UK Stasi strike again...

[segovius]

A woman has been arrested by the UK police for sunbathing naked in her own garden. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5014450.stm)

The British police are running rampant now after having been transformed into an elite Brownshirt division but this is surely a step too far. Note also the headline designed to obscure the outrage - "Woman allowed to sunbathe" (that's nice of them - how about "Black man allowed to ride bus") - graciously supplied by the government's propaganda department, the BBC.

The charge was 'indecent exposure' and the woman was arrested after a complaint by a neighbour (who curiously filmed it which is a bit strange - surely he warrants a visit from the boys in brown who might want to subject his hard-drive to their ponderous scrutiny).

Why naked women are offensive is not broached in the article (perhaps the neighbour was a fundie - there will be more of this sort of complaint) but the real issue is why the police would even have the right to arrest her - let alone the court 'allowing' her to do it.

But the assumptions are even more worrying:

Prosecutor Maggie Hughes said sunbathing nude "could be grossly offensive to normal decent persons in society".

She asked Ms Burgess: "What kind of kick do you get from this behaviour?"

Trevor Emberton, chairman of Cardigan magistrates, told her: "You have admitted sunbathing naked from time to time and that this has become a normal pattern.

"We do not accept you intended to cause harm or distress and therefore find you not guilty."

'Normal People'. God help us. Did not 'intend' to cause distress.

Idiots like this are causing me distress - in fact a lot of things are....

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
A woman has been arrested by the UK police for sunbathing naked in her own garden. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5014450.stm)

The British police are running rampant now after having been transformed into an elite Brownshirt division but this is surely a step too far. Note also the headline designed to obscure the outrage - "Woman allowed to sunbathe" (that's nice of them - how about "Black man allowed to ride bus") - graciously supplied by the government's propaganda department, the BBC.

The charge was 'indecent exposure' and the woman was arrested after a complaint by a neighbour (who curiously filmed it which is a bit strange - surely he warrants a visit from the boys in brown who might want to subject his hard-drive to their ponderous scrutiny).

Why naked women are offensive is not broached in the article (perhaps the neighbour was a fundie - there will be more of this sort of complaint) but the real issue is why the police would even have the right to arrest her - let alone the court 'allowing' her to do it.

But the assumptions are even more worrying:



'Normal People'. God help us. Did not 'intend' to cause distress.

Idiots like this are causing me distress - in fact a lot of things are....

So your complaint is that she was found not guilty? The fact is that many places have indecent exposure laws. You can't just get naked any place you want to, particularly in public view.

But what's worse than your absurd characterization of the British Police as Nazis is your utterly ridiculous speculation that the person complaining was a "fundie." Obviously this is your little pet issue and you will tie it to anything you see fit to.

[dmz]

segovius, that's probably not something you'd want your daughter to witness.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by dmz
segovius, that's probably not something you'd want your daughter to witness.

I don't care if my daughters see naked women - and the lady in question looks OK.

Now if it was a fat lady, or a guy - that would be different and gross.

I doubt that indecent exposure laws are different in England than most other places - you are allowed to be naked as long as your neighbours can't see you. Furthermore, women are most often not prosecuted - a least the good looking ones.

[southside grabowski]

"Black man allowed to ride bus"

Ha?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
"Black man allowed to ride bus"

Ha?

Well, you missed the part where he explained how preventing someone from doing a certain behavior (being nude) (which is illegal in certain circumstances) is the same as preventing someone from doing a normal, legal activity because of an inborn trait (their skin color).

Oh, wait...I guess I missed that too.

[southside grabowski]

Yeessh, This is not about the evil of being nude. It is about following a law that has been established by society. Urinating is not evil, but I would be in violation of the law if I stood in my front yard and urinated. It's very simple. No Nazis, no fundies, no conspiracy.

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
segovius, that's probably not something you'd want your daughter to witness.

Why not ? She sees enough of it - Mrs Segovius is German and is constantly wandering around starkers.

