Ticket's issued at Naked Pumpkin Run

[Davin]

Police issued tickets for indecent exposure at Boulder's 10th Annual Naked Pumpkin Run (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/oct/31/newbie-nude-runners-get-pumpkin-carving-tips/) because the huge crowd threatened to "get out of hand". Hundreds of costumed revelers started chanting “Let them go!” and telling officers to “find real criminals.”

via Diary of a Nudist (http://nudiarist.blogspot.com/2008/11/tickets-issued-at-boulders-naked.html)

[Naturist Mark]

So let me get this right ... because the crowd was (almost) "getting out of hand" the police ticketed the runners, and not those in the crowd who were (almost) "getting out of hand"?

Umm ...

[shaneone]

A very logical response?!?!

I like what the crowd chanted, that makes sense

[naturalmanwa]

Hopefully everyone who was ticketed will take them to court and be able to win the case on a technicality.

[Naturist Zoar]

Let my pumpkin people run free...

[Stu2630]

The 10th annual Naked Pumpkin Run in Boulder turned rowdy, as police began ticketing some participants for indecent exposure late Friday night

Good!!! Well done the Boulder Police Dept!!! :mademyday:

and hundreds of other costumed revelers started chanting “Let them go!” and telling officers to “find real criminals.”

...and the police replied, "We could be out catching real criminals if we didn't have to spend time dealing with these idiots!"

Stu

[nimrod]

Re-read it Stu, once again you have it wrong because you are seeing it through your prejudice. The crowd did not start to get rowdy until the police started to ticket. This is an annual event that the police rarely ticketed before, they say from lack of enough police, but if they knew it happens on Halloween they could have had enough there in the previous years if they really wanted to.

The police were reacting to a potential problem rather than a real emergency. Before you say it, once again it was a potential problem, and that could happen in any crowd, but the police took it upon themselves to ticket people just because there was nudity involved, not that they were causing any real disruptions. This was just an opportunity for fund raising for the department rather than any real problem that the police had to get involved in. The article did not say anything about any citizens complaints against the run, it was just the police involving themselves in something that they saw as potential revenue in the form of tickets.

[Stu2630]

nimrod

Re-read it Stu, once again you have it wrong because you are seeing it through your prejudice.

No, you might want to read my post again because you are seeing it through your prejudice of me. I am perfectly well aware that the crowd did not start to get rowdy until the police started to ticket. My point was that the police may have been able to devote their time to catching real criminals if this ridiculous run had either not taken place, or if all the runners had been decently dressed.

if they knew it happens on Halloween they could have had enough there in the previous years if they really wanted to.

So they had been remiss in previous years, Well, I bless them for seeing the error of their ways and finally having the gumption to stamp on this disgusting behaviour.

but the police took it upon themselves to ticket people just because there was nudity involved, not that they were causing any real disruptions.

I consider the nudity to be a real disruption (as opposed to a potential one).

The article did not say anything about any citizens complaints against the run, it was just the police involving themselves in something that they saw as potential revenue in the form of tickets.

So we don't know if complained or not. They might have - we don't know. If I lived in that town, I would have complained, and complained some more until the police got off their backsides and dealt with it as they should have.

Stu

[nimrod]

I was not looking for a debate Stu, I know exactly what you said I have no prejudice towards you, unlike the real one you have for nudity. You have shown your prejudices many times here but refuse to see them as such. You continue to post your opinions as facts and and claim our facts are just opinions, or you just do not except them to be factual because of your continued need for your security blanket of prejudice.

[KNude]

Not all the hot air came from the politicians.

Don't bother Stu, you are on my ignore list.

[lordshipmayhem]

Yanking this sort-of semi-on-track, why did the cops issue the tickets in the first place? I thought you Yanks had the right to bare arms...

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal!!!

[Bob S.]

Stu:"My point was that the police may have been able to devote their time to catching real criminals if this ridiculous run had either not taken place, or if all the runners had been decently dressed."

But the other point is that this has been allowed in the past. When you allow something fun to go forward in the past and then, as it is getting more and more popular, to disallow it, you are asking for trouble. They risked riots to stop something that has been accepted by the populace in the past and that is a peaceful gathering.

The best thing the police could have done was to be there to make sure no one got out of hand.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

The best thing the police could have done was to be there to make sure no one got out of hand

What the police should have done is to make a public announcement before the event warning participants that nudity would be punished. I they had done that, then nobody could have griped if they were issued with a ticket.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

This could be a land mark case as the suggestion that the cited runners will have to register as sex offenders, if the prosecutors fail to make the charges stick, in what is an innocent bit of fun, the police may no longer be able to use the 'indecent exposure' law unless they can prove that "affront or alarm" has been caused.


Latest News. (http://www.610wtvn.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=104673&article=4555387)


Simply arresting someone for being naked and charging them with 'Indecent Exposure' without proof may hopefully soon be a thing of the past.

Pete Knight

[Silverback]

The use of sex offender registration is getting out of hand and is being used where it was never intended. This may be off the subject but I need to say it.

[Quietman1951]

The use of sex offender registration is getting out of hand and is being used where it was never intended. This may be off the subject but I need to say it.


I agree with you Silverback. This threat seems overly opressive:(, when only simple nudity is involved.

[Stu2630]

That article says:

They'll have to prove that the exposure causes "affront or alarm" to someone,

All that would require is a statement from a member of the public who will say were affronted or alarmed by the behaviour. Shouldn't be too difficult.

