Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Whatever happened to....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Whatever happened to....

    Whatever happened to the World Naturist Day event yesterday (1st June) at Hyde Park, London? I'm told it was a bit of a flop.

    Stu

  • #2
    Whatever happened to the World Naturist Day event yesterday (1st June) at Hyde Park, London? I'm told it was a bit of a flop.

    Stu

    Comment


    • #3
      I suspect you are not very surprised Stu!!

      Max

      Comment


      • #4
        quote:
        Originally posted by stu2630:
        [qb] Whatever happened to the World Naturist Day event yesterday (1st June) at Hyde Park, London? [/qb]
        Police were pre-positioned, ready to be offended by the non-sexual nudity. Preprinted notices were prepared declaring the gathering as 'unauthorized', yet there was no objection to an 'unauthorized' gathering of clothed nudists. One participant defied the orders and got his kit off, until he decided he wanted to have some sandwiches, so he got un-naked.

        Attica! Attica! Attica!



        Article

        Comment


        • #5
          quote:
          Originally posted by MaxUK:
          [qb] I suspect you are not very surprised Stu!!

          Max [/qb]
          Max - To me there is a world of difference between an official naturist venue (or even an unofficial but well-off-the-beaten-track venue) and an important and internationally known place of public and family recreation. Clearly the police share that view and I would have been surprised if they had acted differently.

          Why don't the naturist organisations contact landowning bodies such as the National Trust or English Heritage and ask them if they can provide venues? As a member of the National Trust I would have no objection to this - providing the venues were properly selected and out of sight of others.

          Stu

          Comment


          • #6
            Yes stu, it seems that someone had contacted the police and informed them of the upcoming picnic. Now who would do something like that??? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

            And seeing that most of the people there were not interetsed in antagonizing the police who were there to stop them from doing what they had planned, they all kept dressed. I do have to ask why the one man who denuded had to put his clothes back on to have a sandwich?

            Now stu, can't we have an official naturist venue that is also a family area as well. Naturism promotes positive family values. In fact, most naturist venues can probably be described as family areas (the rest can be described as family starting venues [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img] )

            Again I say again to get the arguements of "saving the children" out of the equation for segregating naturists and non-naturists. Merely by stating that an area is where families tend to congregate does not mean that it should automatically be taken out of consideration for nude use.

            Bob S.

            Comment


            • #7
              Bob

              "Now who would do something like that???"

              I wonder. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] A least it proves what I have been saying all along that simple nudity in public IS, in effect, illegal here in the UK. I suspect the Crown Court will confirm that tomorrow in the Steve Gough appeal - or at least I hope it does.

              "I do have to ask why the one man who denuded had to put his clothes back on to have a sandwich?"

              Yes, I wondered that too.

              "Now stu, can't we have an official naturist venue that is also a family area as well. Naturism promotes positive family values. In fact, most naturist venues can probably be described as family areas"

              Yes, Bob. I'm sure that practically all naturist venues ARE family venues, but that doesn't mean to say that all family venues should be naturist venues.

              "Again I say again to get the arguements of "saving the children" out of the equation for segregating naturists and non-naturists."

              I disagree, Bob. It's not a case of "saving the children", it's a case of parental rights to determine what THEIR children should and should not be exposed to. For most parents, adult nudity is something their children should not encounter - certainly not nudity of adults of the opposite sex anyway. You may not have a problem with your kids seeing nudity, but other parents do have, and their rights should be respected. If you were a film director and your latest film contained full frontal nudity you wouldn't expect it to be given a certificate that allowed minors to view it, would you?

              "Merely by stating that an area is where families tend to congregate does not mean that it should automatically be taken out of consideration for nude use."

              Yes it should - if it is widely used by families that are non-naturist. Partly for the very reasons I have cited above concerning children, and also because many adults don't want to encounter nudity as well. If people started getting naked in the park where I walk my dog, and the police didn't intervene to prevent it, I would have to find somewhere else to exercise her. I would be, effectively, excluded from that park by a minority interest. Many others who use the facility would feel the same way. That's not fair.

              Stu

              Comment


              • #8
                Note: A potential debate among a few posters may be about to ensue. If you are bored by such debates, please leave now.

                Sorry about that stu, now on to the crux of the discussion.

                The lack of nudity was much more of a relection of the fact that there were police there who were ready to issue already-made summons to anyone who disrobed. Also, it is possible that no one there wanted to be the poster boy for public naturism. One question for the man who was naked, did he receive any summons? I don't recall reading it in the article.

                "Bob. It's not a case of "saving the children", it's a case of parental rights to determine what THEIR children should and should not be exposed to."

