Streaker Punishment a bit Harsh?

stupidusername

What i'm saying (if you read my first post) is depending on the circumstance it could be harmful. A childs mind can be warped by things like that.it's dependent on how safe the environment is to the child etc

howsyourtusk

A child's mind can be warped by seeing some folds of skin? From a distance? u mad? :P

Stark

By someone flashing their boobs? Explain exactly how the child's mind is warped. Does the child take out an etiquette book, finds boob flashing under the "faux pas" section and ends up with mind blown as a result?

I've been in the men's room in swimming pools and fathers have their young sons and daughters wandering around with naked men showering without a care. None of them seem traumatized to my mind. Maybe you can cite an example of someone who was left scarred after seeing a woman's breast as a child?

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

As nudist colonies (and the history of our species) show this is the main problem.

Nudity around kids is only a problem because we have a stupidly immature view of nudity that we pass onto kids.


A 5 year old seeing a penis is no different than a 5 year old seeing a finger, unless we contrive a reason as to why the child should be scarred for life.

stupidusername

I didn't say this was comparable to flashing boobs.

Of course if nudity is normal for a child then being exposed to it isn't an issue. I'm saying nudity / sexual practice around a child can warp their mind. I'm on my phone now,when i'm on my laptop i'll find studies to show what i'm talking about.

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

I'm saying nudity / sexual practice around a child can warp their mind.

Nudity and sexual practices aren't the same thing though.

howsyourtusk

Nudity is a state of undress. Sexual practise is when one becomes aroused by something. They're related but not even close to being the same thing.

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

I didn't say this was comparable to flashing boobs.

Of course if nudity is normal for a child then being exposed to it isn't an issue. I'm saying nudity / sexual practice around a child can warp their mind. I'm on my phone now,when i'm on my laptop i'll find studies to show what i'm talking about.

Your point was exposing a child to a boob could be harmful.
Nudity around your own children is normal up to a certain age, sexual practice around any children is never ok.

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Of course if nudity is normal for a child then being exposed to it isn't an issue. I'm saying nudity around a child can warp their mind.

Nudity around a child who has learned nudity around children is wrong may warp their mind.

But I'd guess the minds of remote tribes, nudist colonies, and billions of our ancestors aren't/weren't warped because mommy and daddy didn't wear underwear.

It's not inherently wrong, it's only wrong because we convey to children that it's wrong.

RichieC

An english poster on an other forum posted this:

Blame Parliament, not the magistrates. The requirement to sign the Sex Offenders' Register is mandatory after conviction for particular offences, including indecent exposure. It's an automatic administrative measure, and the courts have no discretion in the matter.

davetherave

stupidusername wrote: »

What about if I flash my boobs to a crowd?

For what it's worth, all the offences in the SOA 2003 are gender neutral apart from rape.

The offence replaces section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. It is gender neutral (covering exposure of male or female genitalia to a male or female witness) and carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment."

I suppose it is dependant on whether breasts are considered genitalia?

Nothingbetter2d

pickarooney wrote: »

This is just bull**** that people who are uncomfortable about nudity tell themselves. If you honestly can't tell the difference between flashing a child and running about in the nip in public, you have a very odd way of thinking, IMO. Why would a child, or an adult for that matter, be upset by the sight of someone running about naked? Streaking is funny, flashing is not.

personally i couldn't give a hoot about flashers but all im saying with all the recent scandals regarding child sex abuse the government feel they have to be seen to be having a ZERO tolerence on anything that might be construed by do gooder type people as a danger to children...

believe me when i say this, there is ALWAYS one **** that has to be awkward in grey area scenarios such as this.

blatantrereg

davetherave wrote: »

For what it's worth, all the offences in the SOA 2003 are gender neutral apart from rape.

The offence replaces section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. It is gender neutral (covering exposure of male or female genitalia to a male or female witness) and carries a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment."

I suppose it is dependant on whether breasts are considered genitalia?

Breasts are not gentalia.

Run_to_da_hills

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Should have thought of that before he ran starkers across a pitch...

He was probably just expecting a slap on the hand public order offence with a ₤100 fine.

Fighting Irish

jimthemental wrote: »

Well it all depends on whether he hit the woodwork while he was on the pitch.

MaxSteele

Are some of you narrow minded saps actually serious ?? This man is going to have to live as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life for having the banter. Technically children did see his funny bits, but c'mon to class a streaker in the same category as Larry Murphy is just plain ignorant and uptight. I'm sure these children have had baths with their parents as toddlers, seen nudity in dressing rooms, seen the mother's tits at the beach in Spain, or had a leak with the aul'fella at the same time. To ignore the context of the situation is just ridiculous . Some awfully immature attitudes here in basic understanding of the difference between nudity and sexual gratification.

stupidusername

I said this:

stupidusername wrote: »

Sorry but that's bollix.a young child can't distinguish intent.like it or not,a child being exposed to that could be harmful when it's not considered normal in society.

in response to this:

howsyourtusk wrote: »

The only danger is when exposing oneself is done for sexual arousal. Then that's not cool.

Stark wrote: »

By someone flashing their boobs? Explain exactly how the child's mind is warped. Does the child take out an etiquette book, finds boob flashing under the "faux pas" section and ends up with mind blown as a result?

I've been in the men's room in swimming pools and fathers have their young sons and daughters wandering around with naked men showering without a care. None of them seem traumatized to my mind. Maybe you can cite an example of someone who was left scarred after seeing a woman's breast as a child?

It wasn't in terms of flashing boobs, like I already said.

And yes of course people shower around kids in public pools etc., but what I said was that under certain circumstances it can be dangerous. in a public swimming pool, children tend to be with an adult they trust/know. which is different to being exposed to a complete strangers genitalia when you're alone with them.

And just so I may stop loads more of you jumping down my throat, I'm not saying what this guy did was that big a deal, I'm merely pointing out the need for the law. I do agree that it should be up to the judge to decide punishment based on intent and circumstances.

Seachmall wrote: »

As nudist colonies (and the history of our species) show this is the main problem.

Nudity around kids is only a problem because we have a stupidly immature view of nudity that we pass onto kids.

A 5 year old seeing a penis is no different than a 5 year old seeing a finger, unless we contrive a reason as to why the child should be scarred for life.

Are you saying that if you saw a woman walking naked down the street, you wouldn't take any notice of her? It's normal in the western world is it?

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Nudity and sexual practices aren't the same thing though.

Never said they were, but they are very close in relation. genitalia are seen as sexual things and this is both learned and is known by instinct in humans.

hondasam wrote: »

Your point was exposing a child to a boob could be harmful.
Nudity around your own children is normal up to a certain age, sexual practice around any children is never ok.

No that's not what my point was. read it again.
You've brought up a funny little point there, why is nudity around your own children normal up to a certain age? at what age does it suddenly become not ok, and why is that? plus why is it only around your own children?

in regards to the studies, you'll have to give me more time, i've got things to do with my day.

MaxSteele wrote: »

Are some of you narrow minded saps actually serious ?? This man is going to have to live as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life for having the banter. Technically children did see his funny bits, but c'mon to class a streaker in the same category as Larry Murphy is just plain ignorant and uptight. I'm sure these children have had baths with their parents as toddlers, seen nudity in dressing rooms, seen the mother's tits at the beach in Spain, or had a leak with the aul'fella at the same time. To ignore the context of the situation is just ridiculous . Some awfully immature attitudes here in basic understanding of the difference between nudity and sexual gratification.

In fairness, there's only one or two posters saying that he deserves it.

Elmer Blooker

What score was the match?

Stark

stupidusername wrote: »

Are you saying that if you saw a woman walking naked down the street, you wouldn't take any notice of her? It's normal in the western world is it?

Given some of our attitudes, a woman walking down the street naked would be more of a danger to herself than to any children.

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

Never said they were, but they are very close in relation. genitalia are seen as sexual things and this is both learned and is known by instinct in humans.

They're only seen as sexual if they're perceived as such, which is the result of the observers own assumptions and prejudices. Very young children who don't even know what sex is couldn't possibly draw a correlation between the exposure of genitalia and fucking.

stupidusername

ok, so if ye all think being naked in public is ok, why is it illegal?

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

No that's not what my point was. read it again.
You've brought up a funny little point there, why is nudity around your own children normal up to a certain age? at what age does it suddenly become not ok, and why is that? plus why is it only around your own children?

Nudity around your own children is fine until it becomes uncomfortable for either you or them, every one is different so ages differ for every family.
I would not be happy if other people were naked around my kids and I'm sure other parents would feel the same.

in regards to the studies, you'll have to give me more time, i've got things to do with my day.

I did not ask for studies and I don't expect you to provide them.

Stark

stupidusername wrote: »

ok, so if ye all think being naked in public is ok, why is it illegal?

Why is gay marriage illegal? Why does it take 5 years to get a divorce? Why were contraception and gay sex illegal up until the 90s?

stupidusername

hondasam wrote: »

Nudity around your own children is fine until it becomes uncomfortable for either you or them, every one is different so ages differ for every family.
I would not be happy if other people were naked around my kids and I'm sure other parents would feel the same.

but why does it become uncomfortable for either? would you consider that normal?

and why would you not be happy with other people being naked around your kids? isn't this exactly what this law is there for? this many exposed himself to every child there.

hondasam wrote: »

I did not ask for studies and I don't expect you to provide them.

That wasn't directed at you.

howsyourtusk

stupidusername wrote: »

ok, so if ye all think being naked in public is ok, why is it illegal?

Why is it illegal? That's a damn good question.

stupidusername

Stark wrote: »

Why is gay marriage illegal? Why does it take 5 years to get a divorce? Why were contraception and gay sex illegal up until the 90s?

so you think that public nudity should be legal?

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

ok, so if ye all think being naked in public is ok, why is it illegal?

Honestly, are you being this obtuse on purpose? The main gripe here is that someone who hasn't committed a sexual offence is on the sexual offenders register, for some reason.

howsyourtusk

stupidusername wrote: »

so you think that public nudity should be legal?

Yeh, why the hell shouldn't it be? There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity.

stupidusername

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Honestly, are you being this obtuse on purpose? The main gripe here is that someone who hasn't committed a sexual offence is on the sexual offenders register, for some reason.

Nope, I just like to challenge peoples views. I'm asking the question to see what people actually think of it. my point is that (and I agree that the judge ruled incorrectly) the law cannot define context in terms of exposure, and so yes this had to be ruled illegal, as according to the law as is, it was broken. you may say it wasn't a sexual offence, but it was, technically.

Stark

stupidusername wrote: »

so you think that public nudity should be legal?

As long as people aren't exposing themselves for sexual gratification, yes. Topless sunbathing is legal across much of Continental Europe and you go to any public sauna in Germany/Austria and there are people walking around naked. And children aren't growing up warped in those nations.

There was a Spencer Tunick thing about two years ago with about 3000 people naked out in the open down in the Docklands. Society didn't collapse.

stupidusername wrote: »

Nope, I just like to challenge peoples views.

Funny, you seem to be the one with the Victorian/Catholic era views.

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

Nope, I just like to challenge peoples views. I'm asking the question to see what people actually think of it.

Okay. Well, personally, I don't think public nudity in and of itself shouldn't be a crime. Unless the nude person started **** in people's faces or flashing people from under a trenchcoat and stuff.

ScumLord

crusher000 wrote: »

I presume there were children at the match. So it's acceptable for a person to expose themselves to kids? Yes he may have been on the pitch away from children but still in their full view.Well done judge.

I don't see why having children there would be any more of a problem they're only going to see it in the way it was intended, as funny. The only reason anyone views nudity as wrong is because we're thought that. In many other countries they don't view nudity as anything wrong and people don't have hangups about it.

Nudity won't scar a child.

stupidusername

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Okay. Well, personally, I don't think public nudity in and of itself shouldn't be a crime. Unless the nude person started **** in people's faces or flashing people from under a trenchcoat and stuff.

I assume the double negative wasn't intended there?

Looking into this a bit more, it seems that nudity in public is considered offensive, and this is why it's illegal. Maybe it's possible that its purpose is to limit the likelihood of sex in public, or indeed public masturbation. :pac:

I'd be very interested in seeing a poll (even just in AH) as to whether or not nudity should be legal. so far we have at least one poster saying she doesn't want her children exposed to a strangers genitalia.

4zn76tysfajdxp

stupidusername wrote: »

I assume the double negative wasn't intended there?

Right. Every time someone corrects my grammar I send them a picture of my cock.

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

but why does it become uncomfortable for either? would you consider that normal?

and why would you not be happy with other people being naked around your kids? isn't this exactly what this law is there for? this many exposed himself to every child there.

I don't care who is naked in public and my kids would not care either. This man exposed himself to the general public,he did not single out male/female or age, it was done for a laugh and a bet. There was no sexual intent involved.


Edit, Must correct Frada immediately.

stupidusername

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Right. Every time someone corrects my grammar I send them a picture of my cock.

oh ffs, defensive much? I was simply trying to clarify your opinion, as it seemed you got mixed up.

hondasam wrote: »

I don't care who is naked in public and my kids would not care either. This man exposed himself to the general public,he did not single out male/female or age, it was done for a laugh and a bet. There was no sexual intent involved.

my point is the law doesn't distinguish between intent. and you already said you wouldn't want strangers naked around your children!

howsyourtusk

I don't even need to have my grammar corrected to send cock pics

hondasam

stupidusername wrote: »

I'd be very interested in seeing a poll (even just in AH) as to whether or not nudity should be legal. so far we have at least one poster saying she doesn't want her children exposed to a strangers genitalia.

What is wrong with you? Are you deliberately trying to cause offence ?
when I mentioned kids and nudity I was speaking about the kids home not in public.

I'm out of this thread ffs.

stupidusername

hondasam wrote: »

What is wrong with you? Are you deliberately trying to cause offence ?
when I mentioned kids and nudity I was speaking about the kids home not in public.

I'm out of this thread ffs.

how am I causing offence?

Nothingbetter2d

Stark wrote: »

Why is gay marriage illegal? Why does it take 5 years to get a divorce? Why were contraception and gay sex illegal up until the 90s?

that has alot more to do with the church's grip on our government.... despite the church's decline in recent years it still holds a fair bit of clout when it comes to our older generation of people. thankfully this is changing but it may take some time before it fully happens.

personally i dont have issues with either gay marriage or if people want to divorce. It's their life and provided it (gay marriage) causes no harm to others there is no reason why it should not be legalised. The divorce process should be more flexible.

and as for contraception being made legal in the 90's it was more to do with the rise in sti's & children born out of wedlock than it had to do with anything else that made it legal. The church's arguements to keep it illegal simply wasn't valid enough and actually broke their own every life is sacred policy when it came to the spread of HIV and hepatitis which as we all know kills people.

Deus Ex Machina

He should also get a lengthy prison sentence on top of everything else.

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Are you saying that if you saw a woman walking naked down the street, you wouldn't take any notice of her? It's normal in the western world is it?

My point, if you read it again, is that it's not normal in the western world.

Some ridiculous statements in here... Some people now think that a child seeing a man's penis is now sexual abuse no matter the occassion?
Are ye fuking serious? It's sad that complete morons now have a voice in this day and age.

carbon nanotube

Corkboi wrote: »

So this guy Streaked at a football match last year, it was the game between Villa and Man City. He was caught, Obviously, and his trial has just finished. They have placed him on the sex offenders register for two years. Now I think this is a bit harsh, what do you reckon??



Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2118221/Football-fan-streaked-Premier-League-match-100-bet-placed-sex-offenders-register.html

looks like he is trying a robbie keane there, all starkers


putting him on the offerners is nuts, but this is england we are talking about with some of the most draconian law in the world.

stupidusername

Seachmall wrote: »

My point, if you read it again, is that it's not normal in the western world.

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

Deleted User wrote: »

Some ridiculous statements in here... Some people now think that a child seeing a man's penis is now sexual abuse no matter the occassion?

who was saying that?

Seachmall

stupidusername wrote: »

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

Never said anything like that.

Stark

stupidusername wrote: »

Ah yes, apologies. you're saying that it should be normal, because there's nothing wrong with nudity anywhere, is that it?

If a woman did walk naked down the road, what do you think would be the harm that would result from it? I think it would be highly unusual and out of place if she did, but unless you can show some actual harm (other than some fishwives injuring themselves tutting) then it's not morally wrong. If you look at something like the world naked bike ride, you've thousands of people riding naked down the streets in cities around the world including UK cities.

howsyourtusk

Stark wrote: »

If a woman did walk naked down the road, what do you think would be the harm that would result from it?

The boner apocalypse?

Unavailable for Comment

Valentino Bumpy Sesame wrote: »

Honestly, are you being this obtuse on purpose? The main gripe here is that someone who hasn't committed a sexual offence is on the sexual offenders register, for some reason.

Being placed on VISOR is a mandatory result of being convicted of this in the England. If the judge was to waive it (although he has no discretion) because he believed there was no intent in Gorman's actions it would potentially expose other orders that were made against much more dangerous people.

The whole legal apparatus is designed to offer the widest protection to the widest amount of people. Unfortunately sometimes sympathetic people get ground down by it.

Frankly though it's not a big deal. As the herds of British sex offenders that migrate to Ireland every year shows, it doesn't really impact on their travel plans.

skinny90

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It is

Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (UK):

[F1(1)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.]

so if a women does it its fine??