We have a long tradition of eccentricity here in the UK - Mr Chevein fits into that category far more snugly than that of a criminal. Some years ago I was slowly driving through the evening traffic in South London frustrated by the delay, when a man wearing only a baseball cap, back to front, and a pair of army boots came cycling past whistling Rule Britania. I was totally surprised, and I just burst out laughing. He made my day and lightened the stress of the traffic.

It is amazing that someone can be found guilty of something that isn't actually illegal. There is no law making it illegal to be naked in England.
This is another case of abuse of the Public Order Act by police, cps and courts to pursue their personal prejudices. If someone can be arrested and convicted merely for giving offence, then we are in a police state.

It is even more amazing that the witness who is said to have been distressed did not appear in court and I believe there was no witness statement from her or indeed any evidence that she actually existed apart from the word of an off-duty police officer who seems to be distressed at seeing a naked man.

This is a huge waste of public money at a time the police, cps and courts are claiming they are short on resources. Further public money will now be wasted with the inevitable appeal where this traversty of Justice is likely to be reversed.

Unbelievable. Offence is wildly subjective and should not be a factor in a public order conviction.

By that very logic, the rambler could take offence at the wearing of clothes and become distressed, leaving anyone wearing clothes vulnerable to prosecution.

It is just me who thinks the Public Order Act is just a catch-all so the police can arrest anyone at their discretion?

I find the actions of the police officer and the judge highly offensive. I take it I can now look to the CPS to do the necessary.

Well in the Rhondda valley we mount slagheaps naked and we don't get arrested.

Where did the long arm of the law grab Mr. Naturist to make his arrest. He sounds like a right twerp so should do well in rhe force..

I find it difficult to believe in our justice system that a man can be convicted of an offence under the Public Order Act on the basis of the alarm cause to a person who made no complaint, made no statement or appear in court all, on the word of one off-duty policeman, who claimed to being 'a little alarmed' himself - this just happened to be the magic word necessary to get a conviction. He does not even appear to have spoken to the woman, so how did he know what, if anything, had upset her.

What is our police force doing employing officers who are so easily alarmed, more so than the vast majority of the British public.

This case was a travesty and a waste of police, CPS and court resources, in times when they have much more serious issues to worry about.

Great result! This chap deserved everything he got. Do we want people willfully exposing themselves to us when we are rambling in the hills and showing their private parts to our children? I certainly don't. His behaviour was unacceptable and he was rightly fined.

Section 5 POA is an excellent piece of legislation and has been successfully used against people like this man in the past. Let this be a warning to other people who have a compusion to expose themselves in this way.

Stabvest's comments may be better expressed in the foaming-mouthed Daily Mail comments section. This conviction was a travesty of justice. The man should be given an award for publicising the shocking attitude of our police. He wasn't "showing his private parts to our children", he was out for a walk. With no clothes on. Stabvest's prudish attitude to nudity is his or her problem, but it shouldn't be foisted on the more enlightened majority.

Good for the Rambler, as for the other Plonker ???

Funny how those who like to expose their reproductive organs to strangers, and those who think that is an acceptable way to behave in public, consider themselves to be the "enlightened majority" while those who do not share their views are dismissed as "prudish".

The police officer in this case was 100% correct, as were the CPS and the magistrate and they are to be commended. This case reflects a similar case a few months agho in which a naked cyclist in Bournemouth was fined under sec. 5. Let's hope that these "free range" naturists will soon learn that such exhibitionism will cost them dearly.

If my family and I were out walking (wife and two young girls )and were confronted by this bufoon I would endeavour to ensure he had one less reproductive organ to expose. If there perversion is limited to clear nudist beaches where all the freaks can be together thats fine but I wouldnt want an overweight middle aged man anywhere near me or mine with his bits hanging out..is it meant to be ok if he has not got an erection...can he guarantee not to get one..attention seeking and nothing more.

jibber sure has a hang-up doesn't he? Maybe she/he thinks if we were meant to be naked we would have been born that way!! However, this chap should have had the sense to walk off the beaten track where the prudish elements of society wouldn't take offence - or be ready to quickly cover-up when anyone else appears. This is what I do if I decide a nude walk is appropriate - and I certainly wouldn't solicit the opinions of passers-by as it appears he may have done. Furthermore, and finally, walking nude in the company of other like-minded and mixed gender folks would be much less likely to get negative reactions.

I must be prudish too stabvest! As a female and enthusiastic walker I am sometimes alone in isolated spots and I would be mortified to come across this naked man! My first thought would be "Get out of here" the second, "Call the police" and I'm afraid to say I would. If it meant that a child/other woman would not encounter him. Whether we like it or not the fact is a lot of women are nervous of strange men especially naked ones I would have thought???It is true I would probably not feel the same threat from a naked woman or couple. If I was in a packed city centre I may even laugh. I have no problem with nudist beaches if that is what people enjoy doing in their personal time thats up to them but I do think in this case the man should have thought about the location and the fact he was alone. As a lone naked man surely he is also at risk? There is always someone bigger and stronger than you!

Naked is our NATURAL state. I know we all seem to be heading as rapidly away from nature and 'naturalness' as possible, but arresting this guy is ridiculous. He wasn't doing anyone any harm and folks who don't like it should just look away!

There's no way naturists are perverts - it's not about sex, it's about being NATURAL!

The APNEL association — APNEL stands for Association for the Promotion of Naturism in Liberty — is working for clarification of the law on naturism in all countries.
The aim is to stop nudity as such being equated with sexual exhibitionism.

