Louiza Ray and Lala take Birmingham by storm!

[Limey Dick]

Although the furore over Louiza and Lala's Birmingham antics has thankfully now died down, I have posted this because it is clearly fundamentally relevant to the central question of public nudity as a right. Certainly very interesting in view of some of the comments contained regarding 'public decency' etc on this thread....

I have just read that the guy who has become famous for walking naked from John'O'Groats to Lands End (twice!) has appeared in court in Scotland charged with acts transgressing their 'public decency' legislation. The charges arose after he walked naked from a prison where he had just served a sentence for further acts of naked 'treason'. The guy believes passionately in his right appear naked anywhere at all times, he believes legislation forbidding people that right, breaches their Human Rights. According to all reports I have absorbed he is a happily married man with two children.....

Fascinating thing is, that the Sherriff directed the jury to find him 'Not Guilty' on the grounds that there was 'little or no evidence to suggest that his behaviour had shocked or appalled the public'.

I realise of course that the Jocks are subject to a seperate legal system, but this verdict certainly represents a remarkable assessment from a British Officer of the Law. Had it occurred in London, I am sure it would have been front page news on every paper....


Limey Dick

[jjmanchester]

i would imagine the people who would have the biggest problem with impromptu public nudity are those with young children who may not wish to have their child exposed to it.

the difference between porn and unsolicited public nudity is that the viewing of pornography, bar an occasional "accidental" interent popup or whatever, is a matter of personal choice.

had it been later in the evening i don'' think there would have been many grounds for complaint, but surely it must be understood that many people would find it offensive in the middle of the day?

and to compare the incident to the suffragettes is beyond ludicrous. i don't think the right to dance half naked in public in any way equates with a serious political movement that enfranchised women and gave them the vote.


both sexy girls tho

[louiza ray]

Oh my god, another one...

Have all you people got a guilt complex or something....As we have pointed out, kids are sent or taken by their parents to watch pop shows where erotic dancing in fetish style clothing is now part of what people expect to see. Sorry, but you were not there and you really are talking out of your
......leave that to your imagination!!

Are you sure your surname is not Whitehouse??!!!

xxxLouizarayxxx

[lindsey]

Hehe yet another ?blame it on someone else? by Louiza, now its pop shows. Nice one Louiza.



Anyway Limey Dick, the argument is about indecent exposure and the main reason why we have that law is to protect kids.

Who do you think it?s there to protect ?? Your request for me to refrain from linking the two is pathetic, even more so that you think its blackmail. I don?t make the laws.



Lindsey previous post - It?s a bit rich coming from a self publicising 41 year old porn model with 2 grown up kids to say ?Gemma does not care that kids might end up watching her in action? ? What does she do or not do to protect kids that you do differently ? If you don?t do anything differently then you?re basically saying you don?t mind if kids see you in action

Limey Dick reply - Baby, the difference is that Louiza does not come on here judging the moral standards of other porn models. The point I have made regarding Gemma and every other porn model risking their parents DVD'S being seen by children - and yet still working anway - remains valid....I well remember finding my own Dad's porn mags when I was about 12 and boy did I search for them after that!

As you may know my comment there was for Louisa after she said ?Gemma did not care that kids might see her in action?. However you chose to answer on her behalf or you didn?t realise i guess.



The big joke is you said ?Louiza does not judge moral standards of other porn models?, try looking at her posts particularly one where she referenced your earlier post then added her own moral judgement comment ?

Louiza - Limey Dick said earlier, kids are finding their Mum and Dad's DVD's every day but it is does not stop Gemma making them does it!!! She does not care that kids might end up watching her in action!

So they don?t actually do anything differently do they, and therefore Louiza?s own comment above about Gemma applies equally to Louiza herself, lol.



For your reference Limey Dick, for the purposes of indecent exposure, genitals includes breasts, particularly when combined with a sexual motive. Such as wearing porn clothes. If Louiza or any other female would like to test this please feel free to wear porn clothes and expose your breasts in public where police are also present. When you?ve been asked to cover up, refuse, and then see if they arrest you for indecent exposure. (No need to tell me the result, as i already know they are obliged to arrest).

[strictlybroadband]

jjmanchester wrote:

> the difference between porn and unsolicited public nudity is
> that the viewing of pornography, bar an occasional "accidental"
> interent popup or whatever, is a matter of personal choice.

Do you think that sex and nudity are the same thing? They weren't having sex in public, just dancing semi-naked. It would be banned in Saudi Arabia, but luckily this country is a little freer than that, and (from what the girls have said), they were greeted by a friendly crowd.

IMHO a person who thinks that their child could be damaged by nudity probably needs psychiatric help. Why should we surrender freedom for a minority of fundamentalists?

[strictlybroadband]

lindsey wrote:

> Anyway Limey Dick, the argument is about indecent exposure and
> the main reason why we have that law is to protect kids.

No, the argument isn't about indecent exposure. Nobody has claimed that what Louiza and Lala did is indecent, have they? Do you think that it was indecent? Do you think that children are damaged by the sight of breasts? If so, can I suggest that you might think of bringing up your kids in Iran?

[strictlybroadband]

warren zevon rip wrote:

> Some points....
>
> 1) I would love to know why we are told right at the start
> about this being the "adventures of two black babes". Surely
> just being a babe is enough detail in 2007.

We'd live in a very bland world if we could only describe ourselves by our gender. Imagine on dating sites: "I'm a male. If you're interested, write to me."

But I'll answer the question - Two Black Babes is the name of a series of videos currently being made by Louiza and Lala. Hence, they are known as the Two Black Babes, and that's why they used that term. Do you find it "indecent"?

Lala and Louiza are two, very sexy, black babes who see nothing "indecent" in the human body. As the original post stated, their behaviour in Birmingham was greeted enthusiastically by a couple of hundred people. Doubtless, some people also decided not to watch, as was their right. Only one person decided to verbally attack them.

It was more surprising to find attacks from an adult model on this forum, especially when said model made this video, in Birmingham!

[mrmcfister]

What an amazing thread!