to produce a community safety strategy for the City (see Appendix F) and in order to progress the strategy a number of working groups have been established. These include a Young People’s Safety Group, a Women’s Safety Group, a Black/Minority Ethnic Safety Group and, since early 1998, a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Safety Forum. Four local neighbourhood groups have also been established to promote the strategy in specific geographic locations within the city.

Within the City of Edinburgh Council a Community Safety Corporate Working Group has also been established at which Heads of Service Departments from Housing, Education, Social Work etc. discuss delivery of the Community Safety Strategy at a corporate level.

Much of the support for the ECSP comes from the aforementioned Community Safety Unit (CSU) located within the City of Edinburgh Council Corporate Services Department. The Unit provides advice and information and guides policy development on community safety. A member of staff from the Unit provides practical support and management to the LGBT CSF. The Unit is also supported by Lothian and Borders Police.

It is early days yet in terms of the consideration of LGBT issues within a broader city based community safety strategy, however the incorporation of LGBT community safety issues by the ECSP is both relevant and essential to a truly inclusive city strategy. It is also the first occasion on which the needs of a LGBT community has been considered by community safety work in the Scottish context. With this in mind there is no established format or ground rules which lay down how the relationship between ECSP partners and the gay community should progress. The co-operation of staff of the local authority Community Safety Unit, and LGBT Community Safety Forum members, has been of great importance in consideration by this study of progress to date. An openness to honest dialogue on the issues has been much appreciated by the study team.

It was intended that interviews with CSU personnel, desk research and attendance at a number of LGBT Community Safety Forum meetings would allow the study to explore current partnership arrangements. The study also places current work within a broader framework and examines what might be learned from other recent studies which seek to explore community safety partnership working in action.

The City of Edinburgh Council Community Safety Unit Early meetings with Community Safety Unit staff provided opportunities for discussion of core questions also put to other key agencies around attitudes, experiences and Government recommendations on partnership working.

Attitudes towards homosexuality During 1997, staff of the Community Safety Unit became increasingly aware of a number of issues arising out of the safety of gay men using public sex environments and the difficulties facing police in responding to these. Whilst it was appreciated that links existed between police and a small number of gay community organisations it was felt by the Unit that community safety would benefit from broader discussion. With this in mind a number of community groups together with police based in Gayfield Square subdivision were approached. An exploratory meeting was held in March 1998 at which police, Unit staff and representatives of a small number of gay community organisations discussed the policing of PSEs. An important outcome of this meeting was the establishment of the LGBT Community Safety Forum. Following the meeting a letter was sent to community groups inviting further community representation. The invitation read:

“At an exploratory meeting to discuss Policing Calton Hill held on 6 March 1998 at St Leonard’s Police Station those present agreed to establish the LGBT Community Safety Forum. All were agreed that a multi agency approach offered great opportunities for wider debate and a joint action on identified problems across the city of Edinburgh.

To ensure the widest representation you, or a representative, are invited to attend the next full meeting of the Forum.

A wide range of agencies and projects have been invited to attend this meeting from the relevant communities as well as from Lothian & Borders Police and the Community Safety Unit of The City of Edinburgh Council”.

Within the Community Safety Unit a positive attitude exists towards the LGBT community together with a recognition that, as a vulnerable group, an active interest in the community’s needs is part of the remit of the Unit. Interest in LGBT community needs is supported by the broader ECSP, through which proposals to establish the LGBT Community Safety Forum were progressed. It is not known, however, whether discussion of LGBT Community Safety issues have permeated beyond the Partnership fora into partner agencies’ internal structures. It is known that the establishment of the LGBT CSF has not been discussed in any public forum within the structures of the City of Edinburgh Council.

Dealing with Gay Men’s Fear and Experience of Violence and Harassment The CSU has developed a perspective which sees clear links between the fears and experiences of gay men and other key vulnerable groups in the City. There is a belief that progress made on understanding and responding to the needs of women, young people and the Black/minority ethnic communities within the City offers models of good practice which might be replicated. The Unit is also keen to see local neighbourhood based community safety initiatives take on an inclusive approach and recognise, in their community safety work, the needs of local women, Black/minority ethnic residents, young people and the LGBT community. As a member of staff explained:

We have a key interest in how LGBT people in the city’s peripheral housing estates relate to housing associations and other housing agencies and also to how they report to the police what’s happening to them there.

The Unit also recognises that a focus on the community safety needs of gay men will begin to highlight problems in the way Council Departments commit themselves to equitable service delivery and partnership working on a day to day basis. The view was expressed that:

We need to separate out community safety issues and equality issues but I recognise that these issues will be aired and people can’t be stopped. It was also believed, however, that the Council must “...follow up the commitment to establish an Equalities Forum incorporating LGBT issues or the Community Safety Forum will have some difficulty with these issues”.

A key concern in developing responses to violence and harassment of gay men is also seen as resourcing. Whilst the CSU can offer some initial financial support there is an expectation that other Partnership members will also commit resources. There is a concern that the ECSP may be seen as largely Council owned and led with expectations that the Council should then provide significantly more resources to support delivery of aspects of the Partnership strategy. There are, however, examples of joint resourcing of innovative community safety initiatives between the Council and police, and the Council and Lothian Health, which offer positive models of practice in relation to other groups.

In terms of developing a positive set of relationships between the gay community and members of the ECSP there is a recognition that the gay community might justifiably be cautious:

There are difficulties. Groups from the community don’t have histories of positive relationships with agencies like the Council or police and there are some suspicions that the Council and police may have a hidden agenda. We need to work out those relationships, it’s a challenge for anyone to work in an equal environment.

Identifying needs There is a recognition that gay community agencies view the setting up of a LGBT Community Safety Forum as a Council led initiative. As a result it is felt that community organisations need support to be able to “...take more responsibility for the work of the Forum and not just leave it to the Community Safety Unit”. It is also recognised that developing community participation and ownership after the establishment of a Forum rather than prior to its formation leaves the CSU with a difficult community development role. However it is felt that:

...an early structure, status and respect which formal establishment of a Forum gives has meant that the issue is taken seriously, it’s seen as a positive thing, the Forum gives the groups weight and access to resources. It also means the Unit can service the needs that arise.

The CSU is also clear that any developing partnership, embodied in a LGBT Community Safety Forum, must also be able to achieve a number of key tasks. These are identified by the CSU as being the formation of a cohesive group, a clear agenda for action, research on community experiences and securing of financial commitments to support work from ECSP partners. The development of an Action Plan for the LGBT Community Safety Forum is seen as a priority:

We’re keen to have the LGBT Forum develop a strategy before too much goes back to the full Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership and this strategy needs to be based on research findings. This should all be developed by mid 1999 and then the Partnership can make demands of partners and the Community Safety Unit would be able to take specific issues to individual Council Departments.

Other Partnership Working Issues The CSU view is that a constructive relationship between police and gay community organisations is fundamental to a developing community safety strategy for gay men. There is recognition however that partnership to date has been focused on the relationship with one subdivision of the Lothian and Borders Force which may result in the misconception that the LGBT community is only found there. A Force-wide relationship was also perceived to need a significant training input for officers in the field. The CSU expressed a view that:

There is a need for greater awareness and training for the police, force wide, this is being resisted as there is a feeling that homophobia is not an issue.

Local Community Safety Initiatives An important part of the City’s Community Safety Strategy is the establishment of a number of local initiatives. Along with agencies already represented in the city-wide partnership, local agencies are seen as equal partners in the assessment of local need and development of specific local responses.

In the local neighbourhoods which have developed community safety strategies, surveys of local people have been undertaken. These are able to highlight key issues and identify the views of local people. To ensure inclusiveness the surveys also specifically highlight the responses of young people, women, elderly and Black/minority ethnic groups. One of the local community safety initiatives has produced a comprehensive Community Safety Plan arising out of the survey and other consultations undertaken.

To gather information on the degree to which the experiences of gay men in relation to violence and harassment had been considered by these local initiatives we issued a short questionnaire. This sought to discover whether local strategies had taken account of broad equal opportunities issues, whether sexual orientation was addressed within this, to what extent violence and harassment of individuals had been considered, and again, whether this addressed the experiences of gay men. Finally groups were asked to highlight any specific needs in relation to considering the issue further.

Two of the three groups approached responded, one group verbally, the other with the provision of full documentation in connection with their local plan.

The written response indicated that the local partnership is made up of a number of agencies each of whom have their own equal opportunities policies in place. No single agreed equal opportunities framework exists for the local community safety work. In relation to recognising the vulnerability of gay men to violence and harassment, the local Community Safety Plan makes reference to sexual orientation on one occasion under reporting on ongoing initiatives by the local authority Social Work Department. In a section headed ‘The promotion of measures which support residents who are experiencing racial harassment’ can be found the following paragraph: It is acknowledged that there are particular harassment issues for those perceived to be different because of sexual orientation, life style and those with mental health problems. This has led in a number of incidents to people being re-housed and emphasises the importance of a close working relationship between housing and social work.

The group also identified that the “Community Safety Group is presently developing on objective concerning reducing violence associated with sexual orientation” and asks for “any information on how the issue is being tackled elsewhere, best practice would assist in pursuing the group’s objectives in this area”.

The second group verbal response reported that:

After considering the questionnaire carefully we feel we can’t answer it at all, we’re not a constituted group and so can’t have a position on it [violence and harassment of gay men]. Generally groups in the area do work with anti discriminatory and equal opportunities policies but we can’t answer this questionnaire.

Clearly work remains to be done in terms of informing and supporting local groups’ understandings of the issues as they affect gay men, and some groups more than others may be willing to address these issues directly.

The LGBT Community Safety Forum Since April 1998 the Forum has met at six-weekly intervals to address a number of issues. Whilst other chapters of this report (findings from The Local Authority, findings from Gay Community Agencies) address the views of representatives on the Forum of their role and its functions, in practice the group has focused primarily on discussion of the following issues:

· a general update on organisational activity is provided by all agency representatives at every meeting · general information regarding known incidents of violence against gay men are shared by the police and action on these reported · the key issues of reporting incidents and training for police officers has been addressed on several occasions. A working group representing the Forum visited Manchester and examined local responses there

· the City of Edinburgh Council and its relationship with the LGBT Community has been discussed with the manager of the City of Edinburgh Council’s Equalities Unit · membership of the Forum is addressed · the possibility of delivering a public campaign on the issue of ‘homophobia’ has been discussed · the purpose of the Forum and its relationship with the ECSP has been raised and explored · the purpose, nature and management of research on the issues of violence and harassment experienced by LGBT people has taken much discussion time.

The Forum is also committed to the production of an Action Plan for the period 1999-2000 and Community Safety Unit staff have taken primary responsibility for its production. As at May 1999 an Action Plan has been produced and distributed for comment amongst members of the Forum. The structure of the plan is based on previous action plans produced by the Women’s Safety Working Group and the Young People’s Safety Group. The Action Plan contains a number of key principles which reflect a commitment to making Edinburgh a safer place for all LGBT people and to a multi-agency approach as the basis for this. In terms of aims the Action Plan identifies the need ‘to promote joint agency action to ensure the rights of LGBT people to live without fear for their own or others’ safety and to be safe at home, in the community and at work’ and ‘to promote, monitor and evaluate action which ensures that the responsibility for promoting LGBT safety is shared by all sections of society.’

The main themes of the plan are taken from the plans developed by the other sub groups already mentioned - safety in the home, safety in public places, safety at work and safe learning. The Action Plan is attached in Appendix G.

In this first Action Plan the priorities for action are centred around further consultation, information gathering and auditing of existing services and responses to violence and harassment. Members of the Forum are in the process of identifying specific objectives in relation to each broad issue identified and the intention is to allocate lead responsibility on each main theme to one of the partner agencies. Clearly the Action Plan requires development, and it is hoped that partner agencies will take cognisance of the comments made in this chapter, but it is important to note that as yet, no direct reference is made to the need for key partners within the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership to address internally their own current policy towards, and service provision to, the LGBT community. No demands are made of agencies, such as the City of Edinburgh Council, to deliver existing equal opportunities commitments. The Action Plan does not yet address other issues which have been raised by representatives on the Forum during interviews in the course of this study. These include the need: · to explore the community safety needs of gay men who are HIV positive and living with AIDS · for police to adopt a force-wide, proactive positive relationship with the gay community · for police responses to men using public sex environments to be clearly defined and uniformly carried through · to address training on gay community safety for staff and volunteers of LGBT community service providers

· to address the role of Council Departmental representatives to the Forum, tackling a lack of interest, tokenism and blocks to action put in place by senior officers of departments. · to recognise that the LGBT community has broader community development needs which must be addressed if community groups are to successfully engage with the issue of community safety.

There is a danger that, even with the production of an Action Plan for the LGBT Community Safety Forum, statements will remain general and key agencies involved remain unchallenged. Additionally, in such a scenario, gay community representatives may have little of any substance with which to create community interest and a community perspective on the issues. In this scenario, and despite good intentions, the LGBT Community Safety Forum risks becoming a bureaucratic response to a very real problem. It is evident from the support given to this study that this is not the wish of Community Safety Unit staff, gay community organisations or the police. The remainder of this chapter addresses some of the challenges which those agencies with an interest in community safety might usefully address in order to avoid such a scenario. Community Safety: Definitions and Challenges Findings presented so far in this chapter have been concerned with the structure and role of the multi-agency Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership and the workings of the LGBT Community Safety Forum.

In order to place these comments in a proper context, and before recommendations can be made, it is useful to reflect on the concept of ‘community safety’ itself and to examine the challenges which effective community safety practice must face.

Definitions What is Community Safety? The Audit Commission report ‘Safety in Numbers: Promoting Community Safety’ (1999) seeks to offer a definition of the term, at the core of which is a “concern with more than crime” and an intention “to get to the heart of what disrupts people’s quality of life”. Broadly it sees community safety as:

..an issue of major public concern. It affects most people’s lives in some way... It is central to people’s quality of life and can make the difference between people wanting to live and work and stay in an area or not...Community Safety is an outcome and not a problem or a service: it is about people’s sense of personal security which is the product of multiple factors. (28)

Challenges Whilst the Audit Commission report is concerned with reflecting and making recommendations on practice in England and Wales only, the report does offer an important analysis of the main problems which face those agencies working to promote community safety across the UK. Reflecting on the findings of the report may be of use to partners within the LGBT Community Safety Forum.

The Audit Commission report suggests that many current community safety strategies:

· do not reflect local people’s priorities or communicate effectively · adopt a ‘top-down’ approach to the issue · are weak on the causes of crime and potential solutions through insufficient analysis, monitoring and evaluation · fail to invest sufficiently in prevention by relying on external funding or failing to identify spending from within partner agencies · are unclear on the rationale for working in partnership and have difficulty in establishing clear ownership and accountability · lack integration with mainstream services provided by key agencies who fail to see the relevance of the strategy to their work. This is often exacerbated by overcrowded corporate agendas and an emphasis on situational, project based approaches, rather than impacting on mainstream departmental services.

The Audit Commission recognise that “the issue of what works in promoting community safety was still largely unresolved at the time of this research” however the identification of these key problems in many community safety strategies are of significance to the community safety work in the City of Edinburgh and indeed across Scotland. As the report also states:

The key to successful community safety approaches is that they address what is directly relevant to people in their local setting; instead of a traditional ‘service’ approach which provides general reassurance and reacts to problems when they occur, they aim to prevent them from happening in the first place and to reduce their incidence. In order to address the community’s fears and concerns properly, community safety work must engage fundamentally with the community in a way that goes beyond the scope of traditional crime prevention work. At the national level, a number of general trends can be detected that build the case for public agencies to focus more on the citizen’s point of view. (29)

Perhaps the most important challenge to be faced by community safety work is indeed how to ‘engage with the community’ with whom it has an interest. In other words, to develop and work in partnership. But what does partnership actually mean and what are the ingredients for a successful partnership which agencies involved in the LGBT Community Safety Forum might need to put in place?

Pugh (1985) describes partnership as:

...a working relationship that is characterised by a shared sense of purpose, moral respect and the willingness to negotiate. This implies a sharing of information, responsibility, skills, decision making and accountability. (30)

In order to reach such a point, however, a recent Audit Commission paper ‘A Fruitful Partnership: Effective Partnership Working’ suggests that the following key components must be in place:

· clear, shared objectives · a realistic plan and timetable for reaching these · an integration of the partnership’s work into mainstream activities · a framework for responsibilities and accountability · trust between partners · realistic ways of measuring achievements.

These basic ingredients for partnership working reflect many of the needs of effective community safety work and would go some way to tackle the causes of failure of some current community safety strategies.

Key Points

The Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership has been established to promote the safety of all of Edinburgh’s citizens and in examining different aspects of that partnership this chapter has identified the following: · Major public, private and voluntary bodies in the city of Edinburgh have come together to form the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership (ECSP) and a Community Safety Strategy for the city has been produced.

· Within the structures of the ECSP a number of working groups have been established to address the needs of vulnerable groups or communities. This now includes a LGBT Community Safety Forum, the first of its kind in Scotland.

· The role of the Community Safety Unit (CSU) has been central in establishing and maintaining the work of the LGBT Community Safety Forum to date and Unit staff have a clear commitment to supporting the development of positive approaches to the experiences and fears of violence and harassment of the LGBT community.

· The formation of the LGBT Community Safety Forum was approved by the ECSP but it is not known to what extent Partnership members have discussed the community safety or broader service provision needs of the LGBT community within their own organisations.

· The CSU recognises that addressing community safety issues will lead to gay community agencies articulating demands in relation to broader service provision issues.

· The resourcing of the LGBT Community Safety Forum is seen as a crucial component of successful development but, as yet, in addition to the staffing support from the CSU, and financial support for current research programmes, no further sources of funding have yet been identified. · There is a recognition that gay community groups may well be suspicious of the motives of statutory sector agencies.

· Establishing a LGBT Community Safety Forum with little prior consultation with the LGBT community has resulted in a lack of ownership amongst community groups. The Forum is seen generally as a Council-led initiative.

· From the Council’s Community Safety Unit perspective the Forum is a prerequisite for credibility, resources and action on the issues.

· While the Community Safety Unit is keen to see local neighbourhood community safety initiatives take an inclusive approach by recognising and incorporating the needs of LGBT residents, little evidence is available that this has happened to date.

· Individual partners in local neighbourhood initiatives have adopted equal opportunities or anti discriminatory policies but these do not appear to have informed their joint approach to the issue of community safety, which is not yet inclusive.

· The LGBT Community Safety Forum has met regularly since April 1998 and has addressed a number of broad ranging issues but some representatives report that it still lacks real clarity of purpose.

· The development of an Action Plan for the Forum has been led by the CSU. The plan is seen as essential in order to frame the relationship between the Forum and ECSP members. · The Action Plan developed to date focuses on further consultation, information gathering and auditing of services but may be open to criticism, and its effectiveness undermined, unless it makes concrete recommendations for action on the part of Forum and ECSP members.

· Some key issues not yet included in the Action Plan are: the community safety needs of HIV positive men and those living with AIDS, specific demands in relation to police practices, any definition of the role of City of Edinburgh Council departmental representatives or representatives of any other partner agency and the need for training for LGBT community service providers.

· The LGBT Community Safety Forum has been used regularly by gay community representatives to raise broader equalities issues even though there is a recognition that the Forum itself can do little with these.

· Whilst relatively new, the LGBT Community Safety Forum is in danger of repeating many of the problems identified by the Audit Commission report on community safety. There is a danger that a ‘top-down’ approach is being adopted by lead agencies, there is a push to produce an Action Plan before current research has been completed, disseminated and discussed, secure funding is not in place, no time has been given to establishing the nature of the partnerships which have developed and there is little sign that (other than in the police response) mainstream services are viewing the Forum’s work as relevant to them.

· It would be useful to address the meaning of community safety and its relevance to the LGBT community and their partners - as yet this has not been done in the LGBT Community Safety Forum.

· Reflection on current thinking has suggested that successful partnership working in relation to community safety practice requires, as a minimum, that partners share clear objectives, that they work with realistic plans and integrate work into mainstream activities, that they ensure partners are accountable and fulfilling responsibilities and that monitoring and evaluation of progress is undertaken. Of fundamental importance is trust between partners.

· The setting up of a LGBT Community Safety Forum within the structure of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership deserves to be commended as an important recognition of the issue of violence and harassment of the LGBT community. The support for the Forum from Community Safety Unit personnel, the police and gay community groups indicates the need for a partnership approach to the issue to which all are clearly committed. CHAPTER SIX THE WORKPLACE

Introduction

This chapter presents the material gathered via desk research into the experiences of gay men at work and from questionnaires distributed to 18 companies who are the largest employers in the City of Edinburgh. The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the importance of workplace discrimination, harassment and violence and possible responses to it. The focus on the experiences of gay men in the workplace supports those study aims concerned with: · providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · reflecting on how learning with regard to the city of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

It is worth clarifying at this stage the scope and limitations of this part of the study. Within the resources available it has been possible only to undertake one interview with a representative of one of Scotland’s largest trades unions, UNISON, to undertake desk research into other trades union responses and to distribute short questionnaires to the City’s largest employers. Small and medium sized companies are therefore not included. Eighteen employers were contacted as follows, largest employers first: (those who returned questionnaires are also indicated, total returns 13).

Company Business Type Questionnaire Return Lothian Health Health Care Yes The City of Edinburgh Council Local Government Yes University of Edinburgh Higher Education Yes Bank of Scotland Banking/Financial Services No Standard Life Assurance Life Insurance Yes Scottish Office Central Government Yes Royal Bank of Scotland Banking/Financial Services Yes GEC Marconi Avionics Electronics Yes Post Office/Royal Mail Postal Communications Yes Scottish Widows Life Insurance Yes British Telecommunications LTD Communications No Lothian Region Transport Bus Operator Yes Inland Revenue Tax Admin/Collection Yes Napier University, Edinburgh Higher Education No Scottish and Newcastle PLC Brewing and Leisure Yes Heriot Watt University Higher Education Yes Ethicon Surgical Supplies No Hewlett Packard Ltd. Electronics No

In order to promote frankness of response, companies were told that contributions were confidential and no comments quoted from their returned questionnaire would be directly attributed to them or their Company. With this in mind comments given below do not include names of individuals or companies.

Questionnaires were distributed in November 1998. They were sent to Human Resources or Personnel Directors. The Trade Union interview and desk research took place in November and December 1998. Further information on study methodology is offered in Appendix B.

The experiences of gay men in the workplace in relation to discrimination, violence or harassment is a topic of increasing interest to employers and trades unions. Gay men themselves have always recognised the workplace as a setting for much of their experience of harassment and discrimination. In the Edinburgh survey we found:

· 19% of respondents had been bullied at work because they were gay · 16% felt they had received an unfair work appraisal because they were gay · approximately 10% said they had been refused employment or fired from a job because they were gay

Furthermore only 52% of men participating in our survey felt able to be ‘completely’ open about their homosexuality in their workplace. Taking into consideration that these men, interviewed in known gay venues or within other social gatherings of gay men, are likely to be amongst the most socially confident of gay men and able to use the community’s resources, it is likely that a majority of gay men are even less ‘out’ at work than our study sample.

The experiences of harassment, bullying and discrimination highlighted by this study are also supported by other evidence both in the UK and abroad. The 1996 Stonewall ‘QueerBashing’ study reported that 8% of respondents had been harassed by colleagues or clients. Gay men participating in the Stonewall survey also gave written examples of such experiences:

In the shop where I used to work the boss harassed me continually...he called me dear or darling in front of customers. This obviously embarrassed them. He would say ‘poof’ or ‘queer’ instead of my name, both in talking to me directly or asking other staff members to pass on a message.

A colleague at work in (workplace named) took a dislike to me. Each time I had to enter the room where he worked he would call me names: faggot, queer, etc. If I was near his desk he would stick pens up my arse and laugh. I had no support from others in the room. I even refused a job which I wanted because it would have meant working in the room opposite him. (31)

In Australia research currently being undertaken by the Australian Centre for Lesbian and Gay Research indicates that harassment at work is endemic and states that:

...workplace harassment can be more extensive than we recognise. Some people only identify really explicit forms of harassment when they talk about being harassed but it is often insidious and it can be difficult to say whether it is because someone is gay or lesbian. (32) Before presenting findings from employers and trades unions this chapter will consider broader perspectives on the issues of discrimination, violence and bullying in the workplace which have been raised in the course of this study.

Discrimination in the workplace

There are no laws in place which protect gay men from discrimination at work. In effect employers can dismiss employees purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. However, through the 1990’s, a number of developments have taken place which indicate that such discrimination may eventually become unlawful:

· In June 1997 the UK Government signed up to a European Union treaty which commits signatories to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Article 6a in the Treaty of the European Union (1997) states that “...the Council of Ministers...may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation”.

· The Government has also introduced a Bill to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law which it is hoped will also outlaw discriminatory practices.

· The Government’s commitment to equalise the ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex is currently being progressed through Parliament.

· There is a growing number of court cases being brought by individuals to challenge a range of discriminatory employment practices, from a ban on gays in the military (now requiring Government action because of the recent European Court of Justice ruling) to equality in relation to pensions, compassionate and bereavement leave or travel concessions for same sex partners. Many of these have been unsuccessful but are compounding pressure on both trades unions and employers to re-consider employment practices said by campaigners to be unfair but not necessarily illegal.

· Guidance from the Department of Trade and Industry also now suggests that direct discrimination such as the sacking of an employee purely because they are homosexual, may be found to be ‘unfair dismissal’ by industrial tribunals. An employer has also recently been found to have breached their duty of trust and confidence to a gay employee, leading to a finding of unfair dismissal, by failing to take adequate steps to prevent harassment.

Violence at Work:

The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulation 1995 introduced a requirement on employers to report physical injuries due to assaults arising from, or in connection with, work if they result in death, injury or absence from work for 3 or more days. Employers must also provide safe places for employees to work in, and violence in the workplace must be investigated where it occurs. In 1995 a guide for employers from the Health and Safety Executive entitled Preventing Violence to Retail Staff called on employers to develop clear policy statements on violence in which the company should develop an approach which presents a:

...clear and well defined statement of your views on the issue and what actions you propose to take to tackle violence at work. The policy will show that you consider the risk of violence towards your staff to be a serious matter. In a large retail company the policy should be agreed at a very senior level to ensure commitment from the top down. The policy should provide an authoritative statement on how the risk will be controlled. It should also set out how preventative measures will operate, for example training, changing work patterns or the environment. (33)

Unfortunately, to date, few statistics about violence in the workplace are available in the UK. In the United States, however, the Department of Justice estimates that 15% of all violent crimes committed annually occur in the workplace.

Bullying at work

Bullying in the workplace has also become an issue of interest to employers and trades unions. While some bullying may well be expressed through obvious discrimination against an individual, for example in terms of promotion, and some may result in actual physical violence, a great deal of workplace bullying consists of verbal harassment, gossiping about or ignoring the individual or rumour-mongering. In relation to workplace bullying Randall (1997) argues that:

The potential range of effects on victims is enormous. Quite apart from people giving up their chosen careers in order to avoid bullies, it is not unknown for bullying at work to cause problems in pregnancy, alcohol abuse, psychiatric illness, family problems, marital and relationship difficulties, suicide and, most frequently of all, resignation to the superiority of the bully...the effects of bullying have been likened to post-traumatic stress disorder. (34)

Randall also calls for further “investigation into the effects of workplace bullying by examining the case histories of people who have been subjected to it” but at the end of the day Field (1996) reminds employers that:

...employers already have an obligation under EC law, called a duty of care, to ensure the well-being of their employees. Those who continue to refuse to fulfil their obligations will be increasingly and expensively called to account. (35)

Responses from Employers

Employers were asked:

· Does the company have an equal opportunities policy? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no policy exists? · Does the policy include reference to sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category within your policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why sexual orientation is not referred to?

· Does the company have a policy around violence or harassment at work? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no policy exists?

· If you do have a policy on violence or harassment does the policy consider or make reference to violence or harassment based on sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no reference exists?

· Would further consideration of violence or harassment of gay men in the workplace raise any particular difficulties for your company?

· What might help your company develop/progress a policy on violence or harassment in the workplace which might take account of the fears/experiences of gay employees?

Of the thirteen companies which responded, four provided detailed policy documents around equal opportunities, anti discriminatory practice or workplace bullying. Responses were as follows.

Equal Opportunities Policies

Twelve of the employers which responded had equal opportunities policies in place and the other employer was in the process of developing a policy. Some companies reported that at a local level they had adopted national or ‘corporate’ equal opportunities policies and practices whereas others, more locally based, have developed their own. A typical equal opportunities policy makes a broad commitment to providing and promoting equality of opportunity for all employees, delivered by creating an environment in which individuals are respected regardless of characteristics such as gender or ethnicity and ends with a number of commitments from the employer to undertake such actions as monitoring of the workforce or investigating all complaints of discrimination.

In terms of any specific issues raised in the adoption of workplace equal opportunities polices only two companies offered further comment, one stated that the adoption of the policy was seen as “essential to underpin all other employment policies operated by us”. Another respondent offered the comment that “..there is some cynicism re the operation”.

Ten of the twelve equal opportunities policies adopted make specific reference to sexual orientation alongside other areas such as gender, race or disability. Several companies offered a range of further comments in relation to the issue. For one company:

In terms of gay men there was some discussion on terminology but no opposition to discrimination against lesbians and gay men being included. Whilst another reported that:

We have been consulting with employees and trade union representatives to try to develop an action plan linked to the policy but the issue is ‘invisible’ at the moment. We want to take some action on it but we are finding it difficult to implement.

In a comprehensive Action Plan linked to the Company’s Equal Opportunities Policy this company is explicit and open concerning the present situation:

Where we are now: Very little action has been taken to date. an article in (workplace magazine) concerning a focus group met with little response. Some members of staff have been in touch recently about issues affecting gay, lesbian and bisexual members of staff. Action 1998/1999: We will look at the issues raised and in discussion with staff and Trade Union Representatives consider what action can be taken to address these issues. We reassure staff that any complaints on sexual orientation will be treated seriously and thoroughly investigated. In conjunction with Training Office we will explore the feasibility of training on issues of sexual orientation. Where we want to be: Assured there are no forms of harassment or discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

For one company, who made no specific reference to sexual orientation in their current policy, there was the feeling that:

The Equal Opportunities Policy is considered sufficiently broad ranging and generally inclusive to ensure that all categories of staff are treated fairly. Workplace Policies on Violence and Harassment

All but two of the responding companies have adopted policy frameworks around violence and harassment at work with one company currently working to develop such a policy and one other hoping to do so in the near future. Several companies reported that policies in this area are contained within their Equal Opportunities Polices whilst some companies have adopted specific policies. Two companies provided these policy documents, both of which set out why the policies exist, what ‘harassment’ might be defined as (with both including violence and bullying), why harassment is unacceptable and what employees should expect in terms of the process for complaints and support for individuals making reports.

Companies were also asked whether any stated policy considered or made reference to violence or harassment based on sexual orientation. Most companies indicated that specific reference was made. One reported that:

We have a network of advisors and we have tried to ensure that there are gay men involved in that network.

Both companies who provided policy documents in their response were shown to have made specific commitments in policy statements which were shared with employees. One states:

Harassment is any behaviour which is unwanted by the recipient. This behaviour may focus on age, creed, disability, nationality, race, sex, sexual orientation, family status, religion or any other personal characteristic, and may affect the dignity of any individual or group of individuals at work.

Another states:

The use of the word harassment is generally interpreted as meaning sexual harassment since this is the most common type. However, it is essential to remember that people may be subjected to harassment because of their age, their ethnic origin, sexual orientation, a disability, HIV/AIDS and religious or political convictions.

For one employer, however, no reference to sexual orientation was made because “there are so many subjects an employer can have a policy on it is difficult to see why this [should be] specifically mentioned.”

For two other respondents it was felt that sexual harassment statements were enough to also cover harassment based on sexual orientation.

There is no reference because our existing policy on sexual and racial harassment does, in my view, embrace [sexual] orientation because of its wording.

Section on sexual harassment within the Equal Opportunities Policy extends to both men and women equally.

Further consideration of the Issues Asked if further consideration of violence or harassment of gay men in the workplace might raise any particular difficulties for their company, for some the issue was not evident:

There are no incidents or evidence to suggest any problem exists.

To date there have not been any recorded incidents of violence or harassment towards gay men within the company. Therefore it is not presently considered an issue.

The ‘invisibility’ of the issue was also identified as a significant problem for another company:

If this matter were to be singled out for particular attention it would give rise to questions because we have no recorded harassment complaints re gay men. So it is not seen as a problem here.

Another recognised the difficulty with placing the responsibility for raising the issue on individual gay men but remained confident in existing responses:

We respect that some people are able to come out but others aren’t. It is an unknown quantity and we can only work on assumptions about people. We’re not complacent, procedures and support mechanism would work I believe.

In terms of support companies might need in order to develop or progress an inclusive policy around violence or harassment at work the following were identified. Firstly in terms of demonstrating whether the issue was real:

This would have to be demonstrated to be an issue, otherwise the company will be creating policies for a very wide range of issues.

It needs to be visible. Need awareness of employee fears and experiences.

One company was committed to exploring the issue of violence and harassment broadly:

We are planning a survey to determine more fully what people’s experiences are and in this way should get information on the fears and experiences of gay employees.

One company expressed an interest “..in the way other companies deal with such an issue” and another made a request for more general “..knowledge of the fears and experiences which are specific to our gay employees”. Finally one respondent made a number of specific requests:

Perhaps a study of gay employees highlighting their fears and experiences in the workplace to see if there is any common patterns we could act on. We need examples of organisations who have implemented a policy which specifically deals with harassment of gay employees.

Trades Unions

Trades unions across the UK have, to varying degrees, been developing an interest in the issue of gay rights in the workplace, one aspect of which is a concern for the safety and well- being of gay trades union members.

In July 1997 the publication ‘Labour Research’ surveyed the UK’s major unions to assess their interest in action around lesbian and gay rights in the workplace, asking whether unions had developed supportive policies and to what extent they had established lesbian and gay self organised sections within the structures of their Union. The survey also asked whether unions had dedicated union officers’ staff time to the issue or developed training programmes or support for LGBT Pride events. The survey also sought to discover which unions supported action on harassment in the workplace. The following indicated that, on this last matter, they do: AEEU, AUT, BFAWU, BIFU, CSP, CWU, EIS, FBU, GMB, IPMS, MSF, NACO, NAPO, NASUWT, NUJ, NUT, RMT, STE, TSSA and UNISON. Membership figures from these unions indicate that approximately 4.5 million workers in the UK are members of trades unions which, at least theoretically, take action on hate or bias motivated harassment in the workplace.

At a UK level the Trades Union Congress held its first seminar on lesbian and gay issues in 1991 and in 1995 turned that into an annual ‘Pride At Work’ event. From 1998 an annual Lesbian and Gay Workers’ Conference has had the same powers within TUC structures as those of the women’s and Black workers’ conferences.

The Scottish TUC, with the public support of the current General Secretary, is actively supporting attempts to develop a lesbian and gay network for affiliated trades unions. It is also evident at the annual Scottish LGBT Pride event that several Scottish trades unions are now publicly supporting the event.

In Scotland, and across the UK, the public sector Union UNISON has led the way in researching, and reporting on the issues which affect lesbian and gay people at work. The Union clearly sees violence and harassment in the workplace as an issue which needs to be located within a broader equal opportunities framework and while representation of individuals experiencing harassment is considered to be crucial, the Union also campaigns around equalising the law as it affects lesbians and gay men, for equality in terms of local authority service provision and for support for action on these issues within the Labour Party to which it is affiliated. The issue of safety at work, however, is seen as fundamental to union activity and is seen as being: ..about the very meaning of what it is to be lesbian or gay. This is a struggle about our right to work where we choose, without discrimination from our colleagues, with the support of our superiors, to be judged on our abilities, and to be open about who we are to whatever extent we want to be. And it’s absolutely central to achieving equality, because, for good or ill, our jobs dominate most of our lives... our jobs can be where we feel we most make a difference or where we’re most appreciated. and it’s for all those reasons that lesbians and gay men need the protection of the law to ensure that we can be as free to be ourselves at work as our non-gay colleagues are. (36)

Key Points

The workplace is identified by gay men as a setting for much of the harassment they experience, with bullying and unfair employment practices resulting from the hate of others. Fear of violence and harassment means that almost half the men participating in this study find it impossible to be completely open about their sexuality. This study has also found that:

· There are no laws in place which protect gay men from discrimination in the workplace. However European law, recent Industrial Tribunal decisions, more enlightened approaches to the discussion of terms and conditions of employment and the Government’s intention to equalise the law in other areas suggest this may, in time, change.

· Amongst large employers workplace equal opportunities policies are almost universal, most of these are inclusive of gay men although some identify difficulties in translating this commitment into specific action.

· Policies also exist within large employers in relation to violence and harassment, some as separate statements, others incorporated into equal opportunities policies. Not every employer makes specific reference to sexual orientation in such policies and two employers in this study felt that existing responses to sexual harassment also covered the area of sexual orientation.

· For some companies, a lack of reporting of violence and harassment by gay employees leads them to believe that it is not an issue. Others believe that while the experiences of gay men are not being reported, if they were, existing responses would be adequate to serve the needs of those men adequately.

· Companies identify the need to improve reporting and recording mechanisms regarding the experiences of gay employees in relation to violence and harassment. The need to improve dissemination of best practice responses to discrimination and harassment where it occurs was also recognised.

· A growing number of trades unions are addressing lesbian and gay rights in the workplace and 4.5 million trade unionists in the UK are members of trades unions who report that they have systems in place to respond to hate motivated violence and harassment. · The trade union UNISON argues that safety from violence and harassment in the workplace is fundamental to the struggle for equality and has called on the Government to address how lesbians and gay men might be better protected by the law. CHAPTER SEVEN HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

Introduction

This chapter of the report presents the material gathered via questionnaires sent to a number of social housing providers in the City of Edinburgh. It also considers current legal responses to harassment which may be open to social housing providers or individual tenants.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight the importance of housing in the understanding of gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment. This focus supports those study aims concerned with: · providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · reflecting on how learning with regard to the city of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

Within the resources available it has been possible only to use postal questionnaires to a selected number of housing associations. As another major housing provider the City of Edinburgh has been considered as one entity in a previous chapter of this report.

Directors or Chief Executives of the following housing associations were sent questionnaires in December 1998, those who returned the questionnaires are indicated.

Housing Association Returned Port of Leith Housing Association Yes Barony Housing Association Yes Castle Rock Housing Association Yes Edinvar Group Yes Hanover (Scotland) Housing Association Yes Link Housing Association Yes Wester Hailes Community Housing Association No Ark Housing Association Yes

In order to promote frankness of response housing associations were told that contributions were confidential and no comments quoted from their returned questionnaires would be directly attributed to individuals or their agency. With this in mind comments given below do not include the names of individuals or agencies.

Housing associations were established to provide housing and associated amenities for people in the greatest need. The associations play an increasingly important role in terms of housing in the City as access to rented accommodation via the local authority has diminished. Housing associations also play an important role in urban regeneration and partnerships between associations, local communities and Central and local government are seen as crucial to the regeneration of some of the City’s most deprived areas. The City of Edinburgh’s housing tenure profile is given below. Figures for the City are for 1997 but Scottish figures are for 1994, allowing only broad comparison but indicating the higher than average number of houses in the city which are owner occupied, housing association managed or rented from private landlords.

1997 1994 Edin total households Edin.% Scotland %

Owner occupier 136,112 69.0 57.1 private rented 18,003 9.1 6.8 local authority 32,259 16.4 32.6 housing association 10,858 5.5 3.5

In the City as a whole one in every twenty homes is provided by a housing association.