                It's also a case of legal rights. If we were to decide our laws upon what is best for parents based on how they wish to raise their children(which is essentially "protecting the children"), we would be living in an extremely Disneyfied society that I'm sure you wouldn't even like.

                I reall a news story whose dateline was in Austrailia where a mother and her children passed by a woman who was sunbathing topless on a public beach. The mother was deeply offended by this behaviour and contacted the local authorities (lifeguard or police, can't remember). They politely asked the topless woman if she could move away, but admitted to the mother that they had no authority to do anything since toplessness was legal there. The woman stayed put.

                And stu, what if you got your wish and we naturists got more parks and other places to be naked and one of those places was where you walk your dog? Would you then accuse us of kicking you out of that park? By the way stu, your dog is naked! [eek]

                Movies are totally different from reality. No comparison. Although one can put full frontal nudity in a movie and still get a PG rating. Provided that the nudity is that of an infant.

                Bob S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Topless sun bathing has won unofficial approval from the Royal Parks
                  Officially, women stripping to the waist is still banned, but Royal Parks
                  police have been told to turn a blind eye if no other member of the public
                  complains.
                  Royal Parks spokesman Tom Corby confirmed today that police will not stop
                  women who want to strip to the waist.
                  He said: "It's down to the discretion of the individual officer. We might
                  advise a lady that she could be in danger of attracting unwelcome attention
                  & suggest she would be safer to cover herself up, but we would not arrest
                  anyone unless we received a complaint from someone else.
                  "It is not really a relaxation of the rules, it is just that we will not
                  usually apply them unless we feel things are getting out of hand. But in
                  reality very few women go to the Royal Parks to sunbathe topless."
                  http://www.inlineonline.co.uk/past_news.htm).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bob,

                    "The lack of nudity was much more of a relection of the fact that there were police there who were ready to issue already-made summons to anyone who disrobed."

                    I don't think so, Bob. I reckon they were they in a preventative capacity - to discourage the event from taking place.

                    "One question for the man who was naked, did he receive any summons? I don't recall reading it in the article."

                    I doubt that he did. The police in the UK work very differently from the US police. They would taken the line of least resistance - ordered him to cover up. When he complied (for whatever reason, but he DID comply) then they had achieved what they wanted.

                    "It's also a case of legal rights. If we were to decide our laws upon what is best for parents based on how they wish to raise their children(which is essentially "protecting the children"), we would be living in an extremely Disneyfied society that I'm sure you wouldn't even like."

                    No, Bob. The key decisions on how children should be brought up rest with parents. The state only interferes with this in extreme circumstances such as where the child is being abused, neglected or exposed to danger. Nevertheless the law has to have regard to how most people wish to bring up their offspring and err on the side of conservatism.

                    "I reall a news story whose dateline was in Austrailia where a mother and her children passed by a woman who was sunbathing topless on a public beach. The mother was deeply offended by this behaviour and contacted the local authorities (lifeguard or police, can't remember). They politely asked the topless woman if she could move away, but admitted to the mother that they had no authority to do anything since toplessness was legal there. The woman stayed put."

                    They have some very strange laws in Australia.

                    "And stu, what if you got your wish and we naturists got more parks and other places to be naked and one of those places was where you walk your dog? Would you then accuse us of kicking you out of that park? By the way stu, your dog is naked! [eek]"

                    Bob, there are several parks where I walk my dog. Yes, I would be upset if naturists took one of them over, but I would accept it because I believe in fairness. Just let me know which one you are going to use and leave the others for me and all the rest of us non-naturists to enjoy.

                    "Movies are totally different from reality. No comparison. Although one can put full frontal nudity in a movie and still get a PG rating. Provided that the nudity is that of an infant."

                    If full frontal nudity is inoffensive in real life, why is it so offensive on videotape?

                    cyndiann

                    "but Royal Parks
                    police have been told to turn a blind eye if no other member of the public
                    complains."

                    I'd complain.

                    "It's down to the discretion of the individual officer. We might
                    advise a lady that she could be in danger of attracting unwelcome attention
                    & suggest she would be safer to cover herself up, but we would not arrest
                    anyone unless we received a complaint from someone else."

                    If no-one sees the lady, or those who do see her don't mind, then there's no harm done. If I saw a woman sunbathing topless in Hyde Park etc, and within view of where I was, the Royal Parks Constabulary would definately get a complaint from me. So they'd have to put her in jail. Awwww! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

                    Stu

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      quote:

                      [/QB]
                      Originally posted by stu2630:

                      Bob, there are several parks where I walk my dog. Yes, I would be upset if naturists took one of them over, but I would accept it because I believe in fairness. Just let me know which one you are going to use and leave the others for me and all the rest of us non-naturists to enjoy.
                      [/QB]
                      Stu,

                      I think parks should be for people. Why do you take your dog there and let him/her defacate and urinate where I will be walking, sitting, or lying? If you want to walk your dog, why don't you contact a private land owner and get permission to walk your dog there? I know a woman who was attacked by a dog and will not go anywhere that a dog is present. She doesn't allow her children to either. So, she and her family would be excluded from the park by your dog's presence. I think that is unfair of you.

                      So, why don't you take your dog somewhere else to walk him/her. And, of course we all know that you to go there so he/she can do #1 or #2 in public. How disgusting is that?

                      Have a good day. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

                      bg

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        brainy

                        "I think parks should be for people. Why do you take your dog there and let him/her defacate and urinate where I will be walking, sitting, or lying?"

                        I think we're getting mixed up here on my use of the word "park". The places I take my dog to do what she has to do are areas of coarse woodland open to the public and are mainly used by dog walkers - one being a remote bit of Sherwood Forest. I can assure you that you wouldn't find it very comfortable to sit or lie down in these parks!

                        "If you want to walk your dog, why don't you contact a private land owner and get permission to walk your dog there?"

                        50% of households in the UK have a dog. A large percentage of those who do not do own other pets such as cats or horses (these also defficate and urinate). It would be impossible on these small and densely-populated islands for all these pet owners had to find a sympathetic landowner who would allow them to exercise their animals. Pet owners, unlike naturists, are in the majority and their needs should be accommodated.

                        "I know a woman who was attacked by a dog and will not go anywhere that a dog is present. She doesn't allow her children to either. So, she and her family would be excluded from the park by your dog's presence. I think that is unfair of you."

                        My father has a phobia for horses, and I have a morbid fear of dolls and statues. These irrational fears put us into tiny minorities and it would be wholly unreasonable of my father to demand that horses should be kept off the streets or that I should demand legislation banning little girls from taking dolls into public places. This woman is unusual in that she has a fear of ALL dogs after being attacked by one unruly animal should not be allowed to determine the law. Most people I know, however, would find the presence of naked people in public parks objectionable and so it is right and proper that public nudity is unlawful.

                        And by the way - my dog rarely does #2 in public because we have a section of the garden she is trained to use for that purpose. We pay to have her droppings taken away and disposed of every two weeks. If she ever does relieve herself in that way whilst we are out with her we ALWAYS clean up after her. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

                        Stu

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "I reckon they were they in a preventative capacity - to discourage the event from taking place."

                          Which is what I said, stu. Except for the wrod, "relection". What does that mean? Can we say, typo?

                          "The key decisions on how children should be brought up rest with parents...Nevertheless the law has to have regard to how most people wish to bring up their offspring and err on the side of conservatism."

                          And what of the parents who are raising their children in a minority viewpoint? Some parents are nudists and are raising their children in that lifestyle. Don't they have that right?

                          And in terms of a danger to children, many cases over hree in the States have revolved around parents who have gotten into legal trouble for taking naked or partially naked pics (the typical family album pics) of their children. In such cases, the law will err on the (extreme) side of conservatism with CPS (Child Protective Services) getting involved and possibly the children being at least temporarily removed from their homes, all over a topless three-year-old (happened). How does that help society?

                          Society must also respect the rights of a minority as well. It must constantly ask itself how beneficial certain laws are. Ask what would happen if they were to be repealed and compare the results (short term and long term) of what would happen if they actually repealed such a law. Of course, we all know that this rarely happens in a society without extreme public opinion. But sometimes a politician must actually purport to be the leader that he is and do what he thinks is right for his district (or whatever area he represents) rather than what his constituents think is right for them.

                          "If full frontal nudity is inoffensive in real life, why is it so offensive on videotape?"

                          People make it offensive for themselves because that was how they were raised. People can be deprogrammed from this societal brainwashing. And I actually think that it is more accepted on film as it is a fantasy that they are watching. And they are usually warned in advance that such a movie has nudity in it and are paying for the priveledge to watch the movie, so they have nothing to complain about.

                          Bob S.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Fair warning to those that don’t like long posts… just scan past it. And yes, this IS the condensed version!

                            Stu,
                            I’m relatively new here (3 months) and I’ve even asked myself the old question of “Stu why are you here”? So I took it upon myself to search the posts to the answer of this. (I thought it was kind of funny the number of “hits” this question had when I ran it through the search function of the site) I admit that I too wondered why a non-nudist would spend so much time and effort at a site that promotes nude recreation. I did find your answers to this question, and I applaud your right to disagree. I’ve been trying to figure you out since coming here, and after a bit of looking around various posts, I actually THOUGHT I had a handle on your perspective, and maybe I still do… read on. It’s a given that you’ll never be a nudist, and you’ve claimed as much, fine… Then you also say you support nudists as long as you don’t have to be exposed to us, fine… Then you also state that you support more C/O venues as long as they don’t inter-mix with venues you may attend, fine… But then here’s the latest round….

