This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.
| 29 Sep 09, 1:05 PM Sharp_as_Ice 2 yrs  |
Indeed, I think the police would act ( if they so desired ) on the basis of 'an accident waiting to happen'. Yes, the body-painted staff were working at a private event - I just completely failed to notice they were starkers. I did wonder whether the caterers excluded the men from serving the soup course though...might have ended up with more than a thumb in it.
So cool it hurts... | ||
| 29 Sep 09, 1:10 PM Backdooruk UK(BA), 12 yrs  |
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 creates the offense of exposure to replace 'indecent exposure', but it only refers to intentional exposure of genitals to cause alarm or distress, not to general nudity: The Naked rambler, for example, has generally been charged with breach of the peace for public nudity. - Chris Vivez sans temps mort | ||
| 29 Sep 09, 8:23 PM Maguire UK, 4 yrs |
Toak.. Admit it. You posted that no-brainer for badness, didn't you? Subtle trolling. Just to see who was soft enough to reply.... it's a WAH! You already know the answers. Let Them Hate Me | ||
| 1 Oct 09, 12:40 AM AstronautMikeDexter UK(E), 2 yrs |
Ah but the exposure passage of the Sexual Offences Act is deliberately worded to exempt specific situations (topless beaches) from falling under it's remit. So after a fashion it does cover more than just exposure meant to cause alarm or distress. As for the Naked rambler: He was taken into custody twice in England but released without charge. Most of his arrests and his only charges and convictions were in Scotland and the Sexual Offences Act 2003 only applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is no seperate crime of indecent exposure in Scotland, inappropriate public nudity is covered under the breach of the peace legislation. He has only been convicted of breach of the peace three times and one of those was overturned. The vast majority of his jail time has been for contempt of court for appearing naked. --- Ha! Edited 1 Oct 09, 11:47 AM by AstronautMikeDexter | ||
| 1 Oct 09, 11:44 AM mq1965 UK(DA), 8 yrs |
The only legal reference in English law to "public decency" as far as I am aware is the common law offence of "outraging public decency". However there is no really simple and clear definition of this. A little googling brings up a couple of law reports that make reference to the definition of outraging public decency, and you will see (if you can be bothered to follow the links) that it covers quite a wide range of possible acts. Just doing a bit of searching on old threads, and I see there have been a few discussions about the nature of public sex with regard to indecency. Unfortunately I don't think there is any simple answer. This law is one of those which really basically says that something is illegal if a judge, magistrate or jury think it should be. | ||
| 2 Dec 09, 10:14 PM aspiejon UK, 5 yrs |
It is 'illegal' if you have signed a contract stating that you would not do it. And it is not 'unlawful' unless loss or injury (non consenting injury) with intent resulted from your actions.
|
