Show Posts
1
NAG General Discussion. / Re: What the papers say
« on: July 08, 2023, 02:19:04 PM »
I've written to the first two newspapers in the links above in response to thier online stories. Indentical emails were sent to KentOnline and ITVX in an attempt to ask them to show more respect to naturists and to advise them about the legal position relating to public nudity. It's unlikely to make much difference to the newspapers but we have to keep trying. I'll post back here if I get any responses. Below is a copy of my email to KentOnline. The email to ITVX was identical except the headline link.
----------------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the report relating to two naked men who were seen in various places as illustrated in your story.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/tonbridge/news/naked-cyclist-on-bridge-exposed-himself-to-paddleboarders-289396/
To begin with, it is not an offence to be seen naked in a public place so the police should not be ‘hunting ‘for these men. If the men are behaving as naturists, as your story suggests, then the police should be following police guidelines and should not be pursuing this matter in the first place.
Your headline refers to “Indecent Exposure”. Indecent Exposure belongs to a law called Section 28 of the Police Town Clauses Act 1847 which makes it a criminal offence “to cause shock and offence by wilfully and indecently exposing your person to the annoyance of residents and passengers“. But this law was repealed in 2003 when it was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act. That means that Indecent Exposure has not been a criminal offence for 20 years. People (including the police) have got to start adapting to the changes in the law!
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers ‘Exposure’ - not ‘Indecent Exposure’. There is a big difference between the two. Indecent Exposure covers any aspect of a person’s genitalia being visible for any reason and, as we’ve already established, that law was scrapped in 2003. Exposure, under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act, relates ONLY to ‘flashing’.
An offence for Exposure (flashing) requires two distinct elements:
1 – It requires a sexual element. This means that the person exposing himself must be doing it for sexual gratification. Since naturism is non-sexual, this box remains unticked.
2 – It requires that a person’s genitalia is directed toward somebody with an intention to cause alarm and distress. The fact that somebody could feel alarm and distress is not enough. There has to be a CLEAR INTENTION to cause it (as would be illustrated by a flasher). Again, no genuine naturist is going to run up to somebody and force his groin in people’s faces! Dedicated naturists don’t behave like that. So this leaves another box unticked.
For the above reasons, Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act cannot be used against a naturist.
I mentioned the Police Guidelines. The Guidelines were issued by the College of Policing in 2018 to clarify the way the police should interpret the law regarding naturism and public nudity. The guidelines make it perfectly clear that no offence is being committed. A briefing note is freely available from the police website at:
https://library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf
A PDF copy is attached for your reference. Different sections are aimed at Responding Police Officers and Call Handlers but, in my experience, the police will actively ignore the briefing note until it is assertively brought to their attention. The police should now be following the guidelines as a matter of course!
I hope I have clarified the legal position and you will appreciate the amount of flaws in your story. I also hope you will take this opportunity to show respect for naturists who are innocently going about their lawful business. But most of all, I hope that you will question any naturist related information given to you by the police. It would be wise to question any information they give you to compile your story.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information regarding naturism or the laws relating to it.
Yours faithfully,
John Wood.
Secretary of the Naturist Action Group.
Email: secretary@naturistactiongroup.co.uk
----------------------------------------
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the report relating to two naked men who were seen in various places as illustrated in your story.
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/tonbridge/news/naked-cyclist-on-bridge-exposed-himself-to-paddleboarders-289396/
To begin with, it is not an offence to be seen naked in a public place so the police should not be ‘hunting ‘for these men. If the men are behaving as naturists, as your story suggests, then the police should be following police guidelines and should not be pursuing this matter in the first place.
Your headline refers to “Indecent Exposure”. Indecent Exposure belongs to a law called Section 28 of the Police Town Clauses Act 1847 which makes it a criminal offence “to cause shock and offence by wilfully and indecently exposing your person to the annoyance of residents and passengers“. But this law was repealed in 2003 when it was replaced by the Sexual Offences Act. That means that Indecent Exposure has not been a criminal offence for 20 years. People (including the police) have got to start adapting to the changes in the law!
Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 covers ‘Exposure’ - not ‘Indecent Exposure’. There is a big difference between the two. Indecent Exposure covers any aspect of a person’s genitalia being visible for any reason and, as we’ve already established, that law was scrapped in 2003. Exposure, under Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act, relates ONLY to ‘flashing’.
An offence for Exposure (flashing) requires two distinct elements:
1 – It requires a sexual element. This means that the person exposing himself must be doing it for sexual gratification. Since naturism is non-sexual, this box remains unticked.
2 – It requires that a person’s genitalia is directed toward somebody with an intention to cause alarm and distress. The fact that somebody could feel alarm and distress is not enough. There has to be a CLEAR INTENTION to cause it (as would be illustrated by a flasher). Again, no genuine naturist is going to run up to somebody and force his groin in people’s faces! Dedicated naturists don’t behave like that. So this leaves another box unticked.
For the above reasons, Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act cannot be used against a naturist.
I mentioned the Police Guidelines. The Guidelines were issued by the College of Policing in 2018 to clarify the way the police should interpret the law regarding naturism and public nudity. The guidelines make it perfectly clear that no offence is being committed. A briefing note is freely available from the police website at:
https://library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf
A PDF copy is attached for your reference. Different sections are aimed at Responding Police Officers and Call Handlers but, in my experience, the police will actively ignore the briefing note until it is assertively brought to their attention. The police should now be following the guidelines as a matter of course!
I hope I have clarified the legal position and you will appreciate the amount of flaws in your story. I also hope you will take this opportunity to show respect for naturists who are innocently going about their lawful business. But most of all, I hope that you will question any naturist related information given to you by the police. It would be wise to question any information they give you to compile your story.
Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information regarding naturism or the laws relating to it.
Yours faithfully,
John Wood.
Secretary of the Naturist Action Group.
Email: secretary@naturistactiongroup.co.uk
