The only decent photo we can find of the London World Naked Bike Ride

Naturists and CO2 protesters are combining forces this Saturday (9th June) for a naked bike ride through London. 

The ride, described as ‘liberating’ by Time Out, will assemble at Hyde Park before a nine-mile route past London landmarks brings it back to starting point.

Organisers expect around 1,000 people to strip off whatever the weather.  It is billed as ‘an annual protest against oil dependency and the culture of cars, as well as a celebration of the human body’.

Similar rides are planned for Cardiff and Exeter on the same day, Brighton and Bristol on Sunday, and Glasgow on 14th July.  (STOP PRESS 05/07/2012: Glasgow Naked Bike Ride was cancelled!  Strathclyde Police said ‘the organisers have cancelled their plans after liasing with Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde Police’.)

The dress code is said to be ‘as bare as you dare’.  Full nudity is apparently optional, although photographs of previous events show that particular option to have been taken up by the majority of the exhibitionists taking part.

Despite the much-vaunted antagonism of most participants to oil and petrochemicals, none of those taking part will be stripping off their trainers, which cannot be made without petro-derivatives.  Comfort apparently takes precedence over principled opposition to oil-industry products.

More seriously, the event will not just expose those parts of the body more politely concealed, but the inability of our current laws to proscribe indecent behaviour.

The English common law offence of ‘indecent exposure’ is declining in use (see statistics link below) in the face of Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which applies to England and Wales. Section 70 of the The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 is identical. This reads:

66 Exposure E+W+N.I  A person commits an offence if— .
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and .
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress. .
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— .
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; .
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years.]

With the prosecution having to prove an intent to cause alarm or distress, it appears that only men who deliberately expose themselves to women in the street – so-called ‘flashers’ – are now being prosecuted.  Anyone intent on merely flaunting his (or her) nudity in public can drive a coach and horses, or in this case, merely a bicycle, through the legislation.

The common law offence of outraging public decency still remains.  According to ‘Wikipedia‘ (Not always authoritative but they give references including this one on prosecutions):

‘Modern case law has established two elements that must be satisfied for the offence to be committed:
‘1.The act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constituted the nature of the act which had to be proved before the offence could be established, and
‘2.it took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they had not actually seen it.
‘The offence is currently prosecuted around 400-500 times per year.’

Which brings us back to the common law offence of indecent exposure.  This is still prosecuted (see link on prosecutions above.  Either offence could possibly be brought into play if enough people complain to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or to the relevant chief constables of the other forces. 

In Scotland the law, not having the liberal Sexual Offences Act 2003 on this matter, is slightly stronger.  Despite that, a similar naked bike ride took place in Glasgow last year and was escorted by the Strathclyde Police.  This year it is scheduled to take place on 14th July and concerned members of the public north of the border will no doubt be speaking to the police.

The website http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#indecent says:

‘Indecent Exposure
‘Source: Common Law
‘Any person who publicly exposes the private parts of their body in a shameless and indecent manner in the presence of the lieges commits a crime at common law.
‘There must be a lewd and indecent intention, mere carelessness is not criminal.
‘Although the definition uses the term “any person”, generally speaking, only males are charged with this crime. A female who exposes the private parts of her body could competently be reported for a breach of the peace, lewd practices or shameless indecency, depending upon the circumstances.
‘Powers: Common law power of arrest. ‘

On top of that is the Scottish catch-all offence of ‘breach of the peace’.  Naturist Stephen Gough, who goes by the name of The Naked Rambler, was convicted and sent to prison in Scotland after being found guilty of breach of the peace. 

Much depends on what the police perceive as public attitudes.  If no-one is bothered in today’s climate, they won’t bother either.  On the other hand, if there is significant public concern the police might take action.  With around 500 offences of outraging public decency prosecuted a year in England and Wales, and with prosecutions still being carried out in Scotland for indecency offences, this remains a live issue.

