Nakedness and the Law

Nikias said:
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.
Click to expand...

He is cutting off his nose to spite his face somewhat :( While I admire his principles, if I was his friend I would advise him to do what they want so you can get back to England where the laws are less draconian, and enjoy the rest of your life. I would also advise him not to go nude everywhere, because what is the point in being continually arrested and locked up etc. What is the point in continually fighting a war you cannot win.
 
AcidHell2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that but I nonetheless think it is still far too harsh.

I would like to see the judges have a bit of compassion and tolerance for a man who they must see is taking a principled stance and is not intending to mock or insult the court.
 
dirtydog said:
He is cutting off his nose to spite his face somewhat :( While I admire his principles, if I was his friend I would advise him to do what they want so you can get back to England where the laws are less draconian, and enjoy the rest of your life. I would also advise him not to go nude everywhere, because what is the point in being continually arrested and locked up etc. What is the point in continually fighting a war you cannot win.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. As much as I would like, for example, for weed to be legalised I appreciate it's a losing battle to just go out on the street and openly smoke it.
 
dirtydog said:
I understand that but I nonetheless think it is still far too harsh.

I would like to see the judges have a bit of compassion and tolerance for a man who they must see is taking a principled stance and is not intending to mock or insult the court.
Click to expand...

Why should they allow someone to undermine the law. That's the exact people they are go ing to be harsh on. Not that they are harsh on him. The first offences where not harshly punished. It was only after countless court appearances and attempt of court did he get the book thowen at him.

Says in the BBC article that over the course of his walk he only spent a few weeks in jail, in the whole time. It was latter that he got the heavier sentences.

It's like saying us speeders should be let off, as we are having a stand about ill advised road safety campaigns. It's a load of rubbish, of course we will be punished and punished severely after a while.
 
Naff8000 said:
Interesting point. I guess nothing is seen as more off limits than a man's genitalia, a woman's isn't so much own show. So maybe that has something to do with it.
Click to expand...

Albeit it isn't indecent for a man to reveal his parts in public per se, unless he is 'aroused'. (Even then, someone would have to see it and take offence etc.)
 
AcidHell2 said:
Why should they allow someone to undermine the law. That's the exact people they are go ing to be harsh on. Not that they are harsh on him. The first offences where not harshly punished. It was only after countless court appearances and attempt of court did he get the book thowen at him.

Says in the BBC article that over the course of his walk he only spent a few weeks in jail, in the whole time. It was latter that he got the heavier sentences.

It's like saying us speeders should be let off, as we are having a stand about ill advised road safety campaigns. It's a load of rubbish, of course we will be punished and punished severely after a while.
Click to expand...

Speeding is a bit different, there is a clear objective test to decide whether you broke the law or not, it is black and white, no grey areas.

Perhaps the heavier sentences he received were all in Scotland? I don't know the history but I am dimly aware that Scotland is much tougher on this than England and Wales are.
 
It might be different but the point standards. You can't let people break the law or go easy on them, just becuase they are fighting principles. It makes no sense.

Public nudity is not the only grey law, there are many, as I said public disorder is a good one. It's impossible for it not to be grey or you end up criminalising everyone.

I assume Scottish courts aren't totally separate from English courts, so I assume his offences, court cases and prison sentences in England, made the judge have to give harsher penalties. Just like anyone who is found guilty so many times.
 
Oh well, I hope he wears something for his next court appearance anyway.

Because in theory he is going to spend the rest of his life behind bars otherwise! :/
 
We all have private parts so what is the taboo????

I'm sure if we were all more comfortable with things of a sexual nature there wouldn't be so many paedos and underage parents.
 
Andy said:
I'm sure if we were all more comfortable with things of a sexual nature there wouldn't be so many paedos and underage parents.
Click to expand...

This. We aren't born being uptight and repressed about sex and nudity etc., we learn this from society and I don't see it as being healthy.
 
dirtydog said:
This. We aren't born being uptight and repressed about sex and nudity etc., we learn this from society and I don't see it as being healthy.
Click to expand...

Things have and are changing. You can't reprogram society over night. These things take ages, several generations.
 
I bet that if it was a pretty woman with gianormus baboobas walking around naked in public, most people would be cheering her on.

But if your sensitive eyes should ever see a mans junk, you would want him lynched.
 
DJammyRasta said:
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?
Click to expand...

Its not offensive in itself, the problem with public nudity is that children are also part of the public. Their parents want their children to remain children, free from sexual suggestion as that is what nudity is. It may be old school, but just because something is old doesn't in itself make it inferior.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
Its not offensive in itself, the problem with public nudity is that children are also part of the public. Their parents want their children to remain children, free from sexual suggestion as that is what nudity is. It may be old school, but just because something is old doesn't in itself make it inferior.
Click to expand...

Children would only be offended or worried by nudity because they have been taught to feel this way by their parents or by society. They certainly aren't born with these fears and concerns, they learn it later.
 
dirtydog said:
Children would only be offended or worried by nudity because they have been taught to feel this way by their parents or by society. They certainly aren't born with these fears and concerns, they learn it later.
Click to expand...

Who is saying that children would be offended? Its a case of parents not wanting their children being exposed to sexual suggestion, if there is any offense it is not respecting the parents wishes in regards to their children.
 
Orcish-Horde said:
Who is saying that children would be offended? Its a case of parents not wanting their children being exposed to sexual suggestion, if there is any offense it is not respecting the parents wishes in regards to their children.
Click to expand...

Isn't there something wrong when anyone would consider a naked person to be sexually suggestive? Being nude doesn't imply anything sexual, unless you have a dirty mind to begin with. In which case it isn't the nude person who has something wrong with them, it is the person who has taken offence who should take a look at themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom