Naked fell-runner news article

[Fellsnude]

See this link:
https://cumbriacrack.com/2023/09/07/naked-runner-spotted-on-lake-district-fell/

Good news, the police told the complainant there was no criminal offence.

Bad news, the complainant was outraged anyway, and somebody saw fit to video the guy, and put the video online when the runner had clearly accepted that the polite thing to to in the circumstances was to put his shorts on.

[Greenbare Woods]

See this link:
https://cumbriacrack.com/2023/09/07/naked-runner-spotted-on-lake-district-fell/

Good news, the police told the complainant there was no criminal offence.

Bad news, the complainant was outraged anyway, and somebody saw fit to video the guy, and put the video online when the runner had clearly accepted that the polite thing to to in the circumstances was to put his shorts on.

Yes. Apologizing and covering up is bad news, and inappropriate behavior.  It displays a belief that naked is somehow wrong and needs to be apologized for.  The whole thing is backward.  Body covering is rude and anti-social. It is the textiles who should apologize, along with the writer of this article.

The good news is that "All Publicity is Good Publicity."   This article publicizes nude running and points out that its not illegal.  It may convince, or give permission to other would be nudists to also try running naked. 

Also, whomever the man was, his nude running was recorded on video.. A choice to go naked in a public place is always a choice to be recorded on video.  If not this time, then the next time or the time after that.  Being recorded, pictured, or videoed naked doesn't hurt anyone.  The more it gets shared the more good publicity for naturism.  When I see someone's camera, I smile and wave. 

[Davie]

Nothing unlawful with this incident. It does seem to be an example of the man being the most irate. Which seems to be a common reaction with couples

Davie

[jbeegoode]

Thumbs up Bob.

This brings to mind the somewhat recent laws that make it a crime to photo people nude without permission and post on line. Some of them include malicious intent. They supposedly are to protect people from the social and working consequences of having one's body seen. They apparently come from a few teenagers who killed themselves because of the social problems and privacy issues and fears of pictures seen years down the road during a job interview, or some other fear.

There are also needed contractual releases when a nude photo is published, especially modeling.

I don't care, but then DF and I prefer a more flattering photo, than a misrepresentation.

Some would like to avoid family issues, work issues hassles and keep them separate from their behavior otherwise.

If I am walking down the street, or trail, I don't want someone bothering me with a camera, clothed or not.

A camera can be used for sexual voyeuristic use. I don't what to encourage, or be a part of that behavior. As for our presence online, we just can't know what people do, but assume some of that behavior. People taking photos at nude areas discourages others from taking part in socially nude activities, especially first timers. At Redington they are few and timid individuals, who can be confronted and run off.

If I encourage one of them with a smile or a wave, then they can be encouraged to take photos of others and discourage people trying nudity for the first  time. Our sweat has a tall wall and no cameras. Many, if not most, people appreciate that.

When I worked for the school districts, I had concerns. When we started the website, DF had concerns. It took time to get over it, stick a toe in the water, etc.
Jbee

[nuduke]

Well, two things:
First:  this recent (relatively) Crown Prosecution Service ruling for police to deal with naturism seems to be working!  This is not the first time it has been cited - notably by you, Davie!
Second: as Jbee alludes to.  The runner ought to sue the photographers for publishing his IP (image) without his permission.
 Mind you, in practical terms it's not worth bothering.  If you could track down the photographer (although his name was mentioned!), it would be costly to actually pursue a legal case and unlikely to end happily and would generate enmity all round.  So sleeping dogs will have to be let lie!  Mind you, a bit of sabre rattling might be useful to bring that very stuffy and opinionated couple down a peg or two that think they have the right to voice their opinion without any mediation or rules, even of politeness.
This is a problem with social media.  Individuals thinking they are somehow in the right to prosecute their perniciously bigoted or reactionary minority opinions at the direct expense of unsuspecting and probably more open minded individuals whom they attack.  There have been a few MPs and celebs in the UK discredited on the evidence merely of unsupported, opinionated, ill considered social media storms.  It's not that these victims have been innocent of whatever minor misdemeanour they are accused of, it's that they are condemned by the social media and thereby the conventional media (press, tv) before their transgressions have even been considered objectively, and thus lose their position unfairly as a result.  Taking social media effcet out of the equation, they might have lost their position anyway but at least that would have been by fair assessment and balanced judgement.  What of Habeas Corpus nowadays?
John

[Peter S]

Certainly the notion of innocent until proven guilty has long since vanished. In fact the pendulum has swung so far the other way that the mere accusation of anything is enough to prove guilt and bring on punishment. So-and-so has been accused of saying something on Twitter ten years ago, therefore they must lose their job and be villified by everyone. Mob rule.

[jbeegoode]

Great point. In court, by law, there is still some reverence of "innocent until proven guilty." But out in the media it is a corrupted irresponsible exploitive grift of personal integrity, privacy and slanderous lying. The result is dangerous and often misleading.

Conversely, here, we have a criminal who can not even go to jury trial because the evidence is so overwhelmingly solid, yet he stands outside in the frothing media flurry and states the absolute opposite and a court of a section of media popularity calls him innocent and the court corrupt.

At least, we may be protected by the government's actions in courts...well, most of the time...well, maybe, but there is a whole new world of harm and injustice coming from corporate and media practices outside of government. Witch hunters calling out witch hunters and as you say trials by mobs. We all should know that mobs can be controlled as puppets on strings.

As for justice for body nudity in this sickness, where is the safe spot? We must work within the media and behind the scenes of social media to keep changing opinions and perspectives and have the balls to speak out. It is important that nudity is considered down to earth, and safe, when the media world can whip up tornadoes of artificial facts, hyperbola and thoughtless exploitation of personal values into false virtue and enlist an army of millions of fools, the doupped and suckers to jump onto their bandwagon for profit and ratings.

Jbee