Pin the man on the willy
Susan Hassett
the current issue of 'Best', so I bought the magazine.
Along with "My secret lover was my brother" and "Eat yourself slim", the
article is mentioned on the front cover as "Help! My mum and dad have
become nudists".
The article concentrates on the difference of opinion between Micaela and
her son - she's naturist, he thinks it's disgusting. Micaela gives her
point of view first. She states how naturism isn't about sex, it's all
about freedom and acceptance. Nobody cares if you've put on weight or got
cellulite etc etc, all the usual stuff. She tells how she became a naturist
and eventually joined Broadlands. There she and her husband made lots of
friends, enjoyed the outdoor life, coffee mornings, barbecues. It all
sounds very normal and boring, bog-standard everyday life doesn't it?
Obviously she and/or the reporter thought the same because next a party is
mentioned where they played (titter chortle) 'pin the willy on the man' -
and suddenly we're into the realms of Ann Summers parties.
I cringed. Yes, I know this game gets played at club parties - but why did
she have to mention it? It takes naturism down into the "nudge nudge, wink
wink, Carry On" area. The average Best reader, on seeing the article, is
probably thinking "She said naturism wasn't about sex, yet here they are
playing with willies! Who's she kidding?".
CCBN didn't get a mention, but perhaps that's for the 'Best'.
Susan
Stephen Doerr
news:amhsmm$mht$1...@knossos.btinternet.com:
> Obviously she and/or the reporter thought the same because
> next a party is mentioned where they played (titter
> chortle) 'pin the willy on the man' - and suddenly we're
> into the realms of Ann Summers parties.
>
> I cringed. Yes, I know this game gets played at club
> parties
It's a new one on me. Perhaps I should suggest it for a
forthcoming Naturist Foundation social. Is there a more advanced
form called 'pin the clitoris on the woman'? That could be
embarrassing even without blindfolds!
--
Steve
David C
<susan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Obviously she and/or the reporter thought the same because next a party is
>mentioned where they played (titter chortle) 'pin the willy on the man' -
>and suddenly we're into the realms of Ann Summers parties.
>
What, please, is "pin the willy on the man" apart from painful?
--
+-----------------------------+
| David C, |
| Central Somerset, UK. |
| |
| <da...@dapc.freeuk.com> |
+-----------------------------+
J.L.E
"David C" <da...@see.signature.uk> wrote in message
news:0vhpoug0l8erjsuqh...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 13:37:28 +0000 (UTC), "Susan Hassett"
> <susan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Obviously she and/or the reporter thought the same because next a
party is
> >mentioned where they played (titter chortle) 'pin the willy on the
man' -
> >and suddenly we're into the realms of Ann Summers parties.
> >
> What, please, is "pin the willy on the man" apart from painful?
>
<assuming you're question was serious..... >
I would think an adult version of the kids game 'Pin the tail on the
donkey' !
--
If replying by E-mail, mind the Spam trap.
David C
<sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
>"David C" <da...@see.signature.uk> wrote in message
>news:0vhpoug0l8erjsuqh...@4ax.com...
>> What, please, is "pin the willy on the man" apart from painful?
>>
>
><assuming you're question was serious..... >
>
>I would think an adult version of the kids game 'Pin the tail on the
>donkey' !
Yes, the question was serious. I see what you mean, but it seems to be
in rather poor taste. Can anyone else confirm your suppositions?
AndyC
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:57:37 +0100, "J.L.E"
> <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote:
> >
> >I would think an adult version of the kids game 'Pin the tail on the
> >donkey' !
>
> Yes, the question was serious. I see what you mean, but it seems to be
> in rather poor taste. Can anyone else confirm your suppositions?
It is only an "adult" game if you consider a mans penis to be any ruder than
any other part of the body and therefore not to be seen by, or mentioned by
children.
Why poor taste? What's the difference between one part of the anatomy to
another (naturisticly speaking). It seems like a perfectly acceptable
variation of "pin the tail on the donkey".
--
Andy
http://www.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk/
Note spamblock in header
J.L.E
"AndyC" <an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:amkqfh$hal$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Try telling that to Social workers etc....
I can just see the reaction of the 'do gooders' on seeing that little
Sally has pined the part of the anatomy in question to a certain part
of the face or posterior !
David C
<an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"David C" <da...@see.signature.uk> wrote in message
>news:2rfrou4g2bhjtu4pr...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 21:57:37 +0100, "J.L.E"
>> <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote:
>>>I would think an adult version of the kids game 'Pin the tail
>>>on the donkey' !
>>Yes, the question was serious. I see what you mean, but it
>>seems to be in rather poor taste. Can anyone else confirm your
>>suppositions?
>It is only an "adult" game if you consider a mans penis to be
>any ruder than any other part of the body and therefore not to
>be seen by, or mentioned by children.
I didn't say anything about it being rude. Poor taste doesn't
necessarily imply rude.
>Why poor taste? What's the difference between one part of the
>anatomy to another (naturisticly speaking). It seems like a
>perfectly acceptable variation of "pin the tail on the donkey".
Not all parts of the body are equivalent. If we were introduced we might
shake hands, but we would not shake each other's penises I hope!
