Re: Durdle Door

Apologies - long post again

So, as a course of action, do people on the forum think the following
is a reasonable plan if approached by the Police, as a result of being
nude on a beach, and they tell you to "cover up" ?-

1) Temporarily cover up with a towel (so as to be demonstrably
"reasonable" in your attitude in any follow up action you may take,
not because you have to).

2) Say "Good morning/afternoon and invite them politely to sit down
next to you, explain you were just having a quiet time on the beach
and were not anticipating that this would unduly impact on anyone
else, (covers any later claim you were "intending" to harass or
intimidate under POA) so can you discuss it with them.

3) Ask calmly and politely under what law they are suggesting that you
should not be naked "as you had been told it was not illegal and want
to know if you were misinformed". If possible noting down every thing
said (or getting someone else to), as this will strengthen your case
in any follow up action you may need to take as they will have
difficulty disproving your version of events if they are based on
contemporaneous notes.

4) If they say a sexual offence of some sort, politely ask them to
check with their desk sergeant that such an offence is actually really
occurring, as you have been specifically told that simple beach
naturism is not a sexual offence under any UK statute, especially the
SOA, and it was even redrafted by parliament so as to make this clear.

5) If they say POA ask what gave them the impression you were
intending to alarm/distress/intimidate etc. anyone at all, and which
individuals in particular.

6) If they then backtrack and now say "breach of the Queens
peace" (hereafter BOTP) (or went for this straight away) then ask

a) If the officer considers there is a "violent disturbance" going on
now ? (i.e. is there an actual BOTP in existence). If they say no, as
they will have to, or change tack to now say, or initially said

b) There is "likely to be a BOTP". Ask if they have any personal
experience of a single incident where a person simply being naked on a
beach, in itself, lead to a "violent disturbance" ?

c) If they say "no" (as is almost certain to be the case), then ask if
they are aware of a single incident of such an event anywhere in the
UK in the last 75 years ?

d) If they say "yes" (unlikely but possible I suppose if they
inaccurately include violent resistance to arrest rather than actual
BOTP as a result of the nudity in itself, or are aware of the couple
of incidents with Steve Gough on his walk - point out hundreds of
interaction with public, only a couple of "nutters" attacked him), ask
" was this the normal outcome from the public in the majority of
occasions" if the police did not intervene ?

e) Then ask "as they have agreed that 'violent disturbance'" (keep
reminding them what breach of the peace actually means by case law)
"has either never happened, or very rarely happens as a result of
simple beach nudity", on what basis they now think that this
particular incident of beach naturism is so unlike the normal, such
that the likelihood of a violent disturbance is now better than 50% as
a predictable response by the "public" actually present on that
occasion, particularly if the officer informs the "crowd" that there
is no illegal activity occurring ?

f) Then ask if he could please radio his/her "desk sergeant" to see if
they have personal experience or knowledge of a violent disturbance
resulting from simple beach nudity in the last 75 years ?

7) Then state that as they have provided no statute law under which
your naturism is illegal, and have said that there is no BOTP
occurring, and have agreed that it is not "likely" to occur either,
that you can see no legal impediment to your uncovering yourself as
you were before. Ask again if they know of a valid legal reason why
you should not ? If they cannot come up with anything ask is there any
other matter the Police officer wishes to discuss or is there any
other reason for them to be there, or is the matter now concluded ?

8) Then ask if they will kindly explain to the other persons present,
and any complainant in particular, that you are acting entirely
lawfully, even if those people consider your behaviour eccentric. (I
think introducing the word "eccentric" gives the Police a get out,
they can say to the complainant -"harmless eccentric - what they are
doing is not actually strictly illegal so we cannot do anything at the
present" gives them a bit of a face saving way of backing down after
having responded)

9) If they come up with some law you have never heard of, ask for the
exact legislation, and if possible sections etc. (offer them the
option of calling their desk sergeant to look it up if needed) and
write it down "so you can research it". Then record their details
(names, shoulder numbers etc). Ask if they both think that this law
applies to this exact situation. Thank them for correcting you in the
legal position and agree to & stay covered up to be on the safe side.
Then as soon as you can, check it out, and tell us here. If (as I
suspect) they are either wrong, or making something up, then complain
intensely to the chief constable that they are ill informed,
misleading the public and bringing their force into disrepute and
demand to know what he/she is going to do to re-educate that pair of
constables, their desk sergeant and the force in general as to what
the law actually is in relation to naturism.

Other than in 9 above, then say that you therefore intend to uncover
now "as is your lawful peaceful right" (i.e. making it clear the
nudity is not intended to harass or disturb anyone else), and then do
so

At this point they will either give up and let you get on with your
lawful and peaceful use of the beach, or will arrest you.

If the latter you have given yourself a more or less cast iron case
for unlawful arrest and or even harassment to pursue as a civil action
or via the (free) Police Complaints system as they have given no
legally valid reason, (despite your numerous reasonable polite
requests to provide it), for your arrest at the time it occurred.
Maybe unlawful discrimination on philosophical belief under the
Equality Act 2006 (if that applies to your reason for being naked) as
well. They cannot arrest you and then think of a valid reason
afterwards, you have to be arrested for something in particular that
they believe applies at that time. If they say they are going to
arrest you if you uncover, or do (in which case wait until they have
cautioned you) ask them to please (polite remember) confirm with their
desk sergeant by radio if they also consider the arrest is lawful
before you are removed from the beach and are disturbed more than is
necessary, as, if they continue, you feel you will have to make a
formal complaint.

If arreasted co-operate fully, do not give even a suggestion of
resistance. Make your objection to arrest calm, peaceful and based on
the interpretation of the law alone. Ask for pencil and paper to be
provided to you as soon as possible so that you can write down "for my
solicitor" contemporaneous notes of your discussions prior to the
arrest occurring, but say nothing else until you have legal
representation beyond perhaps "I do not consider I have broken any
law, but I am not prepared to say any more until I have received
competent legal advice on this". This will not seem an unreasonable
stance to any potential jury, and is not as confrontational as a
repeated "no comment" interview, neither is it actually a denial other
than in intent (in the unlikely event you are wrong in law) or an
admittance of anything.

If this is the duty solicitor ask specifically if they have relevant
experience and knowledge of the legal position and case law in respect
of naturism and BOTP in regard to "violent disturbance", or if they
need to research it before representing you. Sadly you may well know
of the relevant law better than them, and therefore have to suggest
what they need to research. If they then muck it up you can later
complain to the law society about their incompetence, despite them
being forewarned of the issues. If their attitude is not, the Police
are wrong in law and need to apologise and let you go, then doubt
their competence. Do not accept a caution, or a fixed penalty if you
can refuse it - always say you wish to go to court as you strongly
believe you are breaching no law -, as this usually is an
acknowledgement of guilt on your behalf and weakens your case for
wrongful arrest and harassment, although it does not completely finish
it, if you do it "under duress".

If they do not arrest you and let you carry on, then it is I feel
tactically good to write to the chief constable to praise the officers
for the polite calm and legally correct way they dealt with the
complaint from an ill informed member of the public. Even if this is
stretching the truth a little and they acted with ill grace. Most
public servants get very few formal "thank you"s and making them feel
good about the incident in hindsight, when they get a pat on the back
from their boss, for actually (or allegedly) doing it well, will make
any future similar complaint they get called to go all the smoother
for the naturist concerned next time. It might be you again. They will
not be likely to admit to their boss that they were really acting with
ill grace and were desperately trying to find something to "get you"
on. "Thank you"s get brownie points in most public organisations at
all levels above, not just the individuals they were aimed at, as they
counteract the inevitable complaints of poor service, and as they are
often infrequent management do not want to disprove them. If nothing
else it reminds several Policemen that beach naturism is not illegal
and is not "likely to cause a BOTP" either.


I am not a lawyer and this should not be regarded as legal advice,
research the law yourself and make your own decisions or seek
qualified legal advice.

This post is just a question put to the other contributors as to
whether they think this may be a good approach.

Gnome

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
    ... so he's not versed on the legal definition of arrest. ... he asked for the police report and that request was refused. ... promulgated that says that Constitutional law is, or will be, at issue ... and called the cops for no reason. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: reason 26 to despise the police
    ... the police regard as an offensive weapon is being ignored by the ... They don't 'have' to arrest. ... The law allows them to accept a reason ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Conventions that dont suck?
    ... We don't know the exact details, ... other categories that have been excluded from FOIA for a reason. ... the knowledge of exactly what the law says is not sufficiently sensitive to justify "national security" (and no, it isn't, no matter what they claim. ... arrest you because... ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: reason 26 to despise the police
    ... the police regard as an offensive weapon is being ignored by the ... They don't 'have' to arrest. ... The law allows them to accept a reason ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Plot Holes in Book6
    ... contemporary understanding of rule of law isn't even a Potterverse concept. ... I can agree too that Arthur Weasley makes a fruitful example because we know ... more about him than about other MoM employees. ... Is that for a reason deeper than that the DEs themselves are an illegal ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
Loading