No ‘butts’ as nude cyclist is arrested after riding through Bournemouth and Poole

QUITE A CHEEK: Naked bike rider Richard Collins, who was arrested by police

QUITE A CHEEK: Naked bike rider Richard Collins, who was arrested by police

First published in News by

A NAKED activist with a penchant for biking in the buff surprised beach-goers when he brought his hobby to the promenade.

Richard Collins, 53, known as ‘The Cambridge Nude Cyclist’, took advantage of the warm weather on Wednesday, riding au naturel from a friend’s house in Moordown to Bournemouth Pier, and along the prom to Sandbanks – where he dressed to wait for the ferry. It was there that the police caught up with him.

It is not his first run-in with the law. He was arrested for cycling naked in London four years ago – but the case was dropped.

A committed naturist for three decades he has spent years promoting the cause, appearing on TV on BBC Breakfast.

The electrical engineer said he doesn’t set out to offend or shock – he just chooses to “live life naked when it’s warm enough”.

“Cycling is a great way to get a bit of exercise in itself – but especially without any clothes on,” he added. “You feel the breeze on your skin, and the sun on your skin – it feels wonderful.”

Richard began cycling naked in the countryside around his Cambridge-shire home in 2002 – putt-ing shorts on when he passed through the city.

“One day I decided to see what happened if I didn’t. Everyone cheered – and the rest is history as they say.”

He said the usual reaction was surprise or amusement – including on the Bournemouth prom.

“I looked at a few people, including some old ladies, and it definitely brought a smile to their faces –a pleasant smile, and there were a few whoops and cheers, he said.”

But while nakedness in public is not an offence in itself, Richard’s outing on Wednesday saw him arrested by police after a complaint from a member of the public.

He was charged under Section Five of the Public Order act 1986 for “disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress thereby.”

He will appear before Bournemouth Magistrates Court on July 21.

Comments (74)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:31pm Sat 3 Jul 10

Huey says...

I hope he cleans his seat!
I hope he cleans his seat! Huey
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sat 3 Jul 10

twynham says...

And his saddle as well!
And his saddle as well! twynham
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Sat 3 Jul 10

ski says...

Pervy Nutter.
Pervy Nutter. ski
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Sat 3 Jul 10

Skatha says...

Pervert!!

He is nothing short of an exhibitionist and I for one would NOT be happy for my grandchildren to see him naked.

Tell him to b****r off to Studland where nakedness is confined to spaces where no one cares and is well away from people out shopping or enjoying the sun without having to witness wrinkled, saggy old pervs on the way!!
Pervert!! He is nothing short of an exhibitionist and I for one would NOT be happy for my grandchildren to see him naked. Tell him to b****r off to Studland where nakedness is confined to spaces where no one cares and is well away from people out shopping or enjoying the sun without having to witness wrinkled, saggy old pervs on the way!! Skatha
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Sat 3 Jul 10

contric says...

3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke
3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke contric
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Sat 3 Jul 10

Boscomite says...

Surely something is either against the law or it's not. If you can be arrested for doing something that may offend someone, that covers just about anything. Regardless of anybody's opinion on public nudity, the police's job is to uphold the law. If they have the power to arrest you when no law has been broken, then that by definition is a police state.
Surely something is either against the law or it's not. If you can be arrested for doing something that may offend someone, that covers just about anything. Regardless of anybody's opinion on public nudity, the police's job is to uphold the law. If they have the power to arrest you when no law has been broken, then that by definition is a police state. Boscomite
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Sat 3 Jul 10

Mike Pickering says...

So let's get this straight - you can, whilst committing no offence, and acting entirely within the law, be arrested if someone sees or hears you and reports being distressed by your actions ?
Well that sort of opens things up a bit, doesn't it ?
Is this paper not one constant stream of people being upset by the actions of others, lawful or otherwise ?
I demand that everyone doing anything anyone else doesn't like - be they within the law or not - is arrested and charged with the heinous offence of Doing Something Someone Else Doesn't Like ?
Smoking, in public. Causes offence to many people - not illegal say its proponents. Not good enough ! Arrest all the smokers who could be seen or heard doing their offensive act ! I think too many car stereos are too loud, and play chavical 'urban' music, which I find offensive. Please put my council tax to use arresting all of them. I demand equal treatment under law for all the random legal offenders, as well as, and typified by this naked cycling bloke.
Oh, and house prices - utterly offensive. Arrest all estate agents, particularly those with lurid purple and pink shirts and ties.
I honestly didn't realise the Law was so flexible as to rely purely on a complainant 'Claiming' to be offended by something or someone.
So let's get this straight - you can, whilst committing no offence, and acting entirely within the law, be arrested if someone sees or hears you and reports being distressed by your actions ? Well that sort of opens things up a bit, doesn't it ? Is this paper not one constant stream of people being upset by the actions of others, lawful or otherwise ? I demand that everyone doing anything anyone else doesn't like - be they within the law or not - is arrested and charged with the heinous offence of Doing Something Someone Else Doesn't Like ? Smoking, in public. Causes offence to many people - not illegal say its proponents. Not good enough ! Arrest all the smokers who could be seen or heard doing their offensive act ! I think too many car stereos are too loud, and play chavical 'urban' music, which I find offensive. Please put my council tax to use arresting all of them. I demand equal treatment under law for all the random legal offenders, as well as, and typified by this naked cycling bloke. Oh, and house prices - utterly offensive. Arrest all estate agents, particularly those with lurid purple and pink shirts and ties. I honestly didn't realise the Law was so flexible as to rely purely on a complainant 'Claiming' to be offended by something or someone. Mike Pickering
  • Score: 0

6:21pm Sat 3 Jul 10

mta says...

skatha he wasnt naked ,he has shoes and socks on and was on his way to studland when caught at the ferry ?
skatha he wasnt naked ,he has shoes and socks on and was on his way to studland when caught at the ferry ? mta
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Sat 3 Jul 10

X Old Bill says...

Simple nudity is not illegal in England and Wales.
In Scotland it is considered a statutory Breach of the Peace.
Each time I read of such incidents it occurs to me that many Dorset Police Officers were originally trained in Scottish Law and attempt to apply the principals to England by soliciting any convenient member of public, or off duty Officer, to 'Make a complaint'.
In England and Wales it is an offence to expose one's genitals intending to cause alarm or distress (male or female flashers). - The Sexual Offences Act 2004 in following the Public Order Act added the crucial word 'intending'.
It is also illegal to Outrage public decency under common Law but for that the circumstances usually require the offence to be aggravated by other 'actions'.
I would suggest that Mr Collins goes back to Cambridge, Dorset Police seem to be suffering from a sense of humour failure.
Simple nudity is not illegal in England and Wales. In Scotland it is considered a statutory Breach of the Peace. Each time I read of such incidents it occurs to me that many Dorset Police Officers were originally trained in Scottish Law and attempt to apply the principals to England by soliciting any convenient member of public, or off duty Officer, to 'Make a complaint'. In England and Wales it is an offence to expose one's genitals intending to cause alarm or distress (male or female flashers). - The Sexual Offences Act 2004 in following the Public Order Act added the crucial word 'intending'. It is also illegal to Outrage public decency under common Law but for that the circumstances usually require the offence to be aggravated by other 'actions'. I would suggest that Mr Collins goes back to Cambridge, Dorset Police seem to be suffering from a sense of humour failure. X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Sat 3 Jul 10

Bormuf Boy says...

Is that a chopper i can see ? A Raleigh Chopper i mean.
Is that a chopper i can see ? A Raleigh Chopper i mean. Bormuf Boy
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Sat 3 Jul 10

chunk_vanman says...

