"Reports are coming In" - as they say on 24-hour news programmes - that Police have once again been active at Fraisthorpe Sands on the Yorkshire Coast, taking names and threatening naturists with prosecution if they are found on the beach in future.

This long-established, formerly official naturist beach has in recent years become the scene of attempts by East Riding of Yorkshire Council to drive away law-abiding naturists - apparently because they believe this to be the best way to solve a problem with the indecent behaviour of certain people who are clearly NOT naturists.

The recent activity by Humberside Police follows the erection by ERYC of new warning notices. Members of the local beach user group Fraisthorpe United Naturists have complained to the Council that the wording of the recently-erected signs is insulting and intentionally links indecency with naturism.

The signs read:

“The beach is not a designated naturist beach.
Any person committing an act of indecency will be liable to prosecution.”

According to ERYC's grandly-titled 'Tourism Unit Manager':

"The signs make it clear that anyone using the beach for naturism purposes will be doing so without authority and will therefore be deemed by the police to be intending to cause offence to other members of the public and appropriate action will be taken."
"The reference to indecency contained in the signs was not intended to offend naturists. It was intended to differentiate between naturism conducted in designated areas with authority and naturism conducted in public places without authority."
"I do not accept that they [the signs] are not legally binding, the Police have indicated that this would form part of the evidence of a conviction."

Whether or not the signs would give Police reasonable grounds for "deeming" an otherwise legal activity as intended to cause offence is questionable.

A successful prosecution for 'Exposure' under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would require proof of intent to cause 'alarm or distress'. Even Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 requires evidence that the activity in question would be likely to be cause 'harassment, alarm or distress'. Causing 'offence' is clearly not the same thing as causing 'harassment, alarm or distress'.

Since the offence of 'Indecent Exposure' no longer exists, perhaps the reference to 'indecency' is intended to suggest that naturists might be prosecuted for Outraging Public Decency? This offence requires a person to commit an act "of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character as to constitute an outrage of public decency" so nude sunbathers or swimmers seem unlikely to fall foul of it.

NUFF understands that, in law, there is no difference between so-called "official" naturist beaches and any other public place.

The sustained campaign by East Riding of Yorkshire Council against law-abiding naturists stands in stark contrast to the attitude of other authorities - East Devon District Council among others - who have found the erection signs advising "nude bathing beyond this point" to be very effective in managing sections of beach traditionally frequented by naturists.

If you would like to make your views known to East Riding of Yorkshire Council their feedback web page is HERE (choose "complaint" from the drop-down box)