Bigots on Beaches

[rw]

Sigh: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/bournemouth/15402367.Keep_your_clothes_ON__warning_after_naked_sunbathers_spotted_at_beauty_spot/

I registered to make one comment, and then the more I read, the more I got annoyed and couldn't help myself commenting again... and again... and again...

[Davie]

Prudishness at it worst and as usual "what about the children" comments.

Davie 

[Greenbare Woods]

"THOSE tempted to enjoy the sunshine by disrobing at Hengistbury Head are politely asked to keep their kit on - after families reported spotting nudists at the beauty spot."

Textiles should be politely asked to take off their ugly fabric and enjoy nature.  Let their children be free.   

[jbeegoode]

Sigh: http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/districts/bournemouth/15402367.Keep_your_clothes_ON__warning_after_naked_sunbathers_spotted_at_beauty_spot/

I registered to make one comment, and then the more I read, the more I got annoyed and couldn't help myself commenting again... and again... and again...

Job well done, again and again. People need to know that nudity IS family activity. They need to know that all studies tell us that nudity around children is harmless, unless the adults act shocked and teach their children that a human body is shameful, or some kind of problem. They need to know that there is actually evidence that it is actually good for children to be exposed to casual nudity.

The vast majority of comments were positive toward the naturist on the beach.

I had to run off, but thought to leave a comment that Cris Harris is now an internationally famous prude and buffoon. DF and I laughed over and over at his remarks, as I read the article to her out loud. What a foolish sputtering putz.
Jbee

[eyesup]

This is one of the bad side effects of all the technology in confluence with the social media.
It has made Mr. Warhol’s prediction EXTREMELY dated.

I am weary of listening to every slight, minor offense, irritation and grand pontification on how the soul and morality of the person has been wounded beyond repair.

I saw this, this morning and was happy to see some leaders are as tired of all the social media angst.

Duane

[nuduke]

Yes RW, that is a terrible article full of bias and bigotry.  Using Steve Gough's imprisonment is a distortion of the truth - Gough suffered under excessive punishment for trivial and opinion based infringements (in the opinion of the establishment) and is not an example of how naturism is wrong.  His is an example of how the 'justice' system is incredibly biased, closed minded, ill judged and oppressive in this area.


To the instance of the man that covered his genitals if people walked by is commented on in this twisted way clandestinely suggesting that the man was embarrassed by his nudity - "He’d keep hiding it away when people went by him".  The commenter does not compliment the naturist for his politeness and consideration for others by covering up when there were people nearby who may not share his naturist preference.


My blood boils too at such bias and journalistic propagandism.


John

[JOhnGw]

These reports sell papers and always bring out the bigots in droves.

[jbeegoode]

In this case the comments were mostly, nearly all pro-nudity. Seems to bring out both ends of the spectrum, but more of us.
Jbee

[Peter S]

Better still the newspaper has printed a response:

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15417081.Nudists_defend__wholesome__family_way_of_life__after_complaints_over_naked_sunbathing/

[eyesup]

As reported in the Daily Echo, nudists have been politely asked by council officials to keep their clothes on at Hengistbury Head - although the practice isn't officially covered within local bylaws for the area.

I the law allows nudity as long as there is no intent to offend and the nudist is not trying to offend anyone and a ’request to cover’ is made politely, does that imply that a refusal is just as probable as compliance, if done politely?

These rules of polite behavior need to apply equally to both side. Correct?

I read through the responses too and Jbee is right, not that many took issue with it. In fact some called the guy out for his repeated visits and essentially monitoring beach behavior. That’s what is creepy.

Duane

[rw]

Frankly I don't even comprehend the request to cover up.  If I turn up at a busy beach which is full of textiles, I strip off and then get requested to cover up, that makes absolute sense (and frankly doing something like that smacks of exhibitionism).  If I'm at a beach, unclothed, minding my own business (and Hengistbury Head is a huge beach, so you can't tell me it was overloaded with people, like Brighton would be, by comparison) and some twit comes along and tells me (asks me, whatever) to cover up... well frankly I think the naturist's response in this case ("I don't care") is pretty muted, compared to how I'd like to react in the same situation.

Agree with your comment about creepy. The fact he took a photo is crazy.  I think he should have received a police warning for that alone.  And the council reaction is beyond idiotic.

[John P]

If the law allows nudity as long as there is no intent to offend and the nudist is not trying to offend anyone and a ’request to cover’ is made politely, does that imply that a refusal is just as probable as compliance, if done politely?

No, see section 5 of the (England and Wales) Public Order Act:
A person is guilty of an offence if he... uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour... within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

It is a stretch to claim that nudity is "disorderly behaviour" but if that's accepted by the court, the intent to offend doesn't have to exist. In fact nobody needs to be offended at all; it just has to be "likely". This law has been used against naturists, and sometimes they've been convicted and sometimes not. Steve Gough was found guilty under Section 5 at least once. This article gives quotes from the judge that show what the legal argument was:
http://www.hebdenbridgetimes.co.uk/news/crime/naked-rambler-loses-challenge-over-conviction-1-6227163

[eyesup]

. . . it just has to be "likely". .

That! Is absurd!

. . . was convicted in . .  Halifax of a breach of the Public Order Act 1986 relating to a 15-minute morning walk through the town with his genitalia “on plain view” - as well as his boots, socks and hat . . .

Boots, socks and a hat are offensive as well? That’s an extremely specific legislation.

. . . that he “knew full well” that many members of the public “would both be alarmed and distressed by the sight of his naked body. . .

Apparently speculation is allowed in court nowadays. Ohhh! How far we have fallen.

John, I liked it better when my question was purposely ingenuous.
Thanks for yanking me back to reality! 

Duane