# The 'Naked Rambler' jailed for 22 months, following arrest within 60 seconds of his release!



## claphamboy (Aug 25, 2011)

> A man who has spent most of the past five years in prison for refusing to wear clothes in public has been jailed again, this time for almost 22 months.
> 
> Stephen Gough, a former Royal Marine, has been dubbed "the Naked Rambler" thanks to his fondness for hiking across Britain in the nuddy.
> 
> ...



Seriously, WTF is wrong with this freak?


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 25, 2011)

We had a different naked rambler turn up to a rave on the ridgeway once, a male friend looked from lying down just as the guy stepped over him. Bloke seemed pretty sound, had a bit of a boogy and that. *shrugs*

It's not like he's harming anyone.


----------



## xes (Aug 25, 2011)

> His conviction for contempt of court came after he refused to wear clothes in the dock at Perth Sheriff Court during his trial. The hearing was delayed while court staff fetched a piece of paper for the naked defendant to sit on "for hygiene reasons".


 lol


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 25, 2011)

he has a point.  being naked is not something you should be arested for.

why is being naked offensive?


----------



## xes (Aug 25, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> We had a different naked rambler turn up to a rave on the ridgeway once, a male friend looked from lying down just as the guy stepped over him. Bloke seemed pretty sound, had a bit of a boogy and that. *shrugs*
> 
> It's not like he's harming anyone.


There used to be a naked couple at exodus every now and then. They'd dance the morning away stark bollock naked, and nobody batted an eyelid.

Nudity is frowned upon, even though we are all potentially naked right now!


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2011)

So long as he's not walking about with bag of sweets and a children-scaring stiffy on, I can't see the harm if he's only wandering over them thar hills.


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2011)

OMG! Nakedness!


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 25, 2011)

xes said:


> There used to be a naked couple at exodus every now and then. They'd dance the morning away stark bollock naked, and nobody batted an eyelid.
> 
> Nudity is frowned upon, even though we are all potentially naked right now!


I can confirm that I am completely nude under my clothes


----------



## marty21 (Aug 25, 2011)

editor said:


> OMG! Nakedness!


 why haven't these naked people been banged up?  poor nekkid man - haven't the cops got more serious wrong uns to chase


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 25, 2011)

Why anyone would choose to walk around naked in Scotland is beyond me, it's freezing most of the time. Let alone rambling naked, you'd get scratched by all kinds of plants and stuff.


----------



## past caring (Aug 25, 2011)

editor said:


> So long as he's not walking about with bag of sweets and a children-scaring stiffy on, I can't see the harm if he's only wandering over them thar hills.



Could be a bit of a problem though if he's running late and decides to catch a bus to get to the YHA before it shuts.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 25, 2011)

they should just let him go and wait for him to be a proper nuisance. 5 years (accumulative) in jail is a bit rubbish if all you've been doing is being naked.


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Aug 25, 2011)

skyscraper101 said:


> Why anyone would choose to walk around naked in Scotland is beyond me, it's freezing most of the time. Let alone rambling naked, you'd get scratched by all kinds of plants and stuff.



Midges.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Aug 25, 2011)

He originally walked nude from Lands End to John 'o groats. He succeeded with just a few brief arrests in walking naked thru England but came unstuck when he entered Scotland. He is actually being jailed for contempt of court, not being naked.

It is not actually against the law to be naked in a public place. A publicly naked individual is usually arrested for 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace' ie that they may cause others to commit crime.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Aug 25, 2011)

Lemon Eddy said:


> Midges.



And midges natch.


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 25, 2011)

Actually I think there may  have been a thread about him before and someone said it was a bit more than just being naked that was leading to the continuous jailings.

Still.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

Was he naked in prison?


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 25, 2011)

newme said:


> Was he naked in prison?



that's a good question.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 25, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Seriously, WTF is wrong with this freak?


I wish he could be free. This is awful.


----------



## xes (Aug 25, 2011)

we should organise a naked protest outside his prison/every police station in the country until he is free to flap around as nature intended.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

stuff_it said:


> We had a different naked rambler turn up to a rave on the ridgeway once, a male friend looked from lying down just as the guy stepped over him. Bloke seemed pretty sound, had a bit of a boogy and that. *shrugs*
> 
> It's not like he's harming anyone.



Was that the same morning we fronted up a load of riot pigs and they backed down?

If not then he's all over the Ridgeway, bollock nakkid.


----------



## Mr Moose (Aug 25, 2011)

It's disgusting imprisoning him unless I'm missing something seriously anti-social in his behaviour.

Who's interest is this in to lock him up? How dare they deny his liberty for this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 25, 2011)

there's more than one naked rambler then, cos i remember another one called vincent bethal. he was all over the telly a while back for similar stuff.
the curious thing about him was that he had an enormous beard. perhaps he felt that he had to have something to cover his shame, even if it wasn't the traditional undergarments.
i myself go for both beard and pants, just to be certain.


----------



## pinkmonkey (Aug 25, 2011)

There's a naked kayaker on the Grand Union at Tring, my mate who lives aboard there sent me the cameraphone movie as evidence.


----------



## tar1984 (Aug 25, 2011)

regardless of the rights and wrongs, you'd think he'd give it up unless he really likes being in jail.  he's made his point.  it's not the most serious issue to martyr yourself for, the police/courts aren't changing their attitude any time soon, so strikes me as kind of pointless what he is doing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 25, 2011)

SaskiaJayne said:


> It is not actually against the law to be naked in a public place. A publicly naked individual is usually arrested for 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace' ie that they may cause others to commit crime.


i can see the point of this.
if i was to be seen naked in public, there would be outbreaks of substantial criminality


----------



## scooter (Aug 25, 2011)

I wonder why humans are the only animals to wear clothes. You'd think wild dogs or something would have figured out that it's warmer if they crawl under the skin of an animal they've just eaten


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 25, 2011)

scooter said:


> I wonder why humans are the only animals to wear clothes. You'd think wild dogs or something would have figured out that it's warmer if they crawl under the skin of an animal they've just eaten


they don't have opposable thumbs to keep them on. you need thumbs to do buttons up.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 25, 2011)

scooter said:


> I wonder why humans are the only animals to wear clothes.


Because all the rest don't like ironing? More to the point, how fucking dense are some people around here...


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 25, 2011)

What is it about Royal Marines and taking their clothes off? He just went to one naked bar too many.


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 25, 2011)

quimcunx said:


> they should just let him go and wait for him to be a proper nuisance. 5 years (accumulative) in jail is a bit rubbish if all you've been doing is being naked.



Exactly. The police and magistrataes obviously have a real bee in their bonnet about him. as soon as he leaves prison he is re-arrested. I'd write to my MSP about it if i was in Scotland


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

He needs to take his case to Europe, Germany is a big fish in that pond and they love mooching about in the buff.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

rubbershoes said:


> Exactly. The police and magistrataes obviously have a real bee in their bonnet about him. as soon as he leaves prison he is re-arrested. I'd write to my MSP about it if i was in Scotland



To be fair he was only re-arrested because he was infact doing exactly the same thing again, not like they were trumped up charges trying desperately to pin anything on him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

newme said:


> To be fair he was only re-arrested because he was infact doing exactly the same thing again, not like they were trumped up charges trying desperately to pin anything on him.



You miss the point - how is walking around with no clothes on 'breaching the peace'?


----------



## Giles (Aug 25, 2011)

It's obviously become a "battle of wills" (or should that be "willies"!) between the Scottish police and this bloke, to judge by the way they are acting. Maybe they are worried that "if we let one person get away with it, next thing you know, they'll all be at it", or something. Given Scottish weather, this doesn't seem that likely!

Giles..


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

((((Ginger pubes everywhere))))


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You miss the point - how is walking around with no clothes on 'breaching the peace'?



It was determined it was a crime, infact he even went to prison for it, he then decided to do it again immediately upon his release, how would you expect that to go? 

You think that having just imprisoned someone for however long, that the people who put him there would decide that it suddenly was ok again with no change in legislation having just released him?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

Yes, and he should take it away from Jockland and in to Europe and get a load of wobbly bitted Germans on the case. What the Scotch are doing is against the law.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, and he should take it away from Jockland and in to Europe and get a load of wobbly bitted Germans on the case. What the Scotch are doing is against the law.



If he had managed to keep his clothes on I am guessing they would have been more than happy to see the back of him, and no doubt surprised that they couldnt see the whole of the back of him.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

newme said:


> If he had managed to keep his clothes on I am guessing they would have been more than happy to see the back of him, and no doubt surprised that they couldnt see the whole of the back of him.



Being naked isn't a crime. The British, (mainly Scottish), judiciary are making a moral call that the naked form is so outrageous that it is likely to encourage others to commit crime. I think they are wrong and I'd bet the European Court of Human Rights would agree with me.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Being naked isn't a crime. The British, (mainly Scottish), judiciary are making a moral call that the naked form is so outrageous that it is likely to encourage others to commit crime. I think they are wrong and I'd bet the European Court of Human Rights would agree with me.



Regardless of your personal opinion, those that locked him up oddly havent changed there mind about it simply because he refuses to give up and they are the ones currently with the power to do this. Simply being stubborn is not a legal argument, as a result the same legality that had him arrested to begin with, did again, being as it has happened, repeatedly, there is surely no surprise that it continues to.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

newme said:


> Regardless of your personal opinion, those that locked him up oddly havent changed there mind about it simply because he refuses to give up and they are the ones currently with the power to do this. Simply being stubborn is not a legal argument, as a result the same legality that had him arrested to begin with, did again, being as it has happened, repeatedly, there is surely no surprise that it continues to.



Those locking him up are a state that has a population less than that of London.

This is the same state that feels 8 years is enough prison time for murdering 270 people.

Maybe my views are Daily Mail, but I feel that these two cases don't reflect well on the Scottish judicial system.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Those locking him up are a state that has a population less than that of London.
> 
> This is the same state that feels 8 years is enough prison time for murdering 270 people.
> 
> Maybe my views are Daily Mail, but I feel that these two cases don't reflect well on the Scottish judicial system.



Fail to see what the size of the state has to do with whether it feels it should be consistent in applying law it has decided on, case law and precedent are the basis of British law.
Those sentences are inconsistent with each other considering the scale of each offence, yes that sentence was too short for killing a huge number of people, its completely irrelevant regarding whether they should let this man go simply because he is persistent in continuing to behave in the way that has got him locked up repeatedly.
Dont think your views are Daily Mail at all, they would probably want him on a sex offenders register for being naked within 500miles of a school, which again is ridiculous.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 25, 2011)

Saying that perhaps Scotland's (& maybe England/Wales') courts are way out of step with those of the greater legal jurisdiction that they are part of and as such are acting in a petty and illegal manner.


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 25, 2011)

newme said:


> To be fair he was only re-arrested because he was infact doing exactly the same thing again, not like they were trumped up charges trying desperately to pin anything on him.


is it fair to keep someone in prison for 5 years for this. If they let him he may try to to go somewhere  where they wouldn't be so against it


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2011)

Human beings, well western humans, are the only animal whose skin revolts it.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 25, 2011)

I did see a program about this guy. It is ridiculous that he is having a hard time, he is doing no harm.


----------



## newme (Aug 25, 2011)

rubbershoes said:


> is it fair to keep someone in prison for 5 years for this. If they let him he may try to to go somewhere  where they wouldn't be so against it



And he could have gone wherever the hell he wanted if he hadnt decided to be naked while getting there, which he was well aware of considering the number of times its happened. But he did it anyway, his choice.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

tar1984 said:


> regardless of the rights and wrongs, you'd think he'd give it up unless he really likes being in jail. he's made his point. it's not the most serious issue to martyr yourself for, the police/courts aren't changing their attitude any time soon, so strikes me as kind of pointless what he is doing.



This is why I asked WTF is wrong with him in the OP.

This has been going on for years and every time he leaves prison naked, it's got to be 4 or 5 times now, he's re-arrested and is straight back in again, you would have thought he would have sussed how pointless it is, the Scottish courts are clearly not about to back down unless they are forced to in some way.

Despite reading about these re-arrests over the years, I can't re-call ever reading of him making any appeals despite his defence that his human rights are being breached, which would be the logical thing to do if he actually wants to make a point and force the Scottish police & courts to back-off.

Or, leave the prison with at least a pair of pants on and return to England where he can wander around bollock naked to his heart's content.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> ... Or, leave the prison with at least a pair of pants on and return to England where he can wander around bollock naked to his heart's content.



tbf I think there is at least a good chance that - the lights are on, but there is no one home, iyswim


----------



## Badgers (Aug 26, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Seriously, WTF is wrong with this freak?



I admire his indefatigability personally. A lesser man would have buckled.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

Badgers said:


> I admire his indefatigability personally. A lesser man would have buckled.



There is a difference between indefatigability and stupidity..


----------



## Badgers (Aug 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> There is a difference between indefatigability and stupidity..



Eh?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Eh?



Well it is obvious they aren't going to let him go naked directly from prison yet he does it again and again, stupidity.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

Yep, stupidity of the highest order.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Well it is obvious they aren't going to let him go naked directly from prison yet he does it again and again, stupidity.



Or perhaps their rules are stupid?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Or perhaps their rules are stupid?



Sure their rules are stupid.

But that does not mean that repeatedly breaking them is a wise thing to do, unless you like it in prison.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Sure their rules are stupid.
> 
> But that does not mean that repeatedly breaking them is a wise thing to do, unless you like it in prison.



Perhaps he likes prison?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

Badgers said:


> Perhaps he likes prison?



Hey I am all for his stance. I just think he is misjudging his battle.

As I think I mentioned above in the thread, humans are perhaps the only animal that has learnt to be revolted by its own skin.

And that is a situation which is quite ridiculous.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

I've done a check on google to see if he has ever appealed against these jail terms and can't see anything, but he has his own page on Wikipedia, which lists his court cases & outcomes, but no mention of any appeals.

Although before heading to Scotland he was arrested twice in England he was released almost immediately on both occasions, which I guess has a lot to do with THIS CASE in 2001...



> 10 January 2001: Vincent Bethell made legal history[1][2] by being the first defendant to stand trial naked in a UK court. The trial was at Southwark Crown Court London. Vincent was charged with the crime of "Public Nuisance",[3] which carries a maximum sentence of Life imprisonment.[4] Vincent was naked throughout this court case, furthermore *he was found unanimously not guilty by the jury*.[5][6] Prior to Vincent's historic court case he spent 5 months naked in solitary confinement (Segregation Unit) at Brixton Prison (London).[7] In December 2000, fellow activist Russell Shaw Higgs joined Vincent naked in Brixton prison. Russell had a letter about his imprisonment published[8] shortly before being released when all charges were dropped after Vincent's acquittal.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

The only concern I have about nakedness, is, which pocket can I put my fags in


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> The only concern I have about nakedness, is, which pocket can I put my fags in



You would need a bum-bag.


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 26, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> You would need a bum-bag.


Or just a bum!


----------



## weltweit (Aug 26, 2011)

Urbanblues said:


> Or just a bum!



You want me to store my cigarettes and lighter in a bum


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2011)

Best place for them in prison


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 26, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Best place for them in prison


Unless someone decides to go in after them...


----------



## Greebo (Aug 26, 2011)

weltweit said:


> You want me to store my cigarettes and lighter in a bum


Even if there was room, wouldn't that spoil the taste?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 26, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Best place for them in prison


bums?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 26, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Even if there was room, wouldn't that spoil the taste?


Because eveyone smokes for the taste, yeah?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 26, 2011)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because eveyone smokes for the taste, yeah?


Possibly not, but you'd need to be pretty desperate before a fag delicately infused with the combined aroma of plastic (from the cling film) and faecal matter seemed like a good idea.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

*throws-up*


----------



## Greebo (Aug 26, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> Best place for them in prison


Thank you so much for reminding me of the bit in Papillon where the main character has 2 chargers (one his own, one carried for a rich convict) stuffed where the sun doesn't shine.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 26, 2011)

i read that years ago. great book, though henri is a bit of dick


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 26, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I
> 
> THIS CASE in 2001...


 
He was _being naked_ just yards from my bedroom?  You really don't feel safe at nights these days.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 26, 2011)

Yep, being naked - not touching his bits, looking through windows, or molesting children.  Just being naked.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 26, 2011)

I am always naked  when I post on U75.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 26, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I am always naked when I post on U75.



Webcam or STFU!


----------



## past caring (Aug 26, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> I am always displaying my naked ignorance when I post on U75.



Indeed.


----------



## TremulousTetra (Aug 26, 2011)

ResistanceMP3 said:


> when naked past caring is as ugly as a hat full of arseholes and SHOULD be locked up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 a little bit of honesty at last.


----------



## Riklet (Aug 27, 2011)

Sucks he's back in Jail.  Maybe he's a bit nuts from Marine bizniz?

doubt he can pull off the nonchalant nekkidness like the Barcelona 'elephant man' though.  This man is a bit of a hero NSFW!


----------



## likesfish (Aug 29, 2011)

easy solution he's a marine just leave a bag of womens underwear close by problem solved.
 Royal marines enjoy crossing dressing as much as being naked.
 Don't question it its a royal marine thing


----------



## Falcon (Aug 30, 2011)

editor said:


> OMG! Nakedness!



Once you understand why you wouldn´t wish to borrow a bike from a nudist, you understand why nudists and social spaces need generally to be kept separated.


----------



## editor (Aug 30, 2011)

Falcon said:


> Once you understand why you wouldn´t wish to borrow a bike from a nudist, you understand why nudists and social spaces need generally to be kept separated.


Are you often offered a nudist's bike to borrow then?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 30, 2011)

I can remember when the naked bike ride was taking place, on the news that night they asked a bystanding woman what she thought and she said I just don't understand it, all these naked men with tiny penises, she repeated the fact that they all had tiny penises three times because she seemed obsessed with it and then the interviewer cut away to someone else


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 30, 2011)

Falcon said:


> Once you understand why you wouldn´t wish to borrow a bike from a nudist, you understand why nudists and social spaces need generally to be kept separated.



you sniff the saddles


----------



## Falcon (Aug 30, 2011)

editor said:


> Are you often offered a nudist's bike to borrow then?


I was at Burning Man. Declined.


----------



## equationgirl (Aug 31, 2011)

I feel a bit sorry for him. The police and court system seem so intent on going after this guy (a 'soft' target perhaps?) when there are other crimes with such low rates of prosecution and conviction (such as rape) that could use such dedicated people.

It's not like a crimewave follows this guy wherever he goes - I think a reassessment of priorities is called for here.


----------



## 666666joe (Nov 27, 2011)

They are naked everywhere...this group of naked horseriders actually were in South England believe it or not.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 27, 2011)

Why wasn't I formed of this event?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 27, 2011)

Something very sexy about the Godiva type thang.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 27, 2011)

666666joe said:


> View attachment 14962
> They are naked everywhere...this group of naked horseriders actually were in South England believe it or not.


You seem to have a thing about posting backshots of naked young women.  Got any of men?  Or of much older women?


----------



## 666666joe (Nov 27, 2011)

Greebo said:


> You seem to have a thing about posting backshots of naked young women. Got any of men? Or of much older women?


I'm obsessed, but not that obsessed. lol


----------



## Greebo (Nov 27, 2011)

666666joe said:


> I'm obsessed, but not that obsessed. lol


So you post purely for titillation.  What a surprise.


----------



## Mary Poppins (Dec 3, 2011)

This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!


----------



## krtek a houby (Dec 3, 2011)

Mary Poppins said:


> This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!


 Awesome


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 3, 2011)

Mary Poppins said:


> This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!



Nope, it just shows that Scottish law is different to the rest of the UK, when he was arrested in England he was released without charge IIRC, he certainly wasn't jailed.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Dec 3, 2011)

Mary Poppins said:


> This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!



Local newspaper website comment section >>>> that way...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2011)

'I'm gonna open a pub and call it free the paedos'


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 3, 2011)

Mary Poppins said:


> This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!


no, we jail them too and for much longer. fucking know-it-all flying nannies and their shit advice. a spoonful of sugar rots your kids teeth btw.


----------



## Mary Poppins (Dec 3, 2011)

666666joe said:


> View attachment 14962
> They are naked everywhere...this group of naked horseriders actually were in South England believe it or not.





Can't beat letting your hair down on the beach whilst on holiday!


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 3, 2011)

oh, it's you


----------



## London_Calling (Dec 3, 2011)

Did it take long to get all the sand out?


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 3, 2011)

Your hairs in a bobbin 


*raises eyebrow*


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 3, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> 'I'm gonna open a pub and call it free the paedos'



TBH, a better name would be Feed the Paedos.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 3, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> TBH, a better name would be Feed the Paedos.


Tuppence for each one bagged?


----------



## claphamboy (Dec 3, 2011)

I so want to like that post, *resists*.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 3, 2011)

Mary Poppins said:


> This just proves how our British law is an "ass". We lock people up for benig naked and free murderers and peodophiles!



your avatar is somewhat appropriate here


----------



## Greebo (Dec 3, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I so want to like that post, *resists*.


Do you really want to get called sweetie (for the wrong reasons) as often as phildwyer?  Think about it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 24, 2012)

In the grauniad today...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison


----------



## albionism (Mar 24, 2012)

He's spent a lot of time in prison for someone who hasn't
committed a crime.


----------



## chazegee (Mar 24, 2012)

This shit makes me sick. I hope he hasn't been wasting his time and the law gets changed.


----------



## mao (Mar 24, 2012)




----------



## Anonymous1 (Mar 24, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> In the grauniad today...


 


> In January 2003 he left his mother's home and headed for Eastleigh town centre. "Nothing really happened," he says. "There was one man who shouted, 'That's disgusting!' but he was eating a sandwich so I think that's why


----------



## Mephitic (Mar 24, 2012)

Fascinating, I don't know what to make of him.


----------



## JHE (Mar 24, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> Fascinating, I don't know what to make of him.


 
A harmless eccentric, I suppose, and I'm sorry he keeps getting locked up.

I don't really agree with this cause, though. Should we have the right to go about naked in public? I'm not convinced.

Most of us look better with our clothes on and, in any case, there are places where nudists ('naturists', I think they call themselves) can do their nudist thang unmolested by the rest of us. Isn't that enough? Is it really too much to ask him at least to wear a pair of shorts or swimming trunks when he goes rambling?

I wonder if he has focused on this strange cause as a way of not thinking about other things - perhaps things that have gone wrong in his life and would make him really unhappy if he were not so engrossed in his long struggle for the freedom to walk around with his genitals on display.


----------



## claphamboy (Mar 24, 2012)

chazegee said:


> This shit makes me sick. I hope he hasn't been wasting his time and the law gets changed.


 
The problem is the law in Scotland, there's no issue in England & Wales.


----------



## Mephitic (Mar 24, 2012)

I feel rather perturbed by this story, on one hand I totally admire his testicular fortitude, I mean seriously that takes some bottle,&  fuck going to Perth, let along going to fucking prison in Perth. 10 out of 10 for standing up to the man. But i am completely unable to empathise, I would be horrified to find myself wandering around town with my tackle out (its not that big). I'm not secure enough to have people point and laugh, I'd run away crying.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 24, 2012)

It's the discomfort that I don't understand


----------



## skyscraper101 (Mar 24, 2012)

Such a waste of tax money keeping this bloke locked up.


----------



## killer b (Mar 24, 2012)

While his cause is just, I can't help thinking its really not that important, and he should be looking after his kids instead.


----------



## Onket (Mar 24, 2012)

> "The human body isn't offensive," he says. "If that's what we're saying, as human beings, then it's not rational."


 
Correct, tbf.


----------



## kenny g (Mar 25, 2012)

Absolutely disgusting that he continues to be imprisoned. It wouldn't be my choice of a protest but the idea that he is having to go through this medieval process for absolutely no apparent purpose for the state just goes to show that power corrupts. The people locking him up should be given a good beating imho.


----------



## newbie (Mar 25, 2012)

JHE said:


> A harmless eccentric, I suppose, and I'm sorry he keeps getting locked up.
> 
> I don't really agree with this cause, though. Should we have the right to go about naked in public? I'm not convinced.
> 
> ...


yes, naturist is the preferred term, though nudist is pretty much interchangeable, with 'clothing optional' being the most accurate description. There are indeed a few public beaches and a network of clubs, campsites and swimming sessions around the country where people can wear as little or as much as they please. Are there enough? well, the clubs I know would love to see new members, it's not such a massively popular pastime that demand far outstrips the supply of opportunities, OTOH, the occasional out of season theme park booking is well attended so there is clearly some demand for an expansion of facilities.

There are also groups who go out on naked walks, but they tend to choose fairly empty places to do it because there are very, very few evangelists, the rest just want a nice walk without any difficulties. And a few individuals who like to wander about unclothed (one walked past us on a barren hillside last year which was slightly surprising). Which is why this bloke (and before him the guy with the 'Naked protest' sign) has little support, imho. He's not spearheading something the organised naturist community cares about, or demands or even particularly wants. We know we can't magically wish away the ridiculous attitudes to the human body in the rest of society.

He just comes across as a stubborn eccentric. In an earlier age he'd have sat on a pole in the North Sea or something. That said, I can't see that locking him up for years at a time is right or proportionate. Both he and the Scottish legal system need an exit strategy.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 25, 2012)

There a naturist beach at St Osyth nr Clacton. Very popular with the tattoed & pierced, see them parading up & down the beach on a sunny day.


----------



## veracity (Mar 25, 2012)

I found that article very interesting as I'd often wondered why he was doing this. What he says makes absolute sense to me, what can possibly be wrong with a naked body that it is deemed offensive and an affront to the public?

It's an absolute disgrace he's been locked up for so long.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 17, 2012)

Bump. Looks like they've let him out. Ramble on, fella 


> Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has walked free from prison after spending 657 days locked up.
> The 53-year-old said he was looking forward to seeing his children for the first time in years.


 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-18873631


----------



## josef1878 (Jul 17, 2012)

I hope he's going to the Olympics


----------



## past caring (Jul 17, 2012)

Which ones?


----------



## josef1878 (Jul 17, 2012)

2012


----------



## Wilf (Jul 17, 2012)

> Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has walked free from prison after spending 657 days locked up.
> The 53-year-old said he was looking forward to seeing his children for the first time in years.​


Presumably he could have seen them a lot sooner if he hadn't been so self indulgent for the last few years.  Have to admire somebody so strong willed standing up to power, but less so when the cause is so pointless.  Same time, the courts have been just as pig headed and inflexible.  Pretty impressive way of adding to the national debt really.​


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jul 18, 2012)

If everyone just let him go about his day, he'd probably put some clothes on, he must get well cold/wet. Poor bloke.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 18, 2012)

> The 53-year-old revealed he had spent the vast majority of his time in solitary confinement in maximum security Perth Prison.


 
Because that is how offensive nakedness is.. maximum security - eh ??


----------



## Garek (Jul 18, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> Seriously, WTF is wrong with this freak?


 
'Freak'?


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> ​Presumably he could have seen them a lot sooner if he hadn't been so self indulgent for the last few years. Have to admire somebody so strong willed standing up to power, but less so when the cause is so pointless. Same time, the courts have been just as pig headed and inflexible. Pretty impressive way of adding to the national debt really.​


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


>


 why so?


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

Since when has refusing to kowtow to the state enforcing ridiculous laws been pointless and self indulgent?

Should he be thinking of his children, is that it?  Thinking of the national debt ffs?


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> why so?


 
Don't make a stand _against a law that affects everyone_ because that makes you a selfish bastard. Don't make a stand because it might involve hardship or sacrifice. Don't make a stand because the courts are rigged against you. Think of the taxpayer. Don't make a stand cos it'll cost the taxpayer money to keep you in prison.

Bizarre thinking imo.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 18, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Being naked isn't a crime. The British, (mainly Scottish), judiciary are making a moral call that the naked form is so outrageous that it is likely to encourage others to commit crime. I think they are wrong and I'd bet the European Court of Human Rights would agree with me.


you bin to scotland?

one step inside of some parts of glasgow in the nuddie and there'd be an attack on him... which is probably what's happened previously...


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Since when has refusing to kowtow to the state enforcing ridiculous laws been pointless and self indulgent?
> 
> Should he be thinking of his children, is that it? Thinking of the national debt ffs?


 Pointless and self indulgent because, in the scheme of things, public nudity laws don't really matter.  His choice whether he wanted to play the martyr, not yield - fair enough, really is his choice - but it does mean he can't see his family.  Some things are worth making a stand on but, in my opinion, this ain't one of them. 

The point about the cost was aimed at the _police and courts_. Yes, their actions are beyond stupid, they should have found a way for him to do his thing without all this drama.  It *is* moronic that they are doing this cat and mouse thing, re-arresting him - presumably could have kept a hospital ward open for a good few weeks on what's been wasted here.  It wasn't some kind of 'wasting tax payer's money' comment, just that from the logic of the _state itself_ this is a shocking waste of resources in a slump.  However the stupidity of the state only makes me sympathetic to him in terms of his prison time.  Doesn't make me sympathetic in terms of the choices he's made.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Pointless and self indulgent because, in the scheme of things, public nudity laws don't really matter. His choice whether he wanted to play the martyr, not yield - fair enough, really is his choice - but it does mean he can't see his family. Some things are worth making a stand on but, in my opinion, this ain't one of them.


 
What? Of course it's his choice if he wears clothes or not. That's the fucking point. Why should the state mandate you have to wear clothes? And _throw you into prison if you don't. _Repeatedly. Why should he accept that, why should any of us accept that?

He's not _playing_ the martyr here. He's making a stand, for a cause. Why do you get to choose what's important enough to fight and what isn't?




> The point about the cost was aimed at the _police and courts_. Yes, their actions are beyond stupid, they should have found a way for him to do his thing without all this drama. It *is* moronic that they are doing this cat and mouse thing, re-arresting him - presumably could have kept a hospital ward open for a good few weeks on what's been wasted here. It wasn't some kind of 'wasting tax payer's money' comment, just that from the logic of the _state itself_ this is a shocking waste of resources in a slump. However the stupidity of the state only makes me sympathetic to him in terms of his prison time. Doesn't make me sympathetic in terms of the choices he's made.


 
They could have found a way for him to _do his thing_, yes. They didn't. Yet you still blame him.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 18, 2012)

Garek said:


> 'Freak'?


 
Yes, he's certainly unusual in his behavior, are you suggesting otherwise?


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> > What? Of course it's his choice if he wears clothes or not. That's the fucking point. Why should the state mandate you have to wear clothes? And _throw you into prison if you don't. _Repeatedly. Why should he accept that, why should any of us accept that?
> >
> > He's not _playing_ the martyr here. He's making a stand, for a cause. Why do you get to choose what's important enough to fight and what isn't?
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Why should the state mandate you have to wear clothes?


 
The state mandates a lot of things.  He should have the good sense to do what the rest of us do, and avoid getting caught.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> The state mandates a lot of things. He should have the good sense to do what the rest of us do, and avoid getting caught.


 
yeah, that'll help.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> yeah, that'll help.


 
It does tend to.


----------



## fractionMan (Jul 18, 2012)

Wilf said:


> _I don't agree with laws on public nudity - I agree it shouldn't be prosecuted. Just don't think, in the scheme of things it's that important or worth an obsessive approach. 'Why do I get to choose what's important to fight?' - I don't, we all make our own choices, in this case he did - that's my point. However on a bulletin board, on __a thread explicity about him__, I do have the right to express an opinion. That's what I was doing - if you don't like that, tough shit._


 
He _chose_ to go to jail, wah wah wah.

Sure, express your opinion.  Your opinion is shit.


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 18, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> If everyone just let him go about his day, he'd probably put some clothes on, he must get well cold/wet. Poor bloke.


TBF if they really wanted him to wear clothes surely they could have let him out of jail during some snow.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 18, 2012)

Maybe there should be an iPhone app that tracks all publicly nude people and sounds a small alarm if you're out rambling and don't want to see it.


----------



## Wilf (Jul 18, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> He _chose_ to go to jail, wah wah wah.
> 
> Sure, express your opinion. Your opinion is shit.


 Where is he in your list then, just above Aung San Suu Kyi, but below Rosa Parks?


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 18, 2012)

8ball said:


> Maybe there should be an iPhone app that tracks all publicly nude people and sounds a small alarm if you're out rambling and don't want to see it.


I remember being at a ridgeway party and a naked rambler (afaik a different one) lept over me while I was sitting skinning up and went for a boogie. Got chatting and he was some local bloke who lived round there because he liked to walk about nude.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 21, 2012)

He's been arrested again:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-18931494


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2012)

In the photo, he is wearing a hat. If he will wear a hat why not a small pair of shorts?


----------



## barney_pig (Jul 21, 2012)

Is there not a certain symbiotic relationship between nudie guy and the Scottish rozzers?
He could wear something to get out of Scotland, but choses not to. They could when they arrest him just pop him in the back of the panda and drive him back home and drop him off at the end of his street. Even if he starts wandering about again then it would be in England rather than the land of the Kirk.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 21, 2012)

Yep. Strikes me that he may not be right in the head, his protest does not seem to be achieving anything other than jail time.


----------



## Gmart (Jul 22, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yep. Strikes me that he may not be right in the head, his protest does not seem to be achieving anything other than jail time.


Does he have a right to be naked? If he is not pushing himself in other people's face then I would say 'yes'. In a society that defends freedom as a concept we have no choice but to go tolerance rather than oppression.

Except the UK is not really about such things, in reality the oppressive society we have shows itself. It has no interest in laying down principles about the rights of the individual, and thus it arrests this man over and over, and hopes that he gets broken by each period of detention.

Perhaps we should have a mass nakedness rally calling for this right to be enshrined in law? We are all born into this world naked, and although I would not recommend it considering the climate, those who wish to can indeed exercise their wish to look stupid with snow on them.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2012)

no to mass nakedness rallies


----------



## Onket (Jul 22, 2012)

I'm up for it.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 22, 2012)

Onket said:


> I'm up for it.


I aint, its ok for the rest of you but leave me out of it


----------



## Onket (Jul 23, 2012)

Just me, then.


----------



## xes (Jul 23, 2012)

If it's on a warm day, I'm in!


----------



## colacubes (Sep 13, 2012)

He's been banged up again 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19585483


----------



## stuff_it (Sep 13, 2012)

nipsla said:


> He's been banged up again
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19585483


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2012)

You have to admire his gumption and brio.
It's just a shame they want him to cover them up.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 13, 2012)

Kaboom tish


----------



## weltweit (Sep 13, 2012)

nipsla said:


> He's been banged up again
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-19585483


 
He is spending more time in chokey than free, something is wrong.


----------



## LoveMeDont (Sep 13, 2012)

weltweit said:


> He is spending more time in chokey than free, something is wrong.


 
Perhaps it's a kindness in a way. He looks repulsive enough just from the chest up, I hate to imagine what the rest of him looks like.


----------



## Onket (Sep 13, 2012)

LoveMeDont said:


> Perhaps it's a kindness in a way. He looks repulsive enough just from the chest up, I hate to imagine what the rest of him looks like.


 
What a lovely post.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 13, 2012)

The 'near a playground' aspect of that article is a bit misleading as the road he was on at the time runs between the school and a play/recreation area on the outskits of the village. If he was entering/leaving the town from that side he couldn't help but be near both of them.


----------



## xes (Sep 13, 2012)

What a pathetic world we live in. The human body is something which it to be ashamed of. Bunch of fucking cunts.


----------



## newbie (Sep 14, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> The 'near a playground' aspect of that article is a bit misleading as the road he was on at the time runs between the school and a play/recreation area on the outskits of the village. If he was entering/leaving the town from that side he couldn't help but be near both of them.


ah, thankyou for that. He's been portrayed as deliberately going out of his way to be near a playground rather than just walking past.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 14, 2012)

Some news reports are saying police offered to drive him passed that area so he could leave town and he declined.  Not sure if that's the whole story.

This whole thing is fucked up.


----------



## NoXion (Sep 14, 2012)

Land of the Kirk, eh? So whatever happened to "if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out"?


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

newbie said:


> ah, thankyou for that. He's been portrayed as deliberately going out of his way to be near a playground rather than just walking past.


 


DexterTCN said:


> Some news reports are saying police offered to drive him passed that area so he could leave town and he declined. Not sure if that's the whole story.
> 
> This whole thing is fucked up.


 
Sounds, to me, like they're trying to demonise him.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

Onket said:


> Sounds, to me, like they're trying to demonise him.



Sounds to me that he is deliberately trying to offend people.

We've already covered that being nude isn't illegal etc. but he seems to be going out of his way to wind people up with his nudity so that he can get thrown in jail.

Some crusades are worth jail time. No one in their right mind would think that this was and that he'll one day be some Nelson Mandela like figure to all of us freed from the oppression of the clothes wearers.


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> Sounds to me that he is deliberately trying to offend people.
> 
> We've already covered that being nude isn't illegal etc. but he seems to be going out of his way to wind people up with his nudity so that he can get thrown in jail.
> 
> Some crusades are worth jail time. No one in their right mind would think that this was and that he'll one day be some Nelson Mandela like figure to all of us freed from the oppression of the clothes wearers.


 
Sound like you're buying into it. 

It's ok to throw someone in jail because he winds people up? Good one.

The people getting wound up are the ones with the issue.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

Onket said:


> Sound like you're buying into it.
> 
> It's ok to throw someone in jail because he winds people up? Good one.
> 
> The people getting wound up are the ones with the issue.



Sounds to me that if we didn't throw him in jail for this he would do something worse and worse until he found the level that we would.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> Sounds to me that if we didn't throw him in jail for this he would do something worse and worse until he found the level that we would.


" I hereby sentence you to six months in chokey in case you do anything illegal at some unspecified point in the future"


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

cesare said:


> " I hereby sentence you to six months in chokey in case you do anything illegal at some unspecified point in the future"



Thats not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that this guy loves upsetting people and loves jail and if the country was so liberal that murder was the only way to get banged up then he'd be protesting the right to murder people by being the Rambling axe murderer.


----------



## cesare (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> Thats not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that this guy loves upsetting people and loves jail and if the country was so liberal that murder was the only way to get banged up then he'd be protesting the right to murder people by being the Rambling axe murderer.


I think that's a bit of a leap, tbh. From rambling nude to being a potential axe murderer.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

cesare said:


> I think that's a bit of a leap, tbh. From rambling nude to being a potential axe murderer.



I don'y think its much of a leap from rambler to axe murderer, never mind the nude bit. 

Those ramblers are all nuts with their army jack boots and insistence that they have the right to walk wherever they like including through popular celebrities (such as Jeremy Clarkson) gardens.


----------



## elbows (Sep 14, 2012)

Kill two birds with one stone by making this guy a member of the royal household.


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> Sounds to me that if we didn't throw him in jail for this he would do something worse and worse until he found the level that we would.


 




Gromit said:


> Thats not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that it seems to me that this guy loves upsetting people and loves jail and if the country was so liberal that murder was the only way to get banged up then he'd be protesting the right to murder people by being the Rambling axe murderer.


 
 



Gromit said:


> I don'y think its much of a leap from rambler to axe murderer, never mind the nude bit.
> 
> Those ramblers are all nuts with their army jack boots and insistence that they have the right to walk wherever they like including through popular celebrities (such as Jeremy Clarkson) gardens.


 
Yeah, good old Clarkson, eh?


----------



## Wilf (Sep 14, 2012)

The courts have fucked up royally on this and it's hard to see how they can now get an escape strategy from this madness.  This cat and mouse stuff is really twisted and horrible.  Same time, as I said earlier in the thread my sympathy with the bloke is more at the level of what has been done to him rather than the choices he's made.  Certainly non-sexual nudity shouldn't be illegal, but he keeps doing what he does, knowing what will happen - he's got trapped in his own crusade. It's all truly fucked up - and very sad for his family.  Bit of a comparison with Brian Hawe in that sense, though his cause was a lot more significant.

I got some stick earlier for saying that (fair enough!).  For me it's that tricky boundary where politics and obsessions blur. Same time, by a country mile, the real problem is what the state is doing to him.  He also highlights the contradiction between a highly sexualised media/entertainment industry and state prudishness around personal nakedness.


----------



## Ax^ (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> protesting the right to murder people by being the Rambling axe murderer.



Likes the sound of this

where is  the petition ? I'll sign it


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 14, 2012)

cesare said:


> " I hereby sentence you to six months in chokey in case you do anything illegal at some unspecified point in the future"


 
precrime unit


----------



## weltweit (Sep 14, 2012)

I feel sorry for the guy, at this rate he is never going to make it out of Scotland!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2012)

He is a true rebel. Why should he doe as he is told?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit you are full of shit


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 14, 2012)

If they ignored him he'd probably have given up by now.   

What was going to happen to those school children if they saw a naked man walking past nearby?   A paralysing fit of the giggles?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 14, 2012)

When he gets released someone needs to be waiting in a vehicle to swiftly spirit him over the border.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 14, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> When he gets released someone needs to be waiting in a vehicle to swiftly spirit him over the border.


 If I was planning that, my first thought would be to buy in a couple of plastic seat covers.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 14, 2012)




----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 14, 2012)

Mrs Magpie said:


> When he gets released someone needs to be waiting in a vehicle to swiftly spirit him over the border.


My thoughts exactly Mrs M. Part of his release conditions should be transport to the least populated area on the border to let him get on with it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2012)

He needs the employ a clothed man with a bell to run ahead ringing it, proclaiming 'oyez! oyez! If you are offended by the skyclad, looketh away ye now!'


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 14, 2012)

If only he got it together to cross the border back into England, then he can walk naked as much as he likes without ending up in prison, if he wants to continue to make a complete tit of himself in Scotland, then that's his choice, but to me he's just making a complete twat of himself.

I guess if Scotland finally decides to go it's own way, they will just deport him to England instead of wasting their time and money on court cases & prison.


----------



## Mr Moose (Sep 14, 2012)

He gets jail because of our fuckupedness about the body.

Pathetic.


----------



## peterkro (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> I don'y think its much of a leap from rambler to axe murderer, never mind the nude bit.
> 
> Those ramblers are all nuts with their army jack boots and insistence that they have the right to walk wherever they like including through popular celebrities (such as Jeremy Clarkson) gardens.


Where is Jeremy C******n's garden I'd travel a long way to fuck up his garden.


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 14, 2012)

peterkro said:


> Where is Jeremy C******n's garden I'd travel a long way to fuck up his garden.


 
In a 4x4?

Just think how much damage you could do to his garden in a Hummer!

ETA: Reminds me of an old mate that I had lost contact with, finally caught up with him in a roundabout way, when flicking the pages of The Sun somewhere, I think it was in the barbers.

Anyway, there he was in areport covering his court case after he had gone batshit over money he alleged he was owed for work at some golf course, so he decided it would be a good idea, no doubt fueled by alcohol & class A's, to do a loads of hand-brake turns on the various greens whilst yelling out the car window something like 'I hate rich fat cunts that play golf', before heading off chased by a number of police cars and their helicopter.  

He was always a bit mad, so The Sun report didn't surprise be TBH, but it did make me fucking laugh.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

Mr Moose said:


> He gets jail because of our fuckupedness about the body.
> 
> Pathetic.



Male bodies that is. 

If it was a female body it would be a cheerful news story and no doubt mention how uplifting and benficial the whole thing was. 

See Calendar Girls etc.


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

But you still think he should be banged up?!


----------



## weltweit (Sep 14, 2012)

Onket said:


> But you still think he should be banged up?!


 
I don't. I think it has become quite ridiculous. Let the guy go walk about .. I doubt any real harm could come of it.


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit was the one who said he should be locked up for annoying people. 

I don't anyone sensible wants it.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 14, 2012)

He isn't being jailed for being naked.

He is being jailed for wanting to offend people... repeatedly. The continued threat of jail still doesn't deter him. This is obviously someone who needs mental health treatment. I presume he is being ordered to undertake it as well as being jailed. 

The naked rambler may seem harmless to us here but to some he appears as a scary pervert who might do something to them rather than some benign Forest Gump character. this will have been explained to him yet still he doesn't care what others think.

His behaviour is antisocial of the highest nature. I don't think anyone particularly wants to jail him but please pray tell Onket what alternatives do they have when someone continues and continues to flout the courts?


----------



## kenny g (Sep 14, 2012)

Absolutely disgusting and yet another reminder of how nasty Scots can be. Kick them out of the EU.


----------



## elbows (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> His behaviour is antisocial of the highest nature. I don't think anyone particularly wants to jail him but please pray tell Onket what alternatives do they have when someone continues and continues to flout the courts?


 
Unmutual eh.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit you are full of shit


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> He isn't being jailed for being naked.
> 
> He is being jailed for wanting to offend people... repeatedly. The continued threat of jail still doesn't deter him. This is obviously someone who needs mental health treatment. I presume he is being ordered to undertake it as well as being jailed.
> 
> ...


Turning a blind eye


----------



## Onket (Sep 14, 2012)

Gromit said:


> He isn't being jailed for being naked.
> 
> He is being jailed for wanting to offend people... repeatedly. The continued threat of jail still doesn't deter him. This is obviously someone who needs mental health treatment. I presume he is being ordered to undertake it as well as being jailed.
> 
> ...


 
There is nothing wrong with what he is doing. He shouldn't be in court, shouldn't be going to jail.

Which bit of that can't you understand?!!


----------



## Frankie Jack (Sep 14, 2012)

kenny g said:


> Absolutely disgusting and yet another reminder of how nasty Scots can be. Kick them out of the EU.


FUCK OFF..!!


----------



## kenny g (Sep 16, 2012)

Frankie Jack said:


> FUCK OFF..!!


 
If this had happened anywhere else in Europe, English folks would be working themselves into a lather, quite reasonably, about how it shows the backwards state of human rights in that country. For some bizarre reason the same standards are not applied to a country that is rife with sectarianism, has an arcane and unjust legal system and allows a man to be imprisoned for years and then continues the imprisonment on village tittle tattle. Whilst he was trying to leave country- something which millions of Scots with any sense of ambition have chosen to do already.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

skyscraper101 said:


> Why anyone would choose to walk around naked in Scotland is beyond me, it's freezing most of the time. Let alone rambling naked, you'd get scratched by all kinds of plants and stuff.


 
because hes a fucking idiot who likes to run about with his cock out showing it to people.


----------



## Reno (Sep 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> because hes a fucking idiot who likes to run about with his cock out showing it to people.


 
We need more like him !

I like cock.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2012)

Reno said:


> I like cock.


The history of the Kinder Scout mass trespass movement would have been written very differently if there had been more cock.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

if he walking about the hills like that over here hed get the living fuck kicked out of him .


----------



## Reno (Sep 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> if he walking about the hills like that over here hed get the living fuck kicked out of him .


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

yup , pretty much . Apart from all that poofy chess malarkey .


----------



## albionism (Sep 16, 2012)

And Rik


----------



## weltweit (Sep 16, 2012)

Bit of a waste of public money locking him up all the time, without any noticeable effect on his activities.


----------



## Mephitic (Sep 16, 2012)

It's such a strange thing to go 100% about. Put some underpants on, and fuck off home seems such a easy solution. Of all the reasons to have chosen to lose his liberty over, this just seems such an unworthy cause.

I suppose its no less stupid than people killing each other over who has the best invisible, all seeing, never fucking answering, divine entity.


----------



## Left (Sep 16, 2012)

I say good on him for sticking with it.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> It's such a strange thing to go 100% about. Put some underpants on, and fuck off home seems such a easy solution. Of all the reasons to have chosen to lose his liberty over, this just seems such an unworthy cause.
> 
> I suppose its no less stupid than people killing each other over who has the best invisible, all seeing, never fucking answering, divine entity.


 Yep. I just read his wiki page and it's a story of complete, barmy obsession.  I don't want to start hurling mental health labels at him, the state does that itself too often when faced with opponents.  However, preferring permanent prison and keeping his nudey principles in place to - well, anything else, is very odd.  His choice, but it's an odd one.  Same time, the much bigger fuck up, is the Scottish state's. They'd spent £700k on him by 2009, which must be over a million now.  Not often I say this, but they could have learned a bit from the English police who, apart from a couple of short arrests, tended to ignore him.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

Wilf said:


> Yep. I just read his wiki page and it's a story of complete, barmy obsession. I don't want to start hurling mental health labels at him, the state does that itself too often when faced with opponents. However, preferring permanent prison and keeping his nudey principles in place to - well, anything else, is very odd. His choice, but it's an odd one. Same time, the much bigger fuck up, is the Scottish state's. They'd spent £700k on him by 2009, which must be over a million now. Not often I say this, but they could have learned a bit from the English police who, apart from a couple of short arrests, tended to ignore him.


 
the diference is though in scotland , particulalry in those scenic rambling areas, youve got a lot of people who have some very deeply held religious issues . Who out of their love for jesus christ , would probably kick the living fuck out of him for running about showing his cock to their womenfolk and bairns. So theyre probably doing him a favour .
Theres large parts of Bradford hed probably better not try doing a bit of rambling in too . Its not just about his beliefs but the likelihood of public reaction to his exhibitionism.


----------



## Mephitic (Sep 16, 2012)

I can't help but think that he could have played this a bit better, perhaps if he'd said "I will not wear pants until that fucker Blair is held accountable for the blood on his hands" he'd be quids in with public support.


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

perhaps if hed said " ok, I realise people can get a bit spooked with a naked man running about the place,ridiculous and unfair as that is, so ill cover up my bollocks in situations were im likely to run into people who havent expressed a desire to see my bollocks, and only get them out at designated nudist areas or in areas weres theres nobody about . Because people dont mind if you get them out there or if they and their women folk and bairns cant see you or your bollocks ."

That would have been a bit sensible.


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> perhaps if hed said " ok, I realise people can get a bit spooked with a naked man running about the place,ridiculous and unfair as that is, so ill cover up my bollocks in situations were im likely to run into people who havent expressed a desire to see my bollocks, and only get them out at designated nudist areas or in areas weres theres nobody about . Because people dont mind if you get them out there or if they and their women folk and bairns cant see you or your bollocks ."
> 
> That would have been a bit sensible.


 "They and their womenfolk"


----------



## Casually Red (Sep 16, 2012)

what ??


----------



## Wilf (Sep 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> what ??


 Who are the 'they'?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 16, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> I can't help but think that he could have played this a bit better, perhaps if he'd said "I will not wear pants until that fucker Blair is held accountable for the blood on his hands" he'd be quids in with public support.


He should have gone further I reckon.
"I will bend over and stretch my arse open with both hands until Blair is swinging from a lamp post


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 16, 2012)

So...next time they release him, will he walk out of town the same way?   Most liekly, I'm thinking.

They really need to find a solution to get him to England, neither side is going to back down (imo the courts are entirely wrong here and there's no justice).


----------



## scifisam (Sep 16, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> perhaps if hed said " ok, I realise people can get a bit spooked with a naked man running about the place,ridiculous and unfair as that is, so ill cover up my bollocks in situations were im likely to run into people who havent expressed a desire to see my bollocks, and only get them out at designated nudist areas or in areas weres theres nobody about . Because people dont mind if you get them out there or if they and their women folk and bairns cant see you or your bollocks ."
> 
> That would have been a bit sensible.


 
That's pretty much the reason for the latest arrest, according to the article I read. He was walking along naked and was left alone by the cops till he got next to a school. They then offered to drive him past the school and then let him out, no arrest or anything, just drive him past so the kids didn't see him naked. He refused. So it's not like the cops weren't trying their hardest not to arrest him.

Thing is, he's hardly likely to be able to walk around naked in prison either, is he? So it's not as if he's winning the right to be naked.


----------



## twentythreedom (Sep 16, 2012)

Has he got a massive wanger?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 16, 2012)

He is naked in prison too. He is well committed. 
It may seem absurd and trivial to a lot of people but that's kind of the point.


----------



## scifisam (Sep 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> He is naked in prison too. He is well committed.
> It may seem absurd and trivial to a lot of people but that's kind of the point.


 
How does he manage to be naked in prison? At least in the general areas? Is he always inhis cell or something?

And yeah, committed is definitely a word that should be applied to him in more than one way.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2012)

You'd think people would just roll their eyes instead of getting ALARMED!


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Sep 17, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> the diference is though in scotland , particulalry in those scenic rambling areas, youve got a lot of people who have some very deeply held religious issues . Who out of their love for jesus christ.



There are also several uninhibited islands I am sure he could be sheperd for


----------



## free spirit (Sep 17, 2012)

Am I right in thinking that this guy's one of the naked protest lot that were kicking around at RTS protests in 99-2000?


----------



## Onket (Sep 17, 2012)

scifisam said:


> That's pretty much the reason for the latest arrest, according to the article I read. He was walking along naked and was left alone by the cops till he got next to a school. They then offered to drive him past the school and then let him out, no arrest or anything, just drive him past so the kids didn't see him naked. He refused. So it's not like the cops weren't trying their hardest not to arrest him.


 
This is stupid, they didn't _have_ to arrest him for that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2012)

scifisam said:


> How does he manage to be naked in prison? At least in the general areas? Is he always inhis cell or something?
> 
> And yeah, committed is definitely a word that should be applied to him in more than one way.


It's easy to be naked. You just don't put on your clothes


----------



## scifisam (Sep 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It's easy to be naked. You just don't put on your clothes


 
Er, if it was as easy as that then this thread wouldn't exist.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2012)

It is easy. It's the consequences that are challenging, not the being naked


----------



## scifisam (Sep 17, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> It is easy. It's the consequences that are challenging, not the being naked


 
I guess it is possible that all the other prisoners - and the staff - are happy with a naked man walking around and never hassle him for it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2012)

I would imagine he'd  quite a bit of hassle in the nick.
But he's a determined fella


----------



## Mephitic (Sep 17, 2012)

scifisam said:


> I guess it is possible that all the other prisoners - and the staff - are happy with a naked man walking around and never hassle him for it.


 
I read somewhere recently that he's banged up alone in his cell all day and they let him out for a hour or two after they bang everyone else up for the night. He doesn't get to mix with the other prisoners.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 17, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> I read somewhere recently that he's banged up alone in his cell all day and they let him out for a hour or two after they bang everyone else up for the night. He doesn't get to mix with the other prisoners.


 
I should think if his incarceration is largely solitary and naked, this probably does not help his mental state.


----------



## Onket (Sep 17, 2012)

Mephitic said:


> I read somewhere recently that he's banged up alone in his cell all day and they let him out for a hour or two after they bang everyone else up for the night. He doesn't get to mix with the other prisoners.


 
Yes, this info is on one of the links posted earlier on this thread.


----------



## newbie (Sep 17, 2012)

free spirit said:


> Am I right in thinking that this guy's one of the naked protest lot that were kicking around at RTS protests in 99-2000?


no I don't think he is, though I'm not certain.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 6, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> He is naked in prison too. He is well committed.
> It may seem absurd and trivial to a lot of people but that's kind of the point.


 
the point of what 

liberalist exhibitionism without any boundaries 

im glad the cock flashing wierdo is in jail . Hoist on his own petard


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 6, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> You'd think people would just roll their eyes instead of getting ALARMED!


 

ok, your mum and your kids are passing a hedge in a quiet lane way . Next thing some cunt with his cock out comes round the corner

you berate your kids...for fucks sake stop crying, just roll your eyes instead, hysterical little gits

and the next time a stranger nonchalantly approaches your pesky kids with his cock out...just roll your eyes, and tell them he has  a perfectly legitimate right to walk past your kids at any hour or any place
with his dick out.

because he has a fucking beard or something and is therefore somehiow anarchisty and left wing.

personally id shoot the cunt


----------



## Greebo (Oct 6, 2012)

He's been allowed out, without having to put on any clothes first.  BTW Casually Red, context is all; there's a huge difference between an adult (or juvenile) who just happens to be naked while doing something non sexual, and somebody exposing their bits to shock or to get off on it.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 6, 2012)

I'm suprised by the amount of posts on here against this mans cause. Its just a person walking, who is naked. Its not as if he is called the wanking rambler ffs.

With regards to posts saying- why don't they just force him to leave the area in a van, or what ever - that's not the point. He wants to show the stupidity of law/authority/people by walking through these places naked. You can't just skip a bit because its difficult. 

What he needs is about 100 other naked folk to join him when he gets out. 

Shame its winter now


----------



## xes (Oct 6, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> ok, your mum and your kids are passing a hedge in a quiet lane way . Next thing some cunt with his cock out comes round the corner
> 
> you berate your kids...for fucks sake stop crying, just roll your eyes instead, hysterical little gits
> 
> ...


Won't _somebody_ please think of the children! [/hysterical wanker]






Be ashamed of your body, like casually red is.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 7, 2012)

xes said:


> Won't _somebody_ please think of the children! [/hysterical wanker]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
my body isnt the issue, its the cock flaunter who needs to be ashamed


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 7, 2012)

joustmaster said:


> I'm suprised by the amount of posts on here against this mans cause. Its just a person walking, who is naked. Its not as if he is called the wanking rambler ffs.
> 
> With regards to posts saying- why don't they just force him to leave the area in a van, or what ever - that's not the point. He wants to show the stupidity of law/authority/people by walking through these places naked. You can't just skip a bit because its difficult.
> 
> ...


 
hes only showing his own stupidity the exhibitionist prick . All he has to do is put his cock away for a bit . The reason there arent 100 other people like him is because his is a case involving unique stupidity .
Put a a pair of strides on and fuck off. Hes no martyr, hes a cock flashing exhibitionist . A  foppish dilettante


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 7, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> ok, your mum and your kids are passing a hedge in a quiet lane way . Next thing some cunt with his cock out comes round the corner
> 
> you berate your kids...for fucks sake stop crying, just roll your eyes instead, hysterical little gits
> 
> ...


 
Course you would. Then berate your crying kids and your mum, what with her never having seen a naked man before. Well not one with gunshot wounds.


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He's been allowed out, without having to put on any clothes first. BTW Casually Red, context is all; there's a huge difference between an adult (or juvenile) who just happens to be naked while doing something non sexual, and somebody exposing their bits to shock or to get off on it.


 
pray tell us what is the usual excuse for the ones who get caught at it, I believe its usually innocent casual nudism misinterpreted.
If youd be happy enough to let a naked man babysit your kids thats up to you . Personally id have a prejudice . Might make me a cunt in your liberal eyes but i can live with that .


----------



## Casually Red (Oct 7, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Course you would. Then berate your crying kids and your mum, what with her never having seen a naked man before. Well not one with gunshot wounds.


 
the gunshot wounds would ensure she never saw 2 running about in the hedgerows . Theres a time and place.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 7, 2012)

Casually Red you are full of shit. And perhaps whiskey.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> pray tell us what is the usual excuse for the ones who get caught at it, I believe its usually innocent casual nudism misinterpreted.
> If youd be happy enough to let a naked man babysit your kids thats up to you . Personally id have a prejudice . Might make me a cunt in your liberal eyes but i can live with that .


Unlike you, sweetie, I don't happen to read tabloids to get a cheap thrill from somebody else's alleged misdemeanours (or worse). I don't have children, but if I did, as long as I knew and trusted the man, I'd be comfortable with him babysitting no matter whatever he did or didn't wear. Also, sweetie, there's nudity and then there's nudity with sexual intent. In the same way as there's being dressed, and being dressed to seduce.

I'm sure that you can just about understand the difference, sweetie. It's not about how much is or isn't covered, it's about intent.

I've been called ridiculously old fashioned about such matters before, but compared to you...


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He's been allowed out, without having to put on any clothes first. BTW Casually Red, context is all; there's a huge difference between an adult (or juvenile) who just happens to be naked while doing something non sexual, and somebody exposing their bits to shock or to get off on it.


Seriously, how is someone meant to know, really.
I can't get my head a round how it is warm enough in scotland of all places to go around butt naked. I think the guy is a bit ill tbh.
There's plenty of other nudists but they take into account other people's feelings..


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

The difference?  Well, I suppose not actually touching their genitals or looking around to see who's looking at them might be a dead giveaway that it's non sexual nudity.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2012)

may his balls swing free forever


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> ... as long as I knew and trusted the man, I'd be comfortable with him babysitting no matter whatever he did or didn't wear ...


 
Naked? Really?


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 7, 2012)

niche market that, naked babysitting


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> Naked? Really?


Yes. Why not, as long as he's neither doing anything sexual, nor intending to while there are minors in the same room?

Tbh I'm shocked and disgusted that you regard sexual intent and the lack of clothes as synonymous. And before you ask, no, I'm not a naturist.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Tbh I'm shocked and disgusted that you regard sexual intent and the lack of clothes as synonymous. And before you ask, not I'm not a naturist.


 
I don't, not necessarily. But I'd question his motivation for never wearing clothes. He's either mentally ill, in which case he needs help, or he's making some weird statement that nobody else feels the need to emulate. Either way I'd keep kids away from him.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

Spymaster said:


> I don't, not necessarily. But I'd question his motivation for never wearing clothes. He's either mentally ill, in which case he needs help, or he's making some weird statement that nobody else feels the need to emulate.<snip>


Well I'd question your motivation behind wanting everyone else to cover up as much as you do, but each to their own.

Incidentally, in the recent  discussions (here and in the media) about paedophiles, was there any mention of those people being naked or near naked at the time?  No?  You do amaze me.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 7, 2012)

It's not about paedophilia, it's about what one feels is ok for kids, or anyone else, to be exposed (hur hur) to.

I reckon you lot are just trying to out-hippie each other!


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 7, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> may his balls swing free forever


Indeed, & hippies forever. Stephen is happily meeting locals in the great outdoors. I think the idea is that he walks south through open countryside until he crosses into more liberal England.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> The difference? Well, I suppose not actually touching their genitals or looking around to see who's looking at them might be a dead giveaway that it's non sexual nudity.


You can't really expect kids to know the difference....
This guy reminds me a bit of Brian Haw, who also clearly had mental health problems but was encouraged to carry on anyway. It seems to have become an obsession to put it mildly at the expense of anything else. He needs help imo.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> You can't really expect kids to know the difference....
> This guy reminds me a bit of Brian Haw, who also clearly had mental health problems but was encouraged to carry on anyway. It seems to have become an obsession to put it mildly at the expense of anything else. He needs help imo.


Can you expect children to differentiate between rough play (or violence in cartoons for that matter) and real violence?


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

They're just going to see a bloke with no clothes on, I wouldn't necessarily know that person was a naturist.


----------



## spliff (Oct 7, 2012)

He hasn't got his cock 'out' any more than a naked woman has got her tits 'out'.

If your starting point is clothing then you're rambling down a different path.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> They're just going to see a bloke with no clothes on, I wouldn't necessarily know that person was a naturist.


Could they tell the difference in facial expression between somebody who happens to be naked while doing something perfectly normal, and the expression of somebody up to no good?


----------



## tar1984 (Oct 7, 2012)

This guy actually annoys me. I _want_ to be on board with the whole urban liberal consensus about how it's just the human body and blah blah... but it gets overtaken with thinking just play the game and put some clothes on you attention-seeking bellend


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Could they tell the difference in facial expression between somebody who happens to be naked while doing something perfectly normal, and the expression of somebody up to no good?


I don't know. I would say go down to your local playground naked and see how far that gets you but I don't think it would be a particularly good idea.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 7, 2012)

Good luck to him I say.

If the naked rambler was a woman I think we'd be having an entirely different conversation.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> I don't know. I would say go down to your local playground naked and see how far that gets you but I don't think it would be a particularly good idea.


Irrelevant - the naked rambler isn't walking from playground to playground.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> If the naked rambler was a woman I think we'd be having an entirely different conversation.


Actually, I am not so sure about that.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Irrelevant - the naked rambler isn't walking from playground to playground.


No he stumbled upon it. I think the very least idea may be to try and plot a course away from playgrounds and kids!
How anyone could plan on being unclothed in Scotland at this time of year is beyond me.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

tar1984 said:


> This guy actually annoys me. I _want_ to be on board with the whole urban liberal consensus about how it's just the human body and blah blah... but it gets overtaken with thinking just play the game and put some clothes on you attention-seeking bellend


I do wish he would get out of his current cycle of jail, nude out, jail etc etc .. it does not seem to me that anything is served by this. But apart from that I am prepared to just be amused, after all it is doing no one any harm really, him included.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I do wish he would get out of his current cycle of jail, nude out, jail etc etc .. it does not seem to me that anything is served by this. But apart from that I am prepared to just be amused, after all it is doing no one any harm really, him included.


You're kidding? He's doing himself harm all that time in solitary cannot be doing good things for his mental health, his family life, relationships etc.... he's got kids hasn't he?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> No he stumbled upon it. I think the very least idea may be to try and plot a course away from playgrounds and kids!<snip>


Perhaps you and other concerned parents would be so kind as to supply him with a walking scale map of all the places to avoid?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> You're kidding? He's doing himself harm all that time in solitary cannot be doing good things for his mental health, his family life, relationships etc.... he's got kids hasn't he?


I tend to think if there is something wrong with his mental health, it is probably presenting itself with his desire to be naked as he leaves prison thus guaranteeing anewed arrest. Yes he probably does have something wrong mentally and probably he could do with some help. I expect that the authorities have thought about that also however.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> he's got kids hasn't he?


I don't think he has young kids, and anyhow he is certainly an absent father.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> I tend to think if there is something wrong with his mental health, it is probably presenting itself with his desire to be naked as he leaves prison thus guaranteeing anewed arrest. Yes he probably does have something wrong mentally and probably he could do with some help. I expect that the authorities have thought about that also however.


There are tons of people with mental health problems that the authorities know about but do nothing. Getting sectioned these days seems to be very hard.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> There are tons of people with mental health problems that the authorities know about but do nothing. Getting sectioned these days seems to be very hard.


IIRC to be sectioned you need to be presenting a risk to yourself and or others.
I am not sure he fulfills this criteria.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> IIRC to be sectioned you need to be presenting a risk to yourself and or others.
> I am not sure he fulfills this criteria.


If they keep arresting him surely this is the "harm to others". Personally I think he's more a harm to himself tho.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

_angel_ said:


> If they keep arresting him surely this is the "harm to others". Personally I think he's more a harm to himself tho.


I don't know. He does not seem to present much risk to others, except perhaps that they may be shocked by seeing a naked man, and does not seem himself to be damaged seriously apart from his main obsession. I really don't know what the answer is. Hopefully someone will come up with a solution. Don't know why he can't go live in a nudist colony.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> <snip>Don't know why he can't go live in a nudist colony.


Because he's trying to change attitudes and the law regarding what you're allowed to do (and where) while naked in a non sexual way?  Can't change attitudes if you only ever interract with people of like mind.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Because he's tryoing to change attitudes and the law regarding what you're allowed to do (and where) while naked in a non sexual way.


But Greebo are you sure he is either actually trying to change attitudes or going about this in the best way possible? Apart from this thread I have not heard much about him.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> But Greebo are you sure he is either actually trying to change attitudes or going about this in the best way possible? Apart from this thread I have not heard much about him.


I'm sure about him wanting to change attitudes, I saw that documentary which followed him around (a few years back, I grant you).  As for the way he's going about it, given his aims, what would you prefer that he did instead?


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> I'm sure about him wanting to change attitudes, I saw that documentary which followed him around (a few years back, I grant you). As for the way he's going about it, given his aims, what would you prefer that he did instead?


Yes, I saw the documentary also. But I am not sure what his aims are (it was indeed a while ago). Does his getting repeatedly locked up further his aims I wonder. tbh I feel a bit sorry for him, it is like he has lost his way and is doomed to repeat himself in an endless loop.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

weltweit said:


> Yes, I saw the documentary also. But I am not sure what his aims are (it was indeed a while ago). Does his getting repeatedly locked up further his aims I wonder. tbh I feel a bit sorry for him, it is like he has lost his way and is doomed to repeat himself in an endless loop.


He's not the first person to try to walk from one end of this country to the other while publicising something.  I suppose that from his point of view, if he just got dressed so that he could finish it, that'd miss the point.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 7, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He's not the first person to try to walk from one end of this country to the other while publicising something. I suppose that from his point of view, if he just got dressed so that he could finish it, that'd miss the point.


IIRC in the documentary there was also a girl and another man walking with him but for some reason they split up. I thought he had already made it to John O'Groats but that he decided to carry on walking or something.


----------



## elbows (Oct 7, 2012)

He has been consumed by a principal.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

elbows said:


> He has been consumed by a principal.


As have many others, and he won't be the last.  BTW that should be "principle" unless you mean he's been eaten by a main character or head of something.


----------



## Onket (Oct 7, 2012)

It's the people who have a problem with this man being naked that, er, have the problem.

Fucking idiots.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 7, 2012)

Its possible that Gough & the Scots authorities have come to some sort of mutually acceptable arrangement to get him out of Scotland without re-arrest. He appears to be walking cross country(still naked)in a southerly direction, presumably if he continues walking across fields without offending anybody he will eventually reach England & 'safety'. He is in Peeblesshire so not that far to walk.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

Onket said:


> It's the people who have a problem with this man being naked that, er, have the problem.
> 
> Fucking idiots.


Maybe some of them are such idiots about this because they're not fucking?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Oct 7, 2012)

Excellent pic. I'm sure Stephen's fans were carvorting naked at Glasto etc in the 70s.


----------



## Firky (Oct 7, 2012)

He reminds me Stanley Edwards

He's looking hard up these days compared to what he did look like:


----------



## Greebo (Oct 7, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Excellent pic. I'm sure Stephen's fans were carvorting naked at Glasto etc in the 70s. <snip>


Maybe they were, if so, good for them.


----------



## fractionMan (Oct 8, 2012)

firky said:


> He's looking hard up


 
*snigger*


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 8, 2012)

weltweit said:


> IIRC in the documentary there was also a girl and another man walking with him but for some reason they split up. I thought he had already made it to John O'Groats but that he decided to carry on walking or something.


 
Shame he didn't keep walking north.


----------



## Frankie Jack (Oct 10, 2012)

Naked rambler leaves Scotland behind as he heads for England



> THE naked rambler left Scotland yesterday for the first time since being locked up for refusing to wear clothes in public.
> Just days after being released from Saughton Prison in Edinburgh, Stephen Gough trekked across the Border near the village of Upper Hindhope.
> With nothing but his trademark backpack and socks, a hat and walking boots to protect him from the October chill, he headed into Northumberland National Park.
> Gough plans to head south to Southampton to visit his mother.
> ...


 
He's made it out of Scotland at last.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 10, 2012)

Yay!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 10, 2012)

On that route, he should be coming right past me in a month or two !!


----------



## Ax^ (Oct 10, 2012)

Does he have any plan's to return to scotland




but  to him finally being released


----------



## weltweit (Oct 10, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> Does he have any plan's to return to scotland


I doubt it, and what is more, I bet a lot of Scottish bobbies probably had to avert their gaze so that they could be rid of him to England.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 26, 2012)

Arrested again.

In Hebden Bridge of all places 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/oct/25/naked-rambler-stephen-gough-hebden-bridge


----------



## cesare (Oct 26, 2012)

Brixton Hatter said:


> Arrested again.
> 
> In Hebden Bridge of all places
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2012/oct/25/naked-rambler-stephen-gough-hebden-bridge


Offended the posh hippies


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2012)

It seems to me that its his absolute refusal to compromise in any way that has led to his repeated arrest and incarceration. I think the cops/judges etc want to find a way to around arresting him and locking him up but he doesn't seem to want to give them any alternative. I mean, if he agreed to end his naked walk after reaching a certain destination for example. Some goal or end point then maybe he could be allowed to finish his "mission" but a central part of his philosophy seems to be a refusal to offer any kind of compromise at all.

He has it in his head the not unreasonable belief that nudity is perfectly normal and that society is wrong for objecting to it. At one level he is right of course. It is stupid that society dictates we cover up our bodies. But he is faced with a legal system that doesn't know what to do with him except lock him up indefinitely. I am torn in my feelings towards him really. Part of me admires his uncompromising position.Another part of me thinks he's a fucking idiot for putting himself through so much grief over a principle that's not really that important.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 26, 2012)

dylans said:


> <snip>He has it in his head the not unreasonable belief that nudity is perfectly normal and that society is wrong for objecting to it. At one level of course he is right of course. It is stupid that society dictates we cover up our bodies. But he is faced with a legal system that doesn't know what to do with him except lock him up indefinitely. I am torn in my feelings towards him really. Part of me admires his uncompromising position.Another part of me thinks he's a fucking idiot for putting himself through so much grief over a principle that's not really that important.


With you on this, except that if you give in on over stuff that's not really that important, it's a lot more difficult to take a stand on the things which matter more to you.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2012)

Greebo said:


> With you on this, except that if you give in on over stuff that's not really that important, it's a lot more difficult to take a stand on the things which matter more to you.


Well yeah, I presume that's the principle that motivates him which is admirable at one level but, as his life demonstrates, the price you pay for such uncompromising adherence to such principles is a pretty high one


----------



## Onket (Oct 26, 2012)

This is clearly important to him, though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Oct 26, 2012)

What I want to know is why he has such a big rucksack. I used to do hiking, and the rucksack was full of the various layers of clothes needed for different weather, especially in winter. All he must have is his tent and cooking apparatus. He also says he is hungry so he has no food with him. How does he pay his way when walking? Is he expecting free handouts? I would think that on a cold October day he would be glad to be arrested, taken into a relatively warm cell and fed.


----------



## dylans (Oct 26, 2012)

Onket said:


> This is clearly important to him, though.


Well yeah but the question is why? Why is it so important to him or more pertinently why is it more important to him than other things in his life. He has kids right? I have to question why this principle is so important to him that he has to martyr himself for it at the cost of his life and liberty.


----------



## Onket (Oct 26, 2012)

dylans said:


> Well yeah but the question is why? Why is it so important to him or more pertinently why is it more important to him than other things in his life. He has kids right? I have to question why this principle is so important to him that he has to martyr himself for it at the cost of his life and liberty.


 
Fair enough. Personally I don't feel the need.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 26, 2012)

bored of this now ....


----------



## Onket (Oct 26, 2012)

Feel free to unsubscribe from the thread.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

Just another 250 miles till he reaches the Ecuadorian Embassy.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 26, 2012)

Do you think he likes the feel of prison pyjamas next to his skin.One thing is certain he is not going to give in


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 26, 2012)

He doesn't wear them!


----------



## Wilf (Oct 26, 2012)

He's just in time to stand as Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire


----------



## badseed (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't think I could handle the chafing from the bag.


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 27, 2012)

Fair play to him and all that but he's an idiot, achieving fuck all really


----------



## nastybobby (Oct 27, 2012)

Arrested twice in Calderdale now, once in Hebden mentioned above and now in Halifax town centre after being bailed:

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/local/naked-rambler-trial-date-set-for-halifax-1-5069186


----------



## Greebo (Oct 27, 2012)

badseed said:


> I don't think I could handle the chafing from the bag.


Not so much the bag - fit it right and it really shouldn't move that much, but getting slapped by the dangling strap ends can become ever so slightly tiresome.  And that's if they only hit your bare arms or legs.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 27, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Not so much the bag - fit it right and it really shouldn't move that much, but getting slapped by the dangling strap ends can become ever so slightly tiresome. And that's if they only hit your bare arms or legs.


'And will sir be wearing the rucksack naked?  For a small charge, we have a fitting service'.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Wilf said:


> 'And will sir be wearing the rucksack naked? For a small charge, we have a fitting service'.


Including trimming the strap ends?  

Which reminds me, I really need to cut the chest strap off mine.  It's never used as it goes across exactly the wrong area.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 27, 2012)

So will all the people twatting on about his arrests being because he was in backwards, prudish Scotland STFU now and issue a formal apology to all Scottish posters and posters of Scottish descent?  

Some sort of remuneration for emotional distress caused would also be appreciated.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Some sort of remuneration for emotional distress caused would also be appreciated.


 As I sit here in my nudery, you can have every coin in my.... _pocket_


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 28, 2012)

That's not a pocket, Wilf, and I'm _not_ sticking my hand in it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> That's not a pocket, Wilf, and I'm _not_ sticking my hand in it.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 28, 2012)

There's a hole in the back of that isn't there.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> There's a hole in the back of that isn't there.


 There's no flies on you.


----------



## quimcunx (Oct 28, 2012)

Trick me once...


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2012)

Wilf said:


> There's no flies on you.


Nor, seemingly, is there a fly on you.


----------



## _angel_ (Oct 28, 2012)

Hocus Eye. said:


> What I want to know is why he has such a big rucksack. I used to do hiking, and the rucksack was full of the various layers of clothes needed for different weather, especially in winter. All he must have is his tent and cooking apparatus. He also says he is hungry so he has no food with him. How does he pay his way when walking? Is he expecting free handouts? I would think that on a cold October day he would be glad to be arrested, taken into a relatively warm cell and fed.


If he didn't get arrested he would die of cold.


----------



## inferno (Oct 30, 2012)

This shows just how fucking dumb the people are that run our legal system, the answer is simple, release the silly cunt from prison in January- end of problem


----------



## inferno (Oct 30, 2012)

Oh, it's already been said I didn't read all the pages. I'm going to bed now it's 7.40am, it's been a long weekend.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> He's been allowed out, without having to put on any clothes first. BTW Casually Red, context is all; there's a huge difference between an adult (or juvenile) who just happens to be naked while doing something non sexual, and somebody exposing their bits to shock or to get off on it.


 
and you can tell how ? apart from the obvious


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> and you can tell how ? apart from the obvious


Isn't "the obvious" enough?


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Orang Utan said:


> Casually Red you are full of shit. And perhaps whiskey.


 

oh yeah... someone who shall remain nameless just reminded me you got your ginger cock out for thrills on the internet. My apologies for suggesting some bearded fop likes getting his cock out for thrills.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Isn't "the obvious" enough?


 
as jimmy saville wasnt sporting one 24 seven apparently not, otherwise he might have been apprehended much earlier .


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> as jimmy saville wasnt sporting one 24 seven apparently not, otherwise he might have been apprehended much earlier .


So, basically, you think that walking or swimming while not wearing clothes is as sexual an act as ramming your tongue down somebody's throat or groping them while clothed?  Interesting.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> So, basically, you think that walking or swimming while not wearing clothes is as sexual an act as ramming your tongue down somebody's throat or groping them while clothed? Interesting.


no i dont think that . I dont think kissing someone is comparable to to anexhibitionist flashing his cock at all and sundry


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> no i dont think that . I dont think kissing someone is comparable to to anexhibitionist flashing his cock at all and sundry


Firstly, 4 replies made by you to this thread within 15 minutes suggest a somewhat unhealthy fixation.

Secondly, I agree with you to this extent:  An exhibitionist isn't forcing entry into the body of anyone else.  Therefore by my standards, the exhibitionist is less harmful than the molester.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Secondly, I agree with you to this extent: An exhibitionist isn't forcing entry into the body of anyone else. Therefore by my standards, the exhibitionist is less harmful than the molester.


 
so youll tell your kids.._cheer up,_ _could have been worse_


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

> Firstly, 4 replies made by you to this thread within 15 minutes suggest a somewhat unhealthy fixation.


 
if i was sitting here in the buff writing this youd probably have a point,

as might I


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> no i dont think that . I dont think kissing someone is comparable to to anexhibitionist flashing his cock at all and sundry


 
Give it up.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Give