Sexual Offences Bill changes for the positive

Stu is gonna hate this!
This from the British press:


>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...076153,00.html
>
>Blunkett lets naturists off hook
>
>Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
>Sunday November 2, 2003
>The Observer
>
>Naturists of the UK unite, you have nothing to lose but your
>clothes. Rise up in all your naked glory, David Blunkett salutes you.
>
>Until now Whitehall insiders could have been forgiven for not
>knowing that the Home Secretary is someone sympathetic to the joys
>of wandering starkers around a campsite.
>
>But in a move that is likely to endear New Labour to the pro-nudity
>lobby, Blunkett is set to scrap a controversial clause in the Sexual
>Offences Bill that could have seen naturists locked up for walking
>around in the buff.
>
>The original wording of clause 67b of the Bill, which will this week
>have its third reading in Parliament, stipulated that a person
>commits an offence if he exposes his genitals and ' knows or intends
>that someone will see them...'.
>
>As naturists obviously 'know' that others on designated nudist
>campsites and beaches can see them, the clause caused alarm. Those
>found guilty of causing such an offence could have faced prison for
>up to two years.
>
>British Naturism, which represents the interests of naturists,
>mounted a lobbying campaign in the House of Lords and threatened to
>take the issue to the European Court of Human Rights.
>
>Perhaps drawing on the example of the Countryside Alliance, which
>built a powerful coalition of interests around the anti-hunting
>Bill, British Naturism harnessed support from other quarters. The
>organisation warned that not only would the millions of Britons who
>have enjoyed the au naturel experience be guilty of committing a
>criminal act, so too would streakers and pagan revellers who dance
>naked in fertility ceremonies.
>
>Now, though, the Government has sided with the naturists, removing
>the words 'knows or intends' from clause 67b.
>
>'We're grateful that they have made the change and this is a great
>step forward,' said Mick Ayers, Chairman of British Naturism.

Stu is gonna hate this!
This from the British press:


>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homea...076153,00.html
>
>Blunkett lets naturists off hook
>
>Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
>Sunday November 2, 2003
>The Observer
>
>Naturists of the UK unite, you have nothing to lose but your
>clothes. Rise up in all your naked glory, David Blunkett salutes you.
>
>Until now Whitehall insiders could have been forgiven for not
>knowing that the Home Secretary is someone sympathetic to the joys
>of wandering starkers around a campsite.
>
>But in a move that is likely to endear New Labour to the pro-nudity
>lobby, Blunkett is set to scrap a controversial clause in the Sexual
>Offences Bill that could have seen naturists locked up for walking
>around in the buff.
>
>The original wording of clause 67b of the Bill, which will this week
>have its third reading in Parliament, stipulated that a person
>commits an offence if he exposes his genitals and ' knows or intends
>that someone will see them...'.
>
>As naturists obviously 'know' that others on designated nudist
>campsites and beaches can see them, the clause caused alarm. Those
>found guilty of causing such an offence could have faced prison for
>up to two years.
>
>British Naturism, which represents the interests of naturists,
>mounted a lobbying campaign in the House of Lords and threatened to
>take the issue to the European Court of Human Rights.
>
>Perhaps drawing on the example of the Countryside Alliance, which
>built a powerful coalition of interests around the anti-hunting
>Bill, British Naturism harnessed support from other quarters. The
>organisation warned that not only would the millions of Britons who
>have enjoyed the au naturel experience be guilty of committing a
>criminal act, so too would streakers and pagan revellers who dance
>naked in fertility ceremonies.
>
>Now, though, the Government has sided with the naturists, removing
>the words 'knows or intends' from clause 67b.
>
>'We're grateful that they have made the change and this is a great
>step forward,' said Mick Ayers, Chairman of British Naturism.

[steevo]

Cyndiann,
Congraduations on that bit of GOOD news. I'm not sure exactly what it means but it sounds very incuraging.
Steevo here [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Rik]

The article is a little misleading but from what I can understand the original exposure clause in the Sexual Offences Bill stated that a person would commit an offence if they exposed their genitals knowing or intending that a person would see than AND be caused alarm or distress. I believe that by taking out the word "knowing" an offence can only be commited if a person INTENDS that their nudity will cause alearm or distress.

Clearly no naturists intend to cause offence whether on a beach or in their back yard or in the middle of a high street even if the effect of their nudity offensive to some people.

If this amendment goes through (and I'm not clear on that) then this I believe keeps simple nudity (even of the Steve Gough kind) well out of the reach of the Sexual Offences Bill and indeed recognizes that nudity itself is not a sexual act. Of course the police will still pursue nudists using the existing Public Order laws but as they too do not explicitly make simple nudity illegal there is hope that it is only public opinion, and not the law, which needs to be changed for public nudity to be more accepted than at present.

Rik

Cyndiann,

"Stu is gonna hate this!"

