No ‘butts’ as nude cyclist is arrested after riding through Bournemouth and Poole (From Bournemouth Echo)
When news happens text pix and video to 80360. Start your message with BE then leave a space.
No ‘butts’ as nude cyclist is arrested after riding through Bournemouth and Poole
4:00pm Saturday 3rd July 2010 in News By Juliette Astrup
QUITE A CHEEK: Naked bike rider Richard Collins, who was arrested by police
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)
twynham
says...
5:12pm Sat 3 Jul 10
ski
says...
5:23pm Sat 3 Jul 10
Skatha
says...
5:49pm Sat 3 Jul 10
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!!
contric
says...
5:58pm Sat 3 Jul 10
Boscomite
says...
6:11pm Sat 3 Jul 10
Mike Pickering
says...
6:19pm Sat 3 Jul 10
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.
mta
says...
6:21pm Sat 3 Jul 10
X Old Bill
says...
7:41pm Sat 3 Jul 10
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.
Bormuf Boy
says...
9:09pm Sat 3 Jul 10
chunk_vanman
says...
9:10pm Sat 3 Jul 10
High Treason
says...
9:10pm Sat 3 Jul 10
contric wrote:I suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun.
3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a stroke
sussexcherry
says...
10:30pm Sat 3 Jul 10
High Treason wrote:I heard that two had a stroke and the other one missed!!
contric wrote: 3 nuns were sat down along the prom when he cycled past and stopped by them 2 fainted and one had a strokeI suppose the 2 nuns that fainted were shocked at seeing the other nun have a stroke. Well she would, probaly never had nun.
boracay
says...
11:17pm Sat 3 Jul 10
s-pb2
says...
11:42pm Sat 3 Jul 10
PigWhistle0709
says...
12:07am Sun 4 Jul 10
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?
9988776655
says...
12:08am Sun 4 Jul 10
zagzig
says...
12:15am Sun 4 Jul 10
waserooski
says...
1:09am Sun 4 Jul 10
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.
Ziggy starburst
says...
5:28am Sun 4 Jul 10
9988776655 wrote: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.
any excuse to lock a cyclist up, that's what it seems like in Bournemouth.
EGHH
says...
6:58am Sun 4 Jul 10
liliana
says...
7:15am Sun 4 Jul 10
ski
says...
11:16am Sun 4 Jul 10
liliana wrote:No,Not if it was a saggy baggy one with Ti.ts down to the knees,otherwise yep!!
If it were a female the response would be entirely different.
mta
says...
11:35am Sun 4 Jul 10
Adrian XX
says...
12:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10
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?
Seafrontpatroller
says...
12:32pm Sun 4 Jul 10
EGHH wrote: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!
I bet he was the only cyclist in Bournemouth / Poole that obeyed traffic regulations e.g stopping at red lights etc.!
Corrupto
says...
12:44pm Sun 4 Jul 10
KLH
says...
2:15pm Sun 4 Jul 10
twobigdogs
says...
2:32pm Sun 4 Jul 10
Kieran/Kaz
says...
3:29pm Sun 4 Jul 10
twobigdogs
says...
3:50pm Sun 4 Jul 10
a.g.o.g.
says...
4:13pm Sun 4 Jul 10
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.
bex1984
says...
4:22pm Sun 4 Jul 10
Patmania
says...
4:26pm Sun 4 Jul 10
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.
Peggy Babcock
says...
4:35pm Sun 4 Jul 10
jinglebell
says...
5:15pm Sun 4 Jul 10
charley farley west parley
says...
5:52pm Sun 4 Jul 10
winton50
says...
7:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10
:)
winton50
says...
7:18pm Sun 4 Jul 10
X Old Bill
says...
7:22pm Sun 4 Jul 10
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.
bretthehe
says...
7:30pm Sun 4 Jul 10
bobathenat
says...
7:35pm Sun 4 Jul 10
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
says...
7:54pm Sun 4 Jul 10
bretthehe wrote:Which law would that be? As an academic lawyer I thought I knew them all. Enlighten us Brett.
put clothes on its the law wierdo
bobathenat
says...
7:55pm Sun 4 Jul 10
stewy
says...
8:42pm Sun 4 Jul 10
a.g.o.g.
says...
9:43pm Sun 4 Jul 10
bex1984 wrote:they`de have brought in the choppers if he were!!
i think this is funny. lighten up people! have a giggle! shame he wasnt a hunky younger man!
Boscomite
says...
10:56pm Sun 4 Jul 10
bretthehe wrote:In the words of Simon and Garfunkle, "Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". Pay attention Bret.
put clothes on its the law wierdo
BritishNaturism
says...
1:03am Mon 5 Jul 10
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!
poole man in france
says...
6:30am Mon 5 Jul 10
* 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.
BernardUK
says...
8:46am Mon 5 Jul 10
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!
outlawselfinterest
says...
11:22am Mon 5 Jul 10
Norman Mead
says...
11:49am Mon 5 Jul 10
jazziewoo
says...
11:51am Mon 5 Jul 10
likestocomplain
says...
1:41pm Mon 5 Jul 10
Norman Mead wrote:why does he suffer from Impotence? Ha! ha!
What a waste of public resources and money. The case will be dropped, as it simply won't stand up in court.
a.g.o.g.
says...
1:43pm Mon 5 Jul 10
BritishNaturism wrote: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.
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!
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!
Jonkers
says...
2:33pm Mon 5 Jul 10
a.g.o.g. wrote:Surely he brought his own?!
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!!
a.g.o.g.
says...
5:57pm Mon 5 Jul 10
Jonkers wrote:Nahr, that`s a push-bike, not a Harley!!!!
a.g.o.g. wrote:Surely he brought his own?!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!!
X Old Bill
says...
8:09pm Mon 5 Jul 10
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.
bobathenat
says...
10:39pm Mon 5 Jul 10
X Old Bill wrote:Sorry. But I can't work out how to edit the quote.
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.
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.
X Old Bill
says...
11:24pm Mon 5 Jul 10
Are you still there?
Any comments from that quarter?
bobathenat
says...
1:10am Tue 6 Jul 10
BritishNaturism wrote: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?
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!
bobathenat
says...
2:38am Tue 6 Jul 10
a.g.o.g.
says...
11:00am Tue 6 Jul 10
bobathenat wrote: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.
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.
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?).
X Old Bill
says...
7:21pm Tue 6 Jul 10
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.
bobathenat
says...
10:22pm Tue 6 Jul 10
a.g.o.g.
says...
11:04pm Tue 6 Jul 10
bobathenat wrote: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!
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.
Otherwise sorry for your first description of that days outing having me jumping the gun perhaps.
Will Golden
says...
3:26am Thu 8 Jul 10
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?
a.g.o.g.
says...
11:18am Thu 8 Jul 10
Will Golden wrote:It is ever likely that those with an axe to grind will choose to live nearer the stone....
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?
bisonstrangler
says...
11:24pm Sat 10 Jul 10
bobathenat
says...
1:11am Tue 13 Jul 10
bisonstrangler wrote: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.
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.
naturalmike
says...
7:26pm Thu 15 Jul 10
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!
bisonstrangler
says...
4:59pm Wed 21 Jul 10
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.
bobathenat
says...
12:02am Thu 22 Jul 10
bisonstrangler wrote:Well, there you go, exactly as predicted.
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.
Stuart, why don't you try to get a life?
bobathenat
says...
12:03am Thu 22 Jul 10
Stuart, why don't you try to get a life?
Huey says...
4:31pm Sat 3 Jul 10