The housing tenure of the 300 men participating in this study is as follows:

· 50% were owner occupiers - significantly lower than the general Edinburgh rate · 34% rented privately - significantly higher than the city rate · 4% rented directly from a housing association - similar to the city rate · 6% rented directly from the local authority - significantly lower than the city rate · 6% responded with another answer (e.g.. parents)

It should also be considered that the rate of private rented accommodation may well also include numbers of men renting rooms within housing association or Council properties belonging to friends or other lease holders.

The men participating in the survey also identified the setting in which their experiences of violence and harassment had occurred and, in relation to incidents in or near the home, reported the following:

· 12% of harassment (such as verbal insults, obscene phone calls or receiving hate mail) happened in the home · 23% of harassment happened in the street near home · 8% of violence (such as physical or sexual assault or being robbed) happened in the home · 21% of violence happened in the street near home.

With 1 in 25 men in the City living in housing provided by housing associations and 1 in 4 incidents of harassment and violence occurring in or near the home, this section of the study now examines one sector of social housing’s understanding and response to the issues of hate or bias motivated violence and harassment.

Responses from Housing Associations

Housing Associations were asked to respond to the following questions: · Does the organisation/agency have an equal opportunities policy? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no policy exists?

· Does the policy include reference to sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category within your policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why sexual orientation is not referred to?

· Does the organisation/agency have a policy around violence or harassment of service users? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no policy exists?

· If you do have a policy on violence or harassment does the policy consider or make reference to violence or harassment based on sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify as to why no reference exists?

· Would further consideration of violence or harassment of gay men as service users raise any particular difficulties for your organisation?

· What might help your organisation develop/progress a policy on violence or harassment which might take account of the fears/experiences of gay men?

Of the seven housing associations responding, three also provided additional documentation about equal opportunities or violence and aggression policies. Responses were as follows:

Equal Opportunities Policies

All responding associations reported that they had equal opportunities policies in place. One reported that “..it required to be broad-based and to be capable of being monitored” while another reported that it was a requirement of the association managing committee that the association staff develop policies and practices which “...address all forms of equal opportunities”.

Those equal opportunities policies provided to the study team indicate an interest from housing associations in equal opportunities in the areas of employment and service provision. The focus of this element of the study is on the latter.

A typical equal opportunities policy relating to service provision addresses areas such as access, membership of the association, allocations, repairs, complaints and how rent arrears will be dealt with. It may also highlight the need for contractors working on behalf of the association to follow the stated policy. In explaining why equal opportunities is an area of interest to housing providers one association stated that it:

...recognises that current access to housing and services are not equal in our society and that discrimination occurs... It considers such forms of discrimination to be unacceptable, both in terms of good practice as a housing and support provider and in terms of social justice. It recognises that this situation will only change if specific measures are adopted to redress the consequences of past disadvantage and discrimination. It is committed to a programme of action to make this Policy fully effective.

In terms of whether any specific issues have arisen for associations in relation to adoption of equal opportunities policies, one respondent addressed the issue of policy development and reported that the association’s equal opportunities policy “...was introduced without any meaningful consultation with staff or service users”.

All but one of the associations report that their current policies include reference to sexual orientation. On behalf of the association with no such reference the respondent said “I am unable at present to identify the reason why this is the case”.

Policies on Violence and Harassment

All but one of the associations indicated they had adopted to varying degrees policies around violence and harassment. Most associations appear to have incorporated these within their equal opportunities policies. One association stated that “as an association we have a clear policy on inter-tenant disputes and behaviour which could lead to eviction”.

Specific detail of policies and responses to violence or harassment of tenants has not been shared, however, it appears that several associations have more clearly defined policies around victimisation, harassment or bullying in terms of employees within the workplace rather than for tenants. One association in particular provided the researchers with a ‘Policy on Violence and Aggression to Employees’ and a ‘Harassment and Bullying Policy’ which comprehensively cover the issues and provide structure and guidance on responses but only in relation to employees. It is not clear therefore, whether any general tenancy agreements or information given to tenants at any stage in their tenancy addresses the issue of violence or harassment and housing association policies on the matter.

Associations also report that even where statements on violence or harassment have been developed they do not always make reference to violence or harassment based on sexual orientation. While six associations reported equal opportunities policies which made reference to sexual orientation, only two specifically mention sexual orientation in relation to policies around violence and harassment. The following responses were offered when asked for clarification on this matter:

Reference does not exist in a separate sense although since sexual orientation is included as a reference, as is harassment, the two are linked in these terms. No form of discrimination is singled out in our policy for special reference as apart to others.

All forms of violence and anti social behaviour are covered by housing policy and legislation. Individual cases of people with learning difficulties and their sexuality are dealt with individually, no general policy would suffice. The association with no policy on violence or harassment stated they had not developed one because “our client group are mainly elderly people living in secure conditions and such a problem has not presented itself”. Clearly the issue of violence and harassment is seen only in terms of physical assault from outsiders and consideration has not been given to more subtle forms of violence or harassment from other residents, family members, visitors or staff. While Elder Abuse is of growing concern nationally, and believed to be under-reported, such a position clearly fails service users.

Generally it would seem that many housing providers have not drafted comprehensive policies which explicitly address the issues of equal opportunities and violence and harassment.

Further consideration of the issue

Housing Associations were also asked to consider whether developing a policy which addressed violence and harassment of gay men as service users would cause any difficulties for the association and what help might be useful if they were to do so.

One respondent felt that even to consider such action would itself be difficult because it was “not necessary” whilst another felt there would be “no difficulty if there was evidence that [violence or harassment of gay service users] took place”. Another recognised that:

... addressing specific issues of exclusion of particular people would be very difficult for (name of association) but ultimately of great benefit to the staff and service users.

Finally, one association called for “....evidence that our clients experienced this problem”. There is clearly a failure to address the issue of violence and harassment of gay men proactively and to be genuinely customer focused. Another provider recognised that external pressure is required to bring about change:

Major funders demanding such a policy would result in rapid policy development but with little or no actual commitment to change it is unlikely. I would like to see us continue to address exclusion in all areas of our practice and continue to strive for policy and procedures which are inclusive for all people.

Legislating to Protect

In the course of this study a number of issues have arisen in relation to how housing providers might now be able to access more legislative support to deal with tenant problems previously seen as intractable. As an earlier set of findings in this report has stated, police in the City of Edinburgh are now open to reviewing and reconsidering the role they might play in responding to hate motivated violence or harassment and, where possible, will seek to support local gay men. However, in addition to utilising police responses there are also a number of ways in which housing providers can act to ensure the safety of gay tenants.

The 1996 Stonewall ‘Queerbashing’ survey called on housing providers to utilise many of the measures which have been developed to deal with racial harassment. These include anti- harassment clauses in tenancy agreements, mutually enforceable covenants in all right to buy leases (which ensure that neighbours occupying housing which was once rented from the local authority are still protected from harassment in the same way as Council tenants) and the eviction of nuisance tenants utilising existing housing legislation. Specifically, Stonewall called for housing associations and local councils to make explicit their disapproval of harassment of LGBT people, partly because this may ultimately make legal action easier. Stonewall also offer a standard anti-harassment clause, provided by the National Federation of Housing Associations, which it is suggested housing providers might usefully adopt:

The tenant agrees not to commit or allow members of his/her household or invited visitors to commit any form of harassment on the grounds of race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability which may interfere with the peace and comfort, or cause offence to, any other tenant, member of his/her household, staff, visitors or neighbours. (37)

Another recent piece of legislation available to individuals is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Primarily introduced to deal with stalkers, the Act covers all forms of harassment, including that based on sexual orientation, and creates two new offences - pursuing a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another person and pursuing a course of conduct on at least two occasions which causes fear that violence will be used. Under the Act these are criminal offences which can lead to prosecution and/or claims for damages in connection with financial loss as a result of harassment.

In addition to the Protection from Harassment Act, new legislation under the Crime and Disorder Act is also being seen as a specific method by which housing providers can support tenants experiencing harassment. As from April 1st 1999 the Crime and Disorder Act allows for the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders which, as a civil action, allows housing providers to take action against people who harass their neighbours or cause disruption in an area. The City of Edinburgh Council Housing Department, in a response to a request for information from a member of the LGBT Community Safety Forum, reports that such orders will be used in Council estates and in areas of mixed tenure (action can be taken by the housing provider against private tenants or owner occupiers as well as against their own tenants) and that local authority staff have been briefed on the provision of the Act. It is not known by the study team if such discussion or training has been taking place within the city’s housing associations although no association made mention of the legislation in their response to this study. A City of Edinburgh Council report on implementing relevant sections of the Act is also to be sent to COSLA with a recommendation that Good Practice Guidelines be drawn up for housing providers across Scotland. The Council’s Housing Director suggests in a report to the Housing Committee that “The Act will contribute to the creation of a safer City for all the citizens of Edinburgh”.

Key Points

This chapter has sought to explore the importance of safe housing to gay men living in the City of Edinburgh. While only one sector of social housing has been examined the responses from Housing Associations, and a brief examination of legislative responses to hate motivated violence or harassment, have highlighted the following:

· One in twenty households in the City of Edinburgh is provided by a Housing Association. Almost one third of all incidents of violence or harassment reported by gay men to this study occurs in or near the home. The link between housing and personal and community safety therefore appears self evident.

· Housing Associations have broad equal opportunities policies in place which focus on their role as employers and service providers. As they were established, at least in part, to provide housing to the most disadvantaged, the link between housing and equality issues is also clear.

· It is not known to what extent the equal opportunities policies reported have been developed via consultation with service users but one association reports that little meaningful consultation had taken place.

· While association policies on equal opportunities appear to be inclusive of homosexuality, policies on violence or harassment generally are not.

· Convincing some associations to give further consideration to the issues as they affect gay men may prove difficult. Several associations require hard evidence that there is an issue which needs to be addressed.

· While resource limitations restricted the amount of research possible on existing tenancy agreements or housing legislation which may already protect gay tenants, it is clear that Housing Associations depend on very general equal opportunities statements or violence and harassment policies which do not specifically address the needs of gay men as a vulnerable group.

· It was suggested that only when funders require Associations to act on this matter and other equality issues would the issues be taken seriously.

· The preventative and reactive strategies currently used by Housing Associations and other social housing providers to tackle harassment based on racism could well be utilised to protect gay tenants. Further provisions under the Protection from Harassment Act and applicable sections of the Crime and Disorder Act also now provide useful responses which social housing providers could explore. CHAPTER EIGHT GAY COMMUNITY BASED AGENCIES AND COMMUNITY BASED SERVICE PROVIDERS

Introduction

This chapter presents the material gathered in a number of interviews with key personnel in a number of agencies which can be described as gay community based agencies and/or as service providers. Interviews were conducted with paid members of staff where these existed or with voluntary office bearers.

The first group of participating agencies (listed below) are service providers and/or campaigning organisations and have arisen out of self organisation by gay community members. These agencies are: · Stonewall Youth Project · Gay Men’s Health · Equality Network · SOLAS · Scottish Pride · Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard

The remaining agencies, described solely as service providers, offer a range of services to gay men but are managed directly by a larger organisation whose interest is in providing services to the general population. Participating agencies were as follows:

· The ROAM team - part of Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust · Healthy Gay Scotland - developed out of the Scottish Voluntary HIV/AIDS Forum and funded by The Scottish Executive · Lothian Victim Support - an independently constituted organisation but part of a Scottish wide network of Victim Support agencies.

The interviews with each agency supported those study aims concerned with:

· providing a description and analysis of the relationship between key agencies with an interest in community safety and the gay community · identifying issues impacting on that relationship · identifying gaps in service provision and appropriate areas for intervention · reflecting on how learning with regard to the City of Edinburgh might impact on practice elsewhere in Scotland.

All but two of the personnel interviewed represent their organisations on the newly established LGBT Community Safety Forum.

In order to promote openness of responses interviewees were told that contributions were confidential and no comments quoted from their interview would be directly attributed to them or their organisation. With this in mind comments given below do not include names or agencies. Interviews took place during November/December 1998. To maintain open and uninhibited discussion and to ensure confidentiality interviews were recorded by note taking only.

Interviews with Gay Community Agencies and Service Providers

The core questions put to interviewees were as follows:

· how would you describe your agency’s attitudes toward homosexuality? how has this developed? · to what extent is gay men’s fear/experience of violence and harassment considered or dealt with by you or colleagues in terms of specific incidents or broader policy or practices? · does the policing of homosexual public sex environments or sexual offences raise particular issues? · does consideration of the issues raised so far present any particular difficulties? what do you see as the way forward in this area? · does the policing of the gay community, or Government recommendations that the police set out to gain the trust of the gay community and work in partnership around community safety issues, have any impact on your practice?

Attitudes towards homosexuality

A small number of community agencies have been in existence for many years and have witnessed a shift in social attitudes and in the visibility of their services and service users. Across the organisations there was a desire to view homosexuality as a positive aspect of the individual’s identity and to encourage others to see this too. Whilst some organisations with charitable status have a fear of being accused of being overtly political it was broadly recognised that it is impossible to promote positive views of homosexuality without engaging in debates about heterosexism and the struggle for equality. One interviewee stated:

We are trying to promote acceptance and trying to help other agencies to see that being gay is positive and acceptable. We want to promote positive images and feelings of acceptance and pride amongst people who may lack access to positive images. We provide space to try new things, explore sexual identity, all in a safe place.

Some groups were also keen to present the diverse nature of the gay community:

A lot of agencies think that gay men are a homogeneous group. We say that everyone is individual and within the community there are different groups. Our volunteer team reflects that difference. Other agencies just see a gay man and think that everyone requires the same response, they can’t see our diversity. There was also a desire amongst some interviewees to affect general attitudes towards gay men, and discriminatory legislation, by linking the gay community with “other equality constituencies”.

Historically, the existence of many gay community based groups comes out of responses to HIV and AIDS. The social experience of homosexuality is viewed by many of these groups as potentially isolating and one which puts individual gay men more at risk of HIV infection. These agencies, therefore, see that they have a role in fostering the development of individual self-esteem and community attachment as a means by which gay men might be encouraged to view their sexuality positively and access community based information and support.

Dealing with gay men’s fear and experience of violence and harassment

All interviewees were aware of the nature of the fears and experiences of gay men in relation to violence and harassment. Interviewees reported that service users shared experiences on a regular basis and that much one-to-one and group support was given to help gay men deal with the consequences of violence. Often, interviewees believed, gay community based agencies were the only source of support.

We address a great number of incidents from homophobic bullying at school to violence in the streets. A key problem for men is that they might not be ‘out’ or ‘coming out’ might be dangerous. Group members use the group to discuss shared issues.

Another identified the prevalence of fear of attack:

There are few explicit concerns but what does happen is that people raise fears and concerns. Visitors calling will ask if the city is safe. We also have a national perspective and so we realise this is an issue all over Scotland.

Another interviewee reported that fear of attack was cited by some gay men as a reason for not participating in community activities and public celebrations which might identify them as gay. Such a block to community involvement and self help clearly reinforces the social exclusion of members of the community and undermines current Government efforts to promote community involvement as a tool in tackling social exclusion.

There was also a belief from one respondent that violence or harassment was so commonplace that “people don’t tend to talk about it as something unusual”.

There was some recognition that a level of violence or harassment was perpetrated by known individuals and that violence and emotional abuse within relationships was an issue for gay men.

Several agencies reported concerns over bullying in schools and colleges. There was a belief that young gay men experience disproportionate levels of such harassment but that effective preventative or reactive strategies had not been put in place to tackle the issue.

Gay men’s safety was seen as an important issue across the agencies interviewed with one interviewee stating that “personal safety is fundamental to the dignity and well being of people”. However it was also recognised by another that “there is a real lack of places to refer men on to” to discuss their experiences. There was a concern that community based agencies might themselves not be able to offer the support men needed and that “...often men might declare stuff but appear not to talk about it again. Some issues are more taboo than others like abuse or domestic violence or rape”.

A further barrier to gay men seeking help was seen as the stigma often associated with the use of helping agencies:

There is a stigma in the community about being seen to be needy or some people see some agencies as places you only go to if you have got a problem.

One agency had attempted to offer a session around self defence and staying safe but it had been poorly attended. The worker believed that this was at least partly due to “...people saying that they are concerned, but not personally identifying with it. They think ‘well I don’t see myself as vulnerable but other people are’. I suppose it’s just another coping mechanism”.

In general there was a belief among interviewees that there was great resistance to reporting experiences of violence or harassment. It’s rare that somebody wants to report even if we can assure confidentiality, they don’t have the level of confidence to deal with what’s going to happen.

Another interviewee agreed and suggested that existing volunteer-based service providers fell short of the level of support men might need to see through reporting an incident and coping with a public court appearance.

Public Sex Environments and Sexual Offences

There was an impression amongst some participants that the number of men raising the issue of their use of PSEs was declining. There was also a recognition that knowledge of new police practices in the Calton Hill area had spread across the gay community. One interviewee believed that there was “...a lot of confusion around about what police are doing up on the hill, there appears to be a lot of misinformation”.

Another reported that:

Even if police are policing, in their terms, positively, that is telling people that this is a known cruising area and that attacks have happened and they could be safer to leave, even then some gay men will see this as harassment.

There was a general recognition that as long as the law was seen as inequitous gay men would be seen as criminal simply by virtue of their sexuality and so “...victimised by discriminatory laws”.

For young gay men the issue of PSEs was seen as particularly problematic. It was reported that young men might well use PSEs because of their inability to access other gay meeting places and because they offered anonymity. There was a feeling however that use of PSEs was very much a taboo subject, not often spoken about, and that there was a need to specifically address young men’s safety in these contexts.

Difficulties and needs in relation to gay men’s safety

Some difficulties facing community based agencies and service providers in respect to promoting gay community safety were seen as follows:

· many gay men experience their homosexuality negatively - they need to be supported to learn they have the right to be safe · it is the belief of gay community based agencies that many mainstream service providers such as local authorities do not publicly state their commitment to serving gay men equally and in their silence condone discriminatory practices and lack of service provision In such a context schools were seen as dangerous places for many young gay men · there is a lack of recognition across the gay community of the violence and abuse which exists between gay men themselves · those groups with responsibilities wider than the City of Edinburgh were keen to stress the importance of best practice around LGBT community safety across Scotland, not just in Edinburgh or the major cities · raising the issues more publicly may well draw negative press coverage. There is still a very real fear amongst some gay men of being misrepresented or demonised in the media · many gay community organisations are already over stretched and under resourced, groups already struggling to cope with the day to day discriminatory experiences of many gay men fear that an increase in attention around the issue of violence and harassment may not be met with the resources required to address demand.

In order to promote the safety of gay men the following specific ‘needs’ were identified:

· a clearer picture of gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment is required · because of their isolation from existing support structures, and levels of bullying evidenced in several studies, specific attention should be paid to young men. These needs of these young gay men could be addressed via outreach programmes which attempt to reach the most vulnerable and aim to work on self esteem and personal safety strategies · there is a need to know more about the extent to which HIV-positive men experience additional levels of violence or harassment · the age of consent for consensual sexual activity for gay men must be equalised with that for heterosexuals, thus removing the label of criminality from homosexuality and making a clear statement that all individuals are equal before the law, and able to access it equally · the gay community based agencies themselves should ensure that they represent LGBT youth in appropriate forums such as the Young People’s Community Safety Forum established as part of the Community Safety Partnership · the new Lothian and Borders Police Gay Liaison Officer should develop a positive, proactive and high profile role in order that the community might recognise the desire for positive police and gay community relationships · relationships between gay community based agencies, service providers and the police should be improved at a local level. Gay men’s experience of reporting incidents in every City police station needs to be a positive one in order for negative community perceptions to be changed. As one contributor suggested: You can produce leaflets till you are blue in the face, what counts is actually speaking to people. Though I realise that is expensive and time consuming, if police had a presence in groups and on the scene, coming face to face with the community, that would make a difference. · And from another: We need to be confident that clients are well received when they do report - it’s something that we are constantly trying to do, to get people to report violence. · new ways to report violence and harassment must be developed which recognise gay men’s anxieties and fears · the staff and volunteers of gay Community groups and gay service providers have training needs on the issues of violence and harassment which need to be met in order to develop and deliver a better service · the broader community needs to be made aware of the violence and harassment gay men can experience on a day to day basis - any community safety strategy must address public education on the issue · the police response to PSEs should be based on a positive use of discretion and the need to protect rather than prosecute men using them · in the view of gay community groups issues of community safety are inextricably linked with broader equalities issues including equality before the law · the LGBT community needs to address, in very broad terms, its needs, putting the issue of community safety in context alongside other community concerns and needs.