Glasses and a beard ... it's a sign
Glasses and a beard ... it's a sign chunk_vanman
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Sat 3 Jul 10

High Treason says...

contric wrote:
3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke
I suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun.
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: 3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke[/p][/quote]I suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun. High Treason
  • Score: 0

10:30pm Sat 3 Jul 10

sussexcherry says...

High Treason wrote:
contric wrote: 3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke
I suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun.
I heard that two had a stroke and the other one missed!!
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: 3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke[/p][/quote]I suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun.[/p][/quote]I heard that two had a stroke and the other one missed!! sussexcherry
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Sat 3 Jul 10

boracay says...

well i would of thought that you would of seen the Conservative Bournemouth Council joining him in his Bike ride as they all seem to be playing and watching naked movies on tax payer laptops, rideing a push bike naket has to be the next thing for them!!
well i would of thought that you would of seen the Conservative Bournemouth Council joining him in his Bike ride as they all seem to be playing and watching naked movies on tax payer laptops, rideing a push bike naket has to be the next thing for them!! boracay
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Sat 3 Jul 10

s-pb2 says...

Dear Dorset Police. I would like to make a complaint against Piers Morgan as he is odious. Can i have him arrested please?
Dear Dorset Police. I would like to make a complaint against Piers Morgan as he is odious. Can i have him arrested please? s-pb2
  • Score: 0

12:07am Sun 4 Jul 10

PigWhistle0709 says...

“disorderly behaviour within the hearing or site of a person...”
Is that a building site, a caravan site or perhaps a web site he was allegedly within? And if so, could he have been seen by a person in any of them?
“disorderly behaviour within the hearing or site of a person...” Is that a building site, a caravan site or perhaps a web site he was allegedly within? And if so, could he have been seen by a person in any of them? PigWhistle0709
  • Score: 0

12:08am Sun 4 Jul 10

9988776655 says...

any excuse to lock a cyclist up, that's what it seems like in Bournemouth.
any excuse to lock a cyclist up, that's what it seems like in Bournemouth. 9988776655
  • Score: 0

12:15am Sun 4 Jul 10

zagzig says...

Dear Dorset police I am shocked and horrified at the photo above, my life will never be the same again, it's almost as bad as Boscombe on a Saturday night, I think I could be suffering from something post traumatic and will need expensive therapy for ever. Please arrest the Echo for publishing such indecency and send me a nice big fat cheque as compensation.
Dear Dorset police I am shocked and horrified at the photo above, my life will never be the same again, it's almost as bad as Boscombe on a Saturday night, I think I could be suffering from something post traumatic and will need expensive therapy for ever. Please arrest the Echo for publishing such indecency and send me a nice big fat cheque as compensation. zagzig
  • Score: 0

1:09am Sun 4 Jul 10

waserooski says...

i don't see anything wrong in it. when going along bournemouth beaches i find a lot more issues that "offend" me like the incredible amount of litter that is left. i also don't like to see the burqa worn. this guy was enjoying his right to live his life as he wants without hurt to others.
when i look around all i see is others being abusive and intolerant. leave this guy and everyone else to be peaceful and enjoy their lives becuase for every complaint you make will turn this place bit by bit into the police state that all of us fear.
also we have to ask , when did the naked body become a bad thing ??
we seem to have created these rules for ourselves. i see many small children on the beach naked , is that illegal too? when do we become indoctrinated by the system? is it 5 years old ? 6? 7? if you look at old pictures of Bournemouth everyone is sitting on a hot sunny day on the beach fully clothed. thankfully we have come this far but i feel we have a long way to go.
i am a naturist and on a hot sunny day i would like to be free to be on any beach or open space naked. why would that be a problem? there is no reason what so ever. it's just an infrigement of my liberty.
i don't see anything wrong in it. when going along bournemouth beaches i find a lot more issues that "offend" me like the incredible amount of litter that is left. i also don't like to see the burqa worn. this guy was enjoying his right to live his life as he wants without hurt to others. when i look around all i see is others being abusive and intolerant. leave this guy and everyone else to be peaceful and enjoy their lives becuase for every complaint you make will turn this place bit by bit into the police state that all of us fear. also we have to ask , when did the naked body become a bad thing ?? we seem to have created these rules for ourselves. i see many small children on the beach naked , is that illegal too? when do we become indoctrinated by the system? is it 5 years old ? 6? 7? if you look at old pictures of Bournemouth everyone is sitting on a hot sunny day on the beach fully clothed. thankfully we have come this far but i feel we have a long way to go. i am a naturist and on a hot sunny day i would like to be free to be on any beach or open space naked. why would that be a problem? there is no reason what so ever. it's just an infrigement of my liberty. waserooski
  • Score: 0

5:28am Sun 4 Jul 10

Ziggy starburst says...

9988776655 wrote:
any excuse to lock a cyclist up, that's what it seems like in Bournemouth.
Well said. Bournemouth seem to hate cyclists although they do have 3 or 4 useless cycle lanes that appear for a few feet on busy roads but end suddenly into the really dangerous parts. The council call it the cyclist cull. They don't even like bikes being locked up in the town centre.
[quote][p][bold]9988776655[/bold] wrote: any excuse to lock a cyclist up, that's what it seems like in Bournemouth.[/p][/quote]Well said. Bournemouth seem to hate cyclists although they do have 3 or 4 useless cycle lanes that appear for a few feet on busy roads but end suddenly into the really dangerous parts. The council call it the cyclist cull. They don't even like bikes being locked up in the town centre. Ziggy starburst
  • Score: 0

6:58am Sun 4 Jul 10

EGHH says...

I bet he was the only cyclist in Bournemouth / Poole that obeyed traffic regulations e.g stopping at red lights etc.!
I bet he was the only cyclist in Bournemouth / Poole that obeyed traffic regulations e.g stopping at red lights etc.! EGHH
  • Score: 0

7:15am Sun 4 Jul 10

liliana says...

If it were a female the response would be entirely different.
If it were a female the response would be entirely different. liliana
  • Score: 0

11:16am Sun 4 Jul 10

ski says...

liliana wrote:
If it were a female the response would be entirely different.
No,Not if it was a saggy baggy one with Ti.ts down to the knees,otherwise yep!!
[quote][p][bold]liliana[/bold] wrote: If it were a female the response would be entirely different.[/p][/quote]No,Not if it was a saggy baggy one with Ti.ts down to the knees,otherwise yep!! ski
  • Score: 0

11:35am Sun 4 Jul 10

mta says...

fantastic answer SKI , it would be good to see all the pictures saggy baggy or racing model !
fantastic answer SKI , it would be good to see all the pictures saggy baggy or racing model ! mta
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Adrian XX says...

I agree that chav music coming from cars is much more offensive than public nudity, however old or saggy the person concerned.

If you complain about someone's car music, I very much doubt they would be arrested. So why do the police consider a complaint against a person for being nude to be more serious?
I agree that chav music coming from cars is much more offensive than public nudity, however old or saggy the person concerned. If you complain about someone's car music, I very much doubt they would be arrested. So why do the police consider a complaint against a person for being nude to be more serious? Adrian XX
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Seafrontpatroller says...

EGHH wrote:
I bet he was the only cyclist in Bournemouth / Poole that obeyed traffic regulations e.g stopping at red lights etc.!
At least he isn't one of the motorists stopped by Dorset Police who committed SEVEN THOUSAND traffic related offences in the last four months!
[quote][p][bold]EGHH[/bold] wrote: I bet he was the only cyclist in Bournemouth / Poole that obeyed traffic regulations e.g stopping at red lights etc.![/p][/quote]At least he isn't one of the motorists stopped by Dorset Police who committed SEVEN THOUSAND traffic related offences in the last four months! Seafrontpatroller
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Corrupto says...

