Exposure of private parts

[Departed Member]

Are women's breasts and butt considered private parts?

Not in the UK!

[Bravehearts.us]

Not in the UK!

Then they can go topless in public?

[Departed Member]

Then they can go topless in public?

About the only statute used (to prevent this) would be 'disturbing the peace' - darned difficult to prove, mind! Also, it's not that unusual to see mothers breast-feeding in public. Anyone objecting on the grounds of being 'offended' would probably 'asked to leave', pretty quickly - and risk being called "pervert" by others present - I've seen this happen..........

[Foppy]

Nudity doesn't offend me in the slightest. What body parts are "indecent" is purely cultural.

[Stu]

About the only statute used (to prevent this) would be 'disturbing the peace' - darned difficult to prove, mind!

'Disturbing the peace', or, more accurately, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, is not appropriate for the behaviour described as it must include violence or threats of violence. A woman who was inappropriately topless in public could be charged with "disorderly conduct" under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. That could be hard to prove, but the chance of conviction would be greatly improved if somebody made a complaint about the behaviour - and especially if they made a statement to the effect that they were offended by that behaviour.

Nudity doesn't offend me in the slightest.

Fine. But it does offend others.

What body parts are "indecent" is purely cultural.

Everything that is considered "indecent" is so because it is culturally determined to be so. But that doesn't mean we should all be forced to tolerate behaviour that is generally considered "indecent". In some cultures, for instance, children are allowed to see adults in their community having sex. For us this is a strong cultural taboo. Does the fact that it is "purely cultural" mean, therefore, that it's OK for a couple to have sexual intercourse in a kiddies' playground?

Stu

[Milfmog]

If I walked doem the street of my town wearing a tee-shirt bearing the expression "F*** Off!", I could reasonably expect to be challenged and told to remove it - or even arrested.

I don't believe any such challenge would have legal basis in the UK. You claim to be a police officer and have previously claimed to teach law, so perhaps you'd like to tell us the basis on which you would make such an arrest? Perhaps you could provide examples where such an arrest has been followed by a conviction?

What we do is already entirely legal.

As is public nudity in the majority of the UK. Only in Scotland does it seem possible to lock people up simply for being naked and even there it is not on a charge of nudity but "breach of the peace" or some other non-specific, "bend-it-to-fit", offence.

Nudism does have the capacity to cause real offence and angst...

When the Naked Rambler (Steve Gough) walked from one end of the UK to the other, how many members of the public saw him? And how many took sufficient offence that they called the police? I'd be amazed if as many as one percent of those who saw him made a complaint and suspect that the number was at least an order of magnitude fewer than that. Sure some people will take offence but, as you well know, there is no guarantee in law that an individual will not be offended. If we go with the majority, something democracies pride themselves on, there is no question that the current status under English law is appropriate.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Milfmog]

Ian, how do you know what Geese think? For all we know, Ganders might not LIKE sauce and might be extremely upset at the entire human race for "assuming" either sex of Geese likes sauce.

Neither the gander nor the goose needs to like the sauce Skip, only the guy who gets to eat them with sauce has a say in that

Realistically tho, that particular saying smacks heavily of the Lemming mentality. Inferring that all Geese think exactly alike is sort of like humans that are stuck in the "suit rut" think.

Nothing to do with how geese (or lemmings ) think, just that if they choose to apply arbitrary judgements to others they will have little basis for complaint if somebody applies the same sort of thinking to them.

Have fun,


Ian.

[Stu]

I don't believe any such challenge would have legal basis in the UK.

Then your belief is erroneous. An obscene word on a t-shirt could contravene Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, see

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-right ... nces.shtml

Nudity can be, and has been, considered as "disorderly" under the less serious section 5 of the Act, which states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour...within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

Perhaps you could provide examples where such an arrest has been followed by a conviction?

People have been arrested for displaying obscene words on t-shirts since the original Public Order Act of 1936 (a law that was brought in partly to curb the activities of the Moseley fascists). The latest example that hit the media was the guy done for selling t-shirts bearing the slogan "B****** to Blair" at the Royal Norfolk Show in June this year. He was fined £80. The "F" word is considered far more obscene.

What we do is already entirely legal.

As is public nudity in the majority of the UK.

Er...no. It is correct to say that there is no specific law in any part of the UK which prohibits public nudity - but nor is there any legal basis upon which to say it is lawful. Of course the police and courts "bend" the law to fit any given circumstances. The legislation does not actually define "insulting" or "disorderly", so the authorities rely upon the ordinary meaning on these words and apply the objective test. In this example it would be "Would the man on the Clapham omnibus think that a person walking naked down the street was behaving in an orderly fashion?" Most judges would think the answer would be negative. This would be bolstered if there was a statement of complaint from Mrs Bloggs stating that she was shocked and outraged, and had to hide her children's eyes from this disgusting sight. It is slightly different in Scotland because they retained the old definition of a "breach of the peace", which encompasses behaviour likely to cause shock and consternation, so they don't have to charge section 5..

You mention ´this naked rambler character, Steve Gough. Mr Gough was arrested in his home town of Eastleigh, Hampshire on two occasions in 2002 for walking naked down the street. After several hearings at Southampton Magistrates, he was found guilty (under section 5) and fined. While in prison in Scotland in 2003, he appealed against both convictions to the Crown Court. His appeals were struck out - so his convictions stood.

Minor public order offences are often dealt with by the police with what is called "cell time". That means the offender is locked up for a few hours and often bailed back to the police station, or released with "advice". They are then ultimately released without charge, and the time in the cells and the inconvenience of having to answer bail miles from home are considered sufficient punishment. CPS and courts are under pressure to minimise the costs involved with trials these days, so other disposals are now used wherever possible, be they cautions, conditional cautions, fixed penalty tickets or "cell time". On his two naked walks (most of which were done along remote footpaths etc), most people would only have seen him for a fleeting moment, some would have been offended but they knew he would have been long gone well before the police could arrive and so on. Nevertheless, he was arrested about 20 times. Although no charges against him were pursued, he spent a lot of time in the police cells and had numerous bail-backs that he had to keep. Of course, if he felt that his arrests and detentions were unlawful or unjustified, he would have been free to pursue them by way of civil action and, apart from the considerable damages he could have claimed if the High Court agreed with him, he would have established a clear legal principle upholding the right to be naked in public. Considering that he was fully legally represented, it is interesting that he did not choose to do this. A lawyer friend of mine speculated that he was more likely to lose as the police would have been judged to have acted reasonably, and the principle that would have been clearly established would not have been at all helpful to the naked activist cause.

Most of the police force areas he passed through received complaints about him (West Yorkshire had thirty-odd, and even sent their helicopter up to find him), and he was even beaten up in Cornwall!!!

Of course there is no guarantee that his behaviour will cause offence - the law doesn't require any such guarantees. It is sufficient either that offence was actually caused, or that a court can be persuaded that offence was likely to have been caused.

Stu

[Departed Member]

'Disturbing the peace', or, more accurately, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, is not appropriate for the behaviour described as it must include violence or threats of violence. A woman who was inappropriately topless in public could be charged with "disorderly conduct" under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. That could be hard to prove, but the chance of conviction would be greatly improved if somebody made a complaint about the behaviour - and especially if they made a statement to the effect that they were offended by that behaviour.

Stu

Sorry, Stu. You are 100% correct. I meant to put "disorderly conduct", not "disturbing the peace" - I shouldn't be on the Net at 01:17hrs - slapped wrist (ouch!). It's (section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) been a very useful tool for those members of the police who go to any length to avoid taking action against wrong-doers and to use instead against those who dare to complain about their behavior.

[Stu]

It's (section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986) been a very useful tool for those members of the police who go to any length to avoid taking action against wrong-doers and to use instead against those who dare to complain about their behavior.

I'm not sure I understand you, Merlin. Section 5 exists to make our public places (and some private places!) user-friendly, benign and orderly. It's not a blunt instrument with which to clobber people over the head if they happen to complain about police behaviour.

Stu

[Departed Member]

I'm not sure I understand you, Merlin. Section 5 exists to make our public places (and some private places!) user-friendly, benign and orderly. It's not a blunt instrument with which to clobber people over the head if they happen to complain about police behaviour.

Stu

Try telling that to (an increasing number of) Nottinghamshire Constabulary, who consider it their primary 'get out of doing anything' tool! Don't get me wrong, we're not anti-Police, we would welcome back pro-active policing tomorrow!

[AMM]

There is no question in the US about [exposure of private parts.] If your private parts are exposed, it's indecent. Thats the law.

Well, that's not so clear.

In the situation I was referring to (which started this whole tempest-in-a-teapot), the newspaper indicated that it wasn't illegal, at least not in Brattleboro (and maybe not anywhere in Vermont.) A local citizen thought it ought to be, but both (Brattleboro) newspapers thought it wasn't worth adding yet another law and prohibiting yet another harmless activity.