I guess I feel that the game is being deliberately provocative and shows
a lack of respect for that part of the body. Susan's post at the start
of this thread said:
>Obviously she and/or the reporter thought the same because next
>a party is mentioned where they played (titter chortle) 'pin
>the willy on the man' - and suddenly we're into the realms of
>Ann Summers parties.
That's not the sort of reaction we want from the textile masses. We want
to demonstrate that we're not embarrassed about any part of our bodies,
but pinning the willy on the man isn't, IMO, a good way to go about it.
Susan Hassett
> Yes, the question was serious. I see what you mean, but it seems to be
> in rather poor taste. Can anyone else confirm your suppositions?
>
> --
> +-----------------------------+
> | David C, |
> | Central Somerset, UK. |
> | |
> | <da...@dapc.freeuk.com> |
> +-----------------------------+
Yes, that's the one. I've seen it played at a club and heard that it's
played at Ann Summers parties. I can't definitely confirm the latter
because I haven't been to one for years - to my mind it's a bit like going
to Tupperware parties, you only need so many plastic boxes, then you don't
bother going any more!
Susan
SteveG
"J.L.E" <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote in message
news:uos43a3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Try telling that to Social workers etc....
> I can just see the reaction of the 'do gooders' on seeing that little
> Sally has pined the part of the anatomy in question to a certain part
> of the face or posterior !
I think it has been said before it would be an adult game although in poor
taste, so little Sally would not get to play.
Surely naturists can think up better ways to pass the time.
Do those of you who play use a real man and a long pin?
SteveG
J.L.E
"SteveG" <Ste...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aml5og$6ps0g$1...@ID-124066.news.dfncis.de...
Well if you must snip the context......
Did you not read AndyC's post ?
AndyC
> I can just see the reaction of the 'do gooders' on seeing that little
> Sally has pined the part of the anatomy in question to a certain part
> of the face or posterior !
It seems that you have the ability to view the most innocent of activities
with sexual overtones.
marc
> Not all parts of the body are equivalent. If we were introduced we might
> shake hands, but we would not shake each other's penises I hope!
I remember from somewhere that some tribe does. The ultimate in trust!
--
Marc
T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners,
signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and associations of all types
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
David C
<susan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David C" <da...@see.signature.uk> wrote in message
>news:2rfrou4g2bhjtu4pr...@4ax.com...
>
>>Yes, the question was serious. I see what you mean, but it
>>seems to be in rather poor taste. Can anyone else confirm your
>>suppositions?
>
>Yes, that's the one. I've seen it played at a club and heard
>that it's played at Ann Summers parties. I can't definitely
>confirm the latter because I haven't been to one for years - to
>my mind it's a bit like going to Tupperware parties, you only
>need so many plastic boxes, then you don't bother going any
>more!
But plastic boxes wear out with frequent use, surely? ;-)
J.L.E
>
> "J.L.E" <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote in message
> news:uos43a3...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Try telling that to Social workers etc....
> > I can just see the reaction of the 'do gooders' on seeing that
little
> > Sally has pined the part of the anatomy in question to a certain
part
> > of the face or posterior !
>
> It seems that you have the ability to view the most innocent of
activities
> with sexual overtones.
>
No, society does, they equate nudity and certain parts of the body as
nothing but sexual - hence the public decency laws and suggestions
such as Rec 54 etc. There are even grandfathers who now refuse to bath
(or even be in or near the bathroom) their young grandchildren due to
the possibility of their actions being viewed as possible evidence of
sex abuse if the grandchild happens to mention being in the bathroom
with grand-dad etc.
There are male teachers who will not work in infant & junior schools,
and if they do they will not be in the room alone with children, the
scouting movement has had to take precautions to protect there
'leaders' as has others - even the CCBN....
I really do think you should try living in the world everyone else
does Andy, rather than your own...
AndyC
There are even grandfathers who now refuse to bath
> (or even be in or near the bathroom) their young grandchildren due to
> the possibility of their actions being viewed as possible evidence of
> sex abuse if the grandchild happens to mention being in the bathroom
> with grand-dad etc.
>
> There are male teachers who will not work in infant & junior schools,
> and if they do they will not be in the room alone with children, the
> scouting movement has had to take precautions to protect there
> 'leaders' as has others - even the CCBN....
>
>
> I really do think you should try living in the world everyone else
> does Andy, rather than your own...
From the sound of it, I really don't want to live in *your* world
thank-you-very-much.
J.L.E
It may come as a shock to you Andy but - you are, that is, unless
you're posting from Mars.....
AndyC
>
> It may come as a shock to you Andy but - you are, that is, unless
> you're posting from Mars.....
To just expand a little on this, those scenarios that you describe about
grandparents not washing their children and teachers too afraid to work with
kids are all part of the psyche of a society that finds it difficult to
accept the naturist way of life. These people would perhaps consider images
of children without clothing as "child pornography", and an adult being
naked in the presence of children as immoral - perhaps even a form of abuse.
I do not deny that there are those in this world that support these ideals
but I really have no desire to live in *their* world. Neither would any
self-respecting naturist.