Will probably get a bigger fine than if he kicked someone half to death in a drunken night out in Bournemouth.
Will probably get a bigger fine than if he kicked someone half to death in a drunken night out in Bournemouth. Corrupto
  • Score: 0

2:15pm Sun 4 Jul 10

KLH says...

Well, if he ever sells that bike - hope he puts a new seat on it - would you buy a bike that has had someone's starfish....sorry, said enough!!
Well, if he ever sells that bike - hope he puts a new seat on it - would you buy a bike that has had someone's starfish....sorry, said enough!! KLH
  • Score: 0

2:32pm Sun 4 Jul 10

twobigdogs says...

All cyclists are freaks!........get a life.....buy a car!
All cyclists are freaks!........get a life.....buy a car! twobigdogs
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Kieran/Kaz says...

twobigdogs you are so mistaken, us bike riders bother to get some exersise rather than being stuck in a hot stuffy car.
twobigdogs you are so mistaken, us bike riders bother to get some exersise rather than being stuck in a hot stuffy car. Kieran/Kaz
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Sun 4 Jul 10

twobigdogs says...

Bike riders?..... namby-pamby, wishy-washy, hoity-toity....eco warriors....
Bike riders?..... namby-pamby, wishy-washy, hoity-toity....eco warriors.... twobigdogs
  • Score: 0

4:13pm Sun 4 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

Ignoring they who are/should be still in nappies and the generally gymnophobic and sundry, who would seem to be more in need of counselling than be holding council, when The Police arrived on the scene all they should have done, according to guidance on that Act, was caution the gentleman against repeat performance, if it were that he was already dressed, or, order him so to do under threat of arrest if he did not.
Were it, that is, that they considered but one formal complaint sufficient evidence of `disorderly conduct` of which he could have been accused even if wearing Speedos perhaps as that law has nothing to do with public nudity in particular and which they can repeal in effect for those mass nude-landscape works of Public Art and others as are commissioned here and there with scant regard towards that small (minded) minority who might suffer harmless offence by them.
Ignoring they who are/should be still in nappies and the generally gymnophobic and sundry, who would seem to be more in need of counselling than be holding council, when The Police arrived on the scene all they should have done, according to guidance on that Act, was caution the gentleman against repeat performance, if it were that he was already dressed, or, order him so to do under threat of arrest if he did not. Were it, that is, that they considered but one formal complaint sufficient evidence of `disorderly conduct` of which he could have been accused even if wearing Speedos perhaps as that law has nothing to do with public nudity in particular and which they can repeal in effect for those mass nude-landscape works of Public Art and others as are commissioned here and there with scant regard towards that small (minded) minority who might suffer harmless offence by them. a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Sun 4 Jul 10

bex1984 says...

i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man!
i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man! bex1984
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Patmania says...

So Richard Collins rode his cycle naked in public areas, but why was he arrested? The usual charge is "outraging public decency" If the incident happened as reported in the Echo, and there is no reason why I should doubt that, then it was not public decency that was outraged, but that of one prudish individual. So they can't use that. Similarly indecent exposure requires that some aspect of the behaviour must be shown to be lewd, lacivious or obscene. Bang goes that charge then. (Behaviour relates to the manner in which one conducts oneself, and is not affected by what one is or is not wearing at the time).

No, they have resorted to the Public Order Act 1986 which is part of an enormous arsenal of emergency laws rushed in at a time when football hooliganism was probably at it's worst. Under these laws almost anybody can be charged at any time, anywhere with anything at the whim of a Police Officer.

I know a lot of people who think we are living in a nanny state, but mark my words, if you ever really need her, she'll be on leave or out to lunch! No I think we are a lot closer to a Police state than most people realise.
So Richard Collins rode his cycle naked in public areas, but why was he arrested? The usual charge is "outraging public decency" If the incident happened as reported in the Echo, and there is no reason why I should doubt that, then it was not public decency that was outraged, but that of one prudish individual. So they can't use that. Similarly indecent exposure requires that some aspect of the behaviour must be shown to be lewd, lacivious or obscene. Bang goes that charge then. (Behaviour relates to the manner in which one conducts oneself, and is not affected by what one is or is not wearing at the time). No, they have resorted to the Public Order Act 1986 which is part of an enormous arsenal of emergency laws rushed in at a time when football hooliganism was probably at it's worst. Under these laws almost anybody can be charged at any time, anywhere with anything at the whim of a Police Officer. I know a lot of people who think we are living in a nanny state, but mark my words, if you ever really need her, she'll be on leave or out to lunch! No I think we are a lot closer to a Police state than most people realise. Patmania
  • Score: 0

4:35pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Peggy Babcock says...

Chaff-tastic!!!
Chaff-tastic!!! Peggy Babcock
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Sun 4 Jul 10

jinglebell says...

I'm just glad we've got warm weather - and deep joy we still have those amongst us that do the outlandish!
I'm just glad we've got warm weather - and deep joy we still have those amongst us that do the outlandish! jinglebell
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Sun 4 Jul 10

charley farley west parley says...

His body looks like a half inflated tyre. Hasn't he got a pump.
His body looks like a half inflated tyre. Hasn't he got a pump. charley farley west parley
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10

winton50 says...

seriously though - he has got a cheek hasn't he?

:)
seriously though - he has got a cheek hasn't he? :) winton50
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10

winton50 says...

in fact I'd go so far as to say thet the police should get to the bottom of it.
in fact I'd go so far as to say thet the police should get to the bottom of it. winton50
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sun 4 Jul 10

X Old Bill says...

Just a further thought - There is an annual International event called something like 'The World Naked Bike Ride'. Held on the same weekend throughout the world. The last one was a few weeks ago. It is a form of protest/demonstratio
n which originally drew attention to the fact that cyclists are defenceless against the might of the motor vehicles in our cities. I think that 'eco-warriors' have hi-jacked the event in recent years.
In Towns and Cities in the UK the local Police turn out to ensure that the event passes smoothly with minimum disruption (Hants Constabulary in Southampton, Met Police in London, etc).
.
What would happen if someone tried to organise a ride in Bournemouth? The chances are that even if permission were granted then the cell block would be full within five minutes. It's just too easy a target to increase the DNA database that they would not be able to resist it.
Just a further thought - There is an annual International event called something like 'The World Naked Bike Ride'. Held on the same weekend throughout the world. The last one was a few weeks ago. It is a form of protest/demonstratio n which originally drew attention to the fact that cyclists are defenceless against the might of the motor vehicles in our cities. I think that 'eco-warriors' have hi-jacked the event in recent years. In Towns and Cities in the UK the local Police turn out to ensure that the event passes smoothly with minimum disruption (Hants Constabulary in Southampton, Met Police in London, etc). . What would happen if someone tried to organise a ride in Bournemouth? The chances are that even if permission were granted then the cell block would be full within five minutes. It's just too easy a target to increase the DNA database that they would not be able to resist it. X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

7:30pm Sun 4 Jul 10

bretthehe says...

put clothes on its the law wierdo
put clothes on its the law wierdo bretthehe
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Sun 4 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