[dmz]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
What are you insinuating?

That's probably not something segovius would want his daughter to witness. Pool changing room, same sex -- you might have a point.

But.

If this isn't translating well, imagine you had children , and then imagine your 14 year-old son saw this -- probably not the sort of stimulation he needs -- and if he somehow 'needed' it, you might want be the one to decide, not your neighbor. What's the line: "... and delivered him from almost [i]certain temptation."?

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
So your complaint is that she was found not guilty?

There's always one isn't there?

No, my complaint is she was arrested for being naked in her own home.

The fact is that many places have indecent exposure laws. You can't just get naked any place you want to, particularly in public view.

Thanks for that although I was aware of it. The fact is that this occurred on her own private property.

But as you seem to be supporting the original arrest by this statement then you are clearly wrong - the court threw it out and said she was allowed to sunbathe naked.

hence you are wrong. hence you are not addressing the original issue which still stands: the ludicrous original arrest which apparently you support. Somehow I fail to be surprised.

But what's worse than your absurd characterization of the British Police as Nazis

I am not characterizing the British Police as Nazis - though traditionally many have been and still are - but rather as the enforcers of a government that is quasi-fascist and heading rapidly towards totalitarianism.

Of course they are not actually Nazis - as in the sense that they are members of the German National Socialist Party circa 1932 - but rather they would fit into the broader definition of fascism as a right-wing totalitarian system of control.

is your utterly ridiculous speculation that the person complaining was a "fundie." Obviously this is your little pet issue and you will tie it to anything you see fit to.

Actually a joke - I am struggling to think of anything sadder than someone who could take it seriously - nope, still can't.

[dmz]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Um.

You're answering with more insinuation.

What is "[that] sort of stimulation?"

What exactly is wrong with nudity?
ShawnJ, don't be obtuse. (You've left the impression that you don't have children, and were never 14.)

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/M-Ryerson/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-Print-C10036661.jpeg

[curiousuburb]

So on her own private (enclosed garden) property, she's not allowed to be nude?

When a male neighbour goes peeping tom (with a video camera) over the fence with some effort to see her, she is the one in trouble?

Being nude isn't natural ??

W.T.F. ??

If he doesn't want to see it, don't peep into other people's property, asshat.

I hope he got charged court costs for wasting society's time with Victorian moral outrage. And peeping. And theft of Oxygen.

Welcome to the modern world, dinosaur.

Sheesh. :no: :rolleyes: :grumble:

[segovius]

Originally posted by dmz
ShawnJ, don't be obtuse.

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/M-Ryerson/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-Print-C10036661.jpeg

DMZ - this is a serious thread about the rise of the Police State in Blighty - if you want to gratuitously show your own holiday snaps then please start another one.

Thank you.

[curiousuburb]

Originally posted by dmz

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/M-Ryerson/Expose-Yourself-to-Art-Print-C10036661.jpeg

OT, but the man in the photo was actually the Curator of the Chicago Art Museum, IIRC the poster was his idea, and it was a huge success at bringing people to museums... mostly non-flashers, too.

[dmz]

Originally posted by segovius
DMZ - this is a serious thread about the rise of the Police State in Blighty - if you want to gratuitously show your own holiday snaps then please start another one.

Thank you.
:embarrass









:lol: :lol:

[southside grabowski]

In her home oer in her publicly viewable garden? I am naked now as I type, but I am not visable from the street.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
No, my complaint is she was arrested for being naked in her own home.

To be precise she was naked outside the confines of her home, within the confines of her private property (in her garden).

Originally posted by segovius
The fact is that this occurred on her own private property.

And the fact is that it is probably illegal for people to be naked just anywhere, even on their own private property, if they are still publicly visible. I cannot be naked on my front lawn. In my privacy-fence enclosed back yard? Probably...but it might depend on how reasonably "private" that area is.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
this is a serious thread about the rise of the Police State in Blighty

Wrong twice in the same sentence. Good work.

:p

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by curiousuburb
When a male neighbour goes peeping tom (with a video camera) over the fence with some effort to see her

Hmmm...the article doesn't provide this level of detail. So this is pure conjecture.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Wrong twice in the same sentence. Good work.

:p

Heheh :D

Seriously though - it's terrible all this up-tight moralism isn't it?

We are in the twenty-first century now - we need to be free of this outmoded Victorian Mrs Grundian blue-stocking repression don't we?

Don't you want to throw off these moralistic shackles that hold you back?

I think deep down, every one of us secretly wishes we could break free of these outmoded religious morés and plunge headlong into an unrepressed Dionysian Bacchal of the senses, diving ever deeper into an exploration of our sensuality via an orgy of hedonistic over-indulgence.

I know that somewhere deep-down you feel like that too Chris.....

[Harald]

While Segway has (almost for the first time) pissed me off with aspects of his football thread, I'll say this.

The thought that someone could get arrested for being naked in their own garden in these exact cirmcustances is a fucking joke. An unfunny one.

Can you see this happening in Scandi? I can't. And they have laws about public decency too.

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by segovius

I know that somewhere deep-down you feel like that too Chris.....

Chris has 'deep'. Now this thread is funny.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Heheh :D

Seriously though - it's terrible all this up-tight moralism isn't it?

We are in the twenty-first century now - we need to be free of this outmoded Victorian Mrs Grundian blue-stocking repression don't we?

Don't you want to throw off these moralistic shackles that hold you back?

I think deep down, every one of us secretly wishes we could break free of these outmoded religious morés and plunge headlong into an unrepressed Dionysian Bacchal of the senses, diving ever deeper into an exploration of our sensuality via an orgy of hedonistic over-indulgence.

I know that somewhere deep-down you feel like that too Chris.....

Now that's the spirit...

:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Harald
While Segway has (almost for the first time) pissed me off with aspects of his football thread, I'll say this.

The thought that someone could get arrested for being naked in their own garden in these exact cirmcustances is a fucking joke. An unfunny one.

Can you see this happening in Scandi? I can't. And they have laws about public decency too.

Apologies! It is more the media than the team and you know how prone to hyperbole I can be.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Harald
The thought that someone could get arrested for being naked in their own garden in these exact cirmcustances is a fucking joke. An unfunny one.

Considering that the article doesn't provide the exact circumstances, you might try to be a bit more careful in your judgement.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
and you know how prone to hyperbole I can be

Now, now...come now seg...that just isn't true. Don't say that 'bout yerself.

:p

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
There's always one isn't there?

No, my complaint is she was arrested for being naked in her own home.



Thanks for that although I was aware of it. The fact is that this occurred on her own private property.

But as you seem to be supporting the original arrest by this statement then you are clearly wrong - the court threw it out and said she was allowed to sunbathe naked.

hence you are wrong. hence you are not addressing the original issue which still stands: the ludicrous original arrest which apparently you support. Somehow I fail to be surprised.



I am not characterizing the British Police as Nazis - though traditionally many have been and still are - but rather as the enforcers of a government that is quasi-fascist and heading rapidly towards totalitarianism.

Of course they are not actually Nazis - as in the sense that they are members of the German National Socialist Party circa 1932 - but rather they would fit into the broader definition of fascism as a right-wing totalitarian system of control.



Actually a joke - I am struggling to think of anything sadder than someone who could take it seriously - nope, still can't.

Wow, you're really nuts aren't you?

She was arrested because she was in clear public view. That is against the law. Go running around naked on your front lawn and see what happens. Even despite this , she was acquitted. WTF is the problem? You're trying to spin this incident into some broader argument of the "right wing" taking control? It's just stupid.

[sammi jo]

Big Media Conglomerates (http://www.page3.com/) get away with similar examples of 'indecent exposure', of course. Also in the UK, the largest selling tabloid, Rupert Murdoch's "Sun", a cheerful little neofascist rag, has a semi nude on Page 3 every day and most of Britain's Sun readers would start a revolution should NewsCorp get all religious-righty about that.
That is one of hundreds of examples. I don't have anything against girls going topless publicly, or nude, or whatever. Why should an individual who wants to sunbathe in her own yard get busted, where big business makes huge money trading in the same images? All part of galloping duplicity in every aspect of society that one could name.

For the benefit of Scotland Yard or perhaps the Thames Valley Police Dept: The Sun's corporate offices are at The Sun,1 Virginia Street, Wapping, London E98 1SN (01144) 020 7782 4000 Btw, does a judge have to sign a search warrant for a police raid in the UK, or do they just break the door down by default?

[southside grabowski]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Big Media Conglomerates (http://www.page3.com/) get away with similar examples of 'indecent exposure', of course. Also in the UK, the largest selling tabloid, Rupert Murdoch's "Sun", a cheerful little neofascist rag, has a semi nude on Page 3 every day and most of Britain's Sun readers would start a revolution should NewsCorp get all religious-righty about that.
That is one of hundreds of examples. I don't have anything against girls going topless publicly, or nude, or whatever. Why should an individual who wants to sunbathe in her own yard get busted, where big business makes huge money trading in the same images? All part of galloping duplicity in every aspect of society that one could name.

For the benefit of Scotland Yard or perhaps the Thames Valley Police Dept: The Sun's corporate offices are at The Sun,1 Virginia Street, Wapping, London E98 1SN (01144) 020 7782 4000 Btw, does a judge have to sign a search warrant for a police raid in the UK, or do they just break the door down by default?



Amazing! Sego can turn any topic into a discussion of fundies and sammi can turn any topic into a discussion of corporate evil.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow, you're really nuts aren't you?

She was arrested because she was in clear public view. That is against the law. Go running around naked on your front lawn and see what happens. Even despite this , she was acquitted. WTF is the problem? You're trying to spin this incident into some broader argument of the "right wing" taking control? It's just stupid.

A big part of conservatism, or the right wing, used to be about preserving individual liberties, with as little government interference into peoples' lives as is practically possible.

Is it now all about taking government out of the workplace and installing it in your home?

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by southside grabowski
Amazing! Sego can turn any topic into a discussion of fundies and sammi can turn any topic into a discussion of corporate evil.

As long as you don't turn every thread into a discussion about you sitting naked at your computer while posting on AI, we'll continue with the established status quo. ;)

[e1618978]

Originally posted by sammi jo
I don't have anything against girls going topless publicly, or nude, or whatever.

How about a 300 lb, hairy, pimpled, pale disgusting naked guy sunbathing in his back yard, scratching his balls, and you can see it from your kitchen window?

How far are you willing to go with legal private property nudity?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
How about a 300 lb, hairy, pimpled, pale disgusting naked guy sunbathing in his back yard, scratching his balls, and you can see it from your kitchen window?

OK...ummm...I soooo didn't need that!

:wow: :err:

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by e1618978
How about a 300 lb, hairy, pimpled, pale disgusting naked guy sunbathing in his back yard, scratching his balls, and you can see it from your kitchen window?

How far are you willing to go with legal private property nudity?

Did you get charged?

:D

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
OK...ummm...I soooo didn't need that!

:wow: :err:

Since we can't descriminate on the basis of sex or appearence in our laws, you have to think worst case. This whole conversation is distorted because you all are only thinking of cute naked women. I am all for cute naked women all over the place, of course.

I think that hot female teachers should be able to screw 14 year old boys also, but if you allow that you have to allow all kinds of things that I am not OK with.

Originally posted by audiopollution
Did you get charged?

:D

My neighbors like naked 300 lb men.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
This whole conversation is distorted because you all are only thinking of cute naked women.

I disagree.

[addabox]

Originally posted by audiopollution
Did you get charged?

:D

:lol:

We shouldn't tease him, it was clearly a cry for help.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I disagree.