J.L.E
"Anthony Evans" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lq50pucmkudr1fq3h...@4ax.com...
>
Just as you are Ant' - just as you are....
J.L.E
Well sad to say, that is what has happened to British society over the
last 20 years or so and, unless you move to a country that hasn't
become so paranoid, you and every naturist is subject to that
paranoia. :~(
So Andy, you seem to have three choices if you don't want to have your
life influenced by the British 'psyche' - either shoot yourself, move
abroad or build a spacecraft and indeed go to Mars !
Now, how much was that apartment at Costa Nature ?....
Michael Berridge
AndyC wrote in message ...
.....
>
>To just expand a little on this, those scenarios that you describe
about
>grandparents not washing their children and teachers too afraid to work
with
>kids are all part of the psyche of a society that finds it difficult to
>accept the naturist way of life. These people would perhaps consider
images
>of children without clothing as "child pornography", and an adult being
>naked in the presence of children as immoral - perhaps even a form of
abuse.
>
>I do not deny that there are those in this world that support these
ideals
>but I really have no desire to live in *their* world. Neither would any
>self-respecting naturist.
>--
to the fact that his ex wife, and it was an acrimonious split, ahs
already made accusations of his activities with their daughter, to the
extent that he is worried about even giving her a bath when he has her
to stay. (the girl is about 5 now). All the accusations against him have
been dismissed by the authorities, but he just is not prepared to give
her any more ammunition.
Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk
AndyC
>
> Well sad to say, that is what has happened to British society over the
> last 20 years or so and, unless you move to a country that hasn't
> become so paranoid, you and every naturist is subject to that
> paranoia.
Subject to it perhaps, but not supporting it or being part of it but simply
refusing to be intimidated by it.
> So Andy, you seem to have three choices if you don't want to have your
> life influenced by the British 'psyche' - either shoot yourself, move
> abroad or build a spacecraft and indeed go to Mars !
There is the fourth option which is to remain indifferent to the idiocracy.
It is not compulsory to follow the current trend.
As GBS said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
> Now, how much was that apartment at Costa Nature ?....
There's too much work to be done here to run off just yet.
J.L.E
>
<snip>
>
> As GBS said "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the
> unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore
> all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>
One could deduce from that, Andy, that you are one of those
'unreasonable' men, seeing that you are always trying to get 'Jo
Public' to accept what they might not want to accept !.. :~)
AndyC
>
> One could deduce from that, Andy, that you are one of those
> 'unreasonable' men, seeing that you are always trying to get 'Jo
> Public' to accept what they might not want to accept !.. :~)
It's more important (for me anyway) to live life following what I believe
in, as opposed to clinging to transient trends.
I will therefore continue to be "unreasonable" by questioning the virtues of
commonly held beliefs and by questioning whether those beliefs are in fact
commonly held.
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
>
> I will therefore continue to be "unreasonable" by
> questioning the virtues of commonly held beliefs
> and by questioning whether those beliefs are in fact
> commonly held.
Any chance of some answers to this continued questionning?
Preferably presented with a suitably detailed analysis of the
answers broken down by sex, age, etc, and demonstrating that the
answers came from a sufficiently large number of respondents who
were broadly representative of the public?
--
Tim Forcer t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
The University of Southampton, UK
The University is not responsible for my opinions
AndyC
"Tim Forcer" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3D91B25A...@ecs.soton.ac.uk...
>
> Any chance of some answers to this continued questionning?
Questioning is an ongoing process, as soon as you have the answers the
questioning stops.
> Preferably presented with a suitably detailed analysis of the
> answers broken down by sex, age, etc, and demonstrating that the
> answers came from a sufficiently large number of respondents who
> were broadly representative of the public?
This was what the opinion poll was about. Surprise was felt by the
naturists, many of whom were astounded by the results.
Personal experience tells a similar tale, but opinion poll results help to
convince those that think they know all the answers.
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>>
>> Any chance of some answers to this continued
>> questionning?
>
> Questioning is an ongoing process, as soon as
> you have the answers the questioning stops.
Or change the questions, or move on to supplementaries.
>> Preferably presented with a suitably detailed
>> analysis of the answers broken down by sex,
>> age, etc, and demonstrating that the
>> answers came from a sufficiently large number
>> of respondents who were broadly representative
>> of the public?
>
> This was what the opinion poll was about. Surprise
> was felt by the naturists, many of whom were
> astounded by the results.
Errm, which naturists expressed surprise?
> Personal experience tells a similar tale, but
> opinion poll results help to convince those that
> think they know all the answers.
Since the NOP results showed a substantial majority opposed to
legal nudity in public parks, perhaps AndyC will now be
convinced that this is the answer to the question on what most
people think about nudity in public parks?
AndyC
>
> Since the NOP results showed a substantial majority opposed to
> legal nudity in public parks, perhaps AndyC will now be
> convinced that this is the answer to the question on what most
> people think about nudity in public parks?
Most people (I would imagine) have never encountered nudity in public parks
(apart from very young children in paddling pools). Human nature as it is,
makes it difficult for us to accept what we are not accustomed to. That
being the case, it is not surprising that the results of the poll show that
nudity in parks is not accepted by the majority.
However, when faced with a real life situation, I wonder how many of those
who might have opposed it in a poll would shift toward acceptence after
witnessing it and having time to consider the reasons for their initial
fears and prejudice. There are those that will argue the opposite but unless
we actually get out there and do it we will never know for certain.
Unfortunately acceptence and legal protection will only come as a result the
public seeing that naturism is harmless. For the meanwhile, the poll results
show that we need to exercise caution while naked in a public park. I guess
now we can debate this until about April next year when it might be warm
enough to start testing the public reaction again.
AndyC
> AndyC wrote:
Surprise
> > was felt by the naturists, many of whom were
> > astounded by the results.
>
> Errm, which naturists expressed surprise?
The ones that feel a need for secrecy.
Those that are open about their naturism were obviously more aware of the
level of acceptance that exists anyway and therefore not surprised.
SteveG
>
> "Tim Forcer" <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3D91D83E...@ecs.soton.ac.uk...
> > AndyC wrote:
> Those that are open about their naturism were obviously more aware of the
> level of acceptance that exists anyway and therefore not surprised.
This could be you Andy, a friend sent me an email about this case.
A painter and decorator has been jailed in Edinburgh today on two indecency
charges strippng of in two Edinburgh parks. The sheriff said he had a
previous record for such offences and had no alternative except to send him
to jail for 60 days.
> Andy
J.L.E
>
<snip>
>
> Unfortunately acceptence and legal protection will only come as a
result the
> public seeing that naturism is harmless. For the meanwhile, the poll
results
> show that we need to exercise caution while naked in a public park.
I guess
> now we can debate this until about April next year when it might be
warm
> enough to start testing the public reaction again.
> --
Some drivers have tried that approach over speed limits (or any number
of other driving laws), it doesn't change a dammed thing. If it does,
it normally changes things the wrong way (i.e. speed limits are
dropping rather than rising). Not to mention those caught ending up
before the courts...
Stephen Doerr
@ecs.soton.ac.uk:
> AndyC wrote:
>> This was what the opinion poll was about. Surprise
>> was felt by the naturists, many of whom were
>> astounded by the results.
> Errm, which naturists expressed surprise?
I'm happy to admit that I was surprised by some of the results
of the opinion poll.
--
Steve
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>>
>> majority opposed to legal nudity in public
>> parks, perhaps AndyC will now be convinced
>> that this is the answer to the question on
>> what most people think about nudity in public
>> parks?
>
> Most people (I would imagine) have never
> encountered nudity in public parks (apart
> from very young children in paddling pools).
> Human nature as it is, makes it difficult
> for us to accept what we are not accustomed
> to. That being the case, it is not surprising
> that the results of the poll show that nudity
> in parks is not accepted by the majority.
This reasonable argument falls flat on its face when confronted
with the substantial majority in the survey who APPROVED
legality of back-garden nudity. Unless, of course, AndyC can
show that most people HAVE encountered back garden nudity.
IMO the survey showed that public attitudes to naturism are
still some way short of what I would wish them to be and what
AndyC thinks they are. OTOH, the survey also showed that those
attitudes are a LOT more accepting of naturism and naturists
than many had claimed - and in that respect I accept that AndyC
was right to say that the results surprised naturists. In
particular, I think the survey results should help those
wavering over whether they should "admit" to their naturism, or
"acknowledge" / "declare" it (see thread "Star Trek admits").
AndyC
>
> This could be you Andy, a friend sent me an email about this case.
>
> A painter and decorator has been jailed in Edinburgh today on two
indecency
> charges strippng of in two Edinburgh parks. The sheriff said he had a
> previous record for such offences and had no alternative except to send
him
> to jail for 60 days.
It would be interesting to know what the "indecency charges" were and
whether they were simply for taking off clothes as the above suggests. Also,
how does the law in Scotland stand on nudity?
It would be also interesting to know what the previous charges were too,
Perhaps they were not in the innocence that the above suggests.
AndyC
>
> Some drivers have tried that approach over speed limits (or any number
> of other driving laws), it doesn't change a dammed thing. If it does,
> it normally changes things the wrong way (i.e. speed limits are
> dropping rather than rising). Not to mention those caught ending up
> before the courts...
I think that you will find the laws regarding speed limits quite clear,
signs are also posted to make motorists aware of those laws. Those that
choose to break them do so at their own peril.
Laws regarding nudity are quite clear too, there is no anti-nudity law in
the UK. One of the good things to come out of Rec. 54 is that it motivated
naturists to lobby, to ensure that nudity remains legal.
Meanwhile, being caught without clothes in a public area could lead to
police interest and possible arrest. This is something which is unacceptable
for law abiding citizens to have to tolerate.
Tim Forcer
>
> SteveG wrote:
>>
>> A painter and decorator has been jailed in
>> Edinburgh today on two indecency
>> charges strippng of in two Edinburgh parks.
>> The sheriff said he had a previous record
>> for such offences and had no alternative
>> except to send him to jail for 60 days.
>
> It would be interesting to know what the
> "indecency charges" were and whether they
> were simply for taking off clothes as the
> above suggests.
