The Anti-social Behaviour Crime And Policing Act 2014 gives Councils virtually unfettered power to ban 'behaviours' they disapprove of in their areas. This power could easily be used to stop innocent naturism. Though it has not much been used in relation to naturism so far, this is probably because naturists are frightened to 'push the envelope' of public nudity, partly for fear of these powers being invoked. What is needed is for The Law somehow to acknowledge that innocent nudity is not 'Anti-social'. Below is a letter I wrote to my constituency MP at the time of the Bill. He did not answer, and did nothing I am aware of.
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Turner MP
House of Commons
Parliament Square
London SW1A 0AA
16th December 2013
Dear Mr Turner,
No doubt you will recollect my letters to you about my great concerns regarding the effect of the Anti-social Behaviour Crime And Policing Bill on Naturism, as well as other innocuous activities, and our subsequent discussion of this at your surgery.
Some naturists have written letters to ministers and the Home Office which, I am sorry to say, have only produced standardised replies which are not satisfactory. Indeed, your own response was to pass on the (then Jeremy Brown) minister’s standard letter. A more recent letter from the current minister of state Norman Baker MP to Mr John Redwood MP is typical of these responses.
In that letter Mr Baker says “Mr X and Ms Y raise concerns about the impact the measures in the bill may have on naturists” and that “the government's aim is to give the police, councils and others more effective means of protecting victims, not to penalise particular behaviours.", and he says " I hope I have reassured Mr X and Ms Y that reasonable and lawful behaviour should not be restricted through these new powers."
These responses do not reassure naturists, or anyone else, at all, in fact these formulaic "reassurances" only do the opposite because :-
1) It is quite obvious that the bill does give police and councils power to prohibit and penalise Naturism if they are so minded, and we know that some are so minded.
2) It is quite obvious that "penalize particular behaviours" is exactly what a public spaces protection order does.
3) The responses always say "should not be restricted" etc., not "will not be restricted".
4) Some councils and police have a history of trying to suppress Naturism even when they lacked the legal means, so there is every reason to believe that they will abuse the powers and use them disproportionately and unreasonably.
5) The responses always mention "reasonable and lawful behaviour " or some such words, but, (with one solitary exception), always avoid connecting those words to Naturism.
6) In the case of the one exception, the minister concerned was promptly sacked.
7) No number of letters from ministers or the Home Office, to naturists or their MPs, is going to change the legal position, or the attitude of some councils and police.
There are only two ways ministers can really reassure naturists; they are either to amend the bill to protect Naturism and other harmless practices; or, at the very least, to make an unequivocal statement from the dispatch box that Naturism, (meaning non-sexual non-aggressive nudity) constitutes reasonable and lawful behaviour which will not, and can not be, restricted by the powers in the bill.
Will you please write to Mr Baker on my behalf, to make him aware of my concerns as above. I am sure you will appreciate the urgency of this, as the bill is nearing the end of its progress through parliament.
Yours sincerely
Duncan Heenan
