Nor am I
It is a pity the article didn't say which law he is supposed to have broken and I can't think of one despite knowing quite a bit about how laws are applied to nudity.
Posts by BritishNaturism
6 publicly visible posts • joined 30 Jan 2010
Naked cyclist streaks through Suffolk village
Sunday 29th May 2011 08:17 GMT
Think Again
Your reference to "alarm or distress" leads me to believe that you are referring to Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:
A person commits an offence of 'Exposure' if-
(a)he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b)he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.
Firstly note the "and" - it is not enough that he "exposes his genitals". The important part is his intentions. The prosecution has to prove that he intended to cause alarm or distress - yet his declared intention was to cause amusement and it would appear he succeeded, certainly as far as his intended audience of the community speed trap is concerned. Also we could look at the reactions of people commenting on this article, including those with children - these kinds of reactions are typical of the majority of people - 88% according to a survey we conducted to support our campaign to get the SOA worded as it is. That same survey showed that just 7% thought nudity was 'disgusting' and only 2% thought it 'criminal'. So has this guy been convicted based on the opinion of just 2% of the population?
A flasher who singles someone out, approaches them then exposes himself to them is doing so in order to get a reaction that he hopes will be that of alarm. S66 is aimed at that kind of offence and that is very different from a guy trying to create a bit of harmless fun. His intention was to amuse and the likelihood was that he would amuse, just as the World Naked Bike Ride does every year in cities all over the world. Sadly all it seems to take is one or two 'Mary Whitehouse' characters to give him a criminal record!
Sunday 29th May 2011 08:17 GMT
Spot on Sir Runcible!
A friend of mine even goes as far as to say that "Prudery is child abuse with good intentions".
We have a wealth of evidence of this and a dearth of evidence to the contrary despite trying to find it. There is even a long-standing $1,000 reward for anyone who can write an essay making a valid case for harm to children from nudity. This has yet to be claimed.
See: http://georgedavisdistrictsix.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/1000-essay-contest/
Sunday 29th May 2011 08:17 GMT
Quite right!
And sadly we are likely to start acquiring their rates of teenage pregnancy, if we carry on like this.
We have studied 14 different nations and shown a very strong correlation between prudish attitudes and high rates of teenage pregnancy, America having a rate that is 10 times that of Denmark at the other end of the scale. I'm sorry to say we are closer to America, having about half their rate at the moment, so 5 times that of Denmark. Interestingly Scotland is a little worse than England and their attitude to nudity is closer to America's than England's is. Need I say more?
Tesco store bans shopping in pyjamas
Saturday 30th January 2010 20:55 GMT 
Glad to see Tesco welcomes Naturists
I'm really pleased to see that Tesco have such an enlightened attitude. Their notice says "no nightwear is permitted", which is good because I don't wear any. So clearly I am permitted to shop at Tesco naked - suits me :-)
Seriously, we are far to hung up on such issues in this country, but even naturists often say "but I wouldn't go naked in Tesco's" and I'm not seriously suggesting that I will. However, what harm can the clothes that one person chooses to wear do to another person? We all need to lighten up a little and stop being so prudish. Many people dress is ways that we wouldn't want to ourselves, but that is no reason for us to impose our tastes on others. These objections are based on prejudice and prejudice often leads to harm, seldom does any good come of it.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
