Naturism not illegal

[nagumbe]

Follow this link to see an article in The News online on Saturday 23rd August. Whilst this is not about Eastney Beach it does concern naturism locally. A longer article was in Saturday's hard copy. A scan of that will be posted in our "In the press" section on our homepage soon.

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Police-are-powerless-to-tackle.4420013.jp

[nagumbe]

If you missed seeing the paper you can now find scans of the article and the editorial comment in our "In the press" section via the homepage.

Barry

[davidib]

We know it's not illegal.   When our lawmakers were drawing up the latest Sexual Offences Act, they themselves stated that they had no desire to make naturism illegal.

Being naked in public is not, in itself, an offence.  The law says that you have to be exhibiting offensive behaviour for it to be a crime.  It's not enough that someone else sees you and complains that they are offended.  It has to be shown that you deliberately intended to cause offence by being naked.

It's really about context.  Being naked on a beach on a warm summer day (do we get those any more?) is not unreasonable, but if you walk naked down the high street of your local town on Saturday morning, expect to be arrested!

[Michael H]

We know it's not illegal.   

Some of us know that (it's rather surprising the number of naturists who don't know!).  Now this (albeit somewhat flawed) article has let the great british public know as well.

[Michael H]

I've sent the following to the News regarding their overly sensational treatment of a non-issue:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor

I was somewhat surprised by the tone of the article on nudists that appeared in Saturday 23 August's issue of the News.  Most of the article is quite factual and covers the topic very well - as does the Editorial Comment in the same issue. 

However, the headline ("Police are poweless to tackle the nudists") & opening paragraph ("Police have admitted they are poweless to stop nudists taking over family beaches") are overly sensational and detract from the rest of the article.  The implication given is incorrect - there is no dastardly plot for the naturists to invade the family beaches (the confrontation that would arise from such an action is not something naturists seek) - using perjorative phrases such as "powerless to tackle/stop the nudists" makes it sound like there is something wrong with naturism and that the Police are being held back.

Later in the article, and in the Editorial Comment, the correct legal position is laid out, but this is disappointingly overshadowed by the implication of wrong-doing in the sensationalist headline.

Overall a good piece that lays out the law of the land regarding naturism & one that will educate most non-naturists about the law surrounding nudity - just a shame about the un-necessary sensationalist headline.

-----------------------------------------------
If you also wish to comment, you can find email addresses of editors at: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/contactus.aspx or mailto:letters@thenews.co.uk

[nagumbe]

I have also written to the Editor for publication. This is not intended to overlap Mike's letter nor that of Others who have said that they will also write.

"Your article on Saturday 23rd August concerning naturist use of the beach at Hill Head was mostly positive. However, it should be noted that that place has been used for naturism since the lifestyle’s introduction to this country in the 1920s and, therefore, pre-dates Gill Jacobs’ birth.

As the vast majority of the estimated 1.5 million nude sunbathers in Britain tend to be more discreet than the Freemasons it is little wonder that most people have not seen us. That is testament to the fact that we seek quiet, little-used parts of our beaches to swim and sunbathe nude causing little, if any, offence to other beach-users.

As for designation of specific areas it is interesting that of Britain’s 11,000 miles of coastline, in total, approximately 1 single mile has ever been officially set aside as naturist. That is because it is largely unnecessary with good sense and acceptance being key to peaceful co-existence."

Barry

[davidib]

This was on the BBC News site yesterday.  Nothing to do with naturism, really, except that it mentions the part of the Sexual Offences Act that relates to what we've been discussing.

Section 66 of the act "bans the exposing of ones genitals if the intention is to cause alarm or distress".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7575294.stm