I don't agree with runners having to be placed on the Sex Offenders Register - they are boorish, antisocial public nuisances, not sex offenders. They should be dealt with as offenders against the public order and peace.

Stu

[simonsebs]

Naked pumpkin runner accepts plea deal, avoids sex-offender status (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2008/dec/18/naked-pumpkin-runner-takes-plea-deal/)

Here's an update to the story.

[Stu2630]

The article says:

Natalie Ziemba, 20, of Boulder agreed Thursday to plead guilty to disorderly conduct, a petty offense.

Pretty much what I suggested about it being a public order offence rather than a sexual offence.

Stu

[TabbyCat]

well, I am glad that they won't have a criminal record or the stain of being recorded as a sex offender for life.

I really fail to understand what this topic has to do with naturism though:confused:

[Pete Knight]

Because it illustrates the prejudice and persecution that naturists suffer, unless of course you believe that naturists should be kept, like caged animals, behind fences and locked gates.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

...unless of course you believe that naturists should be kept, like caged animals, behind fences and locked gates.

No-one is suggesting that any section of society should be kept "like caged animals", simply that there should be places where it's OK to be nude and places where it's not.

Stu

[BinCo]

No-one is suggesting that any section of society should be kept "like caged animals", simply that there should be places where it's OK to be nude and places where it's not.

Stu

Come on Stu. The event is called the "Naked Pumpkin Run". Do you really think some moron is going to bring their 5 year old girl there and then complain because the only 2 words in the title that are correct is Nude and Run? Would you go to this event not thinking that there might actually be nudity?

Would you go there with the explicit purpose of complaining about someone running naked at an event called...........now wait for it........The Naked Pumpkin Run? I would complain if I went to the event and no one was naked.

If you ask me, the police arrested these people because they needed to figure out a way to boost the budget. 6 months of probation should run her about $750. Best of all probation in Colorado is a private business, not part of the criminal justice department. Yup, another case of some congressman thinking that privatization is better. But, that's another topic that can be nucular.:laugh:

[Stu2630]

BinCo

Do you really think some moron is going to bring their 5 year old girl...Would you go to this event not thinking that there might actually be nudity?

I don't know much about this event except that it occurs on actual public streets. These are streets where people live and streets they have to use. Also using public streets are people who may not know the area - they may be passing through and might not even speak or read English. There are plenty of suitable places for nudity, but it should NEVER be permitted on public streets, IMO.

If anyone wants to hold a nude event in any public place, it should have to be given approval from the authorities and following a widespread public consultation.

Remember, this event is about exhibitionism, not nudism. They do it precisely because it shocks, not because they enjoy "body freedom".

Stu

[Sanslines]

BinCo



I don't know much about this event except that it occurs on actual public streets. These are streets where people live and streets they have to use. Also using public streets are people who may not know the area - they may be passing through and might not even speak or read English. There are plenty of suitable places for nudity, but it should NEVER be permitted on public streets, IMO.

If anyone wants to hold a nude event in any public place, it should have to be given approval from the authorities and following a widespread public consultation.

Remember, this event is about exhibitionism, not nudism. They do it precisely because it shocks, not because they enjoy "body freedom".

Stu

The authorities will tolerate only if there is widespread public approval. If 10,000 people are solicited for approval, what percentage of approval should there be in order to allow an event such as this? If only one person objects, is this sufficient reason to prohib an event such as this?

[Naturist4Ever]

There are plenty of suitable places for nudity, but it should NEVER be permitted on public streets, IMO. Remember, this event is about exhibitionism, not nudism.


The gay parade among many others is about exhibitionism (and being gay, so it seems) and you know it is permitted and welcomed in fact. I can't comment on morons from colorado or doncaster for that matter, but some people just need to get a life, that is for sure. Guess who.

[TabbyCat]

Because it illustrates the prejudice and persecution that naturists suffer, unless of course you believe that naturists should be kept, like caged animals, behind fences and locked gates.

Pete Knight

Pete

is there any indication that these people are naturists? It looks like me that they are nothing more than people out for a lark.

I don't believe as naturists we need to support or condone any and all nudity outside of traditional naturist circles or areas.

it's really not what we, or perhaps I should say I am about.

[Bob S.]

Tabby: "I really fail to understand what this topic has to do with naturism though"

Well Tabby, this is the forum called "Nudes in the News" and, well, these people were running nude and, due to that, were in the news. This section is not limited to nudist activities only. It is for anyone who was naked and made the news beit good or bad.

Stu: "I don't know much about this event except that it occurs on actual public streets. These are streets where people live and streets they have to use. Also using public streets are people who may not know the area - they may be passing through and might not even speak or read English. There are plenty of suitable places for nudity, but it should NEVER be permitted on public streets, IMO."

Stu, these people acknowledge others would not accept it and, therefore, have chosen a time when they think many people would be at their homes. This stared at 10:45pm, late enough for most people not to be on the streets. Also of note is that the police mentioned that they intervened this year due to Halloween being on Friday. It was that way in 2003 when Halloween fell on a Friday. So what was their excuse back then for not stopping it?

Bob S.

[Pete Knight]

Pete

is there any indication that these people are naturists? It looks like me that they are nothing more than people out for a lark.

I don't believe as naturists we need to support or condone any and all nudity outside of traditional naturist circles or areas.

it's really not what we, or perhaps I should say I am about.
I didn't say they were naturists, you really must read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
The manner in which they were treated clearly illustrates that there is prejudice against nudists, what harm have they done, what heinous crime have they committed, did anyone complain to the police?
The interesting thing from our point of view is the irrational way in which simple nudity is viewed, as was seen elsewhere: Imagine a naked guy walking down Main Street carrying a semi automatic rifle and a pistol, what calls would be made to the police, and armed man in the street or a naked man in the street, go figure!

Pete Knight

[naturist_norm]

We will never have a nude tolerant society when the response from the police is to ticket people for being nude in public. The event looked like it was supposed to be a "fun event" - fun for the participants and fun for the spectators. It's a pity that the PD have lost their sense of humor.

Like the organisers of the WNBR, the organisers of this event should have dialogue with the authorities beforehand and maybe this situation could have been avoided.

[Stu2630]

Sans

If 10,000 people are solicited for approval, what percentage of approval should there be in order to allow an event such as this? If only one person objects, is this sufficient reason to prohib an event such as this?

There are various options and I wouldn't be too prescriptive about which way of determining the extent of approval should be used. My initial reaction is that, because streets are places people have to use, objections from a significant minority should be sufficient to cause the event to be routed away from public streets. How big this significant minority should be is a matter for negotiation and debate. You'll notice that I said 'public consultation', and I meant that in its wider context. A consultation need not just consider whether such an event can take place, it may also have a say in where, when and what conditions may be imposed on such an event. Right now, the case is an 'all-or-nothing' event in which the participants are doing what they want regardless as to how it may affect people while the police are upholding what they see to be the letter of the law. Nobody is exploring how such an event could be established with official approval and yet in such a way as to offend no-one.

TabbyCat

is there any indication that these people are naturists? It looks like me that they are nothing more than people out for a lark...

You are 100% correct! :applause:

BobS

Stu, these people acknowledge others would not accept it

So they know it is unacceptable in the neighbourhood yet they still went ahead with it. And they got tickets for a minor public order offence. Seems a reasonable and proportionate response.

Also of note is that the police mentioned that they intervened this year due to Halloween being on Friday. It was that way in 2003 when Halloween fell on a Friday. So what was their excuse back then for not stopping it?

I agree that the police appear to have been inconsistent, but to me that indicates they were wrong before and now they have learned and are getting it right. What ought to happen is what I suggested to Sans above, namely a proper public consultation that would enable the event to go ahead in a location and at a time whereby nobody would be offended. And that would probably be in a public place, that was not actually a street, and that could be sectioned off to facilitate it.

With a bit of imagination, the event could be allowed to go ahead in future years but in such a way that no offence etc would be caused to anyone.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sans



There are various options and I wouldn't be too prescriptive about which way of determining the extent of approval should be used. My initial reaction is that, because streets are places people have to use, objections from a significant minority should be sufficient to cause the event to be routed away from public streets. How big this significant minority should be is a matter for negotiation and debate. You'll notice that I said 'public consultation', and I meant that in its wider context. A consultation need not just consider whether such an event can take place, it may also have a say in where, when and what conditions may be imposed on such an event. Right now, the case is an 'all-or-nothing' event in which the participants are doing what they want regardless as to how it may affect people while the police are upholding what they see to be the letter of the law. Nobody is exploring how such an event could be established with official approval and yet in such a way as to offend no-one.

Stu

Stu,

In the end someone must step forward and make some hard decisions over the objections of numerous people. Also, how can any legal authorities approve an event that would involve nudity that is officially illegal? Such a decision would be clearly breaking the existing laws regarding nudity. An event such as this would require the actions of a judge who would have to overule or find a way around present laws regarding nudity. Even then, the judge might not want to take such risks due to a backlash from a small but very vocal group that would stop at nothing short of voting the judge out of office due to his or her decisions.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

I'm not entirely sure how the legal system in the US works. Here in the UK, there is no specific law that forbids nudity in public but rather it is dealt with as a public order issue. This appears to be the same in Boulder. Because of that, if the town's authorities made an event in, say, a park or at a sports stadium and declared that nudity was permitted at that event, then it would enjoy the same status as a nude beach and be lawful.

I believe this particular event would not work if it were treated in that way because the whole aim of it is to be outrageous - to shock. If it were officially sanctioned in a public park etc and the only people who could possibly encounter the nudity were those who attended for that very reason, then the shock value would be lost and the event would be pointless.

In other words, this is a bit like a student prank and its very offensiveness is its appeal as well as, perhaps, its illegality because that makes it dangerous. The tickets issued by the police will hopefully discourage the repetition of this stunt in future years.

Stu

[TabbyCat]

I didn't say they were naturists, you really must read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
The manner in which they were treated clearly illustrates that there is prejudice against nudists, what harm have they done, what heinous crime have they committed, did anyone complain to the police?
The interesting thing from our point of view is the irrational way in which simple nudity is viewed, as was seen elsewhere: Imagine a naked guy walking down Main Street carrying a semi automatic rifle and a pistol, what calls would be made to the police, and armed man in the street or a naked man in the street, go figure!

Pete Knight


Pete

have you been persecuted by textiles? You seem to have a resentment towards the status quo.

speaking for myself, I get along very well with the present status. I'm not interested in confrontation. I have friends with know that I have attended nude beaches. They respect me.

I am just curious with your "caged animal" retort.

[Pete Knight]

Pete

have you been persecuted by textiles? You seem to have a resentment towards the status quo.

speaking for myself, I get along very well with the present status. I'm not interested in confrontation. I have friends with know that I have attended nude beaches. They respect me.

I am just curious with your "caged animal" retort.
As a matter of fact, yes I have, I organise naturist events and have either been ignored or told that "We couldn't do that sort of thing" but what you have to remember is that nudity isn't illegal here in the UK.

As for the caged animals, have you seen the size of our clubs, come to that have you seen the size of our country! I like the open space and I like to feel the sun and air on my body, but if I try to combine the two I will most likely be persecuted, as have a number of people.

We have too few beaches and they are getting fewer by the day, how much more persecution do you want.

I'm happy that you're content with what you have, but I'm not happy with having to travel quite a distance to a 10 acre club, half of which is unusable as it's on the side of a hill, meanwhile I have a forest a few miles up the road that I can't use, or should I say, shouldn't use.

Pete Knight

[TabbyCat]

Pete

I am not that familiar with England, so you will have to forgive my ignorance.

I know it is a small country with a population around 60 Million. From talking to English tourists, I know that gas is very high, and taxes as well!

lots of rural areas here to get away from people so perhaps I take it for granted. You have to remember as well, that it is a recreational activity and not a major focus of my life. I just do hot tubbing, and attend the occaisonal beach. I don't even know if there is a club around here.

I can't help but think there is opportunity for you. You're not that far from France and I heard there was a nudist town on the Mediterean. I guess it depends on how you look at it-the glass half full or half empty.

[Pete Knight]

I can't help but think there is opportunity for you. You're not that far from France and I heard there was a nudist town on the Mediterean. I guess it depends on how you look at it-the glass half full or half empty.
In relation to America I suppose France isn't far away, but unless you've traveled in Europe you wouldn't know that road networks here are somewhat limited by the ancient infrastructure, and to get to France means an expensive sea crossing.

You Americans love to come to Europe to enjoy the history and the different culture, and its that history that leaves us with roads too narrow for modern cars, and slows our journey, OK so we do have new highways, but nothing to compare with the US or Australia. A 50 mile journey can take a long time over here.

You may practice the occasional nudism but some of us feel the need to be clothes free more often, and why should I have to wait or travel for an opportunity when nudity is neither illegal or offensive (Unless you have a personality disorder.). Why can't we have council provided areas to enjoy naturism locally, especially in this age of energy conservation, meanwhile I have to clock up hundreds of miles each year to enjoy my recreation dressed in the manner I find most comfortable.

Pete Knight

[TabbyCat]

Hi Pete

you need to take your point over there and not here.

complaining on the net achieves about nothing.

what I suppose is, there is not enough interest for what you want and with a limited area that has to support many demands your demand is pushed to the side.

put yourself in your opponents shoes. Now why do you suppose they want to deny nudist areas?

[Bob S.]

Tabby: "have you been persecuted by textiles? You seem to have a resentment towards the status"

Tabby, in the US, we all have been persecuted by textiles. That is the reason we have a veritable lack of nude beaches and parks. Even those nude beaches we do have are in constant danger. In Haulover, they have tried building a school so close to the nude beach that the laws would have outlawed nudity there. In VT, there have been talk of abandoning the nude beach at the Ledges. In CA, the San Diego (I think it is them) govt is trying to close San Onofre nude beach. The NAC had to go to court to get an injunction as they were not abiding by the laws requiring a public hearing. In TX, they made Hippie Hollow in Austin an adults-only public beach. I could go on, but that is just a taste of the persecution of nude beach goers. I haven't even gotten to the persecution of nudists.

Tabby: "put yourself in your opponents shoes. Now why do you suppose they want to deny nudist areas?"

Because they think that nudity automatically equals sex and do not want to spend money on nudists. In San Onofre, the govt is trying to shut down the nude beach because of incidents that are occuring on the Fort Pendleton Marine Base side of the beach where people are having sex. Instead of increeasing patrols, they would rather just shut the whole place down because nudists are obviously responsible for those having sex.

For Hippie Hollow, they decided that the nude beach goers would rather accept the sexual devients at the beach than the children. They had to protect the children so instead of increasing patrols, they banned the children. In fact, nude beaches in the US are usually woefully understaffed or not staffed at all with lifeguards. Due to this lack of authority, and the natural privacy of the location which is generally where nude beaches form, there are others who use this as an occasion for sexual activity. And nudists get lumped in because it is their beach.

For the most part, none of these people who believe that nudity and sex are equated in nudist venues will listen to the opposition coming from nudists that say just the opposite.

Stu: "So they know it is unacceptable in the neighbourhood yet they still went ahead with it."

I'm disappointed with you, Stu. You responded to only half of my message. Let me copy it here: these people acknowledge others would not accept it and, therefore, have chosen a time when they think many people would be at their homes. This stared at 10:45pm, late enough for most people not to be on the streets. You understand? They chose a time when most people would not be around to see them. They were being responsible in that respect. This was not at 8pm or 3pm. They chose a time when probably 80% of the population was in their homes.

Stu: "With a bit of imagination, the event could be allowed to go ahead in future years but in such a way that no offence etc would be caused to anyone."

Yes, it would be fun to work with the police to set this up so that it is sanctioned rather than chase down the participants and get the less physically fit ones (those who couldn't outrun the police):p This could be done in the samew way the WNBR is organized, as norm alluded to.

Bob S.

[TabbyCat]

BobS

thank you. I really had no idea.

about the patrols, I suspect with the cutbacks due to the economy, things will only get worse for nudists-at least nude areas-from what you tell me.

it looks to me that dedicated nudists-the ones who are hard core-have a very tough road ahead.

[Stu2630]

TabbyCat

Don't be taken in by Pete's assertion that "nudity isn't illegal here in the UK". While it is true that nudity isn't actually specified in English law, the police and courts can, and will, take account of attendant circumstances like time of day, location, duration and, in particular, whether there were any complaints. The situation in the UK is similar to the situation in Boulder in that, if the police can demonstrate that nudity caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, then the nude people are guilty of an offence of public disorder. One statement from an offended peson would probably be enough.

BobS

They chose a time when most people would not be around to see them. They were being responsible in that respect. This was not at 8pm or 3pm. They chose a time when probably 80% of the population was in their homes.

That's just not good enough. You could say the same about people getting drunk and shouting obscenities in our town centres late on weekend evenings, or people having sex in parks when there are only a few dozen people in there.

This could be done in the samew way the WNBR is organized, as norm alluded to.

No, I already said streets are not the place. The WNBR consists largely of a bunch of exhibitionists using the event to expose themselves in public. That should have been stamped on right from the start.

If students or other people want to do something like this, there should be negotiations and some effort made to accommodate them, but it should be off-street and in circumstances where it wouldn't cause offence or outrage.

But we both know that would defeat the object, don't we? It is their aim to cause outrage. If that's the case, let them pay th fines.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Hi Pete

you need to take your point over there and not here.{/quote] This is clothes Free International, is it not?
[QUOTE]
complaining on the net achieves about nothing.This is an arena for debate and discussion, I am however an organiser of naturist events and very active withing British Naturism, our national organisation that fights our battles collectively.

what I suppose is, there is not enough interest for what you want and with a limited area that has to support many demands your demand is pushed to the side.There is huge demand, but prejudice and societal indoctrination are our greatest hurdles. At the AGM of BN in August we had a speaker from Stonewall (A gay pressure group.) who likened our battle against prejudice to their battle for equal rights, their winning formula is what we hope to emulate.

put yourself in your opponents shoes. Now why do you suppose they want to deny nudist areas?In a word, 'Ignorance'.
So many people, including an awful lot of nudists, believe nudity to be unlawful, it is not. The 'Sexual Offence's Act 2003' was specifically drafted to exclude simple nudity from its list of unlawful acts. Despite what anyone else may try to convince you, to be charged under the act that specifically covers offences of a sexual nature the police need to demonstrate that your nudity was intended to shock or offend. The inability of police to use SOA and the repeal of the 'Vagrancy Act' leaves them with Section 5 of the 'Public Order Act' which is a catch all act.

Expect a response from the bullsh1t merchant, he spins the whole issue in favour of persecuting nudists, something he and I have fallen out on many times, I prefer not to exchange words with him because you just go round in circles and end up back where you started, without any conclusion.

Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

Pete Knight

[TabbyCat]

Hi Pete

well I certainly admire your resolve and determination. I am not sure that I would compare being a nudist to other minority groups.

as a nudist you have the ability to choose to wear or not wear clothes. I am certain that with cold weather, you wear clothes all the time.

warmer weather, if permissible, and possible you do with out. I don't think you would accept, as a nudist that you no longer had the right to wear clothes-you had to be naked 24/7 regardless of the weather or elements.

I have to admit, I really don't think you've got things as bad as you say. You can still go to France, albeit at expense, and from what I gather, as a member of the EU, the right to move there.

where I live, right now, is extremely cold. To go to a warmer climate I would travel at least 2 days car ride, and perhaps longer. I guess it depends.

I just don't see or understand how things would work for you. The English countryside is only so much area, and of that area, you want to use it on a seasonal basis. Others want to use the area as well.

what exactly do you want, and think is fair to everyone?

[TabbyCat]

Don't be taken in by Pete's assertion that "nudity isn't illegal here in the UK". While it is true that nudity isn't actually specified in English law, the police and courts can, and will, take account of attendant circumstances like time of day, location, duration and, in particular, whether there were any complaints. The situation in the UK is similar to the situation in Boulder in that, if the police can demonstrate that nudity caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, then the nude people are guilty of an offence of public disorder. One statement from an offended peson would probably be enough.



Stu

can you be naked in public in England? I can tell you here that you get naked in public here you would be arrested and charged.

not that I would ever want to do this anyway. I really like to get away from people. I have skinnydipped with friends at a lake that is some distance from here. I enjoyed the serenity of the area, and the feeling of the sun on my body. It was very peaceful.

the water was great too!

[Bob S.]

Stu: " The situation in the UK is similar to the situation in Boulder in that, if the police can demonstrate that nudity caused, or was likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress, then the nude people are guilty of an offence of public disorder."

Stu, the prosecutors offered the deal to the runners for the minor public disorder charge. Had they gone to court, they would have been facing indecent exposure, a crime that can land you on the Sex Offender's Registry. The situations are far from similar. According to you, the prosecution in England would never consider a sex offense for simple nude running like the Pumpkin Run.

Stu: "That's just not good enough."

Well, not to you or the police apparently. But they did try to minimize the offense. As has been joked here on this thread, you prefer the naked to be "caged."

Stu: "But we both know that would defeat the object, don't we? It is their aim to cause outrage. If that's the case, let them pay th fines."

Talking about the WNBR, no it is not their aim to cause outrage. It is their aim to get people to think about how much gas they use. They use the nudity as a protest symbol. They do not want people to be outraged at their nudity. As for the Pumpkin Run, the nudity is just for fun. They do not want anyone to be outraged or offended. That is why they do it at such a late time of night.

Tabby: "I have to admit, I really don't think you've got things as bad as you say. You can still go to France, albeit at expense, and from what I gather, as a member of the EU, the right to move there.
where I live, right now, is extremely cold. To go to a warmer climate I would travel at least 2 days car ride, and perhaps longer. I guess it depends."

Tabby, no offense, but you seem to be a bit harsh on the facility of travel in England. To get to France from England does take a lot of time. To get to Cap D'Agde from London would take quite a long time. It is around a 750 mile trip. That would take quite a car trip with at least one overnight stay and a country border crossing. Gas in England is also much more expensive than here in the US. Not knowing precisely where you live in the midweat, I will say that a one day southerly drive should be plenty to get you to a warmer climate. It is possible to travel 1,000 mile in a day.

As for suggesting he can move to France, well you could also move to Florida. It is your right as a US citizen.

Bob S.

[TabbyCat]

Tabby, no offense, but you seem to be a bit harsh on the facility of travel in England. To get to France from England does take a lot of time. To get to Cap D'Agde from London would take quite a long time. It is around a 750 mile trip. That would take quite a car trip with at least one overnight stay and a country border crossing. Gas in England is also much more expensive than here in the US. Not knowing precisely where you live in the midweat, I will say that a one day southerly drive should be plenty to get you to a warmer climate. It is possible to travel 1,000 mile in a day.

As for suggesting he can move to France, well you could also move to Florida. It is your right as a US citizen

Bob

of course. what I had meant to say, or imply, was that if having a nude recreational area was so important to Pete was that he could relocate. It sounds to me that he has a serious uphill battle to achieve what he wants in England.

nude recreation is not so important to me that I would quit my job (especially in these economic times) leave family and friends to move to Florida. I am happy to cozy up with hot chocolate right now. I can wait till the summer:)

1000 miles in a day is too much time behind the wheel for me. It would take me two days at least. I've never driven there, but I do have friends in Orlando and have an open invititation to stay at their place. :driving::)

[Pete Knight]

Bob

of course. what I had meant to say, or imply, was that if having a nude recreational area was so important to Pete was that he could relocate. It sounds to me that he has a serious uphill battle to achieve what he wants in England.

nude recreation is not so important to me that I would quit my job (especially in these economic times) leave family and friends to move to Florida. I am happy to cozy up with hot chocolate right now. I can wait till the summer:)

1000 miles in a day is too much time behind the wheel for me. It would take me two days at least. I've never driven there, but I do have friends in Orlando and have an open invititation to stay at their place. :driving::)
So you're happy to suggest that I uproot my life and move to a country where I don't speak the language and would therefore have trouble gaining employment, and leave behind all my friends and family, but you wouldn't.

Why should I have to make a huge lifestyle change when I seek is acceptance and not persecution for simple nudity, which isn't illegal or a criminal offence here.

All I would like to see is more opportunities for nude recreation, I want to live my life the way I chose, not be forced to wear clothes when it is quite patently uncomfortable to do so. Yes I have to wear clothes when it's too cold, I also have to wear clothes when it's too hot, explain the practicality of that?

Pete Knight

[TabbyCat]

Hi Pete

then you make a choice-you choose your friends, family, and your life with clothes over a nudist life.

that's fine. I would do the same as many would. I don't understand why you are comparing yourself to myself. Nude recreation is not the focal point of my life. I only have been to a nude beach, hot tubbing, and spent time in serene area by a lake. I work and do other things as well.

I am eager to learn why the authorities in your country, with limited greenspace-should uproot people who are already enjoying the public area-section it off-for a minority which you've already almost admitted can wear clothes.

one of the problems with your country, and I mean no disrespect, is you just don't have enough land for everyone and all demands.

I know it's a hassle to travel to France, but you can and while I don't know what vacation time you have-literally you could live fulltime on vacation dressed however you wanted or didnt want.

You keep telling me that being naked is legal so what is stopping you? It's legal, but you won't get naked in these public areas-why?

[MoonShadow]

Hi TabbyCat - some of us do not call nudism just recreational. Some of us call it a lifestyle and live it pretty much on a daily basis. I think it is with Pete. It is not just a recreational activity but a lifestyle. There is a difference. There are those who enjoy it occasionally and when they can for recreation. Some of us enjoy it as part of our daily lives when we are nude at home, in our yards, or when visiting nudist friends, or at resorts/beaches.

This lifestyle in the UK is much the same as the US. It is illegal to be nude in most public places. Even areas that allow top freedom, a woman can and is arrested if she goes topless. The issue is to have less restrictions placed in many public (and private) places which will allow those of us who enjoy the nudist lifestyle to visit, camp, and meet with others who enjoy the lifestyle. The amount of land is not an issue as the UK had enough land to provide for more outdoor nudist lifestyles and/or recreation.

Hope this helped.

[Pete Knight]

then you make a choice-you choose your friends, family, and your life with clothes over a nudist life. So you're happy to remove my choice to live as I wish, a take or leave it choice. You can have a car in any colour you want, as long as the colour you want is black.

that's fine. I would do the same as many would. I don't understand why you are comparing yourself to myself. Nude recreation is not the focal point of my life. I only have been to a nude beach, hot tubbing, and spent time in serene area by a lake. I work and do other things as well. Excuse me! At no time did I make the comparison, if you read back it was you that did that, I never even entered into this debate until you asked the question.

I am eager to learn why the authorities in your country, with limited greenspace-should uproot people who are already enjoying the public area-section it off-for a minority which you've already almost admitted can wear clothes. It's called choice, the freedom to make my own choice, not have a nanny state do that for me.

one of the problems with your country, and I mean no disrespect, is you just don't have enough land for everyone and all demands.There is plenty of land, just none of it designated clothing optional, apart from a few beaches, and we do have lots of greenspace by the way.

I know it's a hassle to travel to France, but you can and while I don't know what vacation time you have-literally you could live fulltime on vacation dressed however you wanted or didnt want.
How facile, you pass judgement on my lifestyle choice with absolutely no notion of life in Europe, are you a friend of Stu, or perhaps even Stu in another guise, one of many.

You keep telling me that being naked is legal so what is stopping you? It's legal, but you won't get naked in these public areas-why?Do pay attention please, I've already explained HERE (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showpost.php?p=217528&postcount=42)in the penultimate paragraph.

Pete Knight

[MoonShadow]

How facile, you pass judgement on my lifestyle choice with absolutely no notion of life in Europe, are you a friend of Stu, or perhaps even Stu in another guise, one of many.

Pete Knight


LOL That is hilarious but one never knows do we?

[Sanslines]

LOL That is hilarious but one never knows do we?

Sssssshhhhhhhhh or Stu will issue you a ticket for disruptive behaviour.

[TabbyCat]

Hi Pete

now you are being paranoid.

you say it is legal and you have the choice, but you won't excercise your right:confused:

maybe I am missing something, but in a society where one has to live with others you can't do everything you want to do. You compromise.

I don't think your attitude is helpful to what you want. If it's your way or the highway you will never get.

moderation, and a willingness for give and take is your best option. Have you actually spoken to authorities about establishing clothing optional areas? What have they said?

[simonsebs]

5 more people plead guilty in Naked Pumpkin Run (http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/central/view/2008_12_23_5_more_people_plead_guilty_in_Naked_Pum pkin_Run/srvc=home&position=recent)

Here's an update to the story.

[Pete Knight]

now you are being paranoid. No, just annoyed.

you say it is legal and you have the choice, but you won't excercise your right:confused: You obviously didn't read the post I linked to. While there is no law againsnt nudity in the UK the police often use the wide ranging 'Public Order Act' which was enabled to control violent and disruptive elements, not as a cover all law.

maybe I am missing something, but in a society where one has to live with others you can't do everything you want to do. You compromise.
I'm quite happy to compromise, but with the whole of Britain free for textile walkers to use, especially since the 'Right to Roam Act' but naturists are confined to out of the way beaches and clubs with limited land, that's hardly a compromise is it?

I don't think your attitude is helpful to what you want. If it's your way or the highway you will never get.I don't think you really know what I want, yet you seem able to pass judgment very easily, have you been primed by someone?

[/quote]moderation, and a willingness for give and take is your best option. Have you actually spoken to authorities about establishing clothing optional areas? What have they said?[/quote]
The organisation, of which I am a member, speaks on my behalf, and yes there are attempts to establish some leeway, but not without the occasional police harassment along the way. I should point out that the level of harassment varies from police force to police force, take Devon and Cornwall Police for instance, they are very tolerant, whereas Hampshire Police have a complaint of harrasment outstanding against them.

We have a different situation over here, our laws cover England and Wales on the one part, and Scotland on the other, we don't have 51 states with differing laws, and remember that most states in the US are bigger than the UK.

I would prefer it if you read a few threads before asking anymore questions, they have been debated several times before, and I'm finding this rather tiresome.

Pete Knight

[EricNY]

Hi Pete

now you are being paranoid.

you say it is legal and you have the choice, but you won't excercise your right:confused:

maybe I am missing something, but in a society where one has to live with others you can't do everything you want to do. You compromise.

I don't think your attitude is helpful to what you want. If it's your way or the highway you will never get.

moderation, and a willingness for give and take is your best option. Have you actually spoken to authorities about establishing clothing optional areas? What have they said?

Well well....If it isn't John K. aka Cyberstalker, Rocket, Harold the Nudist....etc....etc.....So now it must be boring up there in Canada, so you have to pretend to be a female from the Midwest.

Nice to have the pleasure of banning you again
:D

No

[Stu2630]

Wow! I've been in hospital all day (back and groin pain + blood in urine) and it looks as though this discussion has really heated up.

No, I'm not Tabby Cat. I presume that individual is in North America whereas my IP pinpoints me to the UK. Nor do I know Tabby Cat, whether or not she/he is an incarnation or Rocket or Harold the Nudist.

OK, back on topic. Personally, I think the final outcome was fair. The people on this run are not sex offenders and should not be cited as such or required to register - the label 'sex offender' and the stigma attached to that label is not warranted by this particular antic. But a modest fine to show legal disapproval of the conduct is appropriate. If they want to make a case for legalisation of the run, they should negotiate with the authorities to see if some public space out of general view could be allocated for the event every year. That way, no-one need be offended and they could enjoy their tradition. I doubt they would want to do that because it seems to me that this activity is all about being outrageous and, if it were done away from the public gaze, it would cease to have any such impact.

This run is not about nudism. Those taking part are not enjoying "nude recreation" but trying to shock. It is irresponsible, inconsiderate and, according to the latest determinations of the court, illegal.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Wow! I've been in hospital all day (back and groin pain + blood in urine) and it looks as though this discussion has really heated up.

No, I'm not Tabby Cat. I presume that individual is in North America whereas my IP pinpoints me to the UK. Nor do I know Tabby Cat, whether or not she/he is an incarnation or Rocket or Harold the Nudist.

OK, back on topic. Personally, I think the final outcome was fair. The people on this run are not sex offenders and should not be cited as such or required to register - the label 'sex offender' and the stigma attached to that label is not warranted by this particular antic. But a modest fine to show legal disapproval of the conduct is appropriate. If they want to make a case for legalisation of the run, they should negotiate with the authorities to see if some public space out of general view could be allocated for the event every year. That way, no-one need be offended and they could enjoy their tradition. I doubt they would want to do that because it seems to me that this activity is all about being outrageous and, if it were done away from the public gaze, it would cease to have any such impact.

This run is not about nudism. Those taking part are not enjoying "nude recreation" but trying to shock. It is irresponsible, inconsiderate and, according to the latest determinations of the court, illegal.

Stu


Stu,

What are you really trying to say? That there is just one and only one of you??? WOW!
BTW, never figured you for a 'cat person' as you clearly are a dog aka Great Dane person.

Should we now be suspicious of anyone who agrees with you??

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

What are you really trying to say? That there is just one and only one of you??? WOW!

Yes, only one of me. Shame, huh? ;)

BTW, never figured you for a 'cat person' as you clearly are a dog aka Great Dane person.

Yup, I don't mind cats but I'm definitely more a dog person - and, for some reason, dogs seem to like me. Maybe I smell like chopped liver or something.

Should we now be suspicious of anyone who agrees with you?? <!-- / message --> <!-- edit note --> <hr style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" size="1">From now on, anyone new who comes here and who appears even remotely sympathetic to any of my views risks being suspected of being a new incarnation of this 'Harold the Nudist' guy from Canada.

I am reliably informed that Tabby Cat really is that person because the IP number has been checked out and he is one and the same.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



Yes, only one of me. Shame, huh? ;)



Yup, I don't mind cats but I'm definitely more a dog person - and, for some reason, dogs seem to like me. Maybe I smell like chopped liver or something.


<!-- / message --> <!-- edit note --> <HR style="COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)" SIZE=1>From now on, anyone new who comes here and who appears even remotely sympathetic to any of my views risks being suspected of being a new incarnation of this 'Harold the Nudist' guy from Canada.

I am reliably informed that Tabby Cat really is that person because the IP number has been checked out and he is one and the same.

Stu


Now that all of this is cleared up everyone can go back to the debate?

[Bob S.]

You beat me to it, Erc. I was about to check it tonight. I considered doing it yesterday, but it was getting a bit late.

Stu: "I've been in hospital all day (back and groin pain + blood in urine) and it looks as though this discussion has really heated up."

You ever heard of TMI (too much info)? shocked

Stu: "The people on this run are not sex offenders and should not be cited as such or required to register - the label 'sex offender' and the stigma attached to that label is not warranted by this particular antic."

While it seems satisfactory to you, the fact that they had to plea down to this was unconscionable. Had the laws here been akin to UK laws, they may have been able to fight it since a finding of guilty in a court could have easily landed them on a Sex Offender's Registry. Who know what would have happened had the judge heard the cases?

Stu: "Those taking part are not enjoying "nude recreation" but trying to shock."

Stu, using the story, please show me where you got the impression they were trying to shock others. This was just a fun race that they had no trouble with for nine previous years. A race that takes place late at night. If they were trying to shock, they would have no problem a=making it earlier and making sure they bothered people.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

You ever heard of TMI (too much info)? shocked

That's rich coming from nudists. Some of the things I read on here...Jeez!!! :p

Who know what would have happened had the judge heard the cases?

We'll never know, will we? I think it was likely they would have been found guilty of something, Bob, but a small fine for disorderly behaviour seems a proportionate response in my book.

Stu, using the story, please show me where you got the impression they were trying to shock others. This was just a fun race that they had no trouble with for nine previous years. A race that takes place late at night. If they were trying to shock, they would have no problem a=making it earlier and making sure they bothered people.

You can have a 'fun race' without being naked, Bob. They could have worn any manner of bizarre and comical costumes. And they would have known perfectly well that nudity does shock some people. They made sure their faces were obscured by these pumpkins. Furthermore, it wasn't that late at night. I regularly take my dog for her late walk around 11pm; my eldest daughter finishes work at all hours and we took our youngest child, 13 years, to a concert last week in our town centre which finished at 10.40pm.

No, they could have held this "fun race" while wearing clothing or costumes, or nude in a private place, or nude in a certain public place (not main streets) with the agreement of the authorities. All these facts show clearly an intention to be "outrageous" or, at the very least, they were cavalier (or ignorant) about public sensibilities. That's why I think the foine is appropriate.

Stu