Please pray that enough people will be outraged by these displays of indecency on our streets to complain to the police forces concerned:

Avon & Somerset Constabulary

Devon & Cornwall Constabulary

Metropolitan Police

Sussex Police

South Wales Police

Strathclyde Police

Join Christian Voice today and stand up for righteousness in the land:

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

48 COMMENTS

  1. This world doesn’t surprise me anymore and is fast going from bad to worse. I would say that any decent individual would simply not allow themselves to be involved in such activities and would avoid them like the plague. Avoiding these events is more profitable than bothering to complain. The Lord knows our hearts and takes care of our lives, hell will filled with the trash that take part in such activities so just ignore them is my option. The last days are upon us, i am just waiting for rapture or death whichever is the sooner. Plus the fact that it only makes these people feel important if we even notice them, best to just ignore. Love and God bless to all Christians.

    • It’s easy to avoid or ignore them, Dave! The prophet Amos could just have said ‘I’ll avoid Jerusalem’. But he didn’t, and nor should we. If Jesus returns tomorrow, he will want to know what you were doing for his kingdom today. And that includes standing up for him against the evil-doers (Psalm 94:16).

  3. Dave, you do realise that, if it were not for the likes of Stephen, there would be no opposing points of view? We would all be rail-roaded into a society with no morals and no absolutes “everyone doing what seems right in their own eyes”. Are you proposing no censorship at all, for anything? If not, where do you draw your line? What would you say is acceptable behaviour for the adults you prefer to correspond with? And is that behaviour acceptable to be flaunted in front of young children? I’m kinda glad we still have the Bible to give clarity through this sea of opinions.

  4. I wish I could go to the police to complain but Stafford Police would probably end up frogmarching me to the Mental Health services again, like they did last time I reported a serious crime.

    The naturist movement goes hand in hand with the so called “free love” movement, but whey they call it free love I don’t know because I don’t think going from bed to bed has anything to do with love, where’s the commitment and the tenderness in that? I remember being very disillusioned with the “hippy” movement, which proclaimed itself to be all about love and turned out to be about selfishness and using other people and stuffing yourself with as much alcohol and drugs as possible.

    Jesus really does offer free love, that is, he gives his love to us, he gave up his life to save our lives, a free gift of salvation, but there are strings, he wants us to love him as well, and to see things through his eyes instead of being wise in our own eyes. I suppose a lot of people will think that us Christian folk are a load of narrow minded killjoys, but they don’t see all the things that the Lord sees.

    I hope this event does not take place at all, but if it does I hope that the Lord will send freezing torrents of icy rain, and a few hailstones.

    • Barbara. I am pleased to say that the weather in Cardiff was wonderful. The sun shined the whole time. With all the wind and rain there has been leading up to this I feel that someone must have been smiling on us from on high.

      • Either that, or a Christian in Cardiff was gardening and you were blessed with fine if chilly weather in his slipstream. Or maybe it was just God’s common grace. However, it would be good to spare some prayers for those who have suffered from Friday’s deluge around Aberystwyth.

  5. I know that nudity goes against social conventions, but I don’t see it as being harmful.

    The bible doesn’t take a firm stance against nudity. There are passages which suggest that nudity is bad, but there are also passages in which it is normal. In John 21:7 Simon is fishing naked in his boat, presumably in order to keep their clothes clean and dry. There are also passages in which God ordered nudity. Isaiah 20:2: “The Lord told Isaiah, the son of Amoz, to take off his clothing, including his shoes, and to walk around naked and barefoot” It was the act of covering themselves which revealed to God the sinfulness of Adam and Eve and led to their expulsion.

    Pope John Paul II said “The human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendour and its beauty… Nakedness as such is not to be equated with physical shamelessness… Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regard to the value of the person…The human body is not in itself shameful… Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of a person.”

    The rides are intended to help “deliver a vision of a cleaner, safer, body-positive world.” Surely this is a worthwhile goal. The participants in this protest are doing something which is legal and is intended to benefit us all. It is not illegal, immoral, indecent or shameful. It may not be something which you want to see, but they are giving you plenty of warning, so that you aren’t forced to see them.

    To my understanding the common law offence of outraging public decency requires that the nature of the act be lewd. It is not enough to be naked. Cycling is not a lewd act. I believe it would be virtually impossible to bring a conviction against the cyclists for such a charge, although it might be possible to bring charges against them.