Agreed. Was chummie after some all-over sunning, was he going
for a nude stroll, was he doing a Vincent, was he being an
exhibitionist? Insufficient information.
> Also, how does the law in Scotland stand
> on nudity?
ISTR that it is broadly similar to that in England and Wales,
and that any Rec54 (etc) legislation for England and Wales would
be enacted for Scotland shortly afterwards. (In some ways, this
should give us encouragement, since it is often bad legislation
that gets tried out first in Scotland!)
AndyC
> AndyC wrote:
> >
> > Most people (I would imagine) have never
> > encountered nudity in public parks (apart
> > from very young children in paddling pools).
> > Human nature as it is, makes it difficult
> > for us to accept what we are not accustomed
> > to. That being the case, it is not surprising
> > that the results of the poll show that nudity
> > in parks is not accepted by the majority.
>
> This reasonable argument falls flat on its face when confronted
> with the substantial majority in the survey who APPROVED
> legality of back-garden nudity. Unless, of course, AndyC can
> show that most people HAVE encountered back garden nudity.
Back garden nudity is certainly more common, I have noticed neighbours naked
in there gardens where they are not totally secluded. Many of my
non-naturist freinds admit to sunbathing naked in their gardens.
Tim Forcer
>
> ... Many of my non-naturist freinds
> admit to sunbathing naked in their gardens.
Oi! That word "admit" again. Implies something disreputable or
shameful. Naturists shouldn't go along with such implications,
let alone make them themselves.
Richard Burnham
<Ste...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>This could be you Andy, a friend sent me an email about this case.
>
>A painter and decorator has been jailed in Edinburgh today on two indecency
>charges strippng of in two Edinburgh parks. The sheriff said he had a
>previous record for such offences and had no alternative except to send him
>to jail for 60 days.
Did it give any details about the case? Without those, it may be unsafe
to assume that he was just trying to enjoy the sun without involving
anyone else. It's unlikely that a newspaper would be aware of the
nuances involved.
--
Richard Burnham----------------------------------------
Shropshire naturists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ShropshireNaturistsAndNudists/
To reply, change "zz" to "uk".
AndyC
> AndyC wrote:
> >
> > ... Many of my non-naturist freinds
> > admit to sunbathing naked in their gardens.
>
> Oi! That word "admit" again. Implies something disreputable or
> shameful. Naturists shouldn't go along with such implications,
> let alone make them themselves.
Agreed, naturists need not "admit" at all, but the non-naturist majority do
sometimes "admit" to it.
AndyC
>
> But Andy wants to give them all the RIGHT to strut around parks naked.
Behaviour is the key issue here, not ones attire.
AndyC
>
> More crackpot statements from the resident nutter
Touché
marc
> >It would be also interesting to know what the previous charges were too,
> >Perhaps they were not in the innocence that the above suggests.
> But surely you want ALL people to have the right to walk around naked
> in public?
> How are you going to tell the pervos from the ordinary people ?
With a protractor?
--
Marc
T Shirts, Sweatshirts, polo shirts, banners,
signs,decals, stickers etc for clubs and associations of all types
http://www.jaceeprint.demon.co.uk/
J.L.E
<snip>
>
> Meanwhile, being caught without clothes in a public area could lead
to
> police interest and possible arrest. This is something which is
unacceptable
> for law abiding citizens to have to tolerate.
> --
Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part, to the antics of a
certain person called Vincent....
Trying to force something down people throats often causes the
opposite reaction to the one the 'protester' wishes.
SteveG
>
> "SteveG" <Ste...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amt0jk$8n8h3$1...@ID-124066.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > This could be you Andy, a friend sent me an email about this case.
> >
> > A painter and decorator has been jailed in Edinburgh today on two
> indecency
> > previous record for such offences and had no alternative except to send
> him
> > to jail for 60 days.
>
> It would be interesting to know what the "indecency charges" were and
> whether they were simply for taking off clothes as the above suggests.
Also,
> how does the law in Scotland stand on nudity?
>
> It would be also interesting to know what the previous charges were too,
> Perhaps they were not in the innocence that the above suggests.
Here is an url to the above case:
http://www.edinburghnews.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1066462002
This could be a naturist constantly walking about parks in Edinburgh naked
or he could be a pervert walking about naked, the Sheriff seems to have
taken the view whatever he was, a naturist or a pervert he was exposing
himself and had been charged with indecency result 60 days.
SteveG
> Andy
marc
> > Meanwhile, being caught without clothes in a public area could lead
> to
> > police interest and possible arrest. This is something which is
> unacceptable
> > for law abiding citizens to have to tolerate.
> > --
>
> Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part, to the antics of a
> certain person called Vincent....
Don't make yourself look even more stupid than the regulars here know
you are.
Tim Forcer
>
> Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part,
> to the antics of a certain person called Vincent....
Some people don't know what they are talking about.
AndyC
> >>
> >> But Andy wants to give them all the RIGHT to strut around parks naked.
> >
> >Behaviour is the key issue here, not ones attire.
>
In the same way that any other *behaviour* is legislated against and
policed.
