Facemasks - which law?

[securespark]

No, its not! Look it up.

Why he has been arrested, I don't know, but it isn't actually illegal if you are just naked in public.

I can only think it's one of those laws that authorities don't like and try to control it.

After all, you wouldn't want the populace going round starkers, would you?

 

[transam]

No, its not! Look it up.

Why he has been arrested, I don't know, but it isn't actually illegal if you are just naked in public.

I can only think it's one of those laws that authorities don't like and try to control it.

After all, you wouldn't want the populace going round starkers, would you?

Well not all of em no

 

[EFLImpudence]

Some of them definitely.

 

[motorbiking]

No, its not! Look it up.

Why he has been arrested, I don't know, but it isn't actually illegal if you are just naked in public.

I can only think it's one of those laws that authorities don't like and try to control it.

After all, you wouldn't want the populace going round starkers, would you?

it has to be proved that you ‘intentionally’ exposed yourself and you ‘intended’ that somebody would be caused ‘alarm or distress’

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

it has to be proved that you ‘intentionally’ exposed yourself and you ‘intended’ that somebody would be caused ‘alarm or distress’

Is that like being offended on someone else's behalf?

 

[motorbiking]

No. see below:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

 

[EFLImpudence]

That's a bit sexist in these enlightened times.

How do you prove someone's intent?
Unlike modern legislation where only perceived intent, right or wrong, is necessary.

 

[motorbiking]

In law "He" encompasses (s)he, there has been a movement to remove gender pronouns, but it has the same chance of success as the French version of the BASIC programming language LSE.

Unlike modern legislation where only perceived intent, right or wrong, is necessary.

eh? You've lost me.

Most crimes have two key parts known as the "actus reus" (guilty act) and the "mens rea" (guilty mind). ... Exposure is a Specific intent crime and requires the individual to have a desire to commit the act, as well as, an intent to achieve a specific result. Comparably, general intent crimes, you need only intend to commit an act which the law makes criminal.

E.g. woman takes a pee in a bush, someone sees her gash - she is not guilty of exposure.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

... but it isn't actually illegal if you are just naked in public.

No. see below:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/66

So being naked in public is illegal when there are others around, and those others may be alarmed or distressed.

 

[EFLImpudence]

In law "He" encompasses (s)he, there has been a movement to remove gender pronouns, but it has the same chance of success as the French version of the BASIC programming language LSE.

Hmmm.

eh? You've lost me.

The modern fashion in the likes of so-called "hate-crime" where merely the perception of hate by a witness, not to mention "victim", renders it a crime.

Most crimes have two key parts known as the "actus reus" (guilty act) and the "mens rea" (guilty mind). ... Exposure is a Specific intent crime and requires the individual to have a desire to commit the act, as well as, an intent to achieve a specific result. Comparably, general intent crimes, you need only intend to commit an act which the law makes criminal.

So, they don't have to prove intent.
[sarcasm]Seems fair.[/sarcasm]

E.g. woman takes a pee in a bush, someone sees her gash - she is not guilty of exposure.

Why not, if he intended to cause distress to someone?

 

[durhamplumber]

How do you prove someone's intent?

As Clint said"""""Harry Callahan: When a naked man chases a woman in an alley with a butcher knife, and a hard-on, I take it he's not collecting for the Blue Cross.24 Dec 1971""""

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

The modern fashion in the likes of so-called "hate-crime" where merely the perception of hate by a witness, not to mention "victim", renders it a crime.

You're mixing up perception by the perpetrator, as to the reason for the hate crime, and perception by the witness.
If the perpetrator of a hate crime perceives their victim to be 'guilty' of whatever motivated the crime, the victim does not need to actually meet the criteria.
The witness merely relates what they saw, or didn't see.

Not a clever 'sleight of hand' to transpose the perception by the perpetrator onto the perception of the witness, more like an intentional attempt at conflation.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As Clint said"""""Harry Callahan: When a naked man chases a woman in an alley with a butcher knife, and a hard-on, I take it he's not collecting for the Blue Cross.24 Dec 1971""""

Ah, yes of course. That being the only alternative to fully dressed.

 

[motorbiking]

So being naked in public is illegal when there are others around, and those others may be alarmed or distressed.

nope - Exposure is a Specific intent crime, you must prove the specific intent.

 

[motorbiking]

Hmmm.


1. The modern fashion in the likes of so-called "hate-crime" where merely the perception of hate by a witness, not to mention "victim", renders it a crime.


2. So, they don't have to prove intent.
[sarcasm]Seems fair.[/sarcasm]


3. Why not, if he intended to cause distress to someone?

1. nope its different
2. nope the opposite (see above post)
3. the intention was to have a pee in the bush.