Waserooski has it summed up pretty well. There’s just too many hate police out there telling everyone else how to live their lives. What could be more harmless than a naked man on a bicycle? Three weeks ago it was World Naked Bike Ride (http://www.worldnak
edbikeride.org/) with UK rides in Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. All facilitated by the local police forces, who control traffic and close roads for hundreds of naked riders (900 in Southampton, 1200 in London, for instance) no one gets arrested. The Policing Pledge of Dorset Police is Integrity, Professionalism, Fairness, and Respect. So they abuse the guy’s Human Rights by unlawfully arresting him, and hold him in the nick for 12 hours, just to make sure he gets some punishment for doing what they don’t like, because hopefully the Crown Prosecution Service is not going to pursue a case where no law has been broken. Dorset Police? What is their problem? Why do they have this institutional bias against public nudity? Why are they such arrogant control freaks? I have to pay their wages. When are they going to stick by that Policing Pledge? They seem incapable of understanding the correct relationship between Master and Servant. Anyone up for organising a Bournemouth Naked Bike Ride? Naturists and cyclists seem to spend much of their time apologising for their lifestyle. This weekend, from 8 to 11 July, it’s Bournemouth Pride Festival. No grovelling there. Personally, I’m on the straight bus, but I’m proud to support diversity and freedom of choice. And all you bigots out there, why not go along? It’s an ideal opportunity to get yourself offended.
Waserooski has it summed up pretty well. There’s just too many hate police out there telling everyone else how to live their lives. What could be more harmless than a naked man on a bicycle? Three weeks ago it was World Naked Bike Ride (http://www.worldnak edbikeride.org/) with UK rides in Brighton, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Sheffield, Southampton, and York. All facilitated by the local police forces, who control traffic and close roads for hundreds of naked riders (900 in Southampton, 1200 in London, for instance) no one gets arrested. The Policing Pledge of Dorset Police is Integrity, Professionalism, Fairness, and Respect. So they abuse the guy’s Human Rights by unlawfully arresting him, and hold him in the nick for 12 hours, just to make sure he gets some punishment for doing what they don’t like, because hopefully the Crown Prosecution Service is not going to pursue a case where no law has been broken. Dorset Police? What is their problem? Why do they have this institutional bias against public nudity? Why are they such arrogant control freaks? I have to pay their wages. When are they going to stick by that Policing Pledge? They seem incapable of understanding the correct relationship between Master and Servant. Anyone up for organising a Bournemouth Naked Bike Ride? Naturists and cyclists seem to spend much of their time apologising for their lifestyle. This weekend, from 8 to 11 July, it’s Bournemouth Pride Festival. No grovelling there. Personally, I’m on the straight bus, but I’m proud to support diversity and freedom of choice. And all you bigots out there, why not go along? It’s an ideal opportunity to get yourself offended. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

7:54pm Sun 4 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

bretthehe wrote:
put clothes on its the law wierdo
Which law would that be? As an academic lawyer I thought I knew them all. Enlighten us Brett.
[quote][p][bold]bretthehe[/bold] wrote: put clothes on its the law wierdo[/p][/quote]Which law would that be? As an academic lawyer I thought I knew them all. Enlighten us Brett. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

7:55pm Sun 4 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

Which law would that be? As an academic lawyer I thought I knew them all. Enlighten us Brett.
Which law would that be? As an academic lawyer I thought I knew them all. Enlighten us Brett. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Sun 4 Jul 10

stewy says...

We have a tandem for sale on ebay good condition needs a good scrubbing, reason for sale - we are both geriatric and incontinent. Saddles are a bit worn they need replacing.
We have a tandem for sale on ebay good condition needs a good scrubbing, reason for sale - we are both geriatric and incontinent. Saddles are a bit worn they need replacing. stewy
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Sun 4 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

bex1984 wrote:
i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man!
they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!!
[quote][p][bold]bex1984[/bold] wrote: i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man![/p][/quote]they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Sun 4 Jul 10

Boscomite says...

bretthehe wrote:
put clothes on its the law wierdo
In the words of Simon and Garfunkle, "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Pay attention Bret.
[quote][p][bold]bretthehe[/bold] wrote: put clothes on its the law wierdo[/p][/quote]In the words of Simon and Garfunkle, "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Pay attention Bret. Boscomite
  • Score: 0

1:03am Mon 5 Jul 10

BritishNaturism says...

I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said.

I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law.

Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults.

One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial!
I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said. I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law. Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults. One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial! BritishNaturism
  • Score: 0

6:30am Mon 5 Jul 10

poole man in france says...

In England and Wales, one can be charged by police with the offence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 when one "causes any wasteful employment of the police" by "knowingly making to any person a false report" which:

* Shows that a criminal offence has been committed,
* Creates apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or
* Indicates that they have information material to any police inquiry.

The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine.

Perhaps the person who made the complaint should be sharged under this law.
In England and Wales, one can be charged by police with the offence under Section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 when one "causes any wasteful employment of the police" by "knowingly making to any person a false report" which: * Shows that a criminal offence has been committed, * Creates apprehension for the safety of any persons or property, or * Indicates that they have information material to any police inquiry. The offence carries a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine. Perhaps the person who made the complaint should be sharged under this law. poole man in france
  • Score: 0

8:46am Mon 5 Jul 10

BernardUK says...

Oh dear, the Dorset Police going after the easiest targets again? Remember when they tried to ruin a nude charity walk on the coast path in 2007? See Echo reports:

http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/archive
/2007/10/28/Local+Ne
ws+(de_local_news)/1
791019.Naked_rambler
_case_is_dropped/
(and comments) and
http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/
news/1806619.Nude_wa
lkers_blame_police/

Their deep prejudice and crass handling of what they call a "complaint" are shown once more. Let us hope the CPS again apply common sense and refuse to prosecute for such a trivial, and completely unthreatening, outing on a bike. After all, we've just had the popular World Naked Bike Rides up and down the country at which police regularly help!
Oh dear, the Dorset Police going after the easiest targets again? Remember when they tried to ruin a nude charity walk on the coast path in 2007? See Echo reports: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/archive /2007/10/28/Local+Ne ws+(de_local_news)/1 791019.Naked_rambler _case_is_dropped/ (and comments) and http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/ news/1806619.Nude_wa lkers_blame_police/ Their deep prejudice and crass handling of what they call a "complaint" are shown once more. Let us hope the CPS again apply common sense and refuse to prosecute for such a trivial, and completely unthreatening, outing on a bike. After all, we've just had the popular World Naked Bike Rides up and down the country at which police regularly help! BernardUK
  • Score: 0

11:22am Mon 5 Jul 10

outlawselfinterest says...

Here's something good that the 40% cutbacks will solve - no more time/resources for the Police (or the courts) to waste on nonsense like this! Leave the guy alone. the noise from ghetto-blasters and their drunken owners is FAR more offensive!
Here's something good that the 40% cutbacks will solve - no more time/resources for the Police (or the courts) to waste on nonsense like this! Leave the guy alone. the noise from ghetto-blasters and their drunken owners is FAR more offensive! outlawselfinterest
  • Score: 0

11:49am Mon 5 Jul 10

Norman Mead says...

What a waste of public resources and money. The case will be dropped, as it simply won't stand up in court.
What a waste of public resources and money. The case will be dropped, as it simply won't stand up in court. Norman Mead
  • Score: 0

11:51am Mon 5 Jul 10

jazziewoo says...

this really made my laugh! A bit too skinny for my liking though - would have been nicer on the eye if younger and hunkier :) (had to laugh at the security word as well - baby-once!!)
this really made my laugh! A bit too skinny for my liking though - would have been nicer on the eye if younger and hunkier :) (had to laugh at the security word as well - baby-once!!) jazziewoo
  • Score: 0

1:41pm Mon 5 Jul 10

likestocomplain says...