So you are fine with the fat man scenerio above?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I disagree.

Cute naked men?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
So you are fine with the fat man scenerio above?

I disagree that the "whole conversation is distorted because you all are only thinking of cute naked women".

If the guy wants to be naked in the privacy of his home and the privacy of his yard....go for it. Other than that, he'll need to conform to the local ordinances regarding public nudity.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I disagree that the "whole conversation is distorted because you all are only thinking of cute naked women".

If the guy wants to be naked in the privacy of his home and the privacy of his yard....go for it. Other than that, he'll need to conform to the local ordinances regarding public nudity.

But why?

If the laws are stupid you do not need to observe them.

As an example - and I agree with this you will be surprised to learn - when I was about 11 years old, my father took me and my sisters out of school and we all drove around the Eastern Bloc for a year smuggling Bibles to underground Churches.

Of course we were eventually arrested (after 8 countries or so), or rather my father was, the camper van impounded and we languished for months in a parking lot in Albania. Why because he broke the law.

And was he right: yes, absolutely (he could have taken some Qur'ans instead but you get the picture).

Some laws are stupid. Most are made by very stupid people - or (as is the case these days) worse, by totalitarianists. We must oppose this stupidity - and the best way to do this is by not being stupid ourselves - ie not obeying stupid laws.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I disagree that the "whole conversation is distorted because you all are only thinking of cute naked women".

If the guy wants to be naked in the privacy of his home and the privacy of his yard....go for it. Other than that, he'll need to conform to the local ordinances regarding public nudity.

If it is impossible to see the fellow from neighboring houses, then I agree. If you have a private back yard, then do what you want.

However, it does not sound like the lady had a private back yard. Do you mean private as in "private property", or private as in "unobservable"?

Most suburban back yards are not private (in the second sense) at all. I live on 15 acres, and even with that much land some of my yard can be seen from the street.

[sammi jo]

If, acording to religious folk, God is perfect, and we are created in God's image, then who has the right to decide that an arbitrary part of God's image isn't "perfect" enough to be viewed by all and sundry? Just an idle thought...

[segovius]

Originally posted by sammi jo
If, acording to religious folk, God is perfect, and we are created in God's image, then who has the right to decide that an arbitrary part of God's image isn't "perfect" enough to be viewed by all and sundry? Just an idle thought...

Actually, if you recall, when Adam and Eve were roaming in the Garden of Eden - with God btw - they were stark bo***ck naked.

God had no problem with this and as they say: everything was perfect.

Then, when they got down to fruit-munching, they started to feel ashamed that they were naked and sewed coverings. Remember - they had not needed these in their perfect state and they walked with God with no clothes on. That is, they had no clothes on - it doesn't say about God but for sure He didn't mind.

So clearly - it is not nakedness which is the sin but shame about nakedness. It is the only possible interpretation.

All fundies - if they wish to be real fundies that is and proper literalists - must absolutely get their kit off and keep it off. Otherwise it is just more hypocrisy.

[southside grabowski]

Being clothed in public is the accepted norm and there are laws to that effect. There are places where folks can walk around naked in public if they want to. There is really no issue here. This is a great example of why the progressive types are not in power.

[curiousuburb]

A court case in Ontario, Canada a few years ago was pursued by a woman who argued that "if men are allowed to go topless (displaying nipples, which might be a sexual stimuli to women) then women should similarly be allowed to go topless (which might be a sexual stimuli to men).

She won the case on human rights/equality grounds.

[She wasn't what most people would consider "hot", but the case was won on equality grounds.]

What's the issue if you're not a prude?

References:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfree)

Original Canadian Case (http://www.fcn.ca/Gwen.html)

Topfree Equal Rights Association (http://tera.ca/)

Ontario story (http://www.king.igs.net/~rogersk/ontario.htm)

CA D.A. won't prosecute topless women (http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1786061.php)

Repressed individuals may respond. What's your problem with the body as original equipment?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
If the laws are stupid you do not need to observe them.

