Encounters...what to do?

[Naked_Archer]

The only strange thing about the case that I have heard is that the trigger for his arrest was a telephone call to the police from a woman who had seen him in the distance and had deliberately got closer in order to see whether he was naked.

She was "offended" because she moved in to get a better look.   That is bad.

Pretty bad that the police then used that "getting offended after getting closer for a better look" as a way to charge & arrest the walker. 

It's certainly made me realise what impacts getting caught when carrying out free range naturism may have on my life, e.g. arrested, lose job, then lose house as no longer able to pay mortgage. 

So I think I'll be curtailing free range naturism.  Sad to do so, but better safe than sorry!

[jbeegoode]

  Scotland IS goofed up. He needed to be more cautious and carry a coverup.
Jbee

 

[nudewalker]

One would think that as a member of BN that he would have at least read their literature and knew what could happen with the wrong chance encounter. There is enough information out there on various sites and blogs to enable one to hike naked with minimal chance of an encounter. I have had maybe five encounters in thirty plus years and that's not including all those years before the first marriage! And knowing Scotland has a whole different view on the matter it seems foolish not to have a cover up let alone changing in a parking lot.

[milfmog]

Another point that is relevant in this case is that he was originally charged with three further, more serious, offences from some time earlier. The authorities later came to the conclusion that these were committed by someone else and dropped them. However, by then he was in the system and we all know how the system does not like to admit mistakes.

In the event, he took a plea bargain that let him go with just an "admonishment". In other words, a record but no punishment. Compared to the expense and hassle of a possible court case, that might be very tempting; I am not sure that I would not have taken the deal, whatever the BN advice.

Have fun (and don't let these vanishingly rare cases get too big a grip on your mind),

Ian.

[Greenbare Woods]

Another obvious fact in the Scotland naked guy story.  The police there and everywhere do not want to be bothered getting out of their patrol cars and hiking around in the bush looking for a naked person.   This guy was not accosted by the police until he appeared in the parking lot naked.   

Had he carried a cover and put it on a hundred yards in the bush before returning to the lot, the police would not have arrested him.  We all need to remember that well used parking lots and roads are easy for police, but off road trails would force the copper to do some walking, and he's not going to do that. 

[jbeegoode]

They can wait there with a picture or description and a complaint, but not if there is just one way out, that the suspect may not be spending the night camping, that the incident happened way past the general flock.

 Multiple complaints will change police behavior, but in an odd instance. We know of that happening once in northern California, when they went looking with helicopters after the same guy frequented the same trail and women complained being fearful.

If two out of one hundred freak, then there are more instances of encounters, the odds go up. A busy trail just creates problems that can be avoided becuase those odds are increased.  A larger percentage of the people with kids and the lone women get alarmed over nothing, unreasonably easier, just more than most. Covering up for those decreases odds. Then, the consideration that of that 2% to 4%, how many would go to the trouble to pursue testifying....

The woman that tracked him down and got closer, just sounds fishy and very unusual. Her complaint seems unreasonable, unless nudity is illegal. The Naked Rambler seemed to show us that Scotland has made it effectively illegal in public, but this wasn't even in public. They mention the multiple complaints, but could there have been more and talk going on that we don't know about. Could the woman be thinking, "There is the one that I heard about. I'm going to catch the bugger"? Or did she just take it upon herself to police what doesn't sound like a particularly remote area?

So, what is this about a law "recklessly committing public indecency"? Is it something local?
Jbee

[eyesup]

So, what is this about a law "recklessly committing public indecency"? Is it something local?

I thought of Speakers Corner in Hyde Park. I don't know the actual rules compared to those imagined by folks like me with little knowledge. I did find this on Wikipedia :

Lord Justice Sedley, in his decision regarding Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999), described Speakers' Corner as demonstrating "the tolerance which is both extended by the law to opinion of every kind and expected by the law in the conduct of those who disagree, even strongly, with what they hear." The ruling famously established in English case law that freedom of speech could not be limited to the inoffensive but extended also to "the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome, and the provocative, as long as such speech did not tend to provoke violence", and that the right to free speech accorded by Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights also accorded the right to be offensive. Prior to the ruling, prohibited speech at Speakers' Corner included obscenity, blasphemy, insulting the queen, or inciting a breach of the peace.