Norman Mead wrote:
What a waste of public resources and money. The case will be dropped, as it simply won't stand up in court.
why does he suffer from Impotence? Ha! ha!
[quote][p][bold]Norman Mead[/bold] wrote: What a waste of public resources and money. The case will be dropped, as it simply won't stand up in court.[/p][/quote]why does he suffer from Impotence? Ha! ha! likestocomplain
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 5 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

BritishNaturism wrote:
I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said. I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law. Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults. One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial!
Thre is no right of arrest under the circumstances described in the report. It is only if the accused refuses to cease his his claimedly "disorderly conduct" or resumes it soon thereafter I think you will find BN.
The gentleman had dressed to catch the ferry by the time the Ploicew arrived it is said and thus was no longer "offending". If ever it could be proven that he was!
[quote][p][bold]BritishNaturism[/bold] wrote: I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said. I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law. Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults. One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial![/p][/quote]Thre is no right of arrest under the circumstances described in the report. It is only if the accused refuses to cease his his claimedly "disorderly conduct" or resumes it soon thereafter I think you will find BN. The gentleman had dressed to catch the ferry by the time the Ploicew arrived it is said and thus was no longer "offending". If ever it could be proven that he was! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Mon 5 Jul 10

Jonkers says...

a.g.o.g. wrote:
bex1984 wrote: i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man!
they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!!
Surely he brought his own?!
[quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bex1984[/bold] wrote: i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man![/p][/quote]they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!![/p][/quote]Surely he brought his own?! Jonkers
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Mon 5 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

Jonkers wrote:
a.g.o.g. wrote:
bex1984 wrote: i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man!
they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!!
Surely he brought his own?!
Nahr, that`s a push-bike, not a Harley!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Jonkers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]a.g.o.g.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bex1984[/bold] wrote: i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man![/p][/quote]they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!![/p][/quote]Surely he brought his own?![/p][/quote]Nahr, that`s a push-bike, not a Harley!!!! a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Mon 5 Jul 10

X Old Bill says...

Public Order Act, 1986 Section 5(4):
A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and
(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
So, if the report is wholly accurate, then there was no legal power of arrest under the Act.
Public Order Act, 1986 Section 5(4): A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— (a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and (b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning. So, if the report is wholly accurate, then there was no legal power of arrest under the Act. X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

10:39pm Mon 5 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

X Old Bill wrote:
Public Order Act, 1986 Section 5(4):
A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and
(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
So, if the report is wholly accurate, then there was no legal power of arrest under the Act.
Sorry. But I can't work out how to edit the quote.

The report is correct. I was there. You are basically right, in that there was no power of arrest under POA 1986. But you are not up to speed. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 made all offences arrestable. Cycling naked is, of course, a serious organised crime that threatens the stability of the Western World. Ye Gods! Can you imagine what would happen if people were allowed to go around enjoying their lives without harming other people. Cycling here and there without clothes. Peace might break out. And the oil industry collapse. Do you want that! But as far as I could see there was no power of arrest under SOCPA either and the police response was disproportionate. There is no power of arrest because Richard Collins clearly identified himself and gave his name and address without equivocation, and also readily admitted that he had been cycling naked. There was no useful point in arresting him apart from their need to punish people doing things they don’t like. He could have been sent a summons by post if necessary. I pointed this out to the attending officers. I also gave them a copy of a letter from a Dorset Police Inspector to me, concerning my own harassment for simply being naked, in which he stated that being naked is not threatening abusive insulting or disorderly. At least one of those is required to commit an offence under Section 5 POA 1986. This is truly appalling policing. I was cycling with a friend a few yards behind Richard, in order to monitor comments. I am a bit biased, I admit, but I honestly never heard a bad remark. I saw surprise, laughter, cheers and whoops. The police always quote the effect on children and “elderly people”. Is that as in elderly people like my Mum and Dad who were in WWII and had to deal with people being blown apart? They seemed to cope with nudity no problem. It’s Dorset Police that cause all the trouble. And they don’t mind breaking the law to suit their prejudices and purposes. But what’s the point of complaining here? I shall be making yet another complaint to the Independent (yeah right) Police Complaints Commission. If you don’t like the way this guy has been treated then complain to: complaints&misconduc
t@dorset.pnn.police.
uk. But I know almost no one will do that because they just like moaning to like-minded people and never do anything useful.
[quote][p][bold]X Old Bill[/bold] wrote: Public Order Act, 1986 Section 5(4): A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— (a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and (b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning. So, if the report is wholly accurate, then there was no legal power of arrest under the Act.[/p][/quote]Sorry. But I can't work out how to edit the quote. The report is correct. I was there. You are basically right, in that there was no power of arrest under POA 1986. But you are not up to speed. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 made all offences arrestable. Cycling naked is, of course, a serious organised crime that threatens the stability of the Western World. Ye Gods! Can you imagine what would happen if people were allowed to go around enjoying their lives without harming other people. Cycling here and there without clothes. Peace might break out. And the oil industry collapse. Do you want that! But as far as I could see there was no power of arrest under SOCPA either and the police response was disproportionate. There is no power of arrest because Richard Collins clearly identified himself and gave his name and address without equivocation, and also readily admitted that he had been cycling naked. There was no useful point in arresting him apart from their need to punish people doing things they don’t like. He could have been sent a summons by post if necessary. I pointed this out to the attending officers. I also gave them a copy of a letter from a Dorset Police Inspector to me, concerning my own harassment for simply being naked, in which he stated that being naked is not threatening abusive insulting or disorderly. At least one of those is required to commit an offence under Section 5 POA 1986. This is truly appalling policing. I was cycling with a friend a few yards behind Richard, in order to monitor comments. I am a bit biased, I admit, but I honestly never heard a bad remark. I saw surprise, laughter, cheers and whoops. The police always quote the effect on children and “elderly people”. Is that as in elderly people like my Mum and Dad who were in WWII and had to deal with people being blown apart? They seemed to cope with nudity no problem. It’s Dorset Police that cause all the trouble. And they don’t mind breaking the law to suit their prejudices and purposes. But what’s the point of complaining here? I shall be making yet another complaint to the Independent (yeah right) Police Complaints Commission. If you don’t like the way this guy has been treated then complain to: complaints&misconduc t@dorset.pnn.police. uk. But I know almost no one will do that because they just like moaning to like-minded people and never do anything useful. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Mon 5 Jul 10

X Old Bill says...

I recall that in the past the Press Office at Winfrith monitored this forum.
Are you still there?
Any comments from that quarter?
I recall that in the past the Press Office at Winfrith monitored this forum. Are you still there? Any comments from that quarter? X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

1:10am Tue 6 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

BritishNaturism wrote:
I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said.

I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law.

Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults.

