Police and Naturists in Hyde Park
Prelude
On 20 July 2005, a group of friends and I met up in Hyde
Park, London. The weather was fine that day so we took a stroll
and stripped off to sunbathe for a while. We were there for
several hours before a police van arrived carrying several
officers. They jumped out of the van and ordered us to "cover
up". This was done in such a way to imply that an offence
had been committed but all we were doing was minding our own
business and sunbathing in the park. As victims of such unecessary
police intervention amounting to harassment, we each tackled
the police in our own way. My way was to seek retribution
via the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Complaint
To the Independent Police Complaints Commission http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/
Sir,
I write to complain that members of the Metropolitan Police
Force may be using their position of authority to exercise
an unacceptable level of personal moral judgement upon others,
leading to harassment, in the carrying out of their duty.
At around midday on 20 July 2005 I met with a small group
of friends at the café near the Serpentine at Hyde Park. The
weather was pleasant and so we decided to walk to a quiet
area of the park and sunbathe for a while.
We had been there for several hours before a police vehicle
carrying 5 or so officers, arrived and parked close by to
us. Several officers exited the vehicle and ordered us to
immediately cover up. We complied with their request.
We then asked one of the officers (badge RO106) for the reason
behind this order.
She informed us that what we were doing was a possible “breach
of the peace”. I was however of the understanding that for
a breach of the peace to exist there needs to be a threat
of violence against persons or property, this was clarified
with the officer, who then quickly changed her reason to being
“against park regulation”. Knowing of no such sunbathing or
clothing regulation we further questioned the officer who
then explained that a member of the public had complained
about us and therefore we were causing a disruption of the
enjoyment of other park users (or words to that effect), which
was against park regulation.
As much as I agree with the sentiment of the regulation,
I could not recall there being anyone who appeared to have
his or her enjoyment disturbed in any way by our presence.
And, had there been any such person they would have by now
moved on to another area away from our sight, but still the
police officers insisted that we remain covered up. They continued
to observe us (from a distance) until we finally vacated the
area some half hour later.
The only thing that we had been doing was sitting (or lying)
down and chatting amongst ourselves without clothing. Therefore,
I can only assume that officers who instructed this action
did so based on their own dislike of exposure of the human
body. While the officers remained polite at all times they
made it perfectly clear that it was not acceptable to sunbathe
unclothed in the park, despite the fact that there was no
person present who appeared to be in any way affected by us,
or had there enjoyment of the park disrupted.
If there was any disruption of enjoyment of caused it was
that of the police officers toward us. Also, in the absence
of any law prohibiting sunbathing, or any dress code regulation,
or there being a complainant having their enjoyment disrupted,
this approach from the police, their subsequent order to dress,
and continued observation constituted nothing more than harassment.
You have my authority to pass this complaint to the police
force concerned.
Yours faithfully Andrew Crawford
Reply from the Metropolitan Police
Dated 12 September 2005
Comment
The content of the reply did not surprise me
given the prejudice that exists in our society towards people
who enjoy nudity. However, it is my understanding that the
police should not take sides in these matters but simply uphold
the law. As far as I am aware there is no law against naturism
in Hyde Park but the officers clearly thought that the person
making the complaint had given them good reason to intervene
- even though no offence had been committed, or was likely
to be committed. The person who apparently made the complaint
(to this date) remains anonymous so we have no way of knowing
why this person was so compelled to complain. None of us saw
her (or her dog), so we shall have to take the police's word
for her existence. Perhaps if she ever reads this she might
like to contact me just to let me know why it is she was so
offended by the sight of a fellow human, so as to complain
to the police. But, that is not really the issue, the issue
is whether the police should intevene for reasons based on
their own moral judgement, when no offence has been, or is
likely to be, committed.
Appeal
To the Independant Police Complaints Commission
Appeal Your Reference PC 3474/05
I disagree with the outcome of the complaint
for the following reason.
The letter I received in reply to my complaint
from Mark Lawrence dated 12 September 2005 gives a very detailed
view of his perception of public nudity.
He tries to justify the actions of the officers
in light of his perceptions. Guidance for police officers
should be based on the law and not the personal feelings of
officers or their own perception of the feeling of the general
public.
In his letter he implies that an anonymous dog
walker apparently had been "offended" by naked sunbathing
taking place and complained to the police, but further on
in his account he states that the person merely "reported"
it. If the anonymous person had grounds for a complaint I
would of course expect the police to follow it up and investigate,
but as soon as officers have established that no offence was
being committed (or likely to be committed) then surely investigation
should cease. The officers concerned could have quite easily
established that fact and reported this back to all concerned.
However despite this, the officers insisted that we "cover
up" and remain clothed during our presence in Hyde Park.
The reference to a Breach of the Peace is a
fallacy as there was absolutely no threat towards any person,
either from our group or towards our group as evinced by the
fact that we had already been in the park for several hours.
The reference to the park regulation is also
a fallacy none as of our group interfered in any way with
"the safety, comfort or convenience of any other park user".
In fact we went out of our way to ensure that no disturbance
could be caused to any other park users by being an area of
the park which was away from walkways and pedestrian traffic
but also visibly open so that anyone approaching us who thought
that they might have been disturbed in any way, having seen
us could have avoided coming any closer and thus saving any
disturbance on their part.
We had taken good measures to ensure that no
person would be confronted accidentally by us. Therefore any
person who did come close enough to us to feel in any way
disturbed would have done so entirely at their own choice,
by approaching us knowing full well that we were sunbathing
without clothes.
It was also expressed in the letter that there
are members of the public who are "uncomfortable with", and
"deeply offended" by public nudity and that public nudity
is "uncommon". While this may be true, being uncomfortable
with something, offended by something, or not being accustomed
to seeing something is not grounds to for police intervention.
I would not expect the police to intervene after establishing
that no offence was being committed (or was likely to be committed)
and had the anonymous complainant chosen to come close enough
to us to feel offended, that one person could have quite easily
moved to another area where they would not be offended. All
of this should have been explained to the complainant.
I can only conclude that officers had made
the decision that nudity in Hyde Park is not acceptable and
therefore this leads me to believe that officers of the Metropolitan
Police Force may be using their position of authority to exercise
an unacceptable level of personal moral judgement upon others,
leading to harassment, in the carrying out of their duty.
While I do not expect any action to be taken
over the behaviour of the officers that day, I would hope
that by raising this issue it would have the positive effect
of enabling the Metropolitan Police to be better educated
regarding the law and thus reduce the possibility of naturists
being targeted, harassed, or victimised, either individually
or collectively by police officers in the future.
The reason why I feel that this issue is important
is that the naturist movement has given considerable input
to parliament, at the government's request, to ensure that
naturism continues to remain legal and we will strive for
naturism to be more widely accepted in England as it is in
the rest of Europe. It is therefore not appropriate for officers
to automatically take sides with individuals who may oppose
us as that shows their own bias and not an application of
the law.
Yours faithfully Andrew Crawford
Reply from the Metropolitan Police
Dated 12 September 2005
Final Comment
So there you have it! While naturism is perfectly
legal, the anonymous female dog walker had her "comfort
infringed" by our presence, which is why the police officers
ordered us to dress.
If we are not careful, the police will also
be harassing nursing mothers for feeding their babies in public.
BBC NEWS - Law stops mum from breast feeding
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/norfolk/4457490.stm
Unbelievable!
|
