Naturism venues

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal the licensing laws, bye law enabling powers, revoke the associated bye laws, and other regulations which allow councils and others to restrict, without any objective justification, the freedom to be nude at recreational venues.

Child (and adult) protection

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Why is this idea important?

Repeal or reform all legislation and policy which assumes or encourages the belief that children are inherently sexual. For example aspects of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and related legislation. As a minimum the word "indecent" should be replaced with "pornographic" and "pornographic" should be defined as "erotic" or "sexual".

Naturism in Public Places

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Why is this idea important?

 s.5 Public Order Act 1986 should be clarified to reduce the scope for abuse. It must be made clear that this offence concerns behaviour which would cause significant offence to most reasonable people and terms such as disorderly should be clarified or removed.

s.4, s.4A Public Order Act 1986 and s.66 Sexual Offences Act should be clarified. Nudity is not in itself evidence of the intent required by these offences.

The common law offence of Outraging Public Decency should be repealed as it duplicates statutory offences (see BN response to Law Commission consultation) and it is inherently vague.

Repeal bye law enabling powers and revoke any associated bye laws, which are unused or vulnerable to abuse.

The ASBO system should be clarified and reduced in scope to prevent abuse.

Abolish all fixed penalties for which a realistic means of appeal can not be provided.

Police cautions should have a cooling off period. There must be a statutory duty for the police to ensure that the accused understands the consequences of accepting a caution.

Provide an accessible means of appeal against police records.

Censorship

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Why is this idea important?

 Repeal or reform all law which facilitates censorship based on prejudice. For example aspects of the broadcasting acts, Video Recordings Act 1984, Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981.

Protect freedom-of-speech by requiring censors to provide an accessible and single route for appeal. This must apply to all censors that operate in the UK including overseas corporations.

Require censorship to be founded on evidence of harm and set legally enforcible minimum standards for that evidence.

Restoration of the Right to Silence

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Why is this idea important?

Please re-instate the right to silence of anyone charged with an offence. It would seem in today’s society we are heading inexorably towards a situation where the police (and other bodies with similar powers) can do no wrong. Whilst they are placed on a metaphorical pedestal, even when in the public perception they have gravely erred, and there always seems to be some reason why they cannot be charged or there is an alleged justification for their actions, it is a completely different ballgame when members of the general public are concerned. Our rights are being eroded and the police allowed every opportunity to erode them further such that DNA samples can be taken when someone is arrested for even the most trivial offence; e.g. taking innocent photographs can now land you in trouble. Time expired records are still not being destroyed as directed by the European Court.
The ending of the right to silence was in many ways the precursor to this gradual erosion of our civil liberties and it should be restored forthwith. With the balance having been tilted in favour of the police at the expense of those civil liberties for so long now it is high time that those facing charge for any offence are legally entitled to once again not prejudice themselves and be entitled to a right of silence; it is an inalienable human right. If the police have enough evidence to charge someone with an offence then the right to silence should not be an issue for them because the evidence should be compelling. If the police have an issue with the right to silence it can only be because they cannot bring sufficient evidence to bear on a case and have to rely on weight not being attached to something the accused brings to the courts later on.
If the police can get away with acts which are plainly caught on video and flashed around the world; then surely the great British public are entitled to the right of silence when accused of an offence. It should then be up to the police or other relevant authority to prove them guilty beyond any reasonable doubt by using their own investigative skills and techniques.
 

Repeal and remove any legal barrier to nudity

Nudity is not in itself a crime, however the police use and enforce a number of other laws to prevent people from being nude. This can be anything, i.e. 'causing a breach of the peace' or 'intentionally causing sexual offence or distress' amongst others. Why should I risk prosecution for collecting my mail or my milk from my doorstep if I am nude at the time.Why should I risk prosecution because my neighbour sees me nude in my garden whilst he is up his apple tree whilst collecting apples or even just looking out of their windows. People should not face any prosecution  for nudity, anywhere. It should not automatically be assumed that a naked person is out to cause any alarm, distress or that they are about to commit a sexual crime. People should be free to dress or not as they please.

Why is this idea important?

Nudity is not in itself a crime, however the police use and enforce a number of other laws to prevent people from being nude. This can be anything, i.e. 'causing a breach of the peace' or 'intentionally causing sexual offence or distress' amongst others. Why should I risk prosecution for collecting my mail or my milk from my doorstep if I am nude at the time.Why should I risk prosecution because my neighbour sees me nude in my garden whilst he is up his apple tree whilst collecting apples or even just looking out of their windows. People should not face any prosecution  for nudity, anywhere. It should not automatically be assumed that a naked person is out to cause any alarm, distress or that they are about to commit a sexual crime. People should be free to dress or not as they please.

Right to naturist life style

As I understand the current law, being naked in public is NOT illegal. However, there are other laws which are routinely abused by the authorities to effectively render it illegal. There should be a law that states CATEGORICALLY that nudity is allowed unless it can be shown that a significant number of other members of the public are likely to be offended or intimidated. "Other members of the public" should NOT include police officers or others in authority (who ought to be made of sterner stuff or should not be doing their job!). Also, a complaint from someone who habitually complains just because they can, should not be taken as indicative of the general public.

I am not suggesting that I should be allowed to walk down the high street naked (that is likely to offend a significant minority) but I should be allowed to remain naked in a quiet area and (more importantly) in my own home without having to wory about who is looking every time I walk past a window or open door.

Why is this idea important?

As I understand the current law, being naked in public is NOT illegal. However, there are other laws which are routinely abused by the authorities to effectively render it illegal. There should be a law that states CATEGORICALLY that nudity is allowed unless it can be shown that a significant number of other members of the public are likely to be offended or intimidated. "Other members of the public" should NOT include police officers or others in authority (who ought to be made of sterner stuff or should not be doing their job!). Also, a complaint from someone who habitually complains just because they can, should not be taken as indicative of the general public.

I am not suggesting that I should be allowed to walk down the high street naked (that is likely to offend a significant minority) but I should be allowed to remain naked in a quiet area and (more importantly) in my own home without having to wory about who is looking every time I walk past a window or open door.

The freedom to be naked in public places

Being naked in itself does not harm anyone, except potentially the naked person.

However great harm is caused to many people because they have issues with their bodies, or with the naked bodies of other people.

 

Why is this idea important?

Being naked in itself does not harm anyone, except potentially the naked person.

However great harm is caused to many people because they have issues with their bodies, or with the naked bodies of other people.

 

Public Nudity

The Sexual Offences Act (2003) states that exposure (and hence public nudity) is only a crime if a person's genitals are exposed and they intend for someone to see them and to be caused alarm and distress.

This means that nudists, skinny dippers or nude sunbathers etc. are not breaking the law, as someone has to intend to cause alarm and distress for it to be a crime (and so someone being alarmed or distressed without intent is not a crime).  This is good.

However, someone can still be arrested for public nudity under the common law of breaching the peace.  In order to clarify the situation and futher protect nudists I think that this law should be ammended so that it specifically states that

1) Nudity, by itself, cannot be considered a breach of the peace

2) A person can be arrested for nudity only if there is a serious reason to believe that they intend to cause alarm and distress.

Why is this idea important?

The Sexual Offences Act (2003) states that exposure (and hence public nudity) is only a crime if a person's genitals are exposed and they intend for someone to see them and to be caused alarm and distress.

This means that nudists, skinny dippers or nude sunbathers etc. are not breaking the law, as someone has to intend to cause alarm and distress for it to be a crime (and so someone being alarmed or distressed without intent is not a crime).  This is good.

However, someone can still be arrested for public nudity under the common law of breaching the peace.  In order to clarify the situation and futher protect nudists I think that this law should be ammended so that it specifically states that

1) Nudity, by itself, cannot be considered a breach of the peace

2) A person can be arrested for nudity only if there is a serious reason to believe that they intend to cause alarm and distress.

The Law and Naturism

I would like to see the current law on indecency in public amended to allow naturists not to be apprehended if going about their lifestyle in their own gardens or in discrete locations in the countryside or on beaches etc.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the current law on indecency in public amended to allow naturists not to be apprehended if going about their lifestyle in their own gardens or in discrete locations in the countryside or on beaches etc.

Simplification of the Naturism Laws

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a children's social worker who now manages a multi agency safeguarding training department.

Over the years it has come to my attention that the laws around naturism are confusing and many people I have spoken to (including police and social workers) do not understand them.  I am aware that naturism is not illegal (even when children are present) however simplification  of the law  would put lots of minds at ease, a system like the Spanish (and other nations) where naturism is permitted on all beaches apart from town beaches and naturism is permitted openly in rural areas (i.e. outside of towns and villages). 

At the very least there should be public naturist beaches, places in the national parks and places in every county in the UK.

In my professional experience the times were difficulty arises most are when there is confusion especially when the professionals are confused.  I have seen these difficulties  many times around safeguarding issues also reported in findings from serious case reviews and government reports that  I  read.

I would therefore ask you to consider the simplification of the laws around naturism so all people know it is legal (unless you are deliberately offending others) and also ensure there is provision for the hundreds of thousands who do practice naturism.

Thank you for your time
 

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir/Madam

I am a children's social worker who now manages a multi agency safeguarding training department.

Over the years it has come to my attention that the laws around naturism are confusing and many people I have spoken to (including police and social workers) do not understand them.  I am aware that naturism is not illegal (even when children are present) however simplification  of the law  would put lots of minds at ease, a system like the Spanish (and other nations) where naturism is permitted on all beaches apart from town beaches and naturism is permitted openly in rural areas (i.e. outside of towns and villages). 

At the very least there should be public naturist beaches, places in the national parks and places in every county in the UK.

In my professional experience the times were difficulty arises most are when there is confusion especially when the professionals are confused.  I have seen these difficulties  many times around safeguarding issues also reported in findings from serious case reviews and government reports that  I  read.

I would therefore ask you to consider the simplification of the laws around naturism so all people know it is legal (unless you are deliberately offending others) and also ensure there is provision for the hundreds of thousands who do practice naturism.

Thank you for your time