One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial!
Whereas everyone knows who I am, I don’t know who you are at British Naturism. Most people there are sheep. Why are you hiding under the soubriquet of a pig? Are you a police officer? Naturally, like everyone at BN you don’t know what you are talking about. Section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not require intent to shock and offend. I am not aware of any English law that concerns itself with people being offended or shocked. Section 66 requires intent to cause alarm and distress. Those are strong words suggesting fear for one’s personal safety. Annoyance, distaste, or offence are not enough. Yes, of course BN and the Dorset Pigs get on well. They share the view that nudity is only acceptable in their agreed ghettos, such as Studland. Well, there are a lot of people out here who don’t share that view, and don’t need a bunch of ignorant Quislings to represent us. But you live in Somerset or somewhere, don’t you? And have no knowledge of how local naturists see the way Studland is policed. Why would you not recommend to your members that they cycled naked along Bournemouth sea-front? It’s very enjoyable. Apart from July and August between 10.00am and 6.00pm cycling on the prom is perfectly lawful. You do understand the meaning of lawful, don’t you? British Naturism and Dorset Police must be the last bastions of apartheid. Still clinging to the idea that the naturist **** must be segregated from the decent white people. Hey look! I just want my rights. I don’t make the rules. The government says I have a Human Right to choose how I look and dress. I have a right to hold my own beliefs and manifest my beliefs and demonstrate them in public. I have a right to express myself in ways that other people might not like, or find offensive or shocking. That’s the government’s view. It’s mine too. And on top of that being naked in public is not unlawful anywhere. Is that OK with you and Mr Plod, Mr Tamworth from British Naturism fighting hard to defend our naturist rights?
[quote][p][bold]BritishNaturism[/bold] wrote: I'm very pleased to see just how many of the people commenting actually know the law as did the original author. There is no offence of "indecent exposure" as this old law was superseded by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and this, as many have correctly stated, requires intention to shock or offend - not that someone was offended, that is not sufficient, it has to be proved that this was the offender's intention. So Dorset Police are right not to use that law. Sadly they do have section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 available to them as this is a very broad 'catch-all' and this is rightly a matter for concern as others have said. I feel I should come to the defence of Dorset Police as this is the force with which we at British Naturism have such a good relationship over the policing of Studland beach. However, like any force it covers a large area and different divisions will react in different ways, often having to make a snap decision before being able to consult their experts in a particular area of law. Whilst we at British Naturism wouldn't recommend our members to go cycling naked along Bournemouth sea-front and most naturists wouldn't dream of doing so, what harm has he actually done to anyone? It is only ever a very small minority who complain (just one it would seem in this case) and their most common complaint is to say "It doesn't bother me, but think of other people..." Children, if they even notice (the very young often don't) are invariably just amused by it, as are most adults. One person has commented that the police should have just cautioned him. Don't be fooled by the this seemingly benign term - a police caution gives you a criminal record (that will come up on a CRB check) and all without even the opportunity of a trial![/p][/quote]Whereas everyone knows who I am, I don’t know who you are at British Naturism. Most people there are sheep. Why are you hiding under the soubriquet of a pig? Are you a police officer? Naturally, like everyone at BN you don’t know what you are talking about. Section 66 Sexual Offences Act 2003 does not require intent to shock and offend. I am not aware of any English law that concerns itself with people being offended or shocked. Section 66 requires intent to cause alarm and distress. Those are strong words suggesting fear for one’s personal safety. Annoyance, distaste, or offence are not enough. Yes, of course BN and the Dorset Pigs get on well. They share the view that nudity is only acceptable in their agreed ghettos, such as Studland. Well, there are a lot of people out here who don’t share that view, and don’t need a bunch of ignorant Quislings to represent us. But you live in Somerset or somewhere, don’t you? And have no knowledge of how local naturists see the way Studland is policed. Why would you not recommend to your members that they cycled naked along Bournemouth sea-front? It’s very enjoyable. Apart from July and August between 10.00am and 6.00pm cycling on the prom is perfectly lawful. You do understand the meaning of lawful, don’t you? British Naturism and Dorset Police must be the last bastions of apartheid. Still clinging to the idea that the naturist **** must be segregated from the decent white people. Hey look! I just want my rights. I don’t make the rules. The government says I have a Human Right to choose how I look and dress. I have a right to hold my own beliefs and manifest my beliefs and demonstrate them in public. I have a right to express myself in ways that other people might not like, or find offensive or shocking. That’s the government’s view. It’s mine too. And on top of that being naked in public is not unlawful anywhere. Is that OK with you and Mr Plod, Mr Tamworth from British Naturism fighting hard to defend our naturist rights? bobathenat
  • Score: 0

2:38am Tue 6 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

Who was talking about a police state? I can't believe someone found it necessary to censor my nicely alliterative "naturist n*gg*rs" when I used it sympathetically and for ironic effect. What is wrong these days? Political correctness is supposed to increase the acceptance of diversity. But it just seems to create people more intolerant to everything. I've always had this great idea. Leave people alone. People are generally good. I like them. They've never bothered me. All the aggravation in my life has come from government sources. But I don't recall ever asking the government to rule over me. I don't even remember asking BN to make decisions for me.
Who was talking about a police state? I can't believe someone found it necessary to censor my nicely alliterative "naturist n*gg*rs" when I used it sympathetically and for ironic effect. What is wrong these days? Political correctness is supposed to increase the acceptance of diversity. But it just seems to create people more intolerant to everything. I've always had this great idea. Leave people alone. People are generally good. I like them. They've never bothered me. All the aggravation in my life has come from government sources. But I don't recall ever asking the government to rule over me. I don't even remember asking BN to make decisions for me. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

11:00am Tue 6 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

bobathenat wrote:
Who was talking about a police state? I can't believe someone found it necessary to censor my nicely alliterative "naturist n*gg*rs" when I used it sympathetically and for ironic effect. What is wrong these days? Political correctness is supposed to increase the acceptance of diversity. But it just seems to create people more intolerant to everything. I've always had this great idea. Leave people alone. People are generally good. I like them. They've never bothered me. All the aggravation in my life has come from government sources. But I don't recall ever asking the government to rule over me. I don't even remember asking BN to make decisions for me.
Learning from your comments Bob that this was a "staged event" it now comes as no surprise that a "staged response" unfolded down by the ferry.
You are right though in conveying that BN has mis-represented Police powers under the 2003 SOB with it being reserved for acts or threats of a sexual nature which by intent could cause actual harm to another (and not that of mere offence).
Although the prima fascia evidence presented in the report indicates that his claimedly breach of the PO Act had come to a conclusion under the actual circumstances which you describe the Police may have been justified in believing that resumption was just a short ferry-ride away.
Otherwise the mere presence of Studlands more Peninsular parts is more likely to harden Police attitudes than soften them one might think especially with such still being a rarity along even the sunny South Coast of this still more Neuro`(in this respect at least) than Euro` State of (OURS?).
[quote][p][bold]bobathenat[/bold] wrote: Who was talking about a police state? I can't believe someone found it necessary to censor my nicely alliterative "naturist n*gg*rs" when I used it sympathetically and for ironic effect. What is wrong these days? Political correctness is supposed to increase the acceptance of diversity. But it just seems to create people more intolerant to everything. I've always had this great idea. Leave people alone. People are generally good. I like them. They've never bothered me. All the aggravation in my life has come from government sources. But I don't recall ever asking the government to rule over me. I don't even remember asking BN to make decisions for me.[/p][/quote]Learning from your comments Bob that this was a "staged event" it now comes as no surprise that a "staged response" unfolded down by the ferry. You are right though in conveying that BN has mis-represented Police powers under the 2003 SOB with it being reserved for acts or threats of a sexual nature which by intent could cause actual harm to another (and not that of mere offence). Although the prima fascia evidence presented in the report indicates that his claimedly breach of the PO Act had come to a conclusion under the actual circumstances which you describe the Police may have been justified in believing that resumption was just a short ferry-ride away. Otherwise the mere presence of Studlands more Peninsular parts is more likely to harden Police attitudes than soften them one might think especially with such still being a rarity along even the sunny South Coast of this still more Neuro`(in this respect at least) than Euro` State of (OURS?). a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

7:21pm Tue 6 Jul 10

X Old Bill says...