Ummm...incorrect. Change them if they are stupid. Until then, obey them.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by e1618978
or private as in "unobservable"?

Yes. It put things into a bit of a gray area if you are doing something that is not allowed in public on private property, but in a publicly observable/viewable way/place.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]Ummm...incorrect. Change them if they are stupid. Until then, obey them.

How about bad laws that contravene universal law; laws that are immoral in themselves? What is more moral...to obey, or ignore/break an immoral law?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by sammi jo
How about bad laws that contravene universal law; laws that are immoral in themselves? What is more moral...to obey, or ignore/break an immoral law?

We still have a process. In this case we do not have an urgent situation (say a law demanding that I murder someone), and so the appropriate process can be followed to change the law.

The problem is that everyone decided they were just not going to obey every law they thought was "stupid", we'd have chaos. This is why we have a process.

P.S. What is "universal" law? Where does it come from? Who defines it? How do we know what it is?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Well, civil disobedience has its purpose.

Of course it does. So, now back the subject at hand...

Was the arrestee seeking a change in the law? Was she attempting to draw attention to her plight? Did she attempt to utilize the normal process of law change first?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ah, was it illegal in her case?

The court ruled in her favor.

Segovius turned the dicussion toward the more general question of "stupid" laws.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The court ruled in her favor.

Segovius turned the dicussion toward the more general question of "stupid" laws.

So continuing my example of the illegality of Christianity in former Communist countries which my father - wrongly in your view - did not agree with and disobeyed (as opposed to obeyed and tried to change), can we take it that if a similar situation developed in your home country and Christianity was made illegal, that you would renounce it and stop practicing it?

Simple yes or no will do.

[midwinter]

I'm curious about what, precisely, the Welsh/UK law is in this matter.

[segovius]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I guess it's just a case of an easily offended neighbor and an overzealous police squad.

The point is - and this is why I originally included a Stasi reference - that there are literally thousands of such incidents of 'overzealousness' and they are increasing on a daily basis.

The 'overzealousness' has not occurred in a vacuum - that is to say, it is the result of the Police being given Draconian new laws to uphold and hence being let off the leash - obviously this will also extend to loose interpretation of existing laws such as in this case.

The Police are rampant in terms of protesters as in the following example:

50 Police raid single war protestor and confiscate banners. (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article570949.ece)

But the more disturbing aspect is in terms of the ASBOs - the Orwellian "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders" (which is what the nude sunbather may also have received had she been found guilty) instituted by Blair to target citizens.

A related example would be the following:

Caroline Shepherd - A 27-year-old woman served an order after her neighbours claimed she was goading them by walking around her home in her underwear. If she is seen "wearing only her undergarments" at her window, her front door or in her garden the mother-of-two faces jail.

On 30 March she pled not guilty to two charges of breaching the order - In May she was convicted of breaching the order and in November was evicted from her home.

There are literally thousands of these examples. Here are some other classics:

Stefan Noremberg - A 42-year-old banned from moving furniture in a way that can be heard from outside his house (June 2005)

William Porteous - A 51-year-old jailed for three months for breaching his order by playing loud rock music (July 2005)

Barrington Harris - A 47-year-old in breach of his order for singing too loudly at home was jailed, refused bail, and subsequently missed his mother's funeral (July 2005) He was recently released having spent 64 days in prison but is likely to lose his flat as his housing association has initiated eviction proceedings against him (September 2005)

Eileen Davies - A 72-year-old threatened with an ASBO for feeding birds in her garden (July 2005)

Vic Moszcyznski - A man who puts up a display of Christmas lights each year to raise money for a local children's charity has been threatened with an order by police because of the anti-social behaviour of the large numbers of people who come to see the spectacle (November 2005)

David Gaylor - A 19-year-old banned from entering any Asda store in England or Wales was fined £50 for breaching his order when found sitting at a bus stop which, unknown to him, was situated on land belonging to the shopping retailer (October 2005)

Christine Boswell - A 60-year-old partially blind pensioner jailed for swearing (September 2005)

Marek Mamczur - A 27-year-old jet skier given an ASBO for riding dangerously close to swimmers (September 2005)

Maughan family - A 56-year-old mother and her two daughters banned from "cold calling" at any home in the UK (August 2005)

Smith family - In one of the first uses of its type, four members of a family of travellers have received Asbos establishing an exclusion zone of five square miles in the area they had been living, which they can now stop in only to get petrol. Outside the prohibited area they are allowed to stay in one place for no longer than 21 days and cannot return to a previous campsite for at least a year (August 2005)

Mark Devlin - A 30-year-old former heroin addict jailed for breaching his order which forbade him from riding his pushbike (July 2005)

Hugh McColl - A 59-year-old who was served an order forbidding him from playing his TV or stereo too loudly, slamming doors or stamping on the floor and was subsequently jailed for its breach (July 2005)

Jean Smith - A 60 year-old threatened with an ASBO for feeding the birds around her home in Fife (April 2005) Fife council dropped the application after she voluntarily agreed to restrict here bird feeding (June 2005)

Mitch Hawkin - Has been threatened with an ASBO for publishing a joke about the Pope's death on his website (April 2005)

Kim Sutton - A 23-year-old woman who has attempted to commit suicide on four occasions has been banned from any river, watercourse or canal in England and Wales, and from loitering on bridges or going onto railway tracks (February 2005) She has since lost her appeal against the order (April 2005)

Mike McNulty - A 38-year-old man served an interim order banning him from rowing with his wife (February 2005)

Angela Sarna - A woman banned from using pay-as-you-go mobile phones for five years (November 2004)

Daisy - A 17-year-old profoundly deaf girl served an order for spitting in public. Having broken it she is currently in prison on remand (October 2004)

Thomas Spalding - A 50-year-old served an order banning him from entering his own house. Having breached and pleaded guilty he is currently serving a 60 day prison term (September 2004)

Sharon McLoughlin - A 33-year-old woman in Birmingham banned from owning a stereo or television after her neighbours made numerous complaints about the noise levels. She is also being evicted from her council flat (August 2004)

And those are just some of the thousands of cases. More detailed at Statewatch.org (www.statewatch.org/asbo/ASBOwatch.html) and at ASBO Concern (http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/) .

So this is the context.

If this is not a prelude to totalitarianism then it would be difficult to see what might be.

Anyone care to defend these infringements of Citizen's Rights or try to remove the naked sunbather from the context?

[segovius]

Just a bit of info on what an ASBO legally is - again from ASBO Concern (http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/):

Anti-social behaviour orders, usually known as asbos, were introduced in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act and came into force in 1999. Asbos ban people from specific activities or from entering particular areas. They last a minimum of two years, but can be imposed for longer.

Asbos can be served against children over 10 years of age or against adults if they have behaved "in an anti-social manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress", and that the order is "necessary to protect persons from further anti-social acts".

This has allowed asbos to be used to ban activity that is not in itself criminal, such as begging, prostitution and even playing football or being sarcastic.

[Asbos] may be made on the basis of hearsay evidence.

Breaching an asbo is a criminal offence, carrying a penalty of up to five years' imprisonment, even when the original offence was not an imprisonable one.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by segovius
Just a bit of info on what an ASBO legally is - again from ASBO Concern (http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/):

Now that is messed up. Makes me feel a little better about the US - maybe the rest of the world is just as screwed up.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
So it would seem reasonable to accept that she believes she was acting lawfully-- that is, in this particular case, nudity that doesn't reach the country's specifications for indecent exposure. Civil disobedience doesn't seem to enter the equation here.

Correct.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
So continuing my example of the illegality of Christianity in former Communist countries which my father - wrongly in your view - did not agree with and disobeyed (as opposed to obeyed and tried to change), can we take it that if a similar situation developed in your home country and Christianity was made illegal, that you would renounce it and stop practicing it?

Simple yes or no will do.

I have been talking, as should be obvious from the context (oh, wait, "context" is just a tool I am using to manipulate meaning :rolleyes: ), about places and situations where we have a process (unlike the example you are now providing) for legally altering laws that are "stupid" or unjust or "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever. We don't just disobey laws...well...some do I guess.

Tell you what...if you would like to have a discussion about the more general cases where breaking the law might be OK, then start a thread to that effect. Then we can establish things like when, where, why, who, how, etc. This should also include discussion of what sammi raised with the idea of a "universal" or "higher" law...and "immoral" laws (because, of course, we need to settle that first).

[MarcUK]

so anyway! if Christianity becomes illegal in your country (because after all it is a stupid immoral religion based on lies upon more lies upon..) then you would accept that this is the law, and not practise it anymore.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have been talking, as should be obvious from the context (oh, wait, "context" is just a tool I am using to manipulate meaning :rolleyes: ), about places and situations where we have a process (unlike the example you are now providing) for legally altering laws that are "stupid" or unjust or "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever. We don't just disobey laws...well...some do I guess.

Tell you what...if you would like to have a discussion about the more general cases where breaking the law might be OK, then start a thread to that effect. Then we can establish things like when, where, why, who, how, etc. This should also include discussion of what sammi raised with the idea of a "universal" or "higher" law...and "immoral" laws (because, of course, we need to settle that first).

In light of what you've said in previous threads about the idea of " right "........ well may I quote you? " Now that's just funny ".:lol:

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I have been talking, as should be obvious from the context (oh, wait, "context" is just a tool I am using to manipulate meaning :rolleyes: ), about places and situations where we have a process (unlike the example you are now providing) for legally altering laws that are "stupid" or unjust or "wrong" or "immoral" or whatever. We don't just disobey laws...well...some do I guess.

Tell you what...if you would like to have a discussion about the more general cases where breaking the law might be OK, then start a thread to that effect. Then we can establish things like when, where, why, who, how, etc. This should also include discussion of what sammi raised with the idea of a "universal" or "higher" law...and "immoral" laws (because, of course, we need to settle that first).

Yes or no - you would give up your religion or not?

[Chris Cuilla]

Why don't we just open another thread on the general topic of law, disobeying it, changing it, civil disobedience, etc.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Yes or no - you would give up your religion or not?

No.

[MarcUK]

so if the laws an ass, there are times when your judgement would force you to do things that contravene the law?

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No.

So. We're in the same boat. What's your problem then?

PS: I have to go out for a bit but if you start that thread I shall be glad to participate in it. May be uneccesary as it seems we are singing from the same hymn-sheet though.

perhaps we could discuss why you refuse to accept that?

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
So. We're in the same boat. What's your problem then?

Ummm...I don't quite see how...unless your distorted view of facts, crimstances and reality make it so. Second...what "problem"? If by "problem" you mean...my contention that everyone shouldn't just disobey any old law they thinks is "stupid", and that, where there is a legitimate, legal, normal legislative process of change, that should be pursued first...then...yes I still have a "problem".

Originally posted by segovius
if you start that thread I shall be glad to participate in it.

If you want to, fine. It is only my suggestion.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by segovius
Just a bit of info on what an ASBO legally is - again from ASBO Concern (http://www.asboconcern.org.uk/):

I thought ABSOs were almost uniformly used against juvenile (YOB) behavior.

[segovius]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If you want to, fine. It is only my suggestion.

Actually I don't as it was quite a bad idea but I thought you seemed to be itching for it somehow....

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by segovius
Actually I don't as it was quite a bad idea but I thought you seemed to be itching for it somehow....

Mostly because the more general question was taking over this thread and seemed worthy of its own...disconnected from the particular case that launched this one.

[segovius]

Originally posted by midwinter
I thought ABSOs were almost uniformly used against juvenile (YOB) behavior.

Apparently not judging by that run-down.