There are those that would argue that naturism itself is a perversion or
that naked body is obscene. Presumably these are the same people who are
unable to differentiate between innocent nudity and indecent behaviour. That
itself says more about them, than it does about naturism.
SteveG
>
> There are those that would argue that naturism itself is a perversion or
> that naked body is obscene. Presumably these are the same people who are
> unable to differentiate between innocent nudity and indecent behaviour.
That
> itself says more about them, than it does about naturism.
I agree with the above paragraph, there are people in all walks of life who
are unable or don't want to differentiate between innocent nudity and
indecent behaviour.
The police and the courts in the case, I highlighted in Edinburgh being an
example of this, he was naked so he was guilty of indecency. If he was
guilty of any other acts the article did not elaborate, if for instance a
person, well known in naturist circles had been sunbathing naked in the park
a short distance away, he would have been arrested as well I presume.
I am not familiar with the law on nudity in public places in Scotland or
wether it differs from England, maybe someone in SANER will be able to
comment on the law it is their area.
SteveG
Malcolm Boura
Anthony Evans <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:24:43 +0000 (UTC), "AndyC"
> <an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anthony Evans" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:6je5pu8vapiqgd44u...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> But Andy wants to give them all the RIGHT to strut around parks naked.
> >
> >Behaviour is the key issue here, not ones attire.
>
> OK Ill accept that so how are you going to police peoples behaviour ?
The police seem to manage to make judegements in other contexts without
any problem. Drunk and disorderly for example.
--
Malcolm Boura, NUFF coordinator.
NUFF http://www.nuff.org.uk/ is the FAQ for the uk.rec.naturist newsgroup.
Please read before posting to the group.
It is the comprehensive www source of UK naturist information.
J.L.E
>
> "Anthony Evans" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:16f6pu4p8m6v0m78b...@4ax.com...
> > >>
> > >> But Andy wants to give them all the RIGHT to strut around parks
naked.
> > >
> > >Behaviour is the key issue here, not ones attire.
> >
> > OK Ill accept that so how are you going to police peoples
behaviour ?
>
> In the same way that any other *behaviour* is legislated against and
> policed.
>
So the laws etc don't need to be changed then...
> There are those that would argue that naturism itself is a
perversion or
> that naked body is obscene. Presumably these are the same people who
are
> unable to differentiate between innocent nudity and indecent
behaviour. That
> itself says more about them, than it does about naturism.
> --
You are probably correct, but if the above are majority...
J.L.E
> "J.L.E" wrote:
> >
> > Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part,
> > to the antics of a certain person called Vincent....
>
> Some people don't know what they are talking about.
>
You ?...
So you really think the powers at be just sat back a accepted Vincent
taking the piss out of them ?
I never put you down as being naive Tim !
J.L.E
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:43:21 +0100, Malcolm Boura
> <nu...@armage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In message <16f6pu4p8m6v0m78b...@4ax.com>
> > Anthony Evans <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:24:43 +0000 (UTC), "AndyC"
> >> <an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Anthony Evans" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >news:6je5pu8vapiqgd44u...@4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> But Andy wants to give them all the RIGHT to strut around
parks naked.
> >> >
> >> >Behaviour is the key issue here, not ones attire.
> >>
> >> OK Ill accept that so how are you going to police peoples
behaviour ?
> >
> >The police seem to manage to make judegements in other contexts
without
> >any problem. Drunk and disorderly for example.
>
> fence then ?
>
> Strange idea
>
Well they usually do, or are you suggesting the return of the 'sus'
law ?...
Yes if the police have the evidence, yes they will arrest before a
crime is committed.
Michael Berridge
AndyC wrote in message ...
Did anyone watch the ITV progrqmme on Streakers Fri Night, I did as I
was supposed to be in it, according to the company who produced it. I
was filmed later in the day that they had filmed to 'mass moon'. Even
though they did drop my filmed contribution I did get them involved in
the rec 54 information as they said they had not heard of that as a
problem until they were talking on the phone to me. I wonder if the
person who got the 60 days is the same one shown in the film streaking
in front of the Queen's car, he was said to have got 55 days, bound over
for a year, and lost his job into the bargain as his boss didn't agree
with his antics. Perhaps the laws are different there, certainly the
laws on sex offences will be as the age of consent is AFAIK, lower in
Scotland.
Mike
www.british-naturism.org.uk
AndyC
> No sorry, you aint gonna let people swan around in parks naked without
> any controlls or supervision
Thats why we have laws and a police force. Or do you mean that individuals
that wish to dispense with clothing must be first screened by a club
committee?
> >There are those that would argue that naturism itself is a perversion or
> >that naked body is obscene. Presumably these are the same people who are
> >unable to differentiate between innocent nudity and indecent behaviour.
That
> >itself says more about them, than it does about naturism.
>
> Here we go again, nutty as can be
If the cap fits Ant, if the cap fits Matey...
AndyC
> >
> > In the same way that any other *behaviour* is legislated against and
> > policed.
> >
>
> So the laws etc don't need to be changed then...
No, but they *do* need to be clarified.