                            “Whatever happened to the World Naturist Day event yesterday (1st June) at Hyde Park, London? I'm told it was a bit of a flop.”

                            “If no-one sees the lady, or those who do see her don't mind, then there's no harm done. If I saw a woman sunbathing topless in Hyde Park etc, and within view of where I was, the Royal Parks Constabulary would definately get a complaint from me. So they'd have to put her in jail. Awwww! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] “

                            In the past you’ve posted some really intelligent posts, but this thread is approaching a “gloating attitude”, which seems what I would have thought as out of character, and what prompted me to reply. The fact that you even asked the question in the start of this thread (since you already knew the outcome) is an argumentative or challenging stance, and especially so, since you mentioned a few weeks ago that you yourself alerted the authorities to this event. But then to further your comments and actually show proud contempt about hypothetically being the cause of putting someone in jail as a result of your complaint (over something so insignificant), has placed you at a much lower level than I would have thought. I personally view this event (and other public defiance’s) as one to promote the concept that there aren’t ENOUGH venues that support nudists, and this is their way of making this statement louder and more public. And I personally commend their courage to stand up for what they believe is an unjust law (and attitude).

                            “Bob, there are several parks where I walk my dog. Yes, I would be upset if naturists took one of them over, but I would accept it because I believe in fairness. Just let me know which one you are going to use and leave the others for me and all the rest of us non-naturists to enjoy.”

                            Stu, Stu, Stu… they tried this (just for an afternoon) and YOU turned them in! It’s of little consequence that you had NO intention of attending or being in the area, but the fact remains that you went out of your way to inhibit what you claim to support, in the long run. C’mon Stu….. I think you can do better.

                            If indeed you support more C/O venues, wouldn’t a more productive approach be to take an ACTIVE role in helping provide more venues? Last time I looked, this was a “pro-nudist” forum? You claim you’re actually in a position to be of help in this regard by being a member of the National Trust (maybe I’m wrong since I have no clue what that really means, but I’m going on the implied meaning). I already know your answer to this but I’ll ask anyway, why don’t YOU pose this question yourself as a means of helping nudists find areas where you and others won’t be so easily offended (there’s that word again)? It just seems backwards to me… sorry.

                            In many of your posts I’ve read, you obviously have a firm stance on the side of the law, which is completely understandable given your position. But I’ve yet to see anything about why you personally have a problem with nudist venues. Aside from the legal aspects (not saying you haven’t posted such, but I’ve yet to run across it), I guess I’m just wondering if there are underlying reasons behind your position. If you’d rather not say, that’s fine too.

                            You’ve argued (in essence) that the law is there because the majority agrees it should be there. I have to strongly disagree… I’m more inclined to think that both those opposed and those for nude recreation are the minority. The majority, in my opinion, is indifferent in THIS day and age, and could care less. And as a result of being indifferent, they are less vocal about their view, thus you never hear from them.

                            In summation Stu, I’ve concluded that you simply argue/debate for the pleasure of the argument or debate (even BEFORE I read it in one of your posts from Feb.) since you seem to flip-flop a bit and I’m actually starting to see the humor in it! Unfortunately, I doubt that everyone will see the humor, but I hope they at least get a little entertainment out of it. I enjoy some of your posts, but I find it increasingly more difficult to take your position seriously… [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] (big surprise huh?). I just don’t see where falling back on the “law” provides an adequate argument, without reflecting on the moral conscience of TODAY’S society… or better yet, an “informed judgement” on what social nudity REALLY is about, rather than the general perception that has been handed down by the so-called puritans over countless generations.

                            I’d say this was my 2 cents worth, but it felt more like a buck and a half! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Way to go Falcon! I like how long you made it! And also good is the note on the top, nice touch.

                              I agree with you 100% and never thought about the situation with stu in such a way. Mind you, I think that he is an asset to this site and would prefer him to stay here and argue his case.

                              But your question " But I?ve yet to see anything about why you personally have a problem with nudist venues" I can answer. stu has no problem with nudist venues provided they are not in view of the general public and are appropriately marked. His problem is with the nudity itself, which he has some psychological issues with. He is a semi-recovering gymnophobe (or something close to it, where he has very high nxiety upon seeing another's naked body). It's, IMHO (though non-medical) that it stems from his childhood, which I will let him either discuss or not discuss. Others on this forum seem to like to joke him about it, so I will let him choose to bring it up again.

                              Bob S.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X