    As to the double standards regarding trainers. Since 2006 the rides have sought to promote cycling and the need for more consideration and awareness of cyclists, in order to make the roads safer for cyclists. It is only natural when promoting the safety of cyclists, to make concessions towards the safety of cyclists, such as suggesting they keep their shoes on.

    Based on previous posts I expect my opinion is going to be unpopular on here, but it is firm, honest opinion as a Christian that there is nothing morally wrong with the naked bike rides.

  8. As you rightly point out the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states:
    A person commits an offence if— .
    (a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and .
    (b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress.

    Therefore the naked bike riders will not be caught by this law as they clearly do not intend that anyone will be caused alarm and distress.

    It is not illegal to be naked in public. The metropolitan police confirmed this during the Fourth Plinth art event in 2010.

      • So by your statement above you agree that It is not illegal to be naked in public, so why are you calling for people to complain to the police? Nudity is NOT illegal in the UK so complaining to the police is rather futile.

        • Under S66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was apparently watered down (with the word ‘reckless’ taken out) after lobbying from naturists. All the same, the common law offences of indecent exposure and outraging public decency are still in use. As the article says. So that is why people can legitimately complain. And the legal situation in Scotland is completely different. As the article says.

          • wrong! the common law offence of “indecent exposure” was scrapped with the intro of the SOA, and simply being naked is not enough to “outrage public decency”.

          • No, you are wrong. Being naked in itself may not be enough to outrage public decency but there are possibly other factors here. And for certain, although its use has declined since 2003, the common law offence of indecent exposure is still extant and still prosecuted – see the prosecutions link in the article.

  9. I am a life long naturist and find your comments offensive. To be naked is natural and not a crime. We are all naked under our clothes! Jesus was naked under his clothes. I am a Christian but also a naturist and gay. We are all different and Christians should love all people.

      • He didn’t say that.

        You can love a sinner without loving their sin. The Christian response would be to show such people the harm they are doing, in order to bring them back to the path of God. Speaking out against greed, exploitation and destruction of the environment is an act of love.

        As Martin said, Cristians should love ALL people, even those who do not share their views.

    • Dear Bob,
      I was surpised to find there is a Christian naturist association.
      I have read the booklet, but it does not have much to say on what the Bible says, more your own conjecture, in all fairness.
      In the KJV, the word ‘naked’ appears in 45 verses and is highly associated with shame or disgrace (eg Micah 1:8,11). (And of course the Hebrew and Greek words can mean either totally or relatively naked.)
      The word ‘clothed’ appears in 72 verses and is highly associated with honour and strength.
      As modern society rightly or wrongly covers up most of the body, and only strips down to swim suit level on the beach even then covering up what seem now to called ‘the wobbly bits’ (unless one is female and Dutch of course – sorry, bad memories of a volleyball game on a beach in France) then uncovering our sexual parts seems immodest at best.
      So being part of this society, your approach seems to me unthinkingly utopian. You cannot escape the fact that women or men walking around in public with those parts of the body exposed can easily arouse in others sexual thoughts and provoke a near occasion of sin.
      It seems that you are just saying, like Hannah, ‘I’m going to walk/cycle around like this and if it means others have sinful thoughts that’s their lookout.’ But sensible people sensitive to the needs and foibles of others simply don’t encourage them to sin, through public nudity any more than going around with their purse or wallet hanging out of their pocket.
      The bottom line, if the expression does not fall too awkwardly, is that the naked bike rides are designed to shock and shake a fist at the rest of us. It is on the ‘Get over it!’ level of Stonewall. I find it just as much an assault on my sensitivies as the bullying homosexual walking along hand-in-hand with his boyfriend outside Victoria Station leaning down and shouting right into the face of a visibly shocked young woman coming in the other direction exactly that expression.
      The fact that naturist clubs need ‘child protection policies, photographic and video regulations, and the vetting of new members’ as you admit in your booklet, shows something of a tension between normal society and naturism to put it mildly.
      I think I would argue that modesty in dress, in the modern sense and in the Biblical sense of 1Tim 2:9 (‘that women adorn themselves in modest apparel’), offers valuable protection against carnality.
      I doubt you will accept any of that, but as you describe your own booklet as ‘very good’, perhaps modesty isn’t your strongest suit in any direction! (Sorry about that, too, but you did ask for it!)