> > There are those that would argue that naturism itself is a
> perversion or
> > that naked body is obscene. Presumably these are the same people who
> are
> > unable to differentiate between innocent nudity and indecent
> behaviour. That
> > itself says more about them, than it does about naturism.
> > --
>
> You are probably correct, but if the above are majority...
Mob rule applies then?
AndyC
>
> Ahh I see, You want to wait til AFTER the pervo has committed an off
> fence then ?
>
> Strange idea
That's the way the law works Ant.
Someone can't be prosecuted until *after* the crime has been committed.
Perhaps this is a tad unfair? Perhaps the police should be given greater
powers to arrest and charge when they *thought* an offence might be
committed? Perhaps we could do away with the CPS the courts and the entire
legal system and just lock people away if they merely look as if they might
commit an offense?
Hmmm.....
J.L.E
>
<snip>
>
> Mob rule applies then?
>
Andy missing the point again....
Malcolm Boura
"J.L.E" <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> "AndyC" <an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:amuago$d41$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > Meanwhile, being caught without clothes in a public area could lead
> to
> > police interest and possible arrest. This is something which is
> unacceptable
> > for law abiding citizens to have to tolerate.
> > --
>
> Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part, to the antics of a
> certain person called Vincent....
And they are almost certainly completely and utterly wrong as any
reasonably intelligent and thorough reading of the Home Office documents
will show. It is quite clear that they consider public order offences to
be adequate to deal with streakers, Vincent and such like. It is the
difficulty in getting conviction for flashing that they are worried
about. It may be that that concern is justified, but the little
evidence purporting to support that supposition that the Home Office
cited was extremely dubious.
> Trying to force something down people throats often causes the
> opposite reaction to the one the 'protester' wishes.
>
> --
> If replying by E-mail, mind the Spam trap.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
David Looser
news:7a44a47...@armage.demon.co.uk...
> In message <up6jj1n...@corp.supernews.com>
> "J.L.E" <sca...@mapson.madasafish.com> wrote:
>
> > Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part, to the antics of a
> > certain person called Vincent....
>
> And they are almost certainly completely and utterly wrong as any
> reasonably intelligent and thorough reading of the Home Office documents
> will show. It is quite clear that they consider public order offences to
> be adequate to deal with streakers, Vincent and such like. It is the
> difficulty in getting conviction for flashing that they are worried
> about. It may be that that concern is justified, but the little
> evidence purporting to support that supposition that the Home Office
> cited was extremely dubious.
>
insult a female" was too onerous on the prosecution as only the perpetrator
really knows what the "intent" was. There is no doubt that "flashing" is a
serious sexual crime, beside which the antics of Vincent et al pale into
insignificance. The problem is not that Rec54 was *intended* to make public
nudity illegal, simply that, if the recommended wording is followed, it
could be used to effectively make male nudity, at least, illegal. It should
not be beyond the wit of man to devise a wording that will satisfy the
desire of the committee to make prosecuting "flashers" easier, whilst at the
samr time not criminalising naturism.
David
Alex Heney
<Michael....@ukgateway.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Perhaps the laws are different there [SCOTLAND], certainly the
>laws on sex offences will be as the age of consent is AFAIK, lower in
>Scotland.
>
What on earth gives you that idea?
There was a time when the age at which you required parental consent
to get married was different - hence eloping to Gretna Green.
But AFAIK, there is no difference in the laws regarding the age of
consent. Nor generally in the laws on sexual offenses.
--
Alex Heney Global Villager
He has Van Gogh's ear for music.
To reply by email, remove NO and SPAM from above addres
Stephen Doerr
> So lets get this straight. You want the right for every
> pervo, weirdo and sexual nutcase to have the right to
> promenade freely, naked, in public parks right ??
Every pervo, weirdo, and sexual nut-case has the right to
promenade freely, clothed, in public parks at the moment.
> How long untill the weirdos are the only ones in the park,
> and there's nowhere for the children to play ?.
> Or
> How long untill innocent women and children are being
> pestered or assaulted?
You don't have to be naked to pester or assault innocent women
and children. Your intentions might be more obvious, though, if
you were.
--
Steve
Malcolm Boura
Anthony Evans <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2002 06:53:12 +0000 (UTC), "AndyC"
> <an...@spambin.skyworld.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Anthony Evans" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:dv49puo2iebjphaj6...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Ahh I see, You want to wait til AFTER the pervo has committed an off
> >> fence then ?
> >>
> >> Strange idea
> >
> >That's the way the law works Ant.
> >
> >Someone can't be prosecuted until *after* the crime has been committed.
> Wrong!
> Intent is a prosecutable offence.
Conspiracy to commit an offence is. Likewise going equipped to commit an
offence is, but intent is essentially unprovable and part of no statute
I have ever heard of. Intent is an essential part of a lot of offences,
but that is something quite different. Quote the act please as I would
like to look it up.
> So lets get this straight. You want the right for every pervo, weirdo
> and sexual nutcase to have the right to promenade freely, naked, in
> public parks right ??
>
> How long untill the weirdos are the only ones in the park, and there's
> nowhere for the children to play ?.
> Or
> How long untill innocent women and children are being pestered or
> assaulted?
>
> You really live in a little world of your own don't you?