Of course, in the USA, Vermont is considered a rather liberal/free-thinking state. I suspect the legal situation in, say, Kentucky or Mississippi might be different.


Also, according to the newspaper, the purpose of the nudity was to deal with the unusually hot weather (although I'm sure they didn't mind fact that the local bourgoisie would be shocked.) They were just taking what everyone else was already doing to its logical conclusion.

I gather that once the heat died down, they put their clothes back on and went back to relying on their lack of a Protestant work ethic and their occasional use of recreational pharmaceuticals to offend the Good Burghers of Brattleboro. Keep in mind that in Vermont, for most of the year, the main drawback to public nudity isn't public disapproval, it's hypothermia. The weekend I was there, it was 60 degrees F and rainy.

-- AMM

P.S.: Boy, if I had known how worked up folks here would get, I would never have mentioned it! You'd have thought I'd proposed that local restaurants add roast Irish baby[*] to their menus!

Unfortunately, my point in bringing it up -- that in a town where a substantial part of the population didn't see any reason to get worked up about the occasional naked person in the parking lot, a man in a skirt is not going to be an issue -- was completely lost.


Another topic to add to the too-hot-for-Skirtcafe-to-handle list, like religion and, er, where's the list?




[*] Do I really need to mention the name "Jonathan Swift"?

[Stu]

Also, according to the newspaper, the purpose of the nudity was to deal with the unusually hot weather

This is a myth promulgated by many nudists who seek to find an excuse to expose their private parts. A pair of fine, loose shorts or, better still, a sarong, would keep you cool just as effectively as nakedness - possibly better. In the roastingly hot Arab countries, both sexes cover themselves with robes from head-to-toe, and these people are experts at staying cool.

although I'm sure they didn't mind fact that the local bourgoisie would be shocked.

I'm sure that's true. But deciding to behave in a way that they know will offend any section of their community is both inconsiderate and immature. Hopefully the local authority in this town will be ready for them next year by introducing a bye-law or ordnance that explicitly prohibits such conduct.

Stu

[crfriend]

Hopefully the local authority in this town will be ready for them next year by introducing a bye-law or ordnance that explicitly prohibits such conduct.

One of the problems we have here in the US of A is that there are already far too many laws on the book as it stands -- and a large percentage of these are simply unenforceable (like the ones in several states prohibiting fornication or cohabitation). The sad result of having these inane and obsolete laws on the books is that people lose respect for the law. The answer here is not to pass a new law, it's to work within the framework of existing, and enforceable, laws; passing yet another inane law will only erode an increasingly hostile view of most law on the parts of citizens.

Nakedness is the natural state for humans; we come into our lives that way, after all. However, modern decorum states that going starkers is unseemly, or worse, a perversion. And then there's the whole problem of what gets considered "indecent" and what doesn't. Is a woman in a bikini indecent? Here, no; in the fundamentalist Muslim world, yes. Is a bloke in a bikini bottom indecent? Here, sometimes yes (or at least he opens himself up to righteous indignation); in Europe, no. Go figure. Where does a bikini become indecent? And in who's eyes? Taken to the extreme, we'd all be wearing burkhas.

The above aside, I wouldn't personally go out to a public place naked as a jaybird; there are places (decreasing in number by the year as the US descends into a third-world theocracy) where it's acceptable, and that's where I'd confine the activity (been there, done that). But, to inject the might and power of the State into the matter, and leave the definition to political whim, just does not sit well with me.

What's this got to do with blokes in skirts? There are various municipal ordinances and bylaws, I'm sure, all over the place that would prohibit such behaviour -- and this is some cause for concern, because in the case of obsolete, and even ridiculous, laws, you're guilty here until you can prove the law is unconstitional (wrong doesn't count -- it's not what's right, but what's legal that counts, and the two are most definitely not the same). Are you willing to walk a path that you don't know whether a cop with a hair across his backside might pick you up and imprision you, and cost you a hell of a lot of money in lawyers' fees in fighting?

[Since1982]

One of the problems we have here in the US of A is that there are already far too many laws on the book as it stands

That's something that's not going to end anytime soon. Definition of "Lawmaker" is "One who creates/makes Laws". Seeing that Lawmakers are PAID to make laws, and don't want to run out of work and get fired, I have no doubt laws will continue to be made, however silly and inconsequential they are.

From the first caveman that was bigger and badder than any of the other cavemen in his cave, making up rules he liked for everyone else to follow OR ELSE, the amount of rules/laws have increased, and probably will to the end of time.