Naked may be our natural state scientifically but I don't think it is natural in the society we choose to live in -there are very good sensible reasons why the majority of us leave the house fully clothed. We all have different beliefs and values but we shouldn't try to push our beliefs at others.
I am quite sure naturists are not perverts but they may be perceived as this if they insist on appearing in public places. There are a lot of things that are natural but do we want them displayed for our children and families to see? There will always be a child who has never seen a naked man or an older person that finds it offensive...we have to think of others if we want to live as we do.

Perhaps the dog walker should have been fined for distressing the naturist.

Are you a true nudist looking for a nudist mate or nudist partner, nudistkiss. com is the best choice to you

CarolO

Indulging in intimate acts is also natural, as is emptying our bowels, but that doesn't mean we have the right to do these things openly in public. When using public places, we have a duty to respect the rights and sensibilities of other people we are likely to meet.

jfreeman

I agree the law on nudity should be clarified. It should be clear that public nudity is prohibited except in places set aside, signposted and enclosed for naturism or in certain changing facilities.

Okay Stabvest, I'll clarify it for you. Ready?

It's not illegal. You're allowed.

As you correctly note, users of public places have a duty to respect the rights and sensibilities of other users of such places. Works both ways. Funny how the people that screech the loudest about being offended at things are generally the most offensive themselves.

I'm curious if you would be so very offended by less-than-clothed women. I'm also curious if newspaper photographs of the annual London nude bicycle ride throw you into fits of apoplexy.

Incidentally, the fact that Stephen Gough has been in prison for six years continuously - longer than any number of violent offenders or, yes, pedophiles one might name - for an act that is not even illegal, under the pretense of "causing offense", ought to give any right-thinking person enormous pause for thought. Almost 10 percent of a man's life, for displaying in public something half the world's population has, in a manner consistent with the law. That causes me some offense, for certain.

Yes, it is in a sense self-inflicted in that he could walk free at the end of his current sentence if he did so with clothes on. But dammit, he has every right to be naked and I applaud his tenacity and willingness to make a sacrifice like that on principle, even if it is not a battle I would choose. The longer he's inside, the better he looks, and the stupider CPS looks.

Whenever you find the outrage bubbling up at someone else's level of dress, just remember that you were once shoved head first naked and screaming through a woman's vagina, most likely in front of a small crowd of strangers (barring C-sections and breech births). A little perspective.

Nude is not rude, naturistmingle. com offers a friendly and confidential environment for nudists. If you are looking to try something new, the clothes free lifestyle could be your answer to meeting new nudist friends who look just like everyone. It is the best choice for you!

Any real nudists here ? Nudistkiss com I would like to recommend you to the world's best and largest nudist dating site for world wide nudists , naturists and naked people to share nude photos and experiences and chat with real nudists Lots of fun on Nudistkiss com

With the crime in this country getting ever worse, however much the police would make you think otherwise it is amazing that time in the courts can be wasted in such trivial events and as for stabvest he can get a life....or perhaps not... he would have us all wearing the same costumes on beaches as they did in victorian days....

Section5 of the Public Order Act was specifically enabled to deal with cases where actual harm or severe distress was likely to be caused but is now used as a "catch-all" for situations that the police are unsure about. It seems incredible that someone can be convicted merely on the word of a Police Officer, this is worrying because the Police are there to uphold the law,not make the law, and the P.O. in this case should at least have taken the alleged woman's details and she should have been required to make a statement.
Several SENIOR Police Officer's HAVE stated that simply being naked in public IS NOT an offence witness the naked people on the 4th Plinth in Trafalgar Sq, a cpl of yrs ago and the Naked Bike Rides(See wnbr.org) in cities and towns in UK and other countries.
Some people may not like to see another person naked, but that DOESN'T mean that it is illegal, a naked person poses no threat(no concealed weapons lol) and it HAS been proved that no person, man woman or child, has ever been HARMED by the sight of another person naked, they may or may not be OFFENDED but offence is in the mind and we do NOT have a RIGHT to NOT be OFFENDED.
AS long as the sighting is not a sexual one and it's not an "opening of raincoat" - there is a difference and this man was just enjoying a natural walk without clothes!
Perhaps he should have been more aware of clothed walkers but no-one actually complained,not even the alleged female dog walker!

Stabvest and otheres, PLEASE READ THIS.. from the walking club... http://www.walkingclub.org.uk/walking/naked_walking.shtml

Just facts, not feelings!!!

Jibber, it's easy to see who the real danger to society is here.

Mr.Keer was found not guilty on Appeal.
Doubt was cast on whether the "offended woman with the dog" actually existed and if indeed she did there was no evidence of her being offended.
He continues to live his chosen lifestyle and to raise money for a range of charities and to write on the clothes free lifestyle.

So glad Nigel Keer was found not guilty on appeal. Yes, another example of misuse of the Public Order Act by prejudiced law enforcement. Stabvest, if you can't see the difference between intimate acts/having a poop (both of which can be carried out clothed BTW) and merely going about your normal (lawful) business sans clothes, then if you are a police officer you really ought to consider another job. Those are acts - the only 'act' Mr Keer was guilty of was walking. Being nude, or partially clothed (he had footwear and a backpack) is a state of dress, not an act. Stabvest seems far too obsessed with genitalia instead of context - speaks volumes about mindset does it not? Oh and don't forget the children sg - rolled out yet again as another excuse for adult issues. Doubt cast on existence of the woman with the 'disgusted frown'? Its 'officers' like this who give a bad name to our otherwise wonderful police service. Bad luck Nigel, on encountering such a plonker, and congrats on your win against tyranny.