Policing and Partnership with the Gay Community

Finally, organisational representatives were given the opportunity to consider the importance of partnership working in respect to policing of the gay community.

Amongst interviewees there was an overwhelming desire to work in close partnership with the police on issues of community safety although not all agencies were currently part of the LGBT Community Safety Forum and so had no opportunity to, as yet, engage with police on the issues.

There was some recognition that despite recent goodwill and a shift in the thrust of policing policy around city centre PSE’s, there was still a level of anti-gay prejudice evident in the day to day practice of some officers. It seemed, however, that this was seen as a problem with individual officers and, whilst regarded as inexcusable, not necessarily reflective of the Force as a whole.

The re-location of Lothian and Borders Gay Liaison Officer from Serious Crimes to Community Services was seen as a much needed shift in police perception of the gay community from victim or perpetrator to community and partner. There were hopes expressed that this new liaison might entail face-to-face interaction and confidence building measures.

The diversity of the gay community was identified by one interviewee and a request was made that any developing ‘community perspective’ and ‘community and police partnership’ on community safety issues should reflect that diversity of experience and opinion.

Reporting and recording mechanisms were again raised by interviewees and the option of anonymity for gay men stressed, along with the need for police to record hate or bias motivated crimes against gay men as such even though they may not be interpreted in this way by victims.

Fundamentally, however, there was recognition across many agencies that successful partnership working may only be achieved when one of the partners, the gay community, is not criminalised or discriminated against by the law. As one contributor stated:

Only when equality before the law is in place can we truly talk about working in partnership. To me the inequalities are huge and it gives perpetrators an open field. We‘re a group in society that’s clearly not equal. It might also help the psyche of gay men to know that we are equal citizens. Key Points

One interviewee summed up his interview with the researcher with the comment “We need to know we are valued”. Several other important issues have been identified in this chapter and the following can be reported:

· Those agencies with a history of service provision and campaigning have witnessed a shift in societal attitudes towards homosexuality and in the visibility of gay men and their organisations. The work of these groups cannot be disassociated from the broader struggle for equality.

· Community self help and involvement is cited as an important tool in tackling social exclusion yet gay community groups report that fear of violence and harassment directly impacts on gay men’s ability to participate in community activities.

· The participating groups recognise that they are often the only source of support available to gay men who have experienced violence or harassment yet they recognise their response is often inadequate due to a lack of resources, external support or training.

· There is a recognition that using helping agencies is often perceived by gay men to carry with it a certain stigma.

· An under-reporting of violence and harassment was perceived, at least in part, to be due to gay men’s perception that the process which followed a report might in itself be alienating or abusive or might subject the individual to secondary victimisation.

· The needs of young gay men in relation to personal safety were seen as particularly important and groups called for action on safety in schools, the use of outreach programmes to support younger men and the establishment of clear links between the Community Safety Partnership’s Young People’s Forum and the LGBT Community Safety Forum to ensure that young LGBT people’s needs were being addressed effectively in that forum.

· There was a call for an end to the silence and inaction of the local authority on LGBT equalities issues.

· Many groups which participated in this study report that they are already overstretched. Community based responses to violence and harassment will require adequate resourcing.

· Groups recognised that until individual gay men experience reporting of incidents as a positive experience, broader community perceptions will not change. They felt that reporting systems need to be developed which recognise gay men’s concerns and provide the option of anonymous reporting. Such systems should ensure police officers record hate or bias motivated crimes against gay men as such.

· There was an overwhelming desire amongst participants to work in partnership with the police on community safety issues. The re-location of Lothian and Borders Gay Liaison Officer from Serious Crimes to Community Services was seen as indicative of a shift in police perceptions of the gay community, from individual perpetrators or victims to a community with a partnership role. Participants also suggested the police should engage further in face to face interaction and confidence building measures.

· It was believed that, in order to form an effective partnership with the police, inequitous legal responses to homosexuality have to be removed.

· There is a recognition amongst the community organisations and service providers that the gay community has broader community development needs which must be addressed.

CHAPTER NINE RECOMMENDATIONS

The overall purpose of this research was to provide information on the extent and nature of violence and harassment experienced by gay men in Edinburgh to help inform service provision to the gay community and promote a gay community perspective on community safety. This final chapter of the report presents a range of recommendations which are intended to foster positive interaction between the community and service providers and encourage joint and co-ordinated action on the issues raised in this report. As Cogan (1996) suggests:

Eliminating the violence against lesbians and gay men, as well as the social milieu that upholds and perpetuates such violence, must be a common goal of social scientists, policymakers, and activists. (61) The Police It is important that Lothian and Borders Police, as a key service provider, address the range of issues which have been raised in this report and in particular give consideration to the following areas and actions.

Policy and strategy:

· An agency definition of ‘heterosexism’ and a working environment which emphasises the unacceptability of violence and harassment based on the hatred of gay men should be developed along with comprehensive guidelines for police responses to reported incidents.

· Policy documents which address community safety should clearly and consistently adopt an approach which recognises the needs of the gay community and which can be reflected in practice.

· Gay community safety needs should be seen alongside other service priorities such as the community safety needs of women and Black/minority ethnic communities.

· The good practice responses currently being developed within one subdivision of Lothian and Borders Police Force could usefully be replicated Force-wide in recognition that gay men live, work and socialise across the Lothians.

· As an employer, Lothian and Borders Police should strive to practice and promote equality of opportunity for gay officers. All staff should be made aware that violence, harassment or discrimination against gay employees within the Force will result in disciplinary action against perpetrators.

Training and awareness:

· All police officers and civilian staff in contact with members of the public should be aware of the policy of the Force in relation to violence and harassment of gay men and the implications of the policy for their professional practice.

· All police officers and civilian staff in contact with members of the public would benefit from training to raise awareness of the violence and harassment faced by gay men and on the service delivery needs of those who become victims of violence or harassment.

· Training provided should ensure that all officers and other staff are aware that the Force has a policy of non-acceptance of violence or harassment based on sexual orientation.

· There should be a recognition of the pivotal role of some officers in creating an organisational culture in which heterosexist behaviour and language is seen as inappropriate. Sergeants, as line managers, would benefit from receiving training inputs and ongoing support which specifically addresses their key role in managing teams of officers who may come into daily contact with the LGBT community.

Liaison and consultation with the gay community: · Current liaison arrangements in relation to police attendance at the LGBT Community Safety Forum should be extended. Senior Officers at the level of Chief Inspector from each of the City’s Police subdivisions should attend, reflecting current practice in relation to attendance at the Black/minority ethnic Safety Group.

· The current review of the role of the Force Gay Liaison Officer should consider the need to ensure that future liaison arrangements with the community are pro-active, transparent and meet community expectations.

· Liaison and consultation arrangements outwith the structures of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership would be beneficial as would Force consultation with the gay community in relation to relevant operational priorities.

· Structures for liaison with the gay community should ensure that opportunities for discussion are provided on a regular basis.

· Liaison and consultation arrangements should recognise, value and utilise the expertise of gay community organisations. These groups should be viewed as partners in monitoring and reviewing of Force-wide strategies relating to the promotion of gay community safety.

· The Force should consider appointing officers with specific responsibility for gay community safety and liaison with the gay community to every police station in the City and ensure that contact arrangements are made available publicly. Support for, and lines of communication between, these officers should be put in place.

Inter-agency work:

· The police should continue to play a key role in the development of inter agency responses to the community safety needs of gay men in the City.

Service delivery:

· The Force’s Gay Liaison officer could be tasked to initiate a fundamental review of how gay men utilise and experience police services. Community representatives and individuals within the gay community should be involved in this process with the findings informing an improved dialogue between the gay community and the police.

· Proactive, outreach strategies which foster better access to police services and challenge misconceptions or fears about police attitudes towards the gay community need to be explored. A number of possible approaches have been identified in this study.

· Consideration should be given to developing methods which encourage gay men to report victimisation and to enable these incidents to be effectively recorded. Methods for recording racist incidents may prove adaptable in terms of recording heterosexist violence and harassment. Reporting systems which utilise gay community based organisations or offer a level of anonymity may be required. · Reporting and recording mechanisms should also be developed or adapted to encourage gay men to report any discriminatory or prejudicial attitudes, language or behaviour of police officers. Current complaints procedures should be examined for their appropriateness. Additional reporting systems which utilise gay community organisations or offer a level of anonymity may be required.

· Broader recognition that current policy and responses to domestic violence incidents relates also to same sex partnerships is required amongst officers and the gay community.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· The collection of statistics detailing the number of hate and bias motivated incidents experienced by gay men, and known to the police, should be undertaken. Action taken on these incidents should also be recorded.

· In relation to police responses to reported incidents the views of gay men who have reported victimisation to the police should be sought, either directly or via gay community organisations, as a means of informing service development. ACPOS

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland is the body which represents the views of senior police officers from Scotland’s 8 police forces on police matters. While this study focused on the experience of gay men in the City of Edinburgh it was also the intention to begin to identify ways in which experiences reported in relation to the Edinburgh context might impact on other locations in Scotland. As progress on identifying and meeting the community safety needs of gay men outwith Edinburgh has been minimal, ACPOS has a key role to play. It is therefore recommended that consideration be given to the following area and action as follows:

Policy and strategy:

The opinion of the ACPOS General Policing Standing Committee that the policing approach adopted toward the gay community in the City of Edinburgh is one of good policing practice is a useful recognition of progress made but lacks authority. National recommendations on the policing of the LGBT community and guidelines on responding to incidents of violence and harassment perpetrated against LGBT individuals would be extremely helpful. A useful model exists in relation to ACPO guidelines in England and Wales. ACPOS might want to consider adopting or adapting such guidelines for the Police Service in Scotland. The Local Authority: The City of Edinburgh Council

It is important that the City of Edinburgh Council, as a key service provider, addresses the range of issues which have been raised in this report. As Bright (1997) writes:

The greatest opportunity for reducing crime and enhancing Safety is through incorporating preventative objectives within mainstream services and delivering these services much more pro-actively than is commonly the case. (62)

With this in mind consideration should be given to the following areas and actions:

Policy and strategy

· An agency definition of ‘heterosexism’ and a working environment which emphasises the unacceptability of violence and harassment based on the hatred of gay men should be developed along with comprehensive guidelines for Departmental responses to reported incidents.

· The Council should strive to ensure that existing Equality Strategy commitments to the gay community are effective and acted on.

· Policy documents which address equal opportunities and social exclusion issues should clearly and consistently recognise the discrimination and hostility experienced by the gay community and adopt approaches towards meeting the needs of the gay community which can be reflected in practice.

· Gay community needs, in relation to community safety, and broader equalities issues should be seen alongside other service priorities such as the needs of women and Black/minority ethnic communities.

· The Council should consider including clauses in contracts with external service providers which require the provider to act in accordance with Council policy on equal opportunities and violence and harassment. Compliance should be monitored.

Training and awareness:

· All members of Council staff and staff of external service providers contracted by the Council who are in contact with members of the public should be made aware of the policy in relation to violence and harassment of gay men and the implications this has for their practice.

· Training in relation to the service delivery needs of gay men who are victims of violence or harassment should be provided for all members of staff (Council and otherwise) in contact with the public.

· Training provided should ensure that all staff are aware that the Council has a policy of non-acceptance of violence or harassment based on sexual orientation. · Existing training and commitments to anti-discriminatory practice should be inclusive of the needs of gay men.

Liaison and consultation with the gay community:

· Current arrangements in relation to departmental representation at the LGBT Community Safety Forum would benefit from review. It is suggested that senior officials, who can act on behalf of their Departments and bring an overview of Departmental activity, be appointed as members of the Forum.

· Future liaison and consultation with the gay community should be both proactive and transparent. Existing consultative and participative strategies - the Citizens Panel, the use of Lord Provost’s specialist commissions and Community Planning approaches - should strive to be inclusive of the gay community.

· Liaison and consultation arrangements outwith the structures of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership, and on issues other than community safety, would be beneficial in helping the Council to engage with the gay community in relation to other service delivery matters.

· Structures for liaison with the gay community should ensure that opportunities for discussion are provided on a regular basis.

· Liaison and consultation arrangements should recognise, value and utilise the expertise of gay community organisations. These groups should be viewed as partners in monitoring and reviewing Council-wide equality, social exclusion or community safety strategies as they affect the gay community.

· Liaison and consultation with the LGBT community should not be the sole responsibility of an Equalities Unit. It is recommended that Council officials with specific responsibility for gay community liaison be identified within every service department. These officials should be at a level senior enough to be able to represent the views of their Departments and have a sufficient overview of Departmental activity. Contact arrangements should be made publicly available. Support for, and lines of communication between, these officials should be put in place.

Inter-agency work:

· The Council should continue to play a key role in the development of inter-agency responses to the community safety needs of gay men in the city.

Service delivery:

· The Council should consider initiating a fundamental review of how gay men utilise and experience Council services. Agencies and individuals from the gay community should be involved in this process and findings should inform an improved dialogue between the gay community and the Council. · The Council’s role in recording of experiences of violence and harassment of gay men would benefit from examination. Methods for recording racist incidents may prove adaptable in terms of recording heterosexist violence and harassment reported to Council officials.

· Reporting and recording mechanisms should be developed to encourage gay men to report discriminatory or prejudicial attitudes, language or behaviour of Council employees or employees of agencies contracted to deliver services on behalf of the Council. Current complaints procedures should be examined for their appropriateness. Additional reporting systems which utilise gay community organisations or offer a level of anonymity may be required.

· The Council is in a particularly important position in relation to delivering services to young people and should examine how current Departmental responses meet the needs of young gay men.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· The collection of statistics detailing the number of hate and bias motivated incidents experienced by gay men, and known to the Council, should be undertaken. Action taken on these incidents should also be recorded and reviewed regularly.

· In relation to Council responses to reported incidents the views of gay men who have reported victimisation to the local authority should be sought, either directly or via gay community organisations, as a means of informing service development. COSLA

The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) is the body which represents the collective view of local government in Scotland. While this study focused on the experience of gay men in the City of Edinburgh it was also the intention to begin to identify ways in which experiences reported in relation to the Edinburgh context might impact on other locations in Scotland. As local authorities play a key role in the multi agency partnerships which have been established to promote community safety, as well as having a role of fundamental importance in relation to broader equalities issues, recommendations are made here to stimulate discussion and debate utilising the important policy development and dissemination role which COSLA has.

If, as COSLA suggest, local authorities “... as democratically elected bodies, have a community leadership role” and a role in enabling “...communities themselves to participate effectively” it is recommended that consideration be given to the following:

Policy and strategy:

· Appropriate forums within COSLA should consider the findings and recommendations of this study and offer support to local authorities, individually and collectively, which wish to consider their partnership and liaison arrangements with local gay communities.

· As members of COSLA, local authorities across Scotland should be specifically encouraged to address the community safety needs of the gay community and ensure appropriate structures and services are in place to support local gay community organisations engage meaningfully with community safety work. Community Safety in the City of Edinburgh

Community safety in the City of Edinburgh is an issue of interest to a range of public, private and voluntary sector bodies. A number of these agencies have come together to form the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership (ECSP). A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Community Safety Forum has been formed within the structures of the ECSP. It is recommended that within the structures established, and within the remits of Partnership members, that consideration is given to the following areas and actions:

Policy and strategy:

· An ECSP definition of ‘heterosexism’ and a commitment to promoting working environments within member organisations which emphasises the unacceptability of violence and harassment based on the hatred of gay men should be developed.

· Member organisations of the ECSP should be encouraged to disseminate the findings and recommendations of this study widely.

· Member organisations of the ECSP should ensure that equal opportunities and anti- harassment policies - in relation to employment and service delivery - offer a definition of heterosexism and clearly state that violence and harassment based on the hatred of gay men is unacceptable.

· Comprehensive guide-lines should be produced by ECSP member organisations in relation to how they respond to incidents of violence and harassment experienced by gay men; these might reflect existing policies and practices in relation to responses to racial harassment.

· Gay community needs in relation to community safety should be seen alongside other ECSP priorities, such as the needs of women and Black/minority ethnic communities. Local community safety initiatives should be supported to address the issue at a local level.

· Action Plans developed by the LGBT Community Safety Forum should follow meaningful engagement with the gay community.

Training and awareness:

· ECSP member organisations should ensure that staff are aware of the policy of their agency in relation to violence and harassment of gay men and that relevant training which focuses on service delivery is provided for relevant staff.

Liaison and consultation with the gay community: · Lead agencies within the ECSP should ensure that they are represented on the LGBT Community Safety Forum and that staff members attending can bring an overview of organisational activity and act on behalf of their agency or Department.

· ECSP lead agencies should ensure that in their individual and collective relationship with the gay community their approach is positive, pro-active and inclusive.

· ECSP lead agencies should ensure that consultative and liaison arrangements are in place outwith the structures of the ECSP/LGBT Community Safety Forum to ensure that there are opportunities for consultation with the gay community on issues other than community safety.

· Liaison and consultation arrangements should ensure that recognition and value is given to the expertise of gay community based organisations and that their experience is utilised effectively.

Inter-agency work:

· Lead agencies within the ECSP should ensure that each engages with gay community safety, ensuring that interest in, and support for, the LGBT Community Safety Forum is not perceived to be the responsibility of any one agency.

· Members of the LGBT Community Safety Forum may want to consider how best to address the Forum’s objectives and plans, the opportunities for integration of the Forum’s work into mainstream services and issues of accountability.

Service delivery:

· The LGBT Community Safety Forum, with the active support of the wider ECSP , should consider how best to engage service providers in reviewing how gay men utilise and experience mainstream services, with a particular emphasis on their community safety needs.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· The LGBT Community Safety Forum should monitor and evaluate on a regular basis the extent to which lead agencies within the ECSP have put in place effective preventative and reactive strategic responses in relation to gay men’s safety. Service development should be informed by this process. The Workplace The workplace is identified by gay men as the setting for much of the harassment they experience. Whilst this study has explored the situation only in relation to a sample of large employers it is recommended that small, medium and large enterprises, along with trades unions, give consideration to the following areas and actions:

Policy and strategy:

· It is recommended that employers and trades union representatives within the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership disseminate the findings and recommendations of this report widely.

· Within equal opportunities and anti-harassment policies employers and trades unions should offer a definition of ‘heterosexism’ and clearly state that violence, harassment or discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation, is unacceptable.

· Employers organisations should explore how they might develop guidelines for employers, outlining appropriate responses to violence, harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation, utilising guidance offered in relation to responses to racial or sexual harassment or discrimination. Similar guidance for trades union shop stewards should be produced by trade unions.

· Despite the lack of a legal framework for anti-discriminatory employment practices in relation to gay men, employers should ensure that conditions of service are inclusive of protection from harassment for gay men. Trades unions should negotiate such provision for members they represent.

Training and awareness:

· Training on equal opportunities issues within companies and for trade union shop stewards should cover the experiences of gay men in the workplace.

· All employees or trade union members should be made aware that gay men as employees or fellow union members are protected from harassment by the policies and practices agreed.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· The collection of statistics detailing the number of hate and bias motivated incidents reported by gay men should be undertaken by both employers and trades unions.