What you are really saying is that nudity equates to pervo, weirdo and
sexual nutcase. There is a world of difference between a naturist and a
flasher and the judgement required of the police and courts to tell the
difference is a lot less than they routinely have to in employ in other
contexts.
Tim Forcer
>
> Tim Forcer wrote:
>>
>> "J.L.E" wrote:
>>>
>>> Some say Rec 54 came about due, in some part,
>>> to the antics of a certain person called Vincent....
>>
>> Some people don't know what they are talking about.
>
> You ?...
No, I _do_ know what I'm talking about. (For once.)
> So you really think the powers at be just sat
> back a accepted Vincent taking the piss out of them ?
After the court cases they had no option.
Anyway, those powers were not the powers which produced "Setting
The Boundaries"
Anyway, the timimgs are wrong. Check out the date of
publication of STB and the date of Vincent's (major) acquittal.
> I never put you down as being naive Tim !
While I'm happy to shoot my mouth off about almost anything, on
this subject I've done a LOT of research. Including reading
BOTH volumes of "Setting The Boundaries" in their entirety. I
suggest anyone with a really serious interest in Rec54 does the
same - particularly before making accusations of naivety.
It's certainly true that politicians are very good at rushing
through bad legislation in response to individual and widely
reported cases - the Dangerous Dogs Act being a case in point.
Rec54 didn't come out of any such process, and there is
certainly no undue rush about things. The overwhelming majority
of the content of the eventual Bill is likely to attract
substantial cross-party support. I suspect most of it may even
be given free votes, with whipping reserved for dealing with a
few items and key amendments. Also, I really don't see the Home
Office as being that bothered by Vincent. Primarily, he was a
public order issue (ie there was a fuss) and it was up to the
public order authorities (police) to do something. Just look at
the range of charges brought against Vincent (and others) - most
of the laws involved in the later ones simply didn't figure in
the STB review. With or without Rec54, the authorities do seem
to have a very effective anti-Vincent procedure, which goes
something like: arrest, hold without charge, release many hours
later.
If THEY wanted to get Vincent, they would put through a
one-clause Bill, or a Statutory Instrument, or a Regulation
under one of the Public Order or Criminal Justice Acts.
Whatever its defects, Rec54 is one small part of a substantial
(and, IMO, extremely sensible and desirable in most respects)
reform package. Suggesting that it is a response to Vincent
trivialises the whole thing, IMO.
Tim Forcer
>
> ...
>
> Mob rule applies then?
One man's mob rule is another man's democracy in action? "Power
to the people"?
marc
> >That's the way the law works Ant.
> >
> >Someone can't be prosecuted until *after* the crime has been committed.
> Wrong!
> Intent is a prosecutable offence.
Not quite, but as soon as there was "conspiracy" the crime of conspiracy
to commit a crime has been committed, therefore Andy's statement was
correct.
marc
>
> Wake up and smell the tea Malcom,or are you really that thick ?
>
> Open Nudty in public parks would be a licence for every weirdo to make
> a b line for the park
As it does in Amsterdam or Berlin?
AndyC
"Anthony" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a40gpu00htucer7v4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:31:45 +0100, Malcolm Boura
> <nu...@armage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >What you are really saying is that nudity equates to pervo, weirdo and
> >sexual nutcase. There is a world of difference between a naturist and a
> >flasher and the judgement required of the police and courts to tell the
> >difference is a lot less than they routinely have to in employ in other
> >contexts.
>
>
> Open Nudty in public parks would be a licence for every weirdo to make
> a b line for the park
On that presumption, open nudity in naturist clubs has the same effect.
Which club did you say that you go to?
J.L.E
> "J.L.E" wrote:
> >
<snip>
>
> While I'm happy to shoot my mouth off about almost anything, on
> this subject I've done a LOT of research. Including reading
> BOTH volumes of "Setting The Boundaries" in their entirety. I
> suggest anyone with a really serious interest in Rec54 does the
> same - particularly before making accusations of naivety.
>
>
> If THEY wanted to get Vincent, they would put through a
> one-clause Bill, or a Statutory Instrument, or a Regulation
> under one of the Public Order or Criminal Justice Acts.
> Whatever its defects, Rec54 is one small part of a substantial
> (and, IMO, extremely sensible and desirable in most respects)
> reform package. Suggesting that it is a response to Vincent
> trivialises the whole thing, IMO.
>
Points read, note taken, any and every accusation withdrawn.
J.L.E
>
> "Anthony" <a...@poggo.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a40gpu00htucer7v4...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:31:45 +0100, Malcolm Boura
> > <nu...@armage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >What you are really saying is that nudity equates to pervo,
weirdo and
> > >sexual nutcase. There is a world of difference between a naturist
and a
> > >flasher and the judgement required of the police and courts to
tell the
> > >difference is a lot less than they routinely have to in employ in
other
> > >contexts.
> >
> > Wake up and smell the tea Malcom,or are you really that thick ?
> >
> > Open Nudty in public parks would be a licence for every weirdo to
make
> > a b line for the park
>
> On that presumption, open nudity in naturist clubs has the same
effect.
>
Not to mention every naturist camp site or beach.