View Poll Results: Is wearing a nappy and a T-shirt in public breaking public indecency laws?

Voters
50. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    32 64.00%
  • No

    14 28.00%
  • Jumpy needs to send Siysiy to the naughty corner for being a troll

    8 16.00%
  • Jumpy and Siysiy gets to go to the shop to buy sweeties because they are good Littles.

    3 6.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Public indecency

  1. #31

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    In the UK, trespass is a civil tort rather than a criminal offence, so neither the landowner or police have any right to remove someone.

    https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q56.htm
    https://www.mylawyer.co.uk/law-a-A76...?A76076D34460=

    In order to enforce a withdrawn right of access, the shop would need apply for a legal injunction against the person they wished to remove. Further (or continued) trespass would then be prosecuted as a breach of the injunction.

    If an exhibitionist ABDL refused to leave a shop after the implied invitation to enter had been withdrawn, and thus was trespassing, the only immediate possibility for removing him would be to have him arrested for another offence.

    Usually trespassers commit other offences -- damage to property, theft, public order offences, or aggravated trespass, which is where someone intends to intimidate, obstruct or disrupt anyone carrying out lawful activities.

    In Scotland (but not in England and Wales), a "breach of the peace" includes "any disorderly behaviour". This is not an offence, but a person can still be arrested for it and bound to keep the peace in future (with specific requirements). Breaking that bond would then be criminal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace

    In practise, however I think you could only be prosecuted for removing a trespasser if you used "unreasonable force". So, you could probably push, shove or drag them out, but if this resulted in any injury, you'd be guilty of assault.

    Nightclub door staff are trained to remove people safely, and street bobbies will often do the same, especially if they anticipate that the person will then commit an offence (assault, threatening language, etc.) which will instantly give them the right to arrest them.

    But in most other situations, the police will only attend an act of trespass as passive observers to reassure the landowner in case any criminal offences subsequently occur.



    I couldn't agree more. But I do find the law rather fascinating even so. :-)
    Interesting. Trespassing laws are provincial in Canada. Trespassing on private land is actionable “per se” meaning a person can be sued and found liable for trespassing even if there is no proof of damage. In my province, Ontario, any person can go onto the private property of another during daylight hours if permission to do so is implied, or if there is no warning to the trespasser to stay off the property. However, if a homeowner, business, or a landlord has posted a notice under the Trespass to Property Act prohibiting a specific individual from stepping onto the premises, the person could be removed and charged under the Act. They do not need a legal injunction. A person found guilty could be fined up to several thousand dollars, taking into consideration, intent, harm, or any suspected criminal motive or activity.

    From what I understand of the criminal code, a property owner can not exert physical force against a trespasser ot it would be considered assault, unless the force exerted is equivalent to the force applied by the trespasser, meaning the property owner has the right to self-defense but nothing more.

    Most interesting is how some landlords will try to use the Trespass to Property Act to keep a tenant's visitors off the property. The law cannot be used in this manner since it interferes with the reasonable enjoymemt of the premises by the tenant. This does not remove the landlord's right under the landlord-tenant laws to evict the tenant with the problem guests. Although both sets of laws are provincial, the landlord-tenant laws override the trespassing act. It's a matter of determining the appropriste legislation. Also in rental complexes, it's legal to forbid solicitors on the property, but a landlord cannot prohibit ploitical parties from campaigning on the property during elections.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 6 Days Ago at 01:32.

  2. #32

    Default

    ^^ Huh. Thanks, Starrunner -- that's really interesting.

    The "equivalent force" being reasonable in self-defence sounds very similar to how it would be seen in England and Wales. Although it would still have to be reasonable self-defence (you couldn't punch someone because they punched you first).

    But I think the right to privacy is stronger in England & Wales. Landlords and landowners have surprisingly few rights. In many cases they aren't legally allowed to enter their own property if the tenants don't give permission. And squatting wasn't even illegal until 2012!

  3. #33

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    ^^ Huh. Thanks, Starrunner -- that's really interesting.

    The "equivalent force" being reasonable in self-defence sounds very similar to how it would be seen in England and Wales. Although it would still have to be reasonable self-defence (you couldn't punch someone because they punched you first).

    But I think the right to privacy is stronger in England & Wales. Landlords and landowners have surprisingly few rights. In many cases they aren't legally allowed to enter their own property if the tenants don't give permission. And squatting wasn't even illegal until 2012!
    Thanks, and that brings up another issue for me related to laws around indecency. While it may not be a criminal act to appear in public in a diaper, there are also different laws that could dole out other remedies. For example, a tenant wearing nothing but a diaper and a t-shirt in a rental complex could face being evicted for causing discomfort to the other tenants who live there.

  4. #34

    Default

    While personally I think it’s sick that anyone could be bothered by seeing a diaper I think police just about anywhere would make it a painful experience and site all sorts of public decency nonsense even though Diapers generally cover more and disguise genital region shapes than other clothing.

    I truly think we need a holiday town somewhere where only ABDLs and their caregivers are allowed so people can be free to be themselves.

  5. #35

    Cool



    Quote Originally Posted by Argent View Post

    I truly think we need a holiday town somewhere where only ABDLs and their caregivers are allowed so people can be free to be themselves.

  6. #36

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Argent View Post
    While personally I think it’s sick that anyone could be bothered by seeing a diaper I think police just about anywhere would make it a painful experience and site all sorts of public decency nonsense even though Diapers generally cover more and disguise genital region shapes than other clothing.

    I truly think we need a holiday town somewhere where only ABDLs and their caregivers are allowed so people can be free to be themselves.
    I once made that exact same argument. I was at my local beach (in florida), wearing nothing but my diaper while suntanning. (Note, I was also pretty far away from the main crowd). Some guy in a speedo came up to me and started to make a scene. The beach cops came riding up, and after a little explaining said they agreed with me.

    My diaper did cover up more than his speedo, so indency wouldn't apply. And since I'm incontinent it's not like I could have taken it off in favor of a speedo myself. They also noted he started it, and warned him to leave me alone or they would fine him for disturbing my peace.

  7. #37

    Default

    Not sure about the UK but here in the US (And laws vary from state to state), if your genitalia are covered than you are not in violation of any lewdness laws. The stores policies will most likely require shirt, shoes, and the like. In terms of creating a disturbance depending upon local ordinance you may be cited if it is causing a disturbance. As I work in airport law enforcement I am not overly familiar with laws outside of the code in which I enforce.

    If you were to walk into an airport in just a diaper and a t-shirt you would not be violating any laws governing that however you would be violating the airports policy on decency and discretion. While you would not be cited you would most likely be asked to be respectful to your surroundings and cover up. Failure to comply would not result in citation being as you are not breaking the law but if airport management asked for you to be removed as a violation of their policy LE would ask you to leave. Returning in same condition could result in a trespass order being placed.

    While I do like to push the boundaries as well I often remind myself that the baby aspect of my life is my deal and not anyone else's. My incontinence however is a publicly recognized medical condition and I am protected by laws regarding my rights to reasonable accommodations and privacy.

    In summary, if I were the responding officer I would simply ask you to leave the establishment and not to return until you are compliant with their dress code. But as far as the public is concerned what you do in the street is up to you as long as the laws are being followed. Refer to your state and local laws under the criminal code to ensure compliance with them. Verify that your locality does not have an ordinance that would other wise be contraindictive of what you are trying to accomplish. And lastly, always remember that ordinance laws and local laws can be stronger than state laws, and state laws stronger than federal laws but not the other way around. Just because the federal code of law says you can do it, the state may say you cannot. (A state cannot create laws that are less equal to a federal law, and a local law cannot create a law less equal to that of a state or federal law)

    Hope that helps

    To add to this, I have been to a nude beach in just diaper and there where no issues what so ever. It actually generated more conversation from people who where curious. And the beach cops where everywhere and never said a thing.
    Last edited by babyblueblanket; 4 Days Ago at 17:40. Reason: Added comment

  8. #38

    Default

    Right - My take on this - Technically it isn't an offence and if pushed it would be interesting to see the CPS pushing it to court

    However - it is a very dodgy area of the law and could in theory be taken as public in decency if someone is " Offended or fees that you are acting in a sexual manner" in the spirit of the fact we are AB's - would you let your toddler ( I assume you would both be walking and not using a pushchair lol) walk to the shops in a diaper and expect people not to comment or feel awkward - My guess would be NO - so as an Ageplayer is it technically right or giving the right impression by letting an Adult little do it?

    Again I would answer NO - its actually more likely to give a false impression and make the public think its a sexual Kink ( maybe it is for you) - I would say the same answer if I was being asked if its ok for pet players to go out in full leather and obviously sexual kink hood and collar??

    Off my soapbox and back to tom and Jerry and a soppy cup as that far more important to me in reality

  9. #39

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by SnowBlitz View Post
    I really dislike people who do this kind of thing. It's not okay to just wander around in a diaper and shirt. It makes the community look worse than it already is and all it does is reinforce negative stereotypes. This in my opinion counts as public indecency.
    I agree.

  10. #40

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Argent View Post
    While personally I think it’s sick that anyone could be bothered by seeing a diaper I think police just about anywhere would make it a painful experience and site all sorts of public decency nonsense even though Diapers generally cover more and disguise genital region shapes than other clothing.

    I truly think we need a holiday town somewhere where only ABDLs and their caregivers are allowed so people can be free to be themselves.
    Sign me up! Realistically wearing a diaper shouldn't be an issue. A diaper covers up far more then some bottoms I've seen young women wear around college campuses. Yet I also understand it's taboo and deviant too some to see an adult in a diaper. This is where I think an issue could arise. Someone becoming offended and or disgusted and contacting a police officer. This police officer may not have the authority to arrest you but they would harass you and overall cause a scene. It's better just to avoid the situation entirely.

Similar Threads

  1. Out in public.
    By mikebook89 in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2014, 12:48
  2. ab/dl in public
    By skittlesfirehawk in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 23-Feb-2014, 20:05
  3. ab/dl in public
    By katylynn in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 17-Oct-2011, 17:14
  4. Public
    By WaffleTear in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 20-Oct-2010, 20:19
  5. If you met a *B/DL in public...
    By Kovy in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 28-Nov-2008, 08:33

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.