· The views of gay men who have reported incidents should be sought in any review of systems established and should be used to inform policy development.

Inter-agency work: · There is a need to research the problem of violence and harassment of gay men in the workplace more thoroughly. Employers representatives and trades unions already participating in the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership should be encouraged to commission research into the experiences of gay men in the workplace in order to inform policy development and practice. Housing Associations and other Social Housing Providers

With one in three incidents of violence and harassment reported in this study occurring in or near the home consideration should be given by social housing providers to the following areas and actions:

Policy and strategy:

· Housing providers represented on the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership should disseminate the findings and recommendations of this study widely.

· Housing associations and their representative bodies should explore how they might develop guidelines for social housing providers, outlining appropriate responses to violence, harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation by utilising guidance offered in relation to responses to racial or sexual harassment or discrimination.

· Within equal opportunities and anti-harassment policies and tenancy agreements, housing providers should offer agency definitions of heterosexism and clearly state that violence, harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation is unacceptable.

Training and awareness:

· All members of staff in contact with members of the public should be made aware of agency policy in relation to violence and harassment of gay men and the implications this has for their work.

· Training in relation to the service delivery needs of gay men who are victims of violence or harassment should be provided for all members of staff in contact with the public.

· Training provided should ensure that all staff are aware that the Housing Association has a policy of non-acceptance of violence or harassment based on sexual orientation.

· Members of staff charged with providing support services to tenants should be aware of current legislation which might be utilised to respond to harassment. Housing Associations should ensure relevant training is provided for staff who have contact with the public.

Service delivery:

· Social housing providers should consider setting up a review of gay men’s housing needs and experiences. Gay community agencies and individual tenants should be involved in this process and findings should be used to inform an open dialogue between the community and social housing providers.

· Social housing providers should ensure they adopt reporting and recording mechanisms which gay men can utilise to report incidents of violence and harassment. Reporting and recording mechanisms should also be developed to encourage gay men to report discriminatory or prejudicial attitudes, language or behaviour of agency employees or employees of other companies contracted to deliver services on behalf of the housing provider. Current complaints procedures should be examined for their appropriateness. Methods for recording racist incidents may prove to be adaptable.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· The collection of statistics detailing the number of hate and bias motivated incidents reported by gay tenants should be undertaken.

· The views of gay men who have reported incidents of violence or harassment should be sought in any review of reporting systems and should be used to inform policy development. Gay Community Based Agencies and Community Based Service Providers

A number of agencies which operate in the City provide services designed to meet the specific needs of the gay community. Some are also campaigning organisations. It is recommended that they give consideration to the following areas and actions:

Policy and strategy:

· Gay community organisations represented on the LGBT Community Safety Forum should disseminate the findings and recommendations of this study widely.

· Individually and collectively community organisations should offer a definition of heterosexism and clearly state that violence and harassment based on the hatred of gay men is unacceptable.

· Community organisations should offer key contact points for public, private and voluntary sector agencies seeking support with regard to addressing current policy or practice on the issues of violence and harassment of gay men.

· Groups might usefully work together to produce comprehensive guidelines for relevant paid and voluntary staff in contact with gay men in relation to dealing with reported incidents.

Training and awareness:

· Training in relation to the service needs of gay men who are victims of violence or harassment should be provided for all members of staff (paid or unpaid) in contact with the public.

· Gay community organisations should make every effort to play a central role in the development of any public education initiatives on the issue of heterosexist violence and harassment

Liaison with statutory providers:

· Current arrangements in relation to gay community participation at the LGBT Community Safety Forum should be reviewed. Individually and collectively, groups should make clear their views on the Forum’s purpose, issues of representation and accountability and how Forum activities should impact on the delivery of mainstream services. A broadly shared community perspective on the issues is required.

· Gay community groups should work collectively to ensure that broader based consultative and participative strategies, adopted by statutory providers, are inclusive of the gay community.

· Gay community groups should work collectively to ensure that existing equal opportunities commitments are delivered by key statutory agencies.

Service delivery: · With the intention of improving the capability of the gay community to articulate views on, and act on, a range of relevant community issues including responses to violence and harassment, gay community organisations should instigate a review of community based service provision and the relationships which exist between agencies. Proposals should engage community members, as well as organisations, in meaningful discussion. An identification of the community development needs of the gay community should be produced as a framework for further action.

· A service review should assess the extent to which existing roles in relation to responses to the violence and harassment experienced by gay men are being fulfilled. Effective existing services should be enhanced and where necessary every effort should be made to fill gaps in provision.

· Gay community organisations should work to explain to the gay community the nature of services available in order to de-stigmatise the use of community based helping agencies. Where necessary new mechanisms should be adopted to disseminate information on service availability.

Monitoring and evaluation:

· Collectively, and utilising procedures which dovetail with statutory sector agencies, gay community organisations should play a role in the collection of statistics detailing the number and nature of hate and bias motivated incidents experienced by gay men.

· The views of gay men who have reported hate and bias motivated incidents should be sought in any review of recording systems and should be used to inform policy development within gay community agencies and more widely. The Scottish Executive / Central Government

Outside the City of Edinburgh, progress on identifying and meeting the community safety needs of gay men has been slow. There is no statutory requirement on agencies involved in policing and community safety initiatives to work in partnership with vulnerable groups although this is generally happening with regard to communities and groups other than the LGBT community. It is suggested, therefore, that Central Government has a key role in instigating discussion and policy development at the highest level to ensure that gay men, no matter where they live in Scotland, are served by police, local authorities, housing providers and employers who have a common understanding of the hate and bias motivated violence and harassment experienced by gay men and a commitment to act on it.

At such a significant time in the governance of Scotland, Central Government can play a pivotal role in encouraging new initiatives based on new understandings and creative partnerships to tackle the levels of violence and harassment experienced by gay men. It is therefore recommended that consideration be given to the following areas and actions:

National co-ordination:

· A definition of heterosexism, both cultural and psychological, should be developed and clear political support given to action which challenges its expression.

· Consideration should be given to establishing an inter-agency group at a national level to consider the violence and harassment experienced by gay men across Scotland. This group would provide advice and support to local, and potentially national, initiatives established to combat hate or bias motivated crimes against gay men. Research on the violence and harassment experienced by gay men and new work in all service sectors should be encouraged.

· Police Forces across Scotland should be encouraged to develop mechanisms whereby the levels of violence and harassment experienced by gay men can be reported and recorded. Along with other police recorded crime figures these should be collated nationally by The Scottish Executive.

· Consideration should be given to the means by which a national training initiative on the issue of hate and bias motivated violence and harassment of gay men could be established. Such an initiative would seek to raise awareness of the issues and support policy makers and service providers to identify appropriate responses.

The law:

· Legislative change which equalises the status of homosexuals and heterosexuals should be pursued. Such change should be backed up by an education policy which is committed to the elimination of prejudice and discrimination against gay men.

· Hate and bias motivated crimes against gay men must be taken seriously. As part of criminal justice policy, guidance should be provided to make the Government’s view on this clear. Public awareness and education:

· In collaboration with gay community organisations, public information should be provided which raises awareness of the issue of violence and harassment of gay men and the criminality of such behaviour. Information should be available which directs gay men to where they might receive support and help.

· Responding to the violence and harassment of gay men cannot be disassociated from issues of equality. Public education strategies should present homosexuality positively and strive to develop a broader understanding of the negative nature and impact of heterosexism on Scottish society.

Service development:

· Specific funds should be made available to support innovative service developments required to tackle the issue of violence and harassment of gay men.

· It is crucial that local authorities, the police and housing providers seeking to respond to the needs of the gay community engage meaningfully with the community. Funding for new initiatives should be dependent on the formation of partnerships with the gay community which have addressed issues of purpose, accountability, resource investment, delivery-focus, the integration of work on community safety into mainstream services and monitoring and evaluation.

References

1. Herek G.M. (1992) ‘The Social Context of Hate Crimes: Notes on Cultural Heterosexism’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications

2. ibid.

3. Herek G.M. (1992) ‘Psychological Heterosexism and Anti-gay Violence: The Social Psychology of Bigotry and Bashing’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications

4. ibid.

5. Mason A. and Palmer A. (1996) Queer Bashing: A National Survey of Hate Crimes Against Lesbians and Gay Men Stonewall 6. Berrill K. (1992) ‘Anti-gay Violence and Victimisation in the United States: An Overview’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications

7. Garnets L. Herek G.M. and Levy B. (1992) ‘Violence and Victimisation of Lesbians and Gay Men: Mental Health Consequences’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications

8. Gay Men’s Health, Edinburgh Press Release May 1998

9. Hunter J. (1992) ‘Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Male Youths’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications 10. Harry J. (1992) ‘Conceptualiizing Anti-gay Violence’ in Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds.) Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Sage Publications

11. Kitzenger C (1996) ‘Speaking of Oppression: Psychology, Politics and the Language of Power’ in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia Rothblum E.D. and Bond L.A. (eds) Sage Publications

12. op.cit.

13. ibid.

14. Herek G.M. (1998) The Impact of Hate Crime Victimisation http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow

15. City of Edinburgh Council (1996) Edinburgh City Strategy Report

16. City of Edinburgh Council (1997) Equal Opportunity: Equal Opportunities good Practice for Voluntary Organisations

17. City of Edinburgh Council (1997) Creating Equality Respecting Difference: An Equalities Strategy for the City of Edinburgh, The Main Points

18. ibid.

19. ibid.

20. City of Edinburgh Council (1998) The City Strategy Two Years On: Progress, Achievements and Future Commitments

21. ibid.

22. City of Edinburgh Council (1998) Consultation Matters: A Guide to Consultation

23. The Scottish Office and COSLA (1998) Report of the Community Planning Working Group

24. ibid.

25. City of Edinburgh Council (1998) A Vision for Edinburgh: Towards a City Plan for the Next Five Years 26. Ekblom P. (1996) ‘Crime Prevention and Community Safety - a Definition’ in Bright J. Turning the Tide: Crime, Community and Prevention Demos

27. Carnie J.K. (1995) The Safer Cities Programme in Scotland: Overview Report The Scottish Office Central Research Unit

28. Audit Commission (1999) Safety in Numbers: Promoting Community Safety

29. ibid.

30. Pugh G. (1987) Partnership in Action Volume 1 and 2 National Children’s Bureau

31. Mason A. and Palmer A. (1996) Queer Bashing: A National Survey of Hate Crimes Against Lesbians and Gay Men Stonewall

32. Sydney Star Observer December 17th 1998

33. Health and Safety Executive (1995) Preventing Violence to Retail Staff

34. Randall P. (1997) Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims Routledge

35. Field T. (1996) Bully In Sight Success Unlimited

36. UNISON Working in UNISON for Lesbian and Gay Rights

37. Mason A. and Palmer A. (1996) Queer Bashing: A National Survey of Hate Crimes Against Lesbians and Gay Men Stonewall

38. Gay Times November 1997

39. HMI Thematic Inspection Report (1997) Winning the Race: Policing Plural Communities HMI 40. Police Review 5th December 1997

41. Amnesty International http://www.amnesty.org//news/1996/14600296.htm

42. ibid.

43. http://www.gw.com/lists/arenal/Brasil.html

44. op.cit.

45. http://www.queer.org.au/listarchive/hate-crimes/

46. Wotherspoon G. (1991) From Subculture to Mainstream Culture Journal of Australian Studies Vol 28

47. Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (1995) Poverty, Lesbians and Gay Men: The Economic and Social Effects of Discrimination NEXUS Research Cooperative

48. Von Schulthess B. 1992 ‘Violence in the Streets: Anti Lesbian Assault and Harassment in San Francisco’ in Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men Herek G.M. and Berrill K.T. (eds) Sage Publications

49. ibid.

50. Coles F. (1997) Getting Lesbians onto the Agenda: Lesbian Hating Violence and the Police GALOP

51. ibid.

52. Brookfield S. (1983) Adult Learners, Adult Education and the Community Open University Press

53. ibid.

54. Altman D. (1994) Power and Community: Organisational and Cultural Responses to AIDS Taylor and Francis

55. Haglund B. (1990) ‘Assessing the Community: It’s Services, Needs, Leadership and Readiness’ in Bracht (ed.) Health Promotion at the Community Level Sage Publications

56. op.cit.

57. Robertson A. and Hutcheson (1995) The Health Needs of Gay Men in Lothian University of Edinburgh Department of Nursing Studies

58. ibid.

59. Mayo M. (1994) Communities and Caring: The Mixed Economy of Welfare St. Martin’s Press

60. Wolfred T.R. (1990) ‘A Call for Community Action’ in Petrow S. (ed.) Ending the HIV Epidemic: Community Strategies in Disease Prevention and Health Promotion San Francisco AIDS Foundation Network Publications

61. Cogan J.C. (1996) ‘The Prevention of Anti-Lesbian/Gay Hate Crimes Through Social Change and Empowerment’ in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia Rothblum E.D. and Bond L.A. (eds) Sage Publications

62. Bright J. (1996) Turning the Tide: Crime, Community and Prevention Demos

Appendices Appendix A Recent Developments in England and Wales and Internationally

Recent Developments: England and Wales Towards the end of the 1990’s significant developments have taken place in terms of the relationship between police forces and lesbian and gay communities across England and Wales. Before discussing these changes it is helpful to review what is known about the experiences of the gay community in relation to violence and harassment in England and Wales - the following studies have taken place:

1980 - The Campaign for Homosexual Equality produced a report compiled from press reports and personal accounts of violence and harassment across the UK. More than 250 incidents were reported, 15% of which resulted in death or permanent disability.

1984 - The London Gay Teenage Group produced their report ‘Something to Tell You’ which explored the experiences of gay teenagers in coming out and coming to terms with their sexuality and provided a focus on the specific needs of young lesbian and gay people.

1992 - Lewisham Safer Cities Survey of Violence Against Gay Men: 1000 self completion questionnaires were distributed across the London Borough of Lewisham which sought to explore gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment, consequences of experiences, levels of reporting to police and satisfaction with police responses. 242 questionnaires were returned with findings pointing to the common occurrence of verbal abuse, a rise in physical attacks and low levels of satisfaction with police responses. Fear of assaults was found to be on the increase.

1994 - Lesbians’ and Gay Men’s Experiences of Crime and Policing. Produced by Manchester Metropolitan University Faculty of Community Studies, Law and Education, the study sought to explore lesbian and gay experiences of crime and contact with the police and specifically whether being lesbian or gay influences the nature and experience of reporting a crime. Findings included: · higher than average experience of assault · no difference between levels of reporting by lesbians and gay men compared to the general population · lower than average satisfaction with police responses · the need for increased police understanding of the lesbian and gay community.

1995 - Insufficient Force: The Policing of Homophobic Violence in the London Borough of Islington. Philip Derbyshire’s report examined police service delivery to lesbian and gay victims of violence and assessed the policing problems that emerged. During the course of the study the research brief was adapted to examine in more detail individual police officers’ experiences of dealing with lesbian and gay victims of crime, their own responses to homosexuality and the changing relationship between the police and lesbian and gay community. The report offered insight into current experiences and relationships via more qualitative approaches, detailing:

· inadequacies in current service provision · relative tolerance of homosexuality amongst officers despite the failure of current training · under provision of effective training about HIV/AIDS · the gap between management and officers exacerbated by changes in policing practices viewed by officers as too radical and lacking consultation · a lack of support services for gay and lesbian victims of crime

1996 - Queer Bashing: A National Survey of Hate Crimes Against Lesbians and Gay Men by Stonewall. Mason and Palmer’s report presented and reflected on the findings of a national survey, conducted via self completion questionnaires and which received over 4000 replies. Whilst covering the whole of the UK, only 4% of returns came from Scotland and 2% from Northern Ireland. Therefore findings largely reflect the situation for lesbians and gay men in England and Wales. Major findings of the survey are referred to earlier in this chapter of the report but significant recommendations include: · the need for positive education strategies around the needs of lesbian and gay youth · removal of current inequalities in the law · better ways to collate data on anti-gay violence in surveys such as the British and Scottish Crime Surveys · the need for service providers such as local authorities and housing agencies to develop guidelines and action around anti-gay violence and harassment.

1996 - Action on Hate Crimes: Homophobic and Lesbian Hating Violence and the Police - The Communities Speak Out. In 1996 GALOP conducted a series of public meetings which explored current issues in the policing of London’s lesbian and gay communities. Whilst some progress is noted, concerns was also expressed around police handling of violence and harassment against lesbians and violence and harassment of Black/minority ethnic gay men. Recommendations included the continuing development of positive relationships with the Metropolitan Police as well as the need for community development and empowering of individual lesbians and gay men.

1998 - Playing It Safe: Responses of Secondary School Teachers to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Pupils, Bullying, HIV and AIDS Education and Section 28. The report covered a broad range of issues in relation to how young lesbians and gay men experience schooling and reported that whilst high numbers of young gay and lesbian people reported verbal and physical assaults based on their sexuality, only 6% of schools made reference to homophobic related bullying in any school bullying policy. The training needs of teachers and effective monitoring systems were highlighted as crucial if gay pupils were to experience school as a safe environment. Broad educational strategies which developed all pupils’ understanding of diversity and tolerance were also called for.

1998 - Telling It Like It Is: Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth Speak Out on Homophobic Violence. GALOP’s report on youth experiences in London included recommendations concerning extending current liaison between police and the gay community to ensure it covers the needs of young people, and the need for all mainstream services for young people to address the needs of lesbian and gay youth. 1998 - Lesbians, Crime and Policing in West Yorkshire: An exploratory investigation into hate motivated crime and reporting to the police. Sal Harpson’s study explored lesbian experiences of crime, perceptions of sexuality as a causal factor in victimisation and rates of reporting to the police. Despite high levels of satisfaction of those lesbians who reported crime it was found that reporting levels were low especially in relation to violent incidents. Key recommendations included the need for police to express a genuine concern for lesbian experiences of crime, as both lesbians and women, and the need for lesbian issues to play a more significant role in the development of a whole community perspective on community safety.

Alongside such studies other developments have also taken place in terms of the role of lesbian and gay community organisations around the issues. In 1998 GALOP identified key achievements of the 1990’s in London as follows:

· In 1990 the London Lesbian and Gay Policing Initiative was formed as a partnership between community groups and the Metropolitan Police. The group continues to meet regularly.

· The Metropolitan Police responded to pressure from community groups in 1991 by piloting monitoring of homophobic violence. By 1996 the force crime reporting computer system was able to record when crime reports included reference to anti-gay motivation. Almost all divisions within the Metropolitan Police have now appointed lesbian and gay contact officers.

· By 1993 the Metropolitan Police Charter for London made reference to sexual orientation.

· From 1993 the policing of public sex environments was to be less concerned with entrapment and arrests and moved into strategies more akin to preventative policing based on communication with local gay agencies and community press.

· In 1994 the recording of individual HIV status was removed from the police national computer.

· Across London (and in Manchester) local police and gay community partnerships are resulting in new reporting and monitoring systems - eg. ‘Action on Hate Crimes’ in Greater Manchester, ‘Speak Out’ in the London Borough of Southwark, ‘Tackling Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men’ in the London Borough of Islington, proposals for a new strategy in the London Borough of Lewisham. These local initiatives will be returned to later in this report.

At a “national” level across England and Wales progress has also been made and since February 1996 the growing number of local initiatives between the gay community and police have been brought together via the National Advisory Group on Policing Lesbian and Gay Communities. The group campaigns for fair and equitable policing and has an extensive membership list and knowledge base around the issues. NAG meets on a quarterly basis, in a different location each meeting, and now organises national conferences on an annual basis. With these developments and research findings in place how might the current relationship between the police and lesbian and gay communities be described? In November 1997 the national gay magazine Gay Times reflected on police and gay community relationships as follows:

When the 90’s began, relations between the police and gay men had reached a near all-time low. Queerbashing gangs were roaming the streets of our cities; gay men were being brutally murdered at the rate of one a fortnight and the police seemed unwilling or unable to cope with what was happening. Their resources were devoted more to harassing and persecuting us than protecting us. Almost 2000 men were being dragged through the courts every year for “public” sex offences. Gay culture and police were poles apart. But how things have changed. (38)

The cover of the Gay Times issue of November 1997 featured an ‘out’ gay police officer and promoted a National Advisory Group conference to be held that month entitled ‘Policing Lesbian and Gay Communities: Building Partnerships towards Community Safety’ which was to bring together large numbers of gay and lesbian people and police representatives primarily from England and Wales.

But pressure to change the nature of the relationship between police and the gay community has not only come from LGBT people. The HMI Thematic Inspection Report carried out into policing of diversity in England and Wales entitled ‘Winning the Race: Policing Plural Communities’ (1997) also stated:

3.14 The equity of service delivery to lesbians, gay men and bisexuals is both current and controversial. It is controversial because there are legitimate concerns about the quality of service provided and current because these concerns are recognised and are being actively addressed by the police at the highest levels. However progress in respect of homophobic attacks has lagged behind progress made with racial attacks/incidents. and: 3.20 Confidence - Some gay people perceive that homophobia is pervasive within the police service. There is concern over the reporting of all crime and a fear of an investigation into individuals’ lifestyle rather than the crime itself. If it is true, as suggested by some gay men during the course of the Inspection, that police officers prey on these fears (of both offenders and victims) to induce even more fear in the victim then this will inevitably lead to an under reporting of all crimes, not just homophobic crimes and incidents.

Finally one of the key recommendations of the HMI report was:

Recommendation 4.19. Forces should establish policies and strategies for the policing of incidents and crimes against the gay community, acknowledging their vulnerability as a minority group, and establish systems and practices to deal effectively with homophobic attacks including monitoring arrangements. (Para. 3.14-3.30). (39)

These developments have led to the production of specific guidelines in England and Wales in relation to dealing with incidents involving the lesbian and gay community. Adopted by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in England and Wales in December 1997, the guidelines (see Appendix D) attempt to ensure that the lesbian and gay community is policed in a fair and equitable manner. The guidelines focus on the need for policing by consent through effective partnerships and the delivery of a professional service. Alongside the guidelines the introduction in England and Wales of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act requires the police and local authorities to involve local communities, including the lesbian and gay community, in crime audits and in the development of local community safety strategies. The Act further recommends the establishing of mechanisms for consultation and participation of lesbian and gay communities in other local policing issues. The magazine Police Review (5.12.97) reported developments as follows:

The Government will be monitoring force policing plans to ensure enough importance is paid to lesbian and gay issues, according to Home Office Minister Alun Michael... He said working together was vital if trust was to be gained on both sides.

‘Historically, members of the gay community have been victims of a great deal of violence. Regrettably, a lack of trust in the police has resulted in a serious under reporting of such crimes.’

He said the Government supported the ACPO Guidelines wholeheartedly.

‘Consideration now has to be given to the practicalities of implementing the guidelines. Attacks on lesbians and gay men are unacceptable as are any incident of violence against individuals.’ (40)

Recent Developments Internationally

Gay men experience discrimination, violence and harassment across the world. This is now recognised by Amnesty International.

Amnesty International believes that the persecution of persons for their homosexuality is a violation of their fundamental human rights, and considers those imprisoned for their sexuality, or for the legitimate exercise of their right to freedom of expression and assembly, to be prisoners of conscience. (41)

Recent attention, for example, has been drawn in particular to the plight of gay people in Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe, opening Zimbabwe’s International Book Fair in 1995 said in his speech that homosexuals were “sodomists and sexual perverts” who should not have any rights at all. He told the audience that it was “extremely outrageous and repugnant” that homosexuals “should have any advocates in our midst and even elsewhere in the world”. (42)

In Brazil too the murders of gay people have been brought to the attention of the wider population. Gay organisations working out of Brazil’s major cities, Grupo Gay de Bahia, Triangulo Rosa and Lambda report that in one year they estimate that they have experienced “more than 320 lesbians and gays being killed in the Bahia... because of their sexual orientation.” (43) This study has only been able to access information published in English and so it is unclear to what extent there has been research undertaken on the experiences of violence and harassment of gay men in many parts of the world. In terms of accessing English language research the United States and Australia, with perhaps the most developed and active of gay communities, provide much information and so this study turns briefly to what is known from there in order to place the research in a broader context both in terms of what is known about actual experiences and in relation to responses to the issues.

United States: A number of studies undertaken in the United States have already been referred to. Berrill (1992), in his overview of anti-gay violence and harassment, reports that between 1977 and 1991 a total of 26 studies had been conducted in the US which examined experiences of violence and harassment, all of which found attacks to be widespread. One missing element from these surveys, Berrill identifies, is the number of homicides resulting from anti-gay attacks. Equally, the importance of racial and ethnic differences in relation to victimisation is also little understood although the small number of studies which addressed the issue have highlighted increased risk of violent attack for Black lesbians and gay men. In concluding his overview Berrill suggests that:

Although more research is needed to better understand the scope and nature of anti-gay violence and victimisation there is ample evidence to show that the problem is severe. (44)

As a result of the increasing awareness in the United States of anti-gay violence and harassment, two significant developments have taken place - the introduction of hate crime legislation in relation to anti-gay violence and the development of gay community based responses to the issues.

Legislation around ‘hate crimes’ in the United States is currently a controversial issue. The nature of such legislation can differ from state to state but has potential to do all or some of the following:

· enhance the penalties for any offence if it is committed out of prejudice · allow for data collection of crimes committed out of prejudice or hatred · ensure that police personnel undergo training on the needs of certain communities · ban the burning of certain symbols (eg. crosses) · ban the wearing of certain hoods and robes in public places · curb the development of paramilitary training · introduces parental liability for certain youth crimes based on prejudice or hatred · allow separate civil action

In his recent State of the Union speech to the joint Houses of Congress President Clinton made specific reference to sexual orientation in relation to two pieces of legislation which will be brought before Senate and House of Representative members in 1999. President Clinton stated: ...we know that the discrimination gap has not been fully closed either. Discrimination or violence because of race or religion, ancestry or gender, disability or sexual orientation, is wrong and it ought to be illegal. Therefore I ask congress to make the Employment Non Discriminations Act and the Hate Crimes Prevention Act the law of the land. (45)

This legislation will serve to enhance existing hate crimes legislation and protect gay men, amongst others, in the workplace and in any environment in which they are attacked or abused on the basis of their sexuality. The use of hate crime legislation to protect specific groups arouses debate amongst many sections of the community and also between gay representative organisations. Whilst some argue that hate crime legislation is an effective means of responding to crimes which have a greater impact on victims and the whole community, others argue that existing legislation should be utilised to protect all members of the community equally. Such debate is taking place across the United States where state by state policies are adopted to varying degrees.

Community responses to violence in the United States have resulted in a network of Anti- Violence Projects, now found in 29 locations in 23 states. Such projects offer free and confidential services to LGBT people with the aim of supporting those victimised to regain a sense of self control and confidence. Work also includes services to LGBT people who have experienced violence motivated by knowledge or assumptions about HIV status as well as same sex domestic violence and sexual assault. Many of the projects also work to educate the general public about hate motivated crime, to change attitudes towards violence and to reform government policies and practices as they affect LGBT people.

Australia: Across Australia, efforts are being made to understand and address the needs of LGBT people in relation to violence and harassment. In the state of Queensland a LGBT Anti Violence Council has been established to tackle homophobia and gender stereotyping and to improve communication between LGBT people and the Queensland Police Service. Advocacy and support services to victims of violence are also being developed.

However, it is in the cities of Sydney and Melbourne that significant research and service development has taken place. Amongst gay communities across the globe the city of Sydney is known as the gayest city in the world, with the belief that the city has a greater percentage of lesbians and gay men as inhabitants than San Francisco and it is really only in Sydney and the other major city of Melbourne that ‘visible’ lesbians and gay men in significant numbers can be found. Sydney is also the home of the largest Lesbian and Gay Pride event in the world with an annual Mardi Gras event every February, a highly public event watched by hundreds of thousands of residents and visitors and described by Wotherspoon (1991) as:

..an uneasy integration of something from the gay subculture into the popular culture, uneasy for both parties, and not on terms dictated by either party. (46)

It is in Sydney that much of the learning about policing lesbian and gay communities has been done. The State wide police force (New South Wales Police Service) and community organisations have undertaken studies into experiences of violence and harassment and possible service providers responses.

The overwhelming evidence of a number of research studies - ‘Streetwatch Report: A study into Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men’ (1990) ‘Off our Backs: A study into Anti Lesbian Violence’ (1992) ‘The Count and Counter Report: A study into Hate Related Violence Against Lesbians and Gays’ (1994) and ‘Out of the Blue’: A Police Survey of Violence and Harassment Against Gay Men and Lesbians’ (1995)- has been to point out the increase risk for lesbians and gay men living in Sydney of being assaulted compared to their heterosexual counterparts- with lesbians 6 times more likely to be assaulted and gay men 4 times more likely to be assaulted. The ‘Out of the Blue’ report commissioned by NSW Police and undertaken by Price Waterhouse Urwick also found that violence occurred across the inner city, suburban and country locations covered by the police force.

The police response to the ‘Out of the Blue’ study is also of interest. From analysis of the study findings the NSW Police Service developed a strategy entitled ‘Reducing violence, crime and fear in the gay and lesbian communities’ which put forward a number of key objectives with associated tasks which focused on:

· continuing research into LGBT experiences of crime · the setting up of a Customer Assistance Unit for use by lesbian and gay people · a state wide community consultation to feed into an ongoing strategic plan · a commitment to participation in a working party established to review organisational strategies · a commitment to publish a Policing Plan in relation to the lesbian and gay community Eire: One study undertaken in Eire has also recorded the experiences of violence and harassment of lesbians and gay men. The study undertaken by the Gay and Lesbian Equality Networks and NEXUS Research Co-operative in 1995 entitled ‘Poverty, Lesbians and Gay Men: The Economic and Social Effects of Discrimination’ aimed to explore how discrimination impacts on the levels of poverty and exclusion experienced by lesbian and gay men, on the ways they cope with this and to make recommendations to address discriminatory practices.

Whilst the report addressed a broad range of issues including education, training, employment and health, it also examined violence and harassment and found that because of their sexual orientation: · 41 % of respondents had been threatened with violence · 25% had been beaten, punched or kicked · 8% of respondents believed that the fear of violence or harassment affected their behaviour at home, in the community or in the workplace.

The report’s authors believe that both legislative protection and new approaches by service providers are required in the light of their opinion that:

The numbers of respondents who have experienced harassment and violence on the basis of their sexual orientation is one of the most alarming results to emerge from this study. (47) Appendix B Methodology This appendix provides detail about the methodology adopted by the study and addresses why the study explores the issues only as they affect gay men and not lesbians. A full copy of the questionnaire used by the survey team is also included.

In order to address the aims and objectives of the research the following complementary stages were undertaken. component 1: Desk research Desk research sought to discover and examine what was already known about gay men’s experiences of violence and harassment and service providers and community responses to it. The study team explored sources which provided information from within the UK and internationally. Published texts, discussion with agencies and individuals working in the field and use of the internet supported this stage of the study. component 2: Focus groups These were used to explore experiences, feelings and ideas in relation to the theme of the research in a non threatening environment. Groups were held at the outset of the study and on completion as follows:

Initial focus groups (number: 2) Initial focus groups were used to: · influence the content of questionnaires to be used in the study · help the study team to better understand what the research topic meant to the study population · gather general information about the participants experiences which illustrated what was being studied · allow members of the community to be consulted about recruitment of individuals for other elements of the study · built support for the research amongst community members

Focus group members were recruited through contact with existing community organisations (and their networks), by publicising the groups in community press and by distribution of publicity in gay venues. A total of nine men participated in two groups.

Each group began with the facilitator checking that all participants were present on a voluntary basis with knowledge as to the purpose of the session - thus ensuring informed consent. Procedures to be followed were described, including the taping of the session for transcription purposes. Participants were informed of the purpose of the session. At the outset the facilitator stated that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions which were put. Diversity of commentary was encouraged.

Questions were asked in a funnelling sequence from general to specific areas of interest as follows:

· where and when do you feel most safe and secure? · what happens to gay men that might be described as harassment? · what happens to gay men that might be described as violence? · who might gay men go to when they experience harassment or violence? · what might happen when they do? · what could be done to make Edinburgh a safer city for gay men? · how might the study team best access men for the large scale questionnaire based study?

End focus group At the end of the study a group made up of members of the LGBT Community Safety Forum was used to: · allow the research team to share broad findings and policy/service recommendations. · allow community members to be consulted about effective ways to disseminate findings across the community.

The session followed the following format: · after appropriate introduction the facilitator presented key findings from the study. · any questions about clarifying the information shared were asked for and answered and initial reactions to the information were sought. · the facilitator then presented key recommendations from the study. · any questions about clarifying the information shared were asked for and answered and initial reactions to the proposed recommendations were sought. · finally the group was asked how might the study team best disseminate the findings and recommendations of the study across the gay community? component 3: Input from gay men living in the city 246 face to face interviews based on a set questionnaire allowed the study team to gather detailed information which has provided a robust statistical base for the research. Findings from a further 54 self completion questionnaires were also incorporated. A small number of in depth interviews were also carried out which explored in more detail individual experiences.

Questionnaires: The questionnaire was designed by The TASC Agency using the 1996 Scottish Crime Survey (SCS) as a template. Where possible question and answer wording were made identical to those used in the SCS in order to allow comparisons. In recognition that the SCS did not cover a number of issues particular to the experiences of violence or harassment of gay men, other sources were also sought and desk research highlighted the work of researchers such as Gregory M. Herek and Kevin T. Berrill who have sought to offer a standard questionnaire design which researchers in the field might utilise to allow comparison between studies. These two major sources were therefore utilised as a starting point for the questionnaire design.

The questionnaire recorded up to 106 items of data per respondent. Most respondents were not asked all questions due to routing in the questionnaire - those who had not experienced violence or harassment did not answer the questionnaire sections on these issues.

The questionnaire was discussed with Scottish Office Central Research Unit staff and with the Advisory Group established to support the study. The team of interviewers selected to undertake the field work were also involved in discussion of the early drafts of the questionnaire and some amendments made as a result of their input. The questionnaire contained a combination of tick box (closed) questions as well as open ended questions, with topics funnelling from general ones to more specific, detailed questions to allow respondents to warm up during the course of the interview.

Interviewing was carried out face to face in 82% of cases and by self completion the remaining 18%. The need for face to face interviewing was underlined by the sensitive nature of the topic and the need to gather large amounts of information from respondents. A key challenge was to effectively target gay men for interview. In order to achieve a random sample a wide variety of social, support, leisure and entertainment venues used by gay men were targeted. In early discussion of the research proposal with community based groups there were requests for a self completion element in order that gay men not using such groups or venues might also contribute and this was agreed. The same questionnaire was used. No significant differences in the nature of information from face to face interviews or self completion returns was evident and so returns from each have been combined to offer one set of results.

Experienced and trained interviewers were used in the face to face interviewing. In addition to existing experience in face to face interviewing of gay men the team also attended a training session at which guidance on Market Research Society Code of Conduct and questionnaire administration were discussed. Both members of the TASC team attended the session and the TASC project leader was also on site during much of the interviewing to ensure correct administration and to act as a point of reference for interviewers.

A total of 300 responses were obtained. This sample size gives results accurate to +/-6% at the 95% level of confidence. The only significant source of bias in the results may be due to sampling at entertainment venues. This will implicitly reduce the proportion of infrequent socialisers and older gay men in the sample. Because the experience of crime is related to age and extent of social activity this may lead to some over-representation of results. This issue is fully addressed in the main body of the report. Results are conclusive and any bias has not influenced findings or recommendations made.

In terms of data management, TASC staff checked all completed questionnaires prior to data entry to ensure correct completion of questionnaires. Trained, experienced personnel processed the data and the software used to process survey results employed logic error checks and built in routines to detect and correct human error.

A copy of the questionnaire is available from The TASC Agency on request. In depth interviews It had been intended that in depth individual interviews would enhance the qualitative data gathered by allowing the study team to explore in more detail particular aspects of gay men’s experience of violence and harassment - specifically focusing on the impact of the incident on them, the reporting of incidents/seeking help and support, how they would have liked the incident to have been handled and to explore what suggestions they could make in relation to preventative and reactive strategies which might be adopted in the future.

Participants were to be recruited via several possible sources: · via invitation from the study team undertaking the large scale face to face interviews · via requests to those completing the self completion questionnaires distributed by community organisations to contact the team if they felt they would like to participate further · via existing support organisations in contact with individual gay men (for example gay switchboard or victim support scheme) · via direct contact with the research team ‘phoneline which was publicised in gay community press.

It had been the intention of the study team to interview up to ten men but this proved to be a difficult task and only three interviews eventually took place. In the view of the study team this is most likely to be because of the difficulty in recruiting recent victims of violence to come forward and to discuss in detail their experiences - issues of confidentiality are heightened and requests to re-live recent events are painful and demoralising. We feel however that this element of the study remains an important aspect of understanding how gay men are affected by violence and harassment and while the three stories told to us are themselves useful many other stories remain to be told. Extracts from the interviews conducted are attached in Appendix C. In order to encourage further research in this area the structure of interviews adopted, which was adapted from other sources, is given below.

For those men who did participate in the interview the following process was followed. Each interview began with the facilitator checking that the participant was present on a voluntary basis with knowledge as to the purpose of the session - thus ensuring informed consent. The interviewee was then informed that all information gathered during the interview remained strictly confidential and would be used only for statistical purposes or for illustrative purposes and only where the information quoted could not identify the participating individual. At the outset the facilitator stated that there are no right or wrong answers to the questions which were posed - only the interviewee’s own experiences and perspectives.

In terms of content and structure for the questionnaire, desk research early in the study had identified the work carried out by Philip Derbyshire which examined the policing of homophobic violence in the London Borough of Islington in 1995. In this study both gay men and police officers were interviewed in detail about experiences. The interview schedule designed by Derbyshire provided a useful structure for this study and was adapted accordingly. The questions asked generally followed the following sequence:

· thanked for responding, interviewees were asked whether the incident they wanted to describe was the only such incident and if not, how many incidents have occurred in the past 12 months. The incident which prompted the individual to contact the study was then addressed and detail was sought, men were asked to describe: · where the incident took place? · what time of day was it? what time of year was it? · what was the context of the incident? eg. were you going home, going to school, work or college? were you going to or leaving a gay venue, were you cruising? were you alone or with a partner/gay friends? · how many people harassed or attacked you? can you describe them at all? · did you know them at all? what did they do? what did they say? · were you hurt in any way? can you describe any injuries? · did you need medical attention? · how would you describe the treatment you received from the medical authorities? · did you tell any friends, partner or family about the incident? if not why not? if yes, what was their response? did they advise you to contact the police or any other agency? · did you contact any gay community organisation, if not why not? if yes, what was their response? how do you assess their response now?

A number of questions about involvement with the police were then put: · did you consider reporting the incident we are talking about to the police? · what factors played a part in making your decision? what did you decide?

If no report was made to the police the following were asked: · why did you eventually decide not to report the matter to the police? · is there anything which could have been offered or done at the time which might have made you rethink this decision?

If a report was made the following was asked: · did you report the incident by phone or in person? did you go alone, with a friend or with someone else? who? · which police station did you report the incident to? why this station? · how would you assess the response of the police officers you spoke to at first? · can you remember any details of the first interview? what did you feel at the time? were you alone with the officer? what was he/she like? were you in a private space? did the officer emphasise confidentiality? did you feel that the officer was anti-gay in any way? how would you describe the questions you were asked? (eg. difficult, sensitive, aggressive, to the point, not relevant) did the police show an interest in catching the perpetrator(s)? · how did they say they would proceed? how did the case proceed? were you kept informed? were there any difficulties? how could things have been handled better? were you ever tempted to withdraw your charge? · if you did withdraw the charge, why and what happened? did the police ever speak to you again? · did the police refer you on to any other agency? to a victim support scheme? if yes, did it appear that they knew you were gay? what did you think of them? · did the police ever catch a suspect? were you required to attend an ID parade? what was that like? · did the Procurator Fiscal bring charges against the suspect and were you consulted over this? · did the case go to court? were you required to be a witness? did you fear the issue of your sexuality might come up in court? did the issue of your sexuality come up in court? what was the court case like? · was the perpetrator convicted? what sentence did they receive? do you feel satisfied with the course of events? what comments would you make? · did you make any claim for compensation? how was that treated?

Questions were also asked about any other agency the individuals may have reported the incident to: · did you consider reporting the incident we are talking about to an agency or organisation other than the police? indeed do you think there were any other organisations that should have been able to respond/help you? · if there were other possible agencies, what factors played a part in making your decision? what did you decide?

If no report made to another agency was made: · why did you eventually decide not to report the matter? is there anything which could have been offered or done at the time which might have made you rethink this decision?

If report was made: · what was their response? how do you assess their response now?

And in relation to the affect of the incident on the respondent’s life: · has there been any physical consequences as a result of the incident? have there been any psychological consequences as a result of the incident? have there been any personal consequences as a result of the incident? · has the incident impacted on your relationships? your view of your sexuality? has it affected your general sense of security? · have you made any changes to your lifestyle or behaviour because of what happened?

Finally some general questions about violence and harassment of gay men in Edinburgh were put: · do you think anti gay violence or harassment is on the rise? why do you think this? · do you think the authorities take it seriously enough? · what could they do better? · do you think gay men take it seriously enough? · what could they do better? · do you have any final thoughts about what could happen to help make Edinburgh a safer city for gay men? component 4: Key agency input via semi-structured interviews This element of the study allowed the police, the local authority, the Community Safety Unit and gay community based agencies and service providers to outline their level of awareness and understanding of the issues at hand, to detail policy and practice in relation to it and to identify their own needs in terms of development of best practice.

The core questions put to participating agencies included: · how would you describe the agency attitude towards homosexuality? how has this developed? · to what extent has gay men’s fear/experience of violence/harassment been considered by the agency in terms of specific incidents? and in relation to broader policy or practices? · does/would the consideration of the issues raise any particular strategic difficulties or management problems? what do you see as the way forward in this area? what are your needs? · and where appropriate also included: · does the policing of homosexual sexual offences raise particular strategic difficulties or management problems? what do you see as the way forward in this area? · the Government is now actively recommending that the police set out to gain the trust of the gay community and work in partnerships around community safety issues - do you agree this should be done? what would it mean in practice to you? component 5: Key agency input via self completion questionnaire In addition to the input from agencies with a known interest or expertise in community safety issues this element of the study facilitated the input of other agencies as follows - key Housing Associations were asked about their consideration of the issues in relation to their key role as housing providers, large employers in the city were involved in terms of understanding the issues in relation to gay men’s experience of violence or harassment in the workplace and Trades Union responses to the issues were also examined. Resource limitations of the study did not allow the study team to conduct face to face interviews with these agencies and so short self completion questionnaires were developed.

The core questions put to these agencies via self completion questionnaires were as follows: · Does the organisation/company have an equal opportunities policy? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify why no policy exists? · Does the policy include reference to sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the inclusion of sexual orientation as a category within your policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify why sexual orientation is not referred to? · Does the organisation/company have a policy around violence or harassment at work? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify why no policy exists? · If you do have a policy on violence or harassment does the policy consider or make reference to violence or harassment based on sexual orientation? If yes: Were there any specific issues raised in the adoption of such a policy? if no: Are there any particular reasons you can identify why no reference exists? · Would further consideration of violence or harassment of gay men in the organisation/company raise any particular difficulties for your company? · What might help your organisation/company develop/progress a policy on violence or harassment which might take account of the fears/experiences of gay employees?

Other methodological issues:

Why this study addresses the needs of gay men and not lesbians: In early discussion with LGBT community based organisations about the purpose of this study concerns were raised that the needs of lesbian and transgender people also needed to be addressed to allow a full picture of the experiences of the whole community to be understood in relation to violence and harassment. This is self evidently the case. However the inclusion of lesbian and transgender peoples along with gay men in the same study was questioned by the study team. In particular the study team recognised at the outset that the experiences of transgender people were outwith our current knowledge base and required considerable examination before any early assumptions about experiences or the methodology required to research these could be made. With regard to lesbian experiences the team were clearer as to the reasons for adopting a separate approach.

In her paper ‘Violence in the Streets: Anti Lesbian Assault and Harassment in San Francisco’ Von Schulthess identifies that:

Despite growing national interest in violence against lesbians and gay men few empirical studies have focused specifically on violence against lesbians. When lesbians have been included in research samples their experiences have often been described primarily in comparison with gay men rather than in their own right. (48)

The study which she goes on to conduct and report on is the only piece of lesbian focused research identified by the study team. In terms of the importance of conducting this work Von Schulthess argues that its lesbian only focus was:

· able to identify clearly that lesbians experience violence first as women and that their responses to it are conditioned by the lessons they have learned as women. · able to identify that attacks against lesbians frequently begin as attacks against women, the identification that the women is a lesbian often follows and the violence or abuse often escalates.

As she writes:

Based on these and other examples I no longer frame the issue of violence against Lesbians only in terms of sexual orientation. Instead I conceptualise Lesbianism as an extension of gender and conceptualise anti-Lesbian violence as an extension of misogynistic violence. (49) Finally, one of the successes of the research carried out is identified specifically as the interest created amongst participants that the research was focused on Lesbian experiences only.

In addition to these points GALOP in London have also addressed the issue of research on lesbian experiences. This broad statement is made:

To begin with it is rare for surveys to look solely at issues affecting lesbians. Usually lesbians are addressed alongside an analysis of gay men’s experiences which in itself often results in fewer lesbian respondents. By taking the issues together there are two immediate problems. Firstly such questionnaires will often fail to take into account the specific complexity of lesbian hating violence, a form of violence which may have as much to do with gender as it has to do with sexuality. This may in itself make the questionnaire less lesbian friendly. ... Secondly questionnaires will, in the main, focus on homophobic violence in the form of public attacks, a context which we would suggest is not necessarily the typical experience of lesbians. (50)

GALOP goes on to express some concern that the recent Stonewall “Queer Bashing” survey made these very mistakes in terms of assumptions that lesbian and gay male experiences were alike and so could be addressed within one research approach. The very different experiences of lesbians in contact with a range of agencies as a result of violence or harassment is also identified, so research would have to identify how those key agencies might need to respond to lesbians differently from any recommendations in relation to policy or practice re gay men.

Finally GALOP make the following point which also supported the study team’s decision to focus on the issues as they impact on gay men:

I am looking forward to the time when there are more than just a handful of lesbians working in this area. When those who stand up and claim to talk about the issues for the gay community are talking about all those issues rather than giving a talk about men. A time when we won’t need to stand up as lesbians to talk about lesbian issues because we will naturally be part of the work in progress. What I hope is that the police and community will take on the issues at every level so that lesbians really are fixed on to the agenda from the outset as an obvious standing item rather than tagged on as any other business. (51)

The methodology needed to best understand lesbian experiences, and the need for lesbians to see that their issues matter in their own right, led the study team to suggest that a separate, but linked or complementary study, of lesbian experiences of violence and harassment would offer the community in Edinburgh and interested agencies the opportunity to undertake an innovative, indeed radical, and inclusive study which would give the issues of lesbian experiences the focus and importance they need. It is argued that this will place the experiences of lesbians on an equal footing with those of gay men and send a clear signal that they matter.

The concept of community Throughout this study the term gay community will be used. Recommendations will be made with reference to gay community needs. But what does this mean and is it valid to claim that a gay community actually exists? The term community can be viewed from several different perspectives and is used frequently by a range of professionals working in different fields - community psychiatry, community health, community policing, community radio. Brookfield (1983) believes the word proves to be so attractive, and so widely used, because:

...through it people can express this yearning for a communion with each other. It is a yearning for social wholeness, a mutuality and interrelatedness, as opposed to the alienated, fragmented, antagonistic social world of daily experience. Linked with this desire for warm relatedness is a desire for stability. (52)

But because the term is so broadly applied Mayo (1994) also argues that the “... concept of community is notorious for its shiftiness.” Mayo identifies that the terms early use in the sixteenth century implied a description of shared identity or some kind of mutual caring, as put forward by Brookfield above, but by the Nineteenth Century the term began to be seen as a description of a set of social relationships which were by character liberating or supportive. The word was also used increasingly within the context of the growing philanthropic efforts of the middle class as they provided an increasing number of structured and organised communities within which the lives of the poor might be enhanced. This has stayed with us, Mayo argues, and has allowed the modern state to adopt the term for itself - the state thus becomes the community and the needs of the community are therefore best identified and served by the state itself. To return again to Brookfield:

It is a favourite rhetorical trick of politicians to talk of the community when they mean nation or state, hoping thereby to imbue their policies and preferences with an impression of populism and broad support. (53)

In addition to the historical perspective, a sociological perspective might be offered. Australian writer and AIDS commentator Dennis Altman writes that “the term community is one of the most complex and imprecise in the vocabulary of social science.” (54) Yet despite, and perhaps because of, this complexity it requires attention and Haglund (1990) proposes that ‘community’ can be defined as:

... a psychological bond or relationship that unites individuals in a common goal or experience. Others use the term in the geographic or physical sense, as a space with political or economic boundaries. (55)

Altman (1994) also points towards an understanding of community which has a more spiritual meaning, which is based around the relationships which exist between people. He also identifies that individuals can belong to many communities and that this can cause conflict. Finally, however, Altman quotes Bellah who defines community as:

... a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it. (56)

It would seem, however, that the definitions offered so far do not deal satisfactorily with several issues - which groups of socially interdependent people have the right to call themselves a community? What might be seen as the implicit power that use of the term gives to a particular group? And what if the individual member of the group in question finds that membership is in some ways so unsatisfactory that they find the experience a negative one, are they still part of a community whether they give it value or not?

These questions all arise in attempts to understand the nature of the gay community, with some commentators doubting as to whether gay men can accurately describe themselves as belonging to a community at all. Typical of such arguments is that found in the report ‘The Health Needs of Gay Men in Lothian’. In the report, commissioned by a gay community based organisation, Robertson and Hutcheson (1995) highlight the following: The concept of community and in particular the notion of gay community requires discussion. The concept of ‘gay community’ suggests a heterogeneity among the population which may not be helpful for health planners and health educators. It minimises the differences amongst groups of “gay men” whose only commonality is their sexuality ..... The term community can also be seen to imply a system of shared values and an arrangement of supportive structures which for many gay men is not the case. The accounts of isolation within this document illustrate this point. (57)

Such a view proposes that gay men’s diversity and the different needs, experiences and levels of self confidence which exist amongst them are a problem or a weakness which undermines the concept of community. Finally, while such an argument does on occasion grudgingly accept that a gay community exists, it is often stripped of any sense of pride and seen only as a reaction to heterosexism:

The most widely held personal meaning of the concept of community, which frames individuals’ experiences, is that of the gay community constraining the forces of an opposing community, the heterosexual world. (58)

But it is possible that struggle might be a bonding and empowering experience. In terms of the changing nature of communities and their responses to external pressures Mayo (1994) argues that:

...communities’ own definitions of themselves may be changing and dynamic rather than constant and static. Whilst such changes may be related to wider processes of change particular events and crisis may also act as catalysts. (59)

Such a statement has real resonance in terms of the gay community and its responses to AIDS, and perhaps now to experiences of violence and harassment.

But the debate about what makes a community a community is still undoubtedly difficult to pin down. Despite this difficulty however community activists such as T.R. Wolfred (1990) go so far as to claim the concept of community is one so powerful it can support his claims that “to stop AIDS is to build community.” (60)

New social movements such as feminism or communities focused around green issues all demand social changes which are profound. It is also true that while these relatively new developing movements - green, feminist, gay, Black - have often not yet overcome internal differences in perspective they are beginning to realise the potential change that might be achieved by acting together. Theoretical perspectives and practical experiences of community have fundamentally changed because of the development of identity and issue based struggles.

This study is based on the belief that community can indeed be seen as a foundation for learning, change and empowerment and that, despite what might be seen as flaws or weaknesses, a diverse and vibrant gay community does exist.

Appendix C Individual interviews The following extracts are from individual interviews conducted with gay men who have experienced violence. They are included to support reflection on a number of issues including the nature and consequences of violence experienced and issues of reporting and support for victims.

Interview 1: Kenneth

Can we talk a bit more about the incident you’ve told me about? Where did this take place?

Near my home, It was somebody I knew, a hard man, basically it was late at night when I took the bus home after a night out, I felt safe till then. He was outside the bar I was in and I knew his face from somewhere. I sat on the bus downstairs and he went upstairs. I got off the bus and I thought about taking a short cut to get home quicker when I heard steps behind me so I started walking faster and suddenly I felt something in the back of my head and he grabbed me and said to me that if I didn’t do this he was going to knife me. I didn’t know if he had a knife or not. I was completely humiliated like all my rights were taken away from me, I felt like if I couldn’t handle myself. A few months later I realised I was HIV positive, I was also in hospital because I had like a bowel problem. Everything was completely disgusting, humiliating. I felt like I couldn’t handle myself in the streets, I couldn’t go to the police at that point, I felt very dirty, somebody else took control of my body and it is the worst nightmare that anybody can ever have.

What did you do immediately after the attack happened?

Nothing. I got home as soon as I could and got washed. I felt disgusting. I’ve never hated anybody before, but since that happened, you know, I have so much anger and hatred inside me against this person. I was also in hospital this year for two months because of depression. I was depressed, getting panic attacks, I didn’t want to leave the house, to go outside. I felt like if my control was taken away from me.

Were you able to speak to anyone about what happened?

No. I felt like if I couldn’t because I felt ashamed and so angry. Now I can cope better with it in my head because I’m taking antidepressants, that calms me down, stops me from getting too nervous. I just feel like something has been taken away from me. It feels like I had been fucked for ages, because I couldn’t get away from this guy, it was so humiliating. I don’t understand how a human being can do this to someone. I want to speak about this now to try to help others in a way, there are people out there to get help but basically I couldn’t use anybody.

Have you had any friends to speak to about it?

I never spoke to anybody. I felt so dirty.

And to your family?

No, I couldn’t speak to anybody. I felt like in a cell, I couldn’t talk, I just backed off. When was the first time you felt able to speak to someone about it?

It was with a counsellor that I’ve got for being HIV positive. Through the hospital. I went over it briefly. It makes me feel anxious.

Did you consider telling the police?

I’m too scared. I feel like the police are not on our side. If I had felt the police were on our side I would have eventually because I think nobody should be able to get away with this. I didn’t know any place to go and I didn’t want people to find out. I feel very ashamed. I want to help others but I can’t do it.

Do you still see your counsellor?

Yes, for the HIV. Some people say, gay people, HIV and put them altogether, but it’s not true, or they might say they should have done safer sex, but sorry, in my case.... I feel disgusted by the whole thing, even now I feel very sick. It’s like my life has been taken from me, basically I still can’t understand it. I wanted to do away with myself, three times, I just had enough, the panic attacks were getting too bad, I didn’t want to be here, he’s taken my life and I feel very ashamed. I’m supposed to be seeing somebody now but I found it very difficult, particularly to have sex and that and I don’t feel like telling him about what happened. I find it very hard when people get close to me. I just take each day as it comes now. I want to be able to have something in life, it feels like I have nothing in life, everything has been taken from me and each morning I wake up and the HIV thing scares me. Some mornings I don’t want to be here, how can a person do this to another person?

If this happened to somebody else what would you like to see available for them?

I would like to be there for them, and an organisation where they can talk about it. Talking helps. Try to bring it out. The police should be more friendly but unless this has happened to yourself you don’t understand. I want to help others. I was abused as a child. It’s a vicious circle. I have to build my confidence now. You don’t want this to happen to anybody else.

Interview 2: Paul

Can you tell me a bit about what happened, where did this attack take place?

It was about 10.30 at night. It was dark. It was February. Between Broughton St. and Dublin St. I was walking from (gay bar named) and I didn’t hear anything. All of a sudden I went straight to the pavement. They took my wallet and my cigarettes. There were two guys. I didn’t see their faces. They didn’t say anything, it was so quick. Before I knew it I was on the pavement. After it all happened I spoke to the barman in (gay bar named) and I was told that that night there were a couple of guys quite suspicious that left after me, so it could have been them. They’ve never been seen in the bar again. Anyway, it lasted 30 seconds. I didn’t even know I had been injured.

What were your injuries?

My jaw bone, I ended up with 3 stitches and a blood clot. Did you get medical attention afterwards?

Well I went to (gay bar named), I hadn’t even realised I was bleeding. The staff there cleaned it up and the bouncers took me to the Accident and Emergency at the Infirmary.

Did you report the attack?

Yes because the police were there in the hospital. You feel nervous about speaking to them about gay stuff, but the two I spoke to were very friendly, from Gayfield and they weren’t harsh, they were very sympathetic. They knew about other incidents that happened that night in the same area.

How would you describe the questions they were asking you?

Just normal questions, quite sympathetic.

Did they seem very interested in catching whoever attacked you?

Yes, they told me to go back to Gayfield the day after.

How was it the next day, when you went to Gayfield Police Station?

I had to ask for this officer and just sign the report. They were very sympathetic.

Do you know if anybody has been charged?

No.

Did anyone mention to you any places where you could get support?

I got a leaflet about Victim Support from the hospital.

Did you think about reporting or talking about the incident to anybody else apart from the police?

No never, the police were so helpful and the hospital gave me the reports to report it and they offered me counselling, doctors were great too. I’m making a claim for compensation, they took some pictures from the stitches and I think I have to go back again and get more pictures done.

What impact has the attack had on you?

Physically just 3 or 4 stitches but because I work late you find a lot of people in the streets and I just cross the road and try to avoid people at that time. It’s not so bad now. I’m still careful and try to avoid people but I’m not that conscious of it. I usually try not to walk by myself. You see folk shouting at gay men at night when they’re leaving (gay bar named). I think people are beginning to take gay men’s safety more seriously now but maybe not gay men themselves, people act as camp as when they are in (gay bar named). I‘m not saying they have to change but I don’t think they’re aware of the dangers.

Interview 3: David

Can you tell me a bit about the incident that took place?

It was between 10 o’clock and 12 o’clock at night, early February. Myself and my partner went out for a meal to a Chinese restaurant and then we went to (gay bar named). We were planning to have some drinks and then go home. We were there at 10. We went downstairs, myself and (name), and we started talking to a couple of guys. They were quite nice. My friend lifted a drink that belonged to one of them by mistake so he apologised and decided to buy him a new drink. At that point my friend slipped on the floor and fell over. We weren’t drunk but you know the floor was wet. He apologised and everything looked fine. And it was only when we were leaving that they attacked (name) on the way out. I think they saw the money in his wallet. They started on him at the bottom of the steps and then they attacked me. Eventually (name) had to go in between two cars to get away from them.

Did you know these men ?

No. You know you get into a pub and you start speaking to folks, I didn’t notice anything wrong with them. I came out the worst, suit torn, glasses broken, I lost about £500.00. Anyway when we got into the street there were two taxis outside and the taxi driver said he would take us to the police station and write down his name and the cab number and the time as a witness.

What injuries did you have?

A cut in my mouth, a cut in my leg, chest bruises from kicking, my glasses broken, (name) had his face cut, several bruises. They took it out on him more. The attack was against him, he’s from (place name) and so I think it was racial and robbery.

Did you get any medical attention?

I didn’t feel we needed any medical attention. The police didn’t tell me there was blood coming out of my mouth. I didn’t know myself. I just realised when I got home that I had a cut in my leg and my mouth was bleeding.

When the incident occurred you went straight to the police?

Yes. I needed to get this sorted out. The taxi driver dropped us off at 12:15 although the police said it was 12.45. There were two policemen. They took the statement but they never went to the pub until 3.00 that night. I don’t think that they wanted to know anything about it. They were very biased. Four months later they showed me some photos of criminals. They said if you see the guys again phone us and we’ll send a car. But it’s nearly a year ago. At the time I would like to have seen them go to the bar right away because they would have got them. But they didn’t go. They weren’t bothered. Don’t get me wrong I think there are nice policemen out there but these ones, they’ve been there too long and they don’t give a shit. I was told that I didn’t give a good description. I even wrote a complaint letter to them. They said they couldn’t do anything else. So when I got the response letter I phoned and the Chief Inspector said that he wasn’t able to disbelieve his officers. I was so annoyed. I said your policemen are wrong, they‘re telling lies. They implied that we were drunk.

Did you get any information from the police about support you get could get as a result of being attacked?

Yes. There were some addresses of support groups. I was very upset then, that’s why I went to the Victim Support. I made a claim for compensation as a result of the attack but I got in touch with the criminal compensation and they told me that the police had not yet sent the statement and that we would have to chase them to get it. I am just waiting to see if they are going to pay me. It has taken me a long time to get over it. I just get taxis and buses all the time.

In what other ways has it affected you?

I am more careful now than ever before. I was depressed. How can the police not do anything about it? I am very angry with the police. I feel let down with the police. I lost my job because I was very depressed. They have done nothing for me.

Were you concerned about violence before this?

I heard about it but I never thought it would happen to me. There needs to be more policemen in the street.

Did you tell anyone about the incident apart from the police, any friends, family or community organisation?

Yes, as I said the Victim Support. I don’t really know any gay organisation who would deal with it. The Victim Support are quite good, they do the same thing really. At the time I never thought about a gay group. The police never mentioned any gay group. Appendix D ACPO Guidelines for Dealing With Incidents Involving the Lesbian and Gay Community 1997 (ACC/ADL 10.12.97)

This Guide identifies Good Practice for police forces to adopt to ensure that Lesbian and Gay Communities are policed in a fair and equitable manner. It has been developed in consultation with representatives of the Lesbian and Gay Community and encompasses the issues of Service Delivery, Policing by Consent, Partnerships and ultimately Professionalism.

Homophobia Homophobic attitudes are incomparable with fair and equitable policing. All Police Forces should have Equal Opportunity policies which also include references to sexual orientation and ensure that homophobic behaviour is regarded as unacceptable. Monitoring should also include recruiting, selection and promotions. Victims of crime should be dealt with fairly regardless of sexual orientation.

Lesbian and Gay Police Officers The working environment in the Police Service should enable Gay and Lesbian police officers to ‘come out’ without fear of prejudice.

Recruitment Police Forces when advertising for recruits should state that their equal opportunities policies include a reference to sexual orientation.

Training Police training should include specific training which develops an understanding of Lesbian and Gay issues including HIV and AIDS.

Policing Priorities Lesbians and Gay Men are subject to criminal acts as a result of other people’s hate and prejudice. Effective means to monitor, detect and prevent hate motivated crimes should be in place. Suitable operational guidelines should be developed for covert operations in areas of sensitivity in policing issues affecting the Lesbian and Gay Communities.

Community Safety The Police service should work in partnership with other agencies including representatives of the Lesbian and Gay Community to develop effective Community Safety Strategies.

Consultation A forum should be established to consult with local Lesbian and Gay communities, recognising the different needs of these groups.

Liaison Officers Specific officers need to be appointed to develop policies internally and promote effective community liaison and contact with the Lesbian and Gay Community.

Complaints Complaints Procedures should ensure that complaints of homophobic behaviour should be monitored to ensure they are dealt with fairly. All complaints should be monitored and dealt with effectively.

ACPO Good Practice Guidelines for dealing with Homophobic Incidents

1. Introduction

1.1 It is the purpose of these guidelines to support Forces in developing local polices which deal with homophobic incidents and to assist in the development of common standards for dealing with such incidents throughout England and Wales. It includes a definition which may provide a focus for future policies and facilitate the collection of statistical data.

1.2 Lesbians and gay men do not seek preferential treatment from any other group having dealings with the police. Sexual orientation should not be an issue when someone is involved with the police in whatever context. However, attacks and other incidents associated with homophobia (i.e. a hatred or fear of homosexuals) need to be regarded in a different light to other incidents reported to the police, as they involve a specific hatred against a section of the community.

1.3 It is recognised that many homophobic incidents are either not reported, or that vital information is withheld by the complainant who may not wish the police to know whether they are gay or lesbian. It may be necessary to take positive steps to overcome the concerns of lesbian and gay people that the police are prejudiced against them and they may not be treated in an appropriate manner.

1.4 In formulating policy concerning homophobic incidents forces may wish to consult with members of, and groups within, the lesbian and gay community and involve other interested agencies.

2. Definition of Homophobic Incidents

2.1 Homophobic incidents are motivated by hatred or fear of homosexuality. These incidents include all types of crime. Victims need not be lesbian or gay, but perceived to be so by the perpetrators.

2.2 The definition of a homophobic incident is “Any incident which appears to either the victim, investigating officer or any other person to be motivated by homophobia, that is animosity towards lesbians and gay men”.

2.3 Forces acting in the light of local circumstances may wish to issue homophobic incident forms to organisations, such as help-lines, for completion and subsequent collation by the police. Although such forms may not include identification details of the victims they may help crime pattern analysis. 3. Recording Homophobic Incidents

3.1 Forces may wish to establish recording systems in order to monitor homophobic incidents in their areas. To assist in standardisation between and within forces homophobic incidents should include the following classifications:

(a) those incidents which Home Office classify a recorded crime (b) other criminal offences including public order or (c) any other incident

3.2 It is recommended that all Forces record classifications (a) and (b) above, but that the recording of classification (c) is optional depending on local circumstances. Forces may use manual or computer based systems.

3.3 Whatever method is adopted the systems should take account of local consultation with the lesbian and gay community.

4. Policing the Lesbian and Gay Community

4.1 An area of potential conflict between the police and the lesbian and gay community is the wider aspect of law enforcement relating to homosexuality.

4.2 In order to promote equality of service towards lesbians and gay men, any decision to enforce such legislation should take into account prosecution policy for similar types of behaviour amongst the heterosexual community and local public pressure. Alternative solutions should be sought, including liaison with the gay community.

4.3 Forces may wish to appoint an officer or identify a department to have specific responsibilities for policing lesbian and gay policing issues.

5. Training

5.1 A number of Police Forces have now developed their own internal lesbian and gay awareness training courses to assist staff involved in policing the lesbian and gay community. Specialist training provided to officers nominated to deal with homophobic incidents has had a direct result in an increase in confidence by the gay community and in the number of incidents reported to the police. Appendix E: Lothian and Borders Police RACE RELATIONS POLICY STATEMENT

Lothian and Borders Police is committed to the promotion of good race relations, the prevention and eradication of racial harassment in any form and to encouraging minority ethnic communities to use the services of the police.

We wish to assure members of these communities that any incident reported to us will be fully investigated, that they will receive realistic support and advice and that they will be kept fully informed of the progress and outcome of the investigation.

The Force will strive to ensure that perpetrators of racially motivated crimes and offences are aware that positive action will be taken to thoroughly investigate all reported incidents and, where there is sufficient evidence, to report them to the Procurator Fiscal for consideration of prosecution or to the Reporter to the Children’s Panel.

As an employer, Lothian and Borders Police is committed to providing services and following practices which are free from discrimination and which create equal opportunities for all staff, and has adopted and published an Equal Opportunities Policy in support of this commitment. The Force will also give all support and encouragement to members of minority ethnic communities who seek employment as police officers and support staff, or who wish to assist the Force as special constables.

All members of Lothian and Borders Police have a responsibility to ensure the continuing implementation of this Policy, which they will demonstrate through their contacts with people, through the way they carry out their duties and exercise their legal powers, and also in their personal attitudes and behaviour. Roy Cameron, QPM, BA, MPhil, Chief Constable

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RACE RELATIONS POLICY It is the responsibility of all staff to be aware of their obligations in implementing the Policy, in the knowledge that their action will play an important part in maintaining public confidence in the police service. While the Policy’s implementation, monitoring and evaluation will be under the direction of the Chief Constable, the principal responsibility for its delivery rests with Divisional Commanders and Heads of Departments.

STAFF TRAINING Every member of police and support staff requires the necessary understanding and skills to deal correctly with all situations where assistance is sought by members of minority ethnic communities, and it is the responsibility of Lothian and Borders Police to provide appropriate training and support. Particular emphasis is placed upon the correct ways of handling racial incidents and attention continues to be given to the review and development of this training. The Force is also committed to providing training in Equal Opportunities issues to every member of police and support staff. In support of this training, details of police and support staff trained to provide assistance and counselling to those who feel that they have been subjected to harassment or discrimination are widely published, and a structured grievance procedure operates to give effect to the Equal Opportunities Policy.

RECORDING, INVESTIGATING AND MONITORING OF RACIAL ISSUES Lothian and Borders Police recognises that racism can be experienced in a different way from most other types of crime and that victims and potential victims can feel particularly vulnerable to the effects of racial incidents.

A Racial Incident is defined as:

Any alleged crime, offence or other incident where:

(i) The victim, potential victim or any other person believes that there was a racial motive or believes that it forms part of a pattern of incidents with a racial motive, or (ii) The reporting or investigating police officer believes a racial motive existed.

A racial incident can include violence against a person, criminal damage, insulting words or behaviour, writing slogans, threatening or abusive letters and racial discrimination. If there is any doubt about whether an incident is racially motivated, the police officer notified of it will record and report it as a racial incident.

Lothian and Borders Police recognises that racial incidents are not always reported, but we would encourage the victim of any incident, however minor, to bring it to our attention. It is important that we have the best possible information to assist us in investigating, detecting and preventing such incidents, and that we publish information in the main minority ethnic community languages to this effect.

When a racial incident is reported to us, we will:

· provide sympathy, support and arrange interpreting assistance for those who require it: · confirm, in writing, in an appropriate language, the receipt of the complaint; · provide the victim with written information, in the language they find easiest to use, regarding the police investigation of crime, the working of the criminal justice system, the role of the Procurator Fiscal and the services available from Victim Support Schemes; · keep the victim regularly informed regarding the progress of the investigation; · notify the victim, wherever possible in person, of the outcome of the investigation; · confirm in writing, in an appropriate language, the result of the police investigation and, where relevant, advise on what other communications the victim might receive in relation to the case; and · give every victim the opportunity to comment, in confidence, on the quality of service they received from the Force.

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP We are aware that the issue of non-reporting of racial incidents indicates a lack of confidence in the Force and its staff by some members of minority ethnic communities. In order to address this, we are committed to improving our relationship with these communities and to implementing initiatives which seek to break down any barriers which may inhibit victims and potential witnesses from contacting us. We are also committed to establishing positive police/community relationships, at the most local level possible, with a view to implementing joint problem-solving approaches to racial harassment. In order to achieve these objective we will:

· work in partnership with other agencies who are committed to this goal; · share the results of victim/user surveys with partner organisations from minority ethnic communities in an attempt make progress in this area; · publish statistics regarding reported racial incidents, their distribution across the Lothian and Borders area and the numbers which are solved; · identify liaison officers within Divisions who will provide local points of contact; · consult widely and regularly with local minority ethnic communities, their leaders and representative organisations - at both Force-wide and local levels - in order to gain accurate information regarding their needs, and their expectations of the police service, particularly with regard to the setting of local policing plans; · collaborate with members of any of these communities who may have a contribution to make in this connection; · arrange for increased involvement of Divisional police officers in local community events, celebrations and festivals, in order to strengthen our relationships with local minority ethnic communities and to encourage constructive, ongoing communication.

MULTI-AGENCY RESPONSES Lothian and Borders Police recognises the complexity of many racial problems and also that the police alone cannot always provide a whole solution. In conjunction with Social Work, Housing, Education and other interested Authorities, and of course the voluntary sector, we are willing to:

· implement multi-agency responses to racial incidents where appropriate; · take a leading role in organising this type of response where necessary; · participate in other forms of joint agency work which are opposed to racism and seek to promote racial equality.

COMMUNICATIONS Members of minority ethnic communities who seek police assistance or come into custody may experience language difficulties which hinder communications. Police officers will be sensitive to this possibility and ensure that, where appropriate, suitable interpretation services are utilised.

CULTURAL SENSITIVITY Lothian and Borders Police recognises the wide range of ethnic cultures and beliefs which exists within the Force area. Police and support staff have been issued with a Cultural Awareness Guide which was compiled with the active assistance of the principal minority ethnic communities and which highlights these differences. These will, wherever possible, be respected and recognised. COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE If any person considers a police officer to have conducted him or herself incorrectly or unprofessionally, or to have committed a crime or offence, a complaint can be made:

· at any police station; · in writing to the Chief Constable; · through a solicitor or other person, on the aggrieved person’s behalf.

Complaints are investigated by senior police officers who are professionally and socially unconnected to the officer or officers complained of. The investigating officer will interview the complainer, and any witnesses, before speaking to the police officers involved and making his or her report. Complainers will be regularly updated, by the investigating officer, regarding the progress of the enquiry into the complaint.

If the complaint is of a criminal nature, the investigating officer’s report will be passed to the Procurator Fiscal. The Procurator Fiscal will decide, independently, whether or not to take criminal proceedings against the officer or officers.

If the officer or officers are alleged to have offended against the Police Conduct Regulations, they may face formal disciplinary action. If the allegation is proved, the penalties which can be imposed range from a verbal warning to dismissal.

It may be necessary for complainers to attend as witnesses at a criminal trial or misconduct hearing, should the officers deny the allegations made.

More information regarding complaints procedures is available from any police station.

Further information regarding the operation of this Policy is available from:

The Community Services Department, Police Headquarters, Fettes Avenue, Edinburgh EH4 1RB

Telephone: 0131 311 3504 Appendix F Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership: A Community Safety Strategy

Aim 1 To provide a durable joint agency framework for community safety activity in Edinburgh by · encouraging and supporting agencies and existing partnerships in the city and promoting community safety · promoting the integration of community safety into ,mainstream services · undertaking research and evaluation on crime and community safety issues and disseminating information and good practice · consulting local people about their concerns and priorities in relation to community safety

Aim 2 To educe crime levels by preventing specific crimes, reducing re-offending and addressing the causes of crime by · developing multi-agency initiatives in selected high crime areas · consulting local people about their concerns and giving priority to addressing these · promoting crime prevention and community safety in public places, in homes and within businesses · promoting work with young offenders to prevent re-offending · supporting inter-agency work to reduce alcohol and drug misuse · supporting measures to reduce violence against women and to reduce the risk of violent men re-offending · promoting measures which reintegrate offenders into the community · developing a strategy to reduce young people’s involvement in crime · promoting work in schools on social responsibility and community safety · developing measures to prevent crime against women · promoting action to prevent racially motivated crime

Aim 3 To reduce the fear of crime, harassment and intimidation by · identifying vulnerable groups and addressing their concerns · providing accurate information to the public on crime issues · promoting good practice in crime prevention and community safety

Aim 4 To support victims of crime, harassment and intimidation by · promoting a comprehensive range of services for the victims of crime in the statutory and voluntary sectors · prioritising and consulting with the most vulnerable groups in the community · reducing the impact of crime on individuals

Aim 5 To promote safe communities in Edinburgh by · consulting local people about their wider concerns and priorities in relation to community safety · supporting and further developing multi-agency action to improve overall levels of community safety

Aim 6 To attract new resources for promoting Community Safety in Edinburgh and maximise the use of existing resources by · ensuring that agencies target resources towards crime prevention and community safety as part of their overall commitment to this strategy · ensuring that crime prevention and community safety elements are incorporated into partnership bids for funding under the Programme for Partnership and other central government funding arrangements · developing proposals for funding under EC programmes · carrying out research which ensures that resources are effectively targeted on those areas and those groups in the community which are most in need of support · developing opportunities for multi-agency funding arrangements for projects which complement the mainstream services Appendix G LGBT Community Safety Forum Action Plan 1999 - 2000

1. Principles 1.1 A commitment to making Edinburgh a safer place for all lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people. 1.2 A commitment to the multi-agency approach which ensures that promoting LGBT safety is a central feature of public, private and voluntary agency activity. 1.3 A need to reduce the incidence of crime, harassment and intimidation. 1.4 A need to reduce levels of fear of crime, harassment and intimidation. 1.5 A need to provide a support framework to meet the individual needs of the victims of crime, harassment and intimidation.

2. Aims 2.1 To promote joint agency action to ensure the rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people to live without fear for their own or others’ safety and to be safe at home, in the community and at work. 2.2 To promote, monitor and evaluate action which ensures that the responsibility for promoting LGBT community safety is shared by all sections of society.

3. Main Themes 3.1 Safety in the Home The development of a preventative strategy which protects lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people and their children. The strategy should reflect the range of crimes, harassment and intimidation which lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people may experience in a domestic environment. 3.2 Safety in Public Places The promotion of measures which ensure the rights of all lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people to travel safely in Edinburgh and to play a full part in the social, leisure and economic life of the city. 3.3 Safe Learning The promotion and implementation of measures which will ensure a safe and secure educational environment for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people and their children. 3.4 Safety at Work The promotion of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people’s safety in the workplace. Employers in both the public and private sectors have an important part to play in promoting LGBT safety, by ensuring safe working environments where lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people can work in secure conditions free from harassment and intimidation. This should include provision of appropriate training for employees. 4. Mechanisms 4.1 The Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership has agreed a city wide strategy for joint agency action on community safety. This action plan forms part of this strategy. 4.2 The LGBT Community Safety Forum is a sub group of the Edinburgh Community Safety Partnership and comprises representatives of the City of Edinburgh Council, Lothian and Borders Police and a wide range of community organisations including Lothian Gay and Lesbian Switchboard, Gay Men’s Health, Lesbian Mother’s Group, Stonewall Youth Project, Scottish TV and TS group, Equality Network and Pride Scotland. The Forum will progress the action plan in priority areas over the next twelve months after which the action plan will be reviewed and further developed. 4.3 Agencies represented on the Forum currently undertake a range of activities related to safety issues relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people.

5. Key issues The following issues have been prioritised for action during 1999 - 2000.

5.1 Safety in the Home 5.1.1 Consult with social housing providers regarding curent policies and procedures regarding tackling the harassment and intimidation of LGBT people. 5.1.2 Undertake an audit of existing training and perceived training needs of housing providers in relation to the needs of LGBT people. 5.1.3 Promote measures that enhance the safety of LGBT people in the home environment by ensuring that LGBT safety in the home is included in the remit of local community safety strategies and initiatives. 5.1.4 Provide training guidelines and consultation opportunities for agencies dealing with child abuse and its impact on LGBT youth.

5.2 Safety in Public Places 5.2.1 Promote the implementation of measures to enhance LGBT personal safety, give consideration to the production of an LGBT personal safety guide. 5.2.2 Promote the implementation of recommended action arising from the current intimidation and harassment research programmes. 5.2.3 Promote and support measures which address crime, harassment and the under reporting of crime. 5.2.4 Provide training guidelines and consultation opportunities to agencies dealing with the exploitation and victimisation of children and young people which can properly reflect the needs and experiences of young LGBT people.

5.3 Safe Learning 5.3.1 Assess current policy and practice in relation to tackling homophobic bullying in schools. 5.3.2 Assess the potential for implementing an anti-homophobic bullying pilot in a local school. 5.3.3 Assess the potential for developing an LGBT after school homework club.

5.4 Safety at Work 5.4.1 Consultation with the Trades Council and the business sector regarding current policies and procedures in relation to harassment in the workplace. 5.4.2 Explore the potential for the Council, Trades Council and the Chamber of Commerce and other agencies to promote measures which promote LGBT safety in employment.