181 replies to this topic

[Miki]

I don't have a problem with nudity but if it's illegal in Scotland then it's illegal.

When in Rome...

Edit: missed the end of Damsel's last post. So it's not illegal?! Hmmm so basically it's a show of steel between the courts and the accused??

Edited by Miki, 16 July 2011 - 04:49 PM.

[Bisonex]

Damsel

That is a lift from a naturist website. It is hardly surprising that it is skewed in such a way as to make Gough sound like a hero. That's why there are subjective expressions like "antiquated attitudes to the human body".

Swearing is quite clearly covered by this, and that's anywhere, not just outside of a primary school.

However, I really don't know how Dorset police / CPS managed to get a conviction under S5 POA for simply being naked in public. As merely having no clothes on is not "Threatening, abusive or insulting", nor is it displaying any writing etc, unless I suppose, the naked person had an insulting tattoo.

Section 5 does not specify "swearing" as such - it does not specify which words are acceptable in public and which are not. Having no clothes on in a public place has a clear potential to be "insulting", and it can also be considered to be "disorderly".

When Parliament was discussing the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it was agreed by the Home Affairs Select committee, following representations by British Naturism, that non-sexual public nudity would not be brought under the provisions of section 66 (indecent exposure) because section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 could be used where there was any likelihood that the nudity would cause offence. This information was recorded in the minutes of the HASC and could be referred to in any subsequent criminal proceedings brought under section 5. That's how Dorset Police managed to get a conviction - and it is how Hampshire Police got two convictions against Gough himself in Eastleigh and Southampton in 2003 - just before his first walk.

Bisonex

[Eurocopter]

Actually, it's not. Breach of bail conditions most definitely is though.

It is. He was charged with Breach of the Peace for exposing himself in public which then led to subsequent contempt of court charges.

I know that 'Mooning' and 'streaking' is definitely a BoP, so if he was naked then he would be 'mooning' and/or 'streaking' and thus causing lieges to be alarmed, annoyed or disturbed by his conduct.


Added mooning and streaking bit.

Edited by MarkS, 16 July 2011 - 05:04 PM.

[Sergeant Colon]

It is. He was charged with Breach of the Peace for exposing himself in public which then led to subsequent contempt of court charges.

I know that 'Mooning' and 'streaking' is definitely a BoP, so if he was naked then he would be 'mooning' and/or 'streaking' and thus causing lieges to be alarmed, annoyed or disturbed by his conduct.


Added mooning and streaking bit.

The difference between streaking and simply being naked is the intent to cause alarm. If no intent is present, no offence has been committed. (I speak for E&W here, my knowledge of Scottish law is practically non-existent.)

If Scotland has a specific offence for being naked in public without intent to cause alarm, so be it.

I really don't see how someone can be distressed by seeing a naked man though. He's challenging societal norms by not wearing clothes and I really don't see the problem. If a person had refused to wash to the point that their personal hygiene was likely to cause HAD, would you arrest for Sec. 5? I doubt it.

[Miki]

Surely if it is not an offence to be naked in public, and if the law in Scotland is the same in this respect as in it is in England & Wales, then he cannot be arrested in the first place. Do do so was a breach of his Human Rights (Article 7: there shall be no punishment without law). If he had not been arrested then he would not have been faced with the prospect of having to attend court, therefore no contempt of court charge.

Yes the naked body offends some people, but then so does breastfeeding in public. A person may also be 'alarmed' or even distressed by a facial disfigurement. Imagine arresting people in these circumstances...

Edited by Miki, 16 July 2011 - 05:16 PM.

[Sam Vimes]

Not really bothered about him being naked if all he's doing is walking around... On another thread we've discussed a three-times convicted sex offender living with a child, so there are bigger problems out there is society than a man who wants to give his family jewels an airing.

I think the idea of him spending 4 years in jail and all that wasted tax-payers money offends me more than his todger does.

[Strathy-SC]

Actually, it's not. Breach of bail conditions most definitely is though.

Public indecency is an offence (Webster v Dominick SCCR 525 is the case for it I believe) he took his clothes off in the middle of a flight which also breached his bail conditions.

[Bisonex]

MarkS

He was charged with Breach of the Peace for exposing himself in public which then led to subsequent contempt of court charges.

That is absolutely correct. The Scots Law breach of the peace is now quite different from the English Law charge of the same name. To be accurate, the English Law b of p is not an offence as such, it is a "complaint" (as opposed to an "information") and the civil standard of proof applies. Under Scots Law, it is treated as any criminal offence and triable in the Sheriff's Court. It also carries a possible sentence of imprisonment, whereas in English Law, the courts can only impose a binding over. That's why sec. 5 POA is the appropriate charge and, where the police have at least one CJA statement of complaint which claims the "harassment, alarm or distress", CPS will usually be happy to run it.

I am a bit disappointed that some posters on here seem unable to appreciate that English Law (unlike systems which were based on Roman Law) affords substantial latitude for interpretation. Hardly any of the offences under sections 1 to 5 of the Public Order Act give specific behaviours which fall within the definition of the relevant sections. Instead, they use the "broad brush" approach, which enable the jury or magistrates the necessary scope to determine each case as a question of fact as opposed to a question of law. So, in theory, if it could be shown that wearing a green hat on Tuesdays caused general, intense and predictable offence, then a court is empowered to decide that someone wearing such an item on the specified weekday is guilty under the POA. The law does not require that the prosecution demonstrate that the experience of the offence was either rational or reasonable, merely that it was either intended or likely (foreseeable) and that the offender continued regardless. So, whether you or I agree that any behaviour should give rise to such offence is not pertinent. We know that public nudity has the potential to cause offence and so those who engage in this behaviour are running a risk of prosecution and conviction.

Gough's situation was not caused by his contempt of court, but it was certainly compounded by it.

Bisonex

[Damsel]

Here's a snippet of another news story from Scotland.

Police are trying to trace a man who has gone missing from Edinburgh following his release from prison.
They have warned that Ivy Brown, 31, poses a "potential high risk of violence to members of the public".

I know which one of the two I'd rather have walking the streets (naked or not).

[Bisonex]

Miki

Yes the naked body offends some people, but then so does breastfeeding in public.

Because of the stated health benefits of breastfeeding, a defence of "necessity" would be available to any women charged with sec 5 for breastfeeding in public. Nudity, however, is simply an issue of choice, and one which is unnecessary and instantly rectifiable.

A person may also be 'alarmed' or even distressed by a facial disfigurement.

Having a facial disfigurement is not a behaviour, so it doesn't apply. What reasonable steps can a person take to avoid causing people alarm from seeing their disfigurement?

Sam Vimes

Not really bothered about him being naked if all he's doing is walking around...

It might not bother you, but it bothers other people.

On another thread we've discussed a three-times convicted sex offender living with a child, so there are bigger problems out there is society than a man who wants to give his family jewels an airing.

So it is up to you which laws passed by the elected Parliament you will uphold, and you can just disregard any that you happen to think are trivial. Is that what you are saying?

I think the idea of him spending 4 years in jail and all that wasted tax-payers money offends me more than his todger does.

I am quite happy for him to spend 40 years in gaol if it means that Britain's exhibitionists think twice before exposing themselves to the rest of us.

Bisonex


Damsel

I know which one of the two I'd rather have walking the streets (naked or not).

That's a bit like saying I'd rather have a shoplifter walking the streets than a rapist.

People are sent to prison because they are dangerous and violent. But some people are also sent down because they are incorrigible offenders and recidivists and other forms of punishment are not effective. Mr Gough falls into the latter category.

Bisonex

[Sergeant Colon]

Miki



Because of the stated health benefits of breastfeeding, a defence of "necessity" would be available to any women charged with sec 5 for breastfeeding in public. Nudity, however, is simply an issue of choice, and one which is unnecessary and instantly rectifiable.



Having a facial disfigurement is not a behaviour, so it doesn't apply. What reasonable steps can a person take to avoid causing people alarm from seeing their disfigurement?

Sam Vimes


It might not bother you, but it bothers other people.




So it is up to you which laws passed by the elected Parliament you will uphold, and you can just disregard any that you happen to think are trivial. Is that what you are saying?



I am quite happy for him to spend 40 years in gaol if it means that Britain's exhibitionists think twice before exposing themselves to the rest of us.

Bisonex


Damsel



That's a bit like saying I'd rather have a shoplifter walking the streets than a rapist.

People are sent to prison because they are dangerous and violent. But some people are also sent down because they are incorrigible offenders and recidivists and other forms of punishment are not effective. Mr Gough falls into the latter category.

Bisonex

Why are you so offended by the naked form? Even children learn biology in school.

If it makes you feel any better, it doesn't seem that Mr Gough intends to cause you offence.

[Eurocopter]

If Scotland has a specific offence for being naked in public without intent to cause alarm, so be it.

There's no requirement to prove the accused had the intention cause lieges to be alarmed, annoyed or disturbed. All you need is preferably two lieges to say they were alarmed, annoyed or disturbed by the naked man in a public place. (It could also be not a public place)

Edited by MarkS, 16 July 2011 - 05:45 PM.

[Miki]

Here's a snippet of another news story from Scotland.




I know which one of the two I'd rather have walking the streets (naked or not).

Beat me to it!

I fail to see how his arrest and dentention is lawful. Especially for such a long period of time!

He has not committed a crime and therefore does not deserve to be punished. I hope the police officer who arrested him is very proud of himself. From my understanding the whole farce is and continues to be a breach of human rights.

As he has not committed a crime in the first place I don't see how any bail conditions can be lawful either

There are bigger things to worry about than a few prudes being offended by the sight of a naked man!

[Eurocopter]

I fail to see how his arrest and dentention is lawful. Especially for such a long period of time!

He has not committed a crime and therefore does not deserve to be punished. I hope the police officer who arrested him is very proud of himself. From my understanding the whole farce is and continues to be a breach of human rights.

As he has not committed a crime in the first place I don't see how any bail conditions can be lawful either

There are bigger things to worry about than a few prudes being offended by the sight of a naked man!

He has not commited a crime? Yeah, okay.

He was charged with committing a Breach of the Peace, which is a crime. He was then in Contempt of Court on several occasions, which is a crime, and then broke his bail condition of staying clothed, which is a crime.

Edited by MarkS, 16 July 2011 - 06:03 PM.

[Bisonex]

Sergeant Colon

Why are you so offended by the naked form? Even children learn biology in school.

Children also learn about sex in school, but that doesn't mean it's OK to have sex in the street, does it?

Nudity (like sex, swearing etc) is acceptable in certain contexts and not in others. Context is everything.

If it makes you feel any better, it doesn't seem that Mr Gough intends to cause you offence.

I'm sure he doesn't. What he is trying to do is to re-engineer everyone else's sensibilities with regard to nudity so that they accord with his own. I once met a radical Muslim who couldn't understand why westerners were so squeamish about animals and he suggested that the ritual slaughter of sheep should be done in town centres in full public view, so we would all become accustomed to seeing it. He was wrong. So is Mr Gough.

Miki

I fail to see how his arrest and dentention is lawful. Especially for such a long period of time!

He has not committed a crime and therefore does not deserve to be punished.

Are you REALLY suggesting that you know more about Scots Law than several Scottish prosecutors, two Scottish sheriffs and three Lord Justices of Appeal (in the Scottish Criminal Appeals Court when Gough appealled)?

His breach of the peace and contempt of court ARE imprisonable offences in Scotland and he WAS convicted of these on several occasions.

Bisonex

[Eurocopter]

Breach of the Peace - Welcome to Scotland.

Edited by MarkS, 16 July 2011 - 06:06 PM.

[Rocket]

Wow, this from Scotland, a Country where men wear skirts kilts and without underpants. Men - who are hardly renowned for sitting down and keeping their legs together.

[Sergeant Colon]

I'm sure he doesn't. What he is trying to do is to re-engineer everyone else's sensibilities with regard to nudity so that they accord with his own. I once met a radical Muslim who couldn't understand why westerners were so squeamish about animals and he suggested that the ritual slaughter of sheep should be done in town centres in full public view, so we would all become accustomed to seeing it. He was wrong. So is Mr Gough.

I must have missed the part of the story where Mr Gough was trying to persuade everyone to walk around nude. I doubt he's trying to 're-engineer' society. He doesn't want to wear clothes, I say fair enough.

You're right, context is everything. If he was chasing children around the streets, shouting at the top of his lungs and waving his tadger about, I would have no qualms about locking him up. But he isn't. He's simply refusing to wear clothes.

For an alternative perspective on Stephen Gough's story;

PERTH, Scotland, Jan. 13 (UPI) -- A British man repeatedly arrested for public nudity told a Scottish judge he is willing to spend his life in jail for "individual freedom."

Stephen Gough, 50, was found guilty Tuesday of breaching the peace for walking naked from a Perth, Scotland, prison in December upon being released from a 12-month sentence for the same crime, The Daily Telegraph reported Wednesday.

Gough, who appeared nude to represent himself in court Tuesday, rejected Perth Sheriff Lindsay Foulis' offer to grant him bail pending sentencing if he agreed to dress. He was remanded into custody.

Gough became known as the "Naked Rambler" after a 2003 naked walk across Britain that resulted in 15 arrests and 140 nights in jail. He has since been arrested for subsequent cross-country walks and for disrobing on a Scottish plane.

Foulis told Gough he would continue to be arrested and sent to prison on a regular basis if his behavior does not change.

However, Gough said he accepts he could "potentially" spend his life in prison for nudity.

"This is about individual freedom," he said.

Source - Warning, contains naughty offensive pictures of a man with no clothes on!

[Bisonex]

Rocket

Men - who are hardly renowned for sitting down and keeping their legs together.

I can certainly agree that, in the case of the Naked Rambler, the Scottish police forces, the Procurator Fiscals and the Scottish judiciary are showing that, unlike some of their English counterparts, they have got the balls to confront Gough and not let him bully them into changing their laws just to suit his exhibitionist proclivities.

Bisonex

Sergeant Colon

I must have missed the part of the story where Mr Gough was trying to persuade everyone to walk around nude.

I didn't say he was "trying to persuade everyone to walk around nude". What he is trying to do is de-sensitize the British public to nudity so that he can expose his private parts whenever and wherever he likes. Frankly, I don't want to live in an environment in which exhibitionists can behave in that way with impunity.

He doesn't want to wear clothes, I say fair enough.

Fair enough for you, but not for me. As I said, I don't want to live in that kind of environment/society and neither, I suspect, do many other people, but you only seem to be able to view this from your own perspective.

You're right, context is everything. If he was chasing children around the streets, shouting at the top of his lungs and waving his tadger about, I would have no qualms about locking him up. But he isn't. He's simply refusing to wear clothes.

Which, to many of us, is wholly unacceptable if done publicly.

Bisonex

[Miki]

He has not commited a crime? Yeah, okay.

He was arrested for committing a Breach of the Peace, which is a crime. He was then in Contempt of Court on several occasions, which is a crime, and then broke his bail condition of staying clothed, which is a crime.

Being naked is not a breach of the peace and breach of the peace is not, as such, a criminal offence. Therefore he had not committed a crime, anything following his arrest would not have occurred had he not been arrested and so IMO does not count.

You can arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, however as soon as the beach has passed the DP must be released. EG two people agruing may be a breach of the peace but if they go their separate ways the breach has passed. So if a complaint was received from a MOP that his nakedness was in some way breaching his peace then to resolve the issue simply asking him to move on would have been a much more appropriate option. I doubt very much that he was being a doyle about it and would have happily went on his way given the chance.

Just because the courts don't want to lose face by backing down doesn't make their actions lawful.

[Damsel]

Rocket

I can certainly agree that, in the case of the Naked Rambler, the Scottish police forces, the Procurator Fiscals and the Scottish judiciary are showing that, unlike some of their English counterparts, they have got the balls to confront Gough and not let him bully them into changing their laws just to suit his exhibitionist proclivities.

Bisonex

Bisonex.. Why is it that you're getting yourself so worked up? You don't even live in England, Wales or Scotland. How does Gough (or his nakedness) effect you.

You seen to be getting your knickers in a twist because most of the posters in this thread are not as 'offended' as you are.

Perhaps it's because we're not all prudes. Which you'll of course deny. But you're certainly coming across (to me at least) as a prude. Would you have everyone wearing Victorian bathing suits? Would that make you happy?

I'm assuming that you're just as 'outraged' when you go on holidays to sunny parts of the Med for example, and see all these disgusting harlots with their boobs on show and dental floss "covering" (just) their lower half.

Perhaps you should write a "strongly worded letter" to the Greek Tourist Board complaining about their lack or morals in allowing such behaviour.

[Eurocopter]

Being naked is not a breach of the peace and breach of the peace is not, as such, a criminal offence. Therefore he had not committed a crime, anything following his arrest would not have occurred had he not been arrested and so IMO does not count.

You can arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, however as soon as the beach has passed the DP must be released. EG two people agruing may be a breach of the peace but if they go their separate ways the breach has passed. So if a complaint was received from a MOP that his nakedness was in some way breaching his peace then to resolve the issue simply asking him to move on would have been a much more appropriate option. I doubt very much that he was being a doyle about it and would have happily went on his way given the chance.

Just because the courts don't want to lose face by backing down doesn't make their actions lawful.

We are discussing a Scottish Breach of the Peace!

[Rocket]

Rocket



I can certainly agree that, in the case of the Naked Rambler, the Scottish police forces, the Procurator Fiscals and the Scottish judiciary are showing that, unlike some of their English counterparts, they have got the balls to confront Gough and not let him bully them into changing their laws just to suit his exhibitionist proclivities.

Bisonex

What exactly is your issue here old chap?

You have regurgitated a thread nearly 4 years old and you so far seem to be a single issue poster. The 'Naked Rambler' did something illegal in Scotland, he went to prison and now he is being released.

Exactly what are your reasons for digging this up and being so vehement about it?

[Miki]

What exactly is your issue here old chap?

You have regurgitated a thread nearly 4 years old and you so far seem to be a single issue poster. The 'Naked Rambler' did something illegal in Scotland, he went to prison and now he is being released.

Exactly what are your reasons for digging this up and being so vehement about it?

Agreed!!!

I would not arrest a person for being naked in this context as an offence has not been committed.

I'm generally up for a debate however there simply isn't one here. You clearly have issues about nakedness that the majority on this forum do not agree with and you can offer no justification other the fact that you don't like it. There isn't anything further that can be said.

[Rocket]

At the end of the day, we were all born naked - that's the way we are meant to be.