Ah, I see it now! - A set-piece intended to provoke a response, and it did.
So no surprise there then.
In that case the report was not wholly accurate. Materially correct, but missing vital information.
In those circumstances I believe I may also have carried out an arrest, 'to prevent further breach', as we used to say in the old days.
Ah, I see it now! - A set-piece intended to provoke a response, and it did. So no surprise there then. In that case the report was not wholly accurate. Materially correct, but missing vital information. In those circumstances I believe I may also have carried out an arrest, 'to prevent further breach', as we used to say in the old days. X Old Bill
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Tue 6 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

There was nothing particularly staged about it. We were planning to cycle to the ferry, leave our bikes there, and walk to Studland. It was a nice sunny morning and Richard decided to cycle naked to the ferry. He is perfectly lawfully entitled to do that, whatever his reasons. The previous day we had cycled naked to Corfe Castle (a round trip of some 35 miles) without problem. I was sunburnt from that, and decided to keep covered up. It’s about the freedom to choose. As there never was any “breach” there was no further breach to prevent, Old Bill.
There was nothing particularly staged about it. We were planning to cycle to the ferry, leave our bikes there, and walk to Studland. It was a nice sunny morning and Richard decided to cycle naked to the ferry. He is perfectly lawfully entitled to do that, whatever his reasons. The previous day we had cycled naked to Corfe Castle (a round trip of some 35 miles) without problem. I was sunburnt from that, and decided to keep covered up. It’s about the freedom to choose. As there never was any “breach” there was no further breach to prevent, Old Bill. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Tue 6 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

bobathenat wrote:
There was nothing particularly staged about it. We were planning to cycle to the ferry, leave our bikes there, and walk to Studland. It was a nice sunny morning and Richard decided to cycle naked to the ferry. He is perfectly lawfully entitled to do that, whatever his reasons. The previous day we had cycled naked to Corfe Castle (a round trip of some 35 miles) without problem. I was sunburnt from that, and decided to keep covered up. It’s about the freedom to choose. As there never was any “breach” there was no further breach to prevent, Old Bill.
Ignoring XOB Bob, according to report there was a breach under the Public Order Act in that one person out of maybe a thousand or more had made a complaint and left Serving Young Bill with no option but to ply his trade. Quite how such a minority complaint could influence Public Order might be discussed in Court. It ever gets that far!
Otherwise sorry for your first description of that days outing having me jumping the gun perhaps.
[quote][p][bold]bobathenat[/bold] wrote: There was nothing particularly staged about it. We were planning to cycle to the ferry, leave our bikes there, and walk to Studland. It was a nice sunny morning and Richard decided to cycle naked to the ferry. He is perfectly lawfully entitled to do that, whatever his reasons. The previous day we had cycled naked to Corfe Castle (a round trip of some 35 miles) without problem. I was sunburnt from that, and decided to keep covered up. It’s about the freedom to choose. As there never was any “breach” there was no further breach to prevent, Old Bill.[/p][/quote]Ignoring XOB Bob, according to report there was a breach under the Public Order Act in that one person out of maybe a thousand or more had made a complaint and left Serving Young Bill with no option but to ply his trade. Quite how such a minority complaint could influence Public Order might be discussed in Court. It ever gets that far! Otherwise sorry for your first description of that days outing having me jumping the gun perhaps. a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

3:26am Thu 8 Jul 10

Will Golden says...

Of course Richard is unlikely to get a fair trial. Section 5 stipulates that there has to be an INTENT to cause harassment alarm or distress. But the Police these days are not the altruistic coppers of yore. Rather those I have encountered exhibit more bigotry and criminal tendency than the general public.

I was similarly arrested in Portsmouth. The officers lied about the circumstances of my arrest. One of them admitted that his religion disallowed him from seeing people naked, so Sharia Law over-ruled English Law. The other officer's statement regularly included uneducated comments such as "the offense of being naked". They were the real criminals, by way of Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice and False Arrest. But I was fined. I was just leaving hospital at the time of my appeal and could not make it. The Recorder at Portsmouth County Court confirmed to me by phone that I would be given a new trial date and then, within an hour, deviously and maliciously threw out the appeal. The Portsmouth Recorder perverted the course of justice, but I have no recourse.

As long as too many shadow criminals such as the above recorder and two officers work in the law and police in this country just to propagate their prejudices and criminal activities and use the Law to hide behind, people like Richard and I will never get a fair trial.

All this while the naturist lifestyle, where women and children are provenly safer from stalking and abuse than in cloak-and-dagger mainstream society, is outlawed by police and court officer whose mindset is so perverted they cannot see a naked without thinking of sex and obscenity.

Would you trust the police and courts enough to report a crime to them?
Of course Richard is unlikely to get a fair trial. Section 5 stipulates that there has to be an INTENT to cause harassment alarm or distress. But the Police these days are not the altruistic coppers of yore. Rather those I have encountered exhibit more bigotry and criminal tendency than the general public. I was similarly arrested in Portsmouth. The officers lied about the circumstances of my arrest. One of them admitted that his religion disallowed him from seeing people naked, so Sharia Law over-ruled English Law. The other officer's statement regularly included uneducated comments such as "the offense of being naked". They were the real criminals, by way of Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice and False Arrest. But I was fined. I was just leaving hospital at the time of my appeal and could not make it. The Recorder at Portsmouth County Court confirmed to me by phone that I would be given a new trial date and then, within an hour, deviously and maliciously threw out the appeal. The Portsmouth Recorder perverted the course of justice, but I have no recourse. As long as too many shadow criminals such as the above recorder and two officers work in the law and police in this country just to propagate their prejudices and criminal activities and use the Law to hide behind, people like Richard and I will never get a fair trial. All this while the naturist lifestyle, where women and children are provenly safer from stalking and abuse than in cloak-and-dagger mainstream society, is outlawed by police and court officer whose mindset is so perverted they cannot see a naked without thinking of sex and obscenity. Would you trust the police and courts enough to report a crime to them? Will Golden
  • Score: 0

11:18am Thu 8 Jul 10

a.g.o.g. says...

Will Golden wrote:
Of course Richard is unlikely to get a fair trial. Section 5 stipulates that there has to be an INTENT to cause harassment alarm or distress. But the Police these days are not the altruistic coppers of yore. Rather those I have encountered exhibit more bigotry and criminal tendency than the general public. I was similarly arrested in Portsmouth. The officers lied about the circumstances of my arrest. One of them admitted that his religion disallowed him from seeing people naked, so Sharia Law over-ruled English Law. The other officer's statement regularly included uneducated comments such as "the offense of being naked". They were the real criminals, by way of Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice and False Arrest. But I was fined. I was just leaving hospital at the time of my appeal and could not make it. The Recorder at Portsmouth County Court confirmed to me by phone that I would be given a new trial date and then, within an hour, deviously and maliciously threw out the appeal. The Portsmouth Recorder perverted the course of justice, but I have no recourse. As long as too many shadow criminals such as the above recorder and two officers work in the law and police in this country just to propagate their prejudices and criminal activities and use the Law to hide behind, people like Richard and I will never get a fair trial. All this while the naturist lifestyle, where women and children are provenly safer from stalking and abuse than in cloak-and-dagger mainstream society, is outlawed by police and court officer whose mindset is so perverted they cannot see a naked without thinking of sex and obscenity. Would you trust the police and courts enough to report a crime to them?
It is ever likely that those with an axe to grind will choose to live nearer the stone....
[quote][p][bold]Will Golden[/bold] wrote: Of course Richard is unlikely to get a fair trial. Section 5 stipulates that there has to be an INTENT to cause harassment alarm or distress. But the Police these days are not the altruistic coppers of yore. Rather those I have encountered exhibit more bigotry and criminal tendency than the general public. I was similarly arrested in Portsmouth. The officers lied about the circumstances of my arrest. One of them admitted that his religion disallowed him from seeing people naked, so Sharia Law over-ruled English Law. The other officer's statement regularly included uneducated comments such as "the offense of being naked". They were the real criminals, by way of Perjury, Perverting the Course of Justice and False Arrest. But I was fined. I was just leaving hospital at the time of my appeal and could not make it. The Recorder at Portsmouth County Court confirmed to me by phone that I would be given a new trial date and then, within an hour, deviously and maliciously threw out the appeal. The Portsmouth Recorder perverted the course of justice, but I have no recourse. As long as too many shadow criminals such as the above recorder and two officers work in the law and police in this country just to propagate their prejudices and criminal activities and use the Law to hide behind, people like Richard and I will never get a fair trial. All this while the naturist lifestyle, where women and children are provenly safer from stalking and abuse than in cloak-and-dagger mainstream society, is outlawed by police and court officer whose mindset is so perverted they cannot see a naked without thinking of sex and obscenity. Would you trust the police and courts enough to report a crime to them?[/p][/quote]It is ever likely that those with an axe to grind will choose to live nearer the stone.... a.g.o.g.
  • Score: 0

11:24pm Sat 10 Jul 10

bisonstrangler says...

It's no big deal to slip on a pair of shorts, but to do so would rather defeat the point for exhibitionists like these people. They have an urge to expose their genitalia to as many people as possible and are now embarking upon a project to gain legal acceptance for their fetish. They are no longer sufficiently stimulated by showing off their parts to fellow "nudists"; they couldn't give a fig if the rest of us find it offensive or don't want our children to see it. They are exhibitionists, pure and simple, and should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted at every opportunity.
It's no big deal to slip on a pair of shorts, but to do so would rather defeat the point for exhibitionists like these people. They have an urge to expose their genitalia to as many people as possible and are now embarking upon a project to gain legal acceptance for their fetish. They are no longer sufficiently stimulated by showing off their parts to fellow "nudists"; they couldn't give a fig if the rest of us find it offensive or don't want our children to see it. They are exhibitionists, pure and simple, and should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted at every opportunity. bisonstrangler
  • Score: 0

1:11am Tue 13 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

bisonstrangler wrote:
It's no big deal to slip on a pair of shorts, but to do so would rather defeat the point for exhibitionists like these people. They have an urge to expose their genitalia to as many people as possible and are now embarking upon a project to gain legal acceptance for their fetish. They are no longer sufficiently stimulated by showing off their parts to fellow "nudists"; they couldn't give a fig if the rest of us find it offensive or don't want our children to see it. They are exhibitionists, pure and simple, and should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted at every opportunity.
Oh dear! Of all the rags in all the towns in all the world, Brutus (one of his many aliases, by which we know him best) has to walk into this one. No one is embarking on a project to gain legal acceptance for a fetish. Because it's not a fetish, and it's not illegal in the first place. This guy is a troll. He is very well-known in naturist circles. And other areas where he can cause disruption. He has been banned from more sites than he has joined. He is a serving police officer, with, ahem, a truncheon problem, and doesn't want his wife to spot his shortcomings. He is very clever with half-truths and quasi-legal pronouncements (such as no longer sufficiently stimulated etc). And as a qualified lawyer I can appreciate his talent for distorting the truth to his own ends. If you look carefully at his response to this post you will surely see what I mean. Or maybe not. He is very good. Especially with the feeble minds you mostly find on vox pop.
[quote][p][bold]bisonstrangler[/bold] wrote: It's no big deal to slip on a pair of shorts, but to do so would rather defeat the point for exhibitionists like these people. They have an urge to expose their genitalia to as many people as possible and are now embarking upon a project to gain legal acceptance for their fetish. They are no longer sufficiently stimulated by showing off their parts to fellow "nudists"; they couldn't give a fig if the rest of us find it offensive or don't want our children to see it. They are exhibitionists, pure and simple, and should be arrested, prosecuted and convicted at every opportunity.[/p][/quote]Oh dear! Of all the rags in all the towns in all the world, Brutus (one of his many aliases, by which we know him best) has to walk into this one. No one is embarking on a project to gain legal acceptance for a fetish. Because it's not a fetish, and it's not illegal in the first place. This guy is a troll. He is very well-known in naturist circles. And other areas where he can cause disruption. He has been banned from more sites than he has joined. He is a serving police officer, with, ahem, a truncheon problem, and doesn't want his wife to spot his shortcomings. He is very clever with half-truths and quasi-legal pronouncements (such as no longer sufficiently stimulated etc). And as a qualified lawyer I can appreciate his talent for distorting the truth to his own ends. If you look carefully at his response to this post you will surely see what I mean. Or maybe not. He is very good. Especially with the feeble minds you mostly find on vox pop. bobathenat
  • Score: 0

7:26pm Thu 15 Jul 10

naturalmike says...

I think the vast majority of the comments are in support of Richard and I am too.. Dorset police consider THIS.. WHY is it ok for hundreds of people to cycle,skate and jog naked through London, Southampton, Brighton, York and Manchester in June with FULL police approval, indeed policemen and women happily posing(clothed!) with some naked cyclists, (google, world naked bike ride)and suddenly its an offence for 1 person to cycle naked along the seafront in Bournemouth? There is no offence committed and The Inspector who signed the charge sheet should not be wasting public money, go and catch some burglars! Richard has a case for wrongful arrest esp as he was clothed at the time of the arrest and he will be able to claim compensation, which should come out of the arresting officer's salary!
No-one of any age, sex or staus has ever been harmed by seeing another person without clothes, maybe offended, but we do NOT have a right to NOT be offended!
I think the vast majority of the comments are in support of Richard and I am too.. Dorset police consider THIS.. WHY is it ok for hundreds of people to cycle,skate and jog naked through London, Southampton, Brighton, York and Manchester in June with FULL police approval, indeed policemen and women happily posing(clothed!) with some naked cyclists, (google, world naked bike ride)and suddenly its an offence for 1 person to cycle naked along the seafront in Bournemouth? There is no offence committed and The Inspector who signed the charge sheet should not be wasting public money, go and catch some burglars! Richard has a case for wrongful arrest esp as he was clothed at the time of the arrest and he will be able to claim compensation, which should come out of the arresting officer's salary! No-one of any age, sex or staus has ever been harmed by seeing another person without clothes, maybe offended, but we do NOT have a right to NOT be offended! naturalmike
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Wed 21 Jul 10

bisonstrangler says...

Clearly the police, and the CPS lawyers, consider that Mr Collins is worth charging with a criminal offence, even if the self-proclaimed lawyer, bobthenat, has the timerity to disagree.

But thanks for telling me that I am a serving police officer. I thought I was an English teacher, but I guess you know best.
Clearly the police, and the CPS lawyers, consider that Mr Collins is worth charging with a criminal offence, even if the self-proclaimed lawyer, bobthenat, has the timerity to disagree. But thanks for telling me that I am a serving police officer. I thought I was an English teacher, but I guess you know best. bisonstrangler
  • Score: 0

12:02am Thu 22 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

bisonstrangler wrote:
Clearly the police, and the CPS lawyers, consider that Mr Collins is worth charging with a criminal offence, even if the self-proclaimed lawyer, bobthenat, has the timerity to disagree.

But thanks for telling me that I am a serving police officer. I thought I was an English teacher, but I guess you know best.
Well, there you go, exactly as predicted.

Stuart, why don't you try to get a life?
[quote][p][bold]bisonstrangler[/bold] wrote: Clearly the police, and the CPS lawyers, consider that Mr Collins is worth charging with a criminal offence, even if the self-proclaimed lawyer, bobthenat, has the timerity to disagree. But thanks for telling me that I am a serving police officer. I thought I was an English teacher, but I guess you know best.[/p][/quote]Well, there you go, exactly as predicted. Stuart, why don't you try to get a life? bobathenat
  • Score: 0

12:03am Thu 22 Jul 10

bobathenat says...

Well, there you go, exactly as predicted.

Stuart, why don't you try to get a life?
Well, there you go, exactly as predicted. Stuart, why don't you try to get a life? bobathenat
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree