Exposing oneself to someone is usually considered an unwanted sexual advance and is frowned upon, so it’s good to see a debauched individual from Lancashire, in the UK, brought to justice.
What irks me is the pathetic excuses he used to try to justify his depraved behaviour. Like, say, the fact that he was in his own home at the time and exposed to people only because they were peering in his windows:
A 46-year-old Longridge man who indecently exposed himself in a window of his home has been given a conditional discharge.
Blackburn magistrates heard that Peter Thompson was twice seen by a neighbour and on the second occasion she was with her partner who also saw him totally naked.
Thompson, of Preston Road, pleaded not guilty to two charges of indecently exposing himself but was convicted after a trial.
He was given a conditional discharge for two years and ordered to pay £200 compensation and £400 costs.
But truly, the Law is merciful:
Because the level of sentence was below a community order Thompson does not have to sign the Sex Offenders’ Register.
That’s the trouble with judges these days, never throwing the book at ’em.
Australian Libertarian Society (old site) 
Behead those who insult nuding up.
Are children being born dressed ?
Just because something is usually considered a crime, does not make it just that someone is charged for that crime.
1, Use your brain when forming your sentences.
2, OH MY GOD PENISES!!!!!! OH NOEZ!!!!