      • you said “You cannot escape the fact that women or men walking around in public with those parts of the body exposed can easily arouse in others sexual thoughts and provoke a near occasion of sin.”
        This reminds me of the old Jewish and early Christian tradition that a woman’s hair was inherently provocative and that a man would be driven to sinful desire by the sight of an uncovered head. The Muslims took this idea further, believing that the sight of a woman’s face might have the same effect.
        I would rather believe that we have evolved past the base instinct of acting on any desires and that people should be expected to control their own actions.

        I don’t think any nudists consider the naked form to be inherently sexual. It is only by making it forbidden that it becomes the cause of arousal. That which is forbidden becomes exciting. Nudists frequently socialise naked without any thought of sex. Connecting nudity to shame was, according to the bible something which resulted from the first sin of Adam and Eve.
        Early Christians were baptised naked. It symbolised purity and rebirth.

        If God didn’t want people to be naked he wouldn’t have made us this way.

        I think it would be better to avoid the question of whether nudity is right or wrong. If you are offended by the sight of naked people, then it is your right to express that view. I think it is unfortunate that people have been taught to be ashamed of their bodies. If you find nudity shameful and the sight of people who don’t share that sense of shame distressing, then it is right for you to voice your distress. Trying to villify people for accepting the way God made them is not going to add any strength to your cause.

      • Thanks for your response Stephen and your gentle pointer on modesty. The booklet has actually been described as very good by others but sorry if I appeared immodest. Your comment about having read it is difficult to follow as the majority of the booklet is biblically focused and covers the comments that you made. You are quoting verses out of context and a closer look demonstrates that it is not the nakedness which is sin but the “prostitution” of God’s people in running after other so called “gods”. In fact Micah is seemingly following in the footsteps of Isaiah who prophesied naked for 3 years in response to God’s call (does God call us to do things which are sinful?) We could go on trading verses for ever – this isn’t a good medium for such things and is not very productive. Your quotation of 1 Timothy 2:9 goes on to describe how the women should be clothed – “with good deeds”! You imply that the child protection policies and photo policies of naturist clubs demonstrate some problem – does that hold for all our churches, youth clubs etc. which have to use similar policies. Such policies demonstrates a deep desire to protect children from anyone who might seek to do harm.
        Clothing has never prevented sin. Barbara has quoted websites which “prove” the relationship between naturism and a host of abuses. Such things are horrific and ungodly and are quite rightly condemned but such situations involve individuals who are certainly not true naturists. You could equally well point to all the cases of abuse, murder, violence etc committed by people who are not naturists and conclude that clothes caused them to sin. The logical conclusion of such arguments would imply that people who wear clothes are terrorist suicide bombers because they wear clothes to hide the explosives.
        The Christian Naturist Fellowship exists to share Jesus and promote Fellowship. I am happy to do so and am looking forward to meeting my Father God secure in my relationship with Jesus and thankful for the cross. “Who told you that you were naked?” asked God to Adam and Eve. There was only one other around at the time. Satan’s greatest deception was to cover over the image of God reflected in the naked bodies of Adam and Eve. The unwholesome covering of that image gives rise to the pornography industry, teenage pregnancy etc. by sexualizing the body. Let’s keep it simple and use clothes for what God intended ie. warmth and protection in conditions outside Eden. Let’s not use them to promote unhealthy curiosity about what lies beneath and the sin that causes. Not even Solomon in all his glory was as beautiful as the natural state in which we were created (so don’t worry about clothing) – Jesus. Thanks be to God.

        • Thanks, Bob, but hang on … Adam and Eve themselves knew they were naked. The Bible does not say Satan told them. It was Almighty God who clothed Adam and Eve with coats of skins inside Eden, not Satan. Not even Solomon was as beautiful, not as naked people, but as the lilies of the field. Things like that are why I said your document began from your own opinions, not from solid scripture.
          The extreme Marxists say that if money was abolished everyone would live in peace and harmony. You say the same thing about clothing, that it is the clothing which causes the sin. No, it isn’t, it is our sinful nature.
          Churches in the West at least don’t have policies about who and where you can photo people, but naturist clubs do. If they really thought that being naked was absolutely fine, they would have no such policies. Naturism is of its essence Utopian at best.
          Anyway, I am sure we can agree that we are fearfully and wonderfully made.

      • > The fact that naturist clubs need ‘child protection policies, photographic and video regulations, and the vetting > of new members’ as you admit in your booklet, shows something of a tension between normal society and
        > naturism to put it mildly.

        Not necessarily. Both Scouting & Guiding have ‘child protection policies, photographic and video regulations, and the vetting of new (adult) members’ and we don’t seem to have a tension with normal society (whatever that may be). I would expect most schools to have the same ….

        • Exactly, Jane. Schools and organisations working with young people easily attract the wrong sort who want to photo and video for nefarious purposes. The local gardeners’ club doesn’t have close vetting of new members and restrictions on who can photograph what. So even at the same time as asserting that they have returned to an Edenic paradise and if everyone took their clothes off the world would be wonderful when it comes down to the nitty-gritty naturists have to admit that actually the world is not like they claim it is at all.

      • Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
        Later, Adam chose not to remain naked and God provided clothing, but He did not insist that they always wear it and that they could not go naked any more.

  11. Were Adam and Eve given clothes by God when he made them? No, and neither was I. I am proud of the body He has made for me, and am proud to show His work. Only the impure thoughts of man when viewing the naked form should be looked upon with disgust, not that naked form itself. I will be riding my bicycle through London with my head held high!

    • You are right of course – Adam and Eve were not given clothes when first created, but after they fell in disobedience, and therefore into sin, they felt ashamed and therefore sought to hide their newly perceived nakedness. They had now partaken of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and had a new awareness of right and wrong and tried to cover themselves, It was then that God Himself clothed them instead of saying “don’t worry kids, it’s perfectly natural for you to continue naked”, HE clothed them with more suitable apparel than a few leaves strategically placed. Without going into the more intricate nature of what God did and why, I think it is sufficient that God chose to clothe them therefore covering their sinful state. It could be that some believe that they have attained the perfection that Adam once had, that state of sinlessness in which he existed. I have no further comment.

    • Hannah,
      You are correct when you say :
      Only the impure thoughts of man when viewing the naked form should be looked upon with disgust, not that naked form itself.
      The problem is: Everyone has impure thoughts. By riding naked you are tempting people to sin, by causing them to think that way. But God has provided an answer. By sending the Lord Jesus to die for our sins, He took the punishment that was due to us. Jesus was sinless. He is the only sinless person in history and therefore did not feel ashamed or need to be clothed.
      So why didn’t Jesus walk around naked?
      Had he done so, he would have offended everyone else.
      Naturists cause offence to those of us who admit we are less than perfect and we have impure thoughts.

  12. I have long since ceased to be amazed at the intolerance of Christians. As a committed naturist I am often in the company of other naturists, naked, in a social context such as swimming or sunbathing, and even in the World Naked Bike Rides.

    When we do meet as such we act and speak in no different way than we would if clothed and that is with manners, tolerance and propriety. It is only when the so-called devoutly religious express their view that we hear the word ‘sex’. Where do you people dream this stuff up? Why do you always have to bring sex into all of this? I can assure you that naturists don’t.

    • You seem pretty intolerant yourself, Barry. We Christians will have to take your word for it that naturists never think of sex. But they make no allowance for the fact that others might. It’s an ‘in your face, get over it’ attitude that defies common decency, in the broadest sense. That was the gist of my comment to Bob, qv.

      • Thank God there are men like you around, Stephen, who are still prepared to speak up in the name of honesty and our Lord. But that there were more like you prepared to speak out against these displays of ungodliness.

  13. Colin, the Bible does say that Simon was naked, but no way would he have taken all his kit off if there would have been women and children present. There’s a world of difference between hard working men out on the sea where no onlookers can be offended trying to land a catch of fish without spoiling their clothes and a bunch of people on bikes trying to bully everyone else in their community to accept their lifestyle even though it goes against their sense of decency and morality.

    Why does it have to be a naked bike ride? Could the people not do the ride wearing bikinis and shorts? Why the confrontational attitude? Why is it so important?

    As for the link between the free love movement and naturalism, well I think you need to have a look at this:

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-hampshire-15559451&ei=j0fST–zMMfD8QPfiNi9Aw&usg=AFQjCNEc-ZSH9IC0tersl35tnSvt_4_FAg&sig2=LtzEPnCDDD9Ew3IVHAm95w

    this:

    http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/index.html

    and this:

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=25&ved=0CF4QFjAEOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nostatusquo.com%2FACLU%2FNudistHallofShame%2FWilcoxDuncanCross.html&ei=mUjST-KeC8268gOK4KGKAw&usg=AFQjCNGnvSr3t-8aOhe8GZxuIq6dyDPYtw&sig2=wXREJtoAHZDhzWrndhQcfw

    and then ask yourself if child abuse survivors like myself are overreacting and being killjoys.

    • How do you know there were no women and children present when Simon was naked, were you there? And why do you think naturists(not naturalists,another confusion you make) are paedofiles, there are a lot more christian priests who have been!
      When a person is simply naked they are the true person, when someone is dressed they become someone else, 99.99% of all crimes are committed by clothed people. Look at the damage suited and booted bankers have done, I for one never trust someone in a suit unless I know them.
      I’m sorry if you are a victim of child abuse, it’s one of the most vile crimes and there are strict guidelines and rules in naturist clubs to protect children, indeed my 2 daughters visited naturist clubs beaches and resorts with us when younger, now grown n flown they are well balanced women.
      So pse dont tar all with the same brush, I am a committed Catholic and a life long naturist and see no conlict.

      • Mike, we are nothing if not pedantic about facts in Christian Voice. Sexual offences were 2.67% of all convictions in England and Wales in 2011, so your assertion that 99.99% of all crimes are committed by clothed people is surely a slight exaggeration.

      • How do you know your two daughters don’t resent being forced to mingle with naked adults when they were children, or that they suffered any abuse as a result of your forcing them into your lifestyle? A lot of child abuse victims cannot find the courage to speak about stuff that hurt and frightened them as children, and the Fathers Rights groups that are pushing the naturalist and swinging agenda in America have got a tight little network of protection going now, the False Memory Foundation (in Britain it is called the British False Memory Society, BFMS) and any adult survivor of child abuse that they are involved with is subjected to a cruel barrage of phony psychobabble to “prove” that their memory is flawed. The BFMS is involved in the Haut de la Garenne child abuse cover up. as one of their main spokesmen, Richard Webster (who is now dead) wrote newspaper articles and lobbied Parliament to influence the public that the over 160 victims of the abuse were not telling the truth. It was a wicked thing to do, and the Haut de la Garenne child abuse investigation was deliberatly trashed. I have blogged about these issues in depth on my own anti child abuse blog, Zoompads Blog, if you want to check up on the facts.

        Here is a hypothetical question. If your daughters came to you and told you that they hated being forced to attend nudist colonies when they were children, how would you respond? Would you listen to their grievances and see things from their perspective?

        The Lord our God was very specific about how we should look after our children. Perhaps you would be better off sitting in your own back garden and reading your Bible rather than traipsing off to nudist camps, you might learn something wise off God if you did that.

  14. to the gay, naturalist christian. like someone says above the bible mentions being naked with shame. it mentions being gay with great sin.

    how can you justify your stance as a christian knowing this?

    and why should we have to walk through the streets on that day with all you naked people riding past? what about our kids? grannys etc? why is your point of view so important that you have to outrage public deciencies so much? maybe you all get a kick from exposeing yourselves in public.

  16. Sorry Stephen, but you are quoting scots law again, “Indecent Exposure” is NOT relevant in England and cannot be prosecuted, instead Police use S5 of the Public Order Act which was specifically brought in after the Brixton Riots and is being used where there is no other way the Police can make an arrest eg where someone calls a police horse “gay” etc. There is a widespread movement to get this piece of legislation scrapped http://reformsection5.org.uk/2012/05/in-the-news-16th-may/