Definitely.
Nakedness and the Law
- Thread starter GreatAuk
- Start date
Definitely.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
If you're looking for a specific offence, it doesn't exist any more than s.18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 outlaws stabbing with a kitchen knife or smashing someone's legs with a hammer: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/18. But those offences would be charged under s.18 or 20 of the OAPA.
I may be wrong on this, but I think while other nudists have been charged under s.5 POA, Gough himself was locked up for breach of the peace and (much more significantly) contempt of court.
There is a difference. You expect topless women at a nude beach, you do not expect them when doing your Saturday morning shopping and may be shocked by it. The law protects some cultural mores that have built up over thousands of years. For example, should a man be allowed to take a dump on the street pavement as you're walking past? It's a natural function, after all, same as eating. But one we do in public; another we do not.
Poor example to use as there are costs (cleanup) and possible harm (danger of disease) in the above which are not present in being naked in public.
Last edited:
The point I see is that something that harms absolutely no one is made illegal for no good reason.
It harms people by upsetting them - not all, but enough. I would personally be amused rather than alarmed if I saw a nude man in most contexts, but might be less keen in some circumstances, like if I were a parent minding young children in the park and a naked chap turned up or if he sat down next to me on the bus. Others of a more delicate disposition would be far more frequently distressed. You might think people ought not to be upset, but that would require cultural reconditioning of the majority of the population.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,598
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 2,826
- Location
- London
Why is being naked offensive?
Bit of a throw back to a couple of hundred years ago where people were a bit more up tight, seems some people (who i assume were born fully clothed) are still a bit old school
Not that i would really want to see some naked dude walking down the street, where are naturists always old fat people?
Bit of a throw back to a couple of hundred years ago where people were a bit more up tight, seems some people (who i assume were born fully clothed) are still a bit old school
Not that i would really want to see some naked dude walking down the street, where are naturists always old fat people?
Heh, not a word I used either. Fry's point is that people complaining about being offended by things has become increasingly common and tedious, not that there is no line to be drawn at all. There is also a difference between alarming/distressing someone, say, by taking all your clothes off while sat next to an old lady on a bus, and by offending that same lady by telling her that her pet dog is ugly.
Well...
Think you just answered your own question!
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,455
Locally, our beaches have signs saying NO TOPLESS BATHING yet there are always those few woman who bathe topless anyways. Police pas by, and just let them be.
When Labour changed the indecency laws they made it quite clear that public naturism would NOT be outlawed, and it isn't.
Under a broad interpretation of the law you quote above, any nudity could cause distress to SOME poor delicate soul. But if there is no intent to offend or cause distress then no law is broken. It is all about intent and context.
I accept that this man has a harder time proving he didn't intend distress when he walks about nude in places full of people. If he was walking somewhere secluded and/or at times of day or night when few people could be expected to be present, then he would have a much better defence.
Basically this is a grey area of the law and it seems that these particular Scottish judges are interpreting it in the harshest possible way.
You say "do something wrong again", but I struggle to see why being naked is 'wrong'. I think it is ridiculous that it is regarded as such. The fact remains, the event which started off the proceedings which ended up with the man in jail was the man being naked, which seems farcical when other actions go unpunished. This is how the man has decided to live, and he is being persecuted for it. From the article, I can only assume that the 'contempt of court' was simply due to him being naked, which also seems farcical to me. Sure, he could have played the game and put some clothes on for court, but that seems perverse to me that he would have to go against his personal values just so that some lawyers aren't 'offended'. (Of course, if there was another reason for the contempt of court, then that changes things, but as I see it, he is being unfairly punished for the action twice).
Also, I don't particularly understand why it should be frowned on to be naked around children - I remember running round the garden naked as a child with a friend and I wasn't shocked to see a human being *gasp* without any clothes on. If he started making suggestive gestures or doing something similar to the children, I could see there could be a problem, but that would be a problem whether he was clothed or not.
So how have you determined that he "stripped off with the intention to cause distress, alarm or outrage", and was not just freely going about his own business in the manner he wanted to. I haven't spotted any evidence for this in the article.
The contempt of court seems to have earned him 90 days, but his actions outside in the open air surely constitute the rest of his sentence? So even less 90 days, the sentencing seems extraordinarily harsh for an action which does absolutely no harm to anyone. Police don't even bother to come round to your hose when thieves are stealing lead off the roof that very moment, but they are quite happy to lock a man up for years because he won't put clothes on madness, imo.
By the 'guidelines' I said I couldn't find, what I meant was guidelines as to what constitutes decent dress in certain situations, not sentencing guidelines.
I'm not sure what your big problem with my OP is, unless I've completely misunderstood the article.
So if causing offence is enough to be sent to prison, why are swearing thugs not sent there? Why are people who burn poppies on Armistice Day given a £50 fine, but a man who wants to be naked is sent to prison? I know that I would find people burning poppies on Armistice Day much more offensive than seeing someone walk down the street with no clothes on. I think it is ridiculous how out of proportion the reaction to this nudity has been.
Now I don't know if I'm understanding the article correctly, but what it seems to imply is that the contempt of court is purely due to him being naked in court. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to wear what you want in court. Will it really have a massive impact on the proceedings? Anyway, I would find it hard not to hold a court in contempt (in a different sense obviously) that is convened just because someone decided to go outside with no clothes on. But that only seems to constitute 90 days of each sentence.
My opinion remains unchanged - being nude should not be criminal, and even if it has to be, it is farcical that it carries such high sentences.
I agree it is very much about context and a grey area, but the whole reason I cited that law was to demonstrate that intention is not necessarily relevant to public decency. If it had to be, why would there be two different sections of differing severity in the Public Order Act? Cf. sections 4A and 5.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 does indeed not cover non-sexual nudity as you say, which is why other laws are used to prevent this. It basically all works though - as you say, in theory 'any nudity could cause distress to SOME poor delicate soul', but this doesn't actually happen in practice. Moreover, to use the example of s.5 POA again, the wording is 'likely' to cause offence so minor incidents or the context of a nudist camp would be excluded by the law anyway. The police, CPS, judiciary et al. use their discretion too.
The judges are only throwing the book at him because he keeps turning up to court nude - contempt of court is (necessarily) an extremely serious offence. If he showed a little sense he would be able to get away with a lot of nudity and only a little gaol time.
Yet another BS piece of law that is ridiculously vague.
This. Nudity is natural. If he wants to be cold, let him.
As far as I can tell, his contempt of court was for not putting on clothes in order to go to court. Why the **** should he have to?
swearing, shouting etc can lead to imprisonment and does.
Nakedness is just like anti social behaviour. Neither are strictly against the law. However doing it in certain ways or places, mos certainly is against the law and will land you in trouble. These. Laws have to be vague, a one law does not fit all. It's ok to hour, but continually. Shouting abuse at 2am is not. Just like being naked in a place you are unlikely to be seen or socially acceptable (like certain beaches) is fine, but stripping of and walking through town is likely to land you in trouble.
Perhaps the total sentence is so long as he has been arrested 14+ times for the same offence showing no rehabilitation and forcing judges to hand out ever harsher sentences. The only funny thing in this thread is people trying to make out the sentence is harsh, that no laws where broken and seem to think it was a one of court appearance. Not a massive string of offences.
Last edited: