Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Naked and free

THURSDAY JANUARY 11 2001
Jury says nakedness is not a nuisance
BY HELEN RUMBELOW
PUBLIC nakedness is not a crime, a jury declared yesterday with a verdict
that set free a man after five months spent in solitary confinement because
of his refusal to wear clothes.
Vincent Bethell emerged from the courtroom defiantly wearing only a broad
grin after becoming the first man in modern legal history to be cleared of
causing a public nuisance by being naked. The unanimous verdict was hailed
as the triumph of society's new tolerance against the law's repressive
attitudes. But after a few minutes the cold weather did what the full force
of Her Majesty's Government could not: make a man put some clothes on.
"This is a historic day," said Mr Bethell, 28, an unemployed artist from
Coventry, shivering in the biting winds outside Southwark Crown Court. "It
has proved that being naked is not a sin, and it is a strong message to
police and courts across the country, so although the last five months have
been very hard it has been worth it."
Mr Bethell then shouted to a supporter to hail a taxi urgently. This was
delayed because the friend chose that moment to strip off in order to dance
a jig round Mr Bethell, who found a willing cab only after his first attempt
was rejected by a driver who told him: "Not on your life, sunshine."
The official issue tracksuit he refused to wear in Brixton prison then
became the first clothes Mr Bethell has put on since August 13; he vows to
return to public nakedness when weather conditions permit. He also has to
placate his mother, Andrea Oakes, a housewife from Manchester unamused by
his antics despite the support of his father.
Mr Bethell's freedom, and that of his 20-strong lobby group The Freedom to
Be Yourself, could be short-lived. Police and prosecution lawyers were
enraged by the verdict and pledged to continue their fight to protect public
decency.
The jury was asked to consider whether Mr Bethell's five acts of public
nakedness last July and August were likely to "harm the morals of the public
or their comfort, or obstruct the public in the enjoyment of their rights".
Precedent was not on Mr Bethell's side - the last naked man to be charged
for creating a public nuisance was found guilty, 130 years ago.
The jury of ten men and two women deliberated for four hours, returned to
ask the judge, George Bathurst Norman, for a legal definition of "comfort",
which he said did not exist. Half an hour later the jury acquitted Mr
Bethell.
Sitting naked in the dock, as he has done throughout the week-long trial, Mr
Bethell punched the air with both hands and shouted: "Being human is not a
crime." The judge thundered: "I would not go away too much with that idea,
it is simply not a public nuisance in these circumstances."
Orlando Gibbons, for the prosecution, said that he did not understand the
verdict and he certainly did not understand Mr Bethell.
PC David Mehtab, who arrested Mr Bethell, said he was very disappointed.
"What happens if a paedophile wanted to walk naked past a primary school?"
he said. "I hope the jury took that into account."
Mike Schwarz, Mr Bethell's solicitor, said: "The verdict shows the jury's
tolerance and openness, and it is itself a reflection of the tolerance and
openness of society for non-sexual public nudity."
Mr Bethell has been arrested on at least a dozen occasions for a Public
Order offence, which carries no prison sentence. The Home Office is
conducting a public consultation on whether to relax this section of the
Public Order Act in March, meaning that Mr Bethell may never be arrested for
nakedness again.
"We recognise people's views may be more liberal now than in the past," said
a Home Office spokesman. "The legislation and the law now need to reflect
that."
Ciao
Anna

 it is simply not a public nuisance in these circumstances."
Rimane il dubbio di quale, fra nuditą e umanitą, fosse l'oggetto della
tonitruante affermazione del giudice.
Giorgio sospettoso

 tonitruante affermazione del giudice.
LOL
Anyway I reckon the reporter's ambiguity was intentional. What do British
humour-wise Realmers think? (Sorry, I forgot to mention that the article was
taken from The Times)
--
Ciao
Anna