Let's not forget that the RSPB would be within their rights to ban all naturism on their property (apart from on rights of way) as other occupiers of property can insist on dress codes or behavioral standards and take action to enforce that policy if they so wished.
This land is open access land it is not private property, it is not their land they simply manage it for Thoresby estates. They cannot ban something that is perfectly lawful without the risk of prosecution for discrimination. That is why they have used the words discouraged because they don't have the power or resource to say anything else.
With apologies for the delay in responding but I wanted to look into this in greater detail.
Ordinarily, an occupier’s interest in land, and that applies to anyone with a controlling interest in land be they owner, tenant or manager, (subject, of course, to the terms of any lease or management agreement) entitles them to exclude all other persons. If a person is granted access to land, they are said to hold a license to enter that land or part thereof, and these licenses can either be formal or informal. So an occupier can allow or exclude whoever they wish from their land or impose conditions upon the license for access. Conditions frequently found on informal access rights include not eating on the premises, the exclusion of animals or the requirement to provide details in a visitors’ book to name but three.
If a person enters onto land without a license, they are a trespasser. A landowner is entitled to obtain an injunction to restrain trespassers on his land whether or not that trespass causes harm to his property. Over recent years there have been several cases of trespass involving people gaining access to premises to record their exploits for posting on social media. In those cases, very often, quia timet injunctions have been granted that were sufficiently wide to exclude “unknown persons” even when enforcement was likely to prove difficult.
Although I was aware that the Thoresby Estate was involved here, I was unaware that part of the RSPB managed land is ‘open access’ as defined by the CROW Act. Essentially, the open access land covers what the RSPB refer to as Budby South Forest but not the area of forestry south of that land known as Sherwood Forest, including the area surrounding the Major Oak. The extent of open access land anywhere in England can be checked at https://magic.defra.gov.uk/magicmap.aspx .
Open access land does not confer on the public an unfettered right to use the land and a number of exclusions and restrictions apply. There is a right on foot and to take a dog on a lead with a host of prohibitions including, but not limited to, commercial activity, organised games, grazing livestock and the intimidation and disturbance of other people engaged in a lawful activity. So it will be seen that the usual rules applying to trespass do not apply in relation to open access land.
As far as the RSPB managed land is concerned, we therefore have a mix of both situations; private land and open access land. They therefore could, if they so wished, (although I doubt RSPB policy is likely to be so draconian) seek to exclude people without clothing from the Sherwood Forest area. If such a prohibition was widely ignored and naturist behaviour continued, they would be able to seek an injunction to bolster their attempts at preventing access. That is, of course, unless it could be shown that granting an injunction would be discriminatory against naturists. There is no clear answer here until such time as it is tested in the courts because, “Naturism might be protected as a philosophical belief…” (BN’s wording, my emphasis). It would certainly be easier to exclude named individuals, in my opinion, as opposed to naturists at large.
As to the open access land, the RSPB would not be able to exclude naturists going about their lawful activities, such as walking, per se. They could, for example, insist that a naked person operating a burger van or riding a bicycle remove themselves from the land. If other naked people began to make a nuisance of themselves by committing criminal offences that resulted in numerous complaints from members of the public, (dogging, masturbating, flashing etc.) apart from any action taken by the police, the RSPB could, in extreme circumstances, seek a guia timet injunction and I believe it would be granted. How they would differentiate between those unidentified miscreants and genuine law-abiding naturists, as the judiciary are obliged do when granting such injunctions, remains open to speculation.
I would add that although organised games are prohibited on open access land, I doubt that an organised walk consisting of a group of naturists would be considered as ‘organised’ enough to fall within this prohibition.
Note also that section 17 of the Act gives an access authority, in this case Nottinghamshire County Council, a power to make byelaws, ‘for the preservation of order,’ and for ensuring persons exercising their right to roam, ‘so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the land by other persons.’ It therefore follows that if there was a concerted campaign by busy-bodies against naturists using open access land, the Council could be swayed into making byelaws accordingly. They do not have to consult interested naturist bodies, such as BN, before doing so either.
I hope that the above provides a flavour of the situation here.
Just thought I'd confirm one positive outcome for us from the RSPB policy. For the first time in probably ten years my partner also went naked on a walk with me yesterday. She's been fine on beaches, but generally not felt comfortable enough to go on walks.
What's made the difference? It's the debate over the RSPB policy, and I think their albeit poorly worded acceptance of our rights, it's made her think more about it in general. She's actually stronger in her views of our rights than I am, more offended by the idea of naturism being 'tolerated' than I am too, like it's given her a fresh opportunity to realise naturism is nothing to be ashamed of. Anyway, it seems to have tipped the balance and given her the confidence to do naked walks, as we did yesterday in a very quiet part of Derbyshire.
i reckon theres a lot of beach naturits out there who wont walk naked in the countryside because they think its not allowed or just frowned upon. to a certain extent theyre worried about publics reaction. ill include my wife in that group. im of the opinion that signs like the rspb ones will give them more confidence which can only be a good thing. far outweighs the perceived downsides from us more confident and experienced naked walkers.
About a week ago I went for a walk in Budby South Forest and I met a few clothed people, one of whom was a lady cyclist who was resting on a bench. I had read the notice at the car park entrance and thought it to be a very balanced assessment of the rights of individuals in the area. Anyway, cut back to meeting the lady cyclist. I had seen her from afar, and chosen a circuitous route to give her time to move on, but as I came back on track, I found her still sitting on the bench. I remember thinking that the notice had warned her, so I waved and she acknowledged me with a smile. Had I not known about the notice, I think I would have covered up, but instead I exercised my rights and continued naked. The lady promptly climbed on her bike and pedalled away. Did I cause her alarm? Should I have covered up?
@swimmer51 - " she acknowledged me with a smile... Did I cause her alarm? Should I have covered up?"
Reads like a perfectly balanced encounter on both sides. The fact she rode off may or may not have anything to do with you - we can overthink these things.
Noli illegitimi te carborundum
She was clearly not 'alarmed' in the common sense of the word, and quite definitely not in the legal sense, which has a different meaning (i.e. in great alarm, in fear of life). Even if she was, for the sake of argument, you had no intention to cause her alarm, so no problem.
As it is, it seems most likely that she simply went on her way after a short rest.