If instead of ignoring my posts you bothered to read what I have been saying on this subject all along you would know that I have no problem with this amendment - quite the opposite! I have said again and again that the Sexual Offences Bill wasn't the appropriate tool to use against naturists because the new offence is expressly aimed at sex offenders - which naturists aren't. Those convicted of the new offence would almost certainly be registered as sex offenders - and that would be very unjust for naturists.

Simple public nudity should be prosecuted under the Public Order Act 1986 - as was the case against Steve Gough and others who commit this antisocial act (Mr Gough was convicted of this in Southampton earlier this year - he appealed in July but, so far as I know, he wasn't successful). It was mentioned in questions during the committee stage that the police should continue to use public order legislation for inappropriate public nudity.

I have NEVER suggested that simple public nudity should be a sexual offence - I have said the precise opposite.

"Of course the police will still pursue nudists using the existing Public Order laws but as they too do not explicitly make simple nudity illegal there is hope that it is only public opinion, and not the law, which needs to be changed for public nudity to be more accepted than at present".

Personally, I can't see any change in public opinion that would make public nudity acceptable in the foreseeable future. Fortunately!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Stu

[DoubleRK]

Perhaps Stu can't see because he has his eye's closed. Times are changing Stu so you'd better open your eyes or you'll be caught off guard.

[pookie]

Not sure if this has been pointed out or not, but ....David Blunkett is blind.

Which gives the whole thing an amusing edge really.

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] Personally, I can't see any change in public opinion that would make public nudity acceptable in the foreseeable future. Fortunately!! [/qb]

---

Stu, I understand that you are not capable of imagining a world other than as it is today but, you know, we live in topsy turvy times where the unthinkable can become normal almost overnight.

The issue as far as nudity is concerned is that as (or if, or when) nudity becomes less unacceptable there will be less need to apply inappropriate laws to prevent it happening. If however we had laws, as they do in some US states, that specifically criminalise simple nudity then no matter how much public opinion was in favour of public nudity, those who exposed themselves would still be criminals.

Thus I welcome the amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill (which I now understand has been passed) for it means that if we are able to sway public opinion then any such change of opinion would not require a change to the law.

Rik

"Perhaps Stu can't see because he has his eye's closed. Times are changing Stu so you'd better open your eyes or you'll be caught off guard."

OK. Next time I'm in my town, at my local beach or park I'll look out for people nude in public. I was out and about this summer - I visited countless parks and beaches in five European countries. Total number of naked people seen - ZERO. I remember hippies telling us that "Times are changing" back in the 1960s. Well they didn't then and I see no evidence that they are now.

Rik

"Stu, I understand that you are not capable of imagining a world other than as it is today but, you know, we live in topsy turvy times where the unthinkable can become normal almost overnight."

I know that very well, Rik, but I see no evidence that the great British public are ready to accept nudity in the places they use. Why don't you visit your local leisure centre and suggest that they permit nude swimmers to be nude? Or that they make all the saunas and Turkish baths mixed sex - no swimwear? Why not approach your local authority (or any of the 600 or so in the UK) and ask them to declare that nude sunbathing is permitted in all public parks and beaches? Go on. Prove me wrong.

"The issue as far as nudity is concerned is that as (or if, or when) nudity becomes less unacceptable there will be less need to apply inappropriate laws to prevent it happening".

If people find it unacceptable they shouldn't have to tolerate it. If some people are prepared to behave in such an inconsiderate way then the public has every right to expect the law to intervene.

"Thus I welcome the amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill (which I now understand has been passed) for it means that if we are able to sway public opinion then any such change of opinion would not require a change to the law".

You always were able to sway public opinion. To prosecute all instances of inappropriate public nudity as sexual offenders, and all that entails, was clearly wrong and the government should have realised that from the start. In other words, the legislators were persuaded by plain common sense - simple public nudity is an offence against public order, it's not akin to rape,sexual assault or paedophilia. But that is an entirely different proposition to changing the public's long-cherished sensibilities and attitudes towards seeing naked bodies in the places they visit. That is a very long way in the future - if it ever happens. I hope it never does.

Stu

[Rik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb] ... but I see no evidence that the great British public are ready to accept nudity in the places they use. [/qb]

---

What I see when I look around is that the great British public (and the American public as well) accept to varying degrees all sorts of things which they would not have considered possible 5, 10, 20, 50 years ago such as:
- daily use of the word f_u_c_k in the media
- the sexualisation of young girls despite the current paranoia about paedophilloia
- the appointment of gay priests
- the widespread use of soft drugs
- the use of CCTV which now monitors virtually all our movements
- single parenthood as normal (and maybe even preferable)
- "living in sin"
- vegetarian restaurants
- worldwide instant communication
- suicide terrorism attacks on the US

...and many many more. So even if you see no evidence of widespread acceptance of public nudity that doesn't mean that it can't happen - stranger things have!

Rik