I wonder what would be made of a nudist attempting to use the corner as a platform. It probably wouldn't work. Here in the USA some activists are trying to have the courts see performance, action and behavior as a form of speech. It is increasingly being pushed as a form of free speech.

Duane

[Naked_Archer]

Another point that is relevant in this case is that he was originally charged with three further, more serious, offences from some time earlier. The authorities later came to the conclusion that these were committed by someone else and dropped them. However, by then he was in the system and we all know how the system does not like to admit mistakes.

In the event, he took a plea bargain that let him go with just an "admonishment". In other words, a record but no punishment. Compared to the expense and hassle of a possible court case, that might be very tempting; I am not sure that I would not have taken the deal, whatever the BN advice.

Have fun (and don't let these vanishingly rare cases get too big a grip on your mind),

Ian.

No punishment, but a criminal record which may have to be declared for employment purposes, particularly if ones employment needs disclosure screening... 

[jbeegoode]

Yea, convicted of a crime is the key. Arrest, you are innocent until proven guilty. National security and top secret are concerned. Working a school system there is a background check. Working in a prison, even more extensive. To work in a prison during a practicum, they called me and asked my about things 35 years ago that I didn't even remember. I'd never take  plea, when I am innocent of a crime. Did this guy actually do a crime? Was there a law. Is it illegal to be nude? and have someone creep up on you like a voyeur? Is it a nebulous misdemeanor kind of thing that he pleaded to, or a record clearly of what he had done? He is a private contractor and established.

The mistake was to not be more discrete, stealth, and remember that he was in Scotland.
Jbee

[John P]

Let's be fair here. Bob said She was "offended" because she moved in to get a better look and JBG said Is it illegal to be nude? and have someone creep up on you like a voyeur? But the man ended up convicted of a crime. Is it wrong, if you think you could be witnessing a crime, to make sure of what's happening and who's doing it, and then to call the police if you do think something illegal was involved?

[eyesup]

When you are out in public view there is no expectation of privacy. You can ask that someone leave you alone and to move away but there is no legal defense of not being seen outside. You can stop them from harassing you or even to remain at a distance, but not from standing off and taking pictures.

It's why the paparazzi keep doing business.

Duane

[Greenbare Woods]

When you are out in public view there is no expectation of privacy. You can ask that someone leave you alone and to move away but there is no legal defense of not being seen outside. You can stop them from harassing you or even to remain at a distance, but not from standing off and taking pictures.

It's why the paparazzi keep doing business.  Duane

My reaction to camera folks has always been to smile and wave.   They usually get embarrassed that they were noticed.

[jbeegoode]

Good point John P. about the somebody's good citizenship.

So, what was the crime, again? She assumed that he was doing something illegal and took it upon herself to investigate. He didn't go to trial, he seems to have coped a plea bargain. It could be that he didn't do a crime, he only chose to admit behavior without trial. If you are offended, you go away from the offender, not go closer, don't ja? Seems that there are some things missing in the article and he just wanted the mess to go away. For an employee, that would not go away, but he is an employer and it doesn't matter to him to have a conviction....I dunno.

Seems that magistrates are pulling laws out of their back pockets, stretching the intent of laws, making inconsistencies when all people should be treated fairly and equally, with a jury of ones peers. Is the judge legislating morality instead of a selected, by people's vote, voting body, or was BN just totally wrong?
Jbee

[Davie]

"She moved closer to get a better look"  That didn't wash with the naked carpenter case which was dismissed as the Magistrates felt no one had a right not to be offended and one of the witness put themselves out to be offended. Scotland is of course different legally to England and wales. BN has produced legal advice in consultation with the legal authorities. It's worth noting that at BN's Gathering in Dunoon two group walks took place with the full knowledge and support of the Police. One individual put herself out to put forward the case for naturism and it worked. It can be done.

In the Scottish case it seems that the Justice gave the minimum malty he could after a guilty plea. Clearly his sympathies were with the naturist.

Davie 

[milfmog]

In the Scottish case it seems that the Justice gave the minimum malty he could after a guilty plea. Clearly his sympathies were with the naturist.

I suspect that although the accused was established as being guilty (by his own plea) the minimal punishment may discourage the police from similar actions in future. What is the point of spending all that effort and time if the judge is simply going to tell the accused not to be a bad boy in future? Perhaps those valuable police resources will be used for something more substantive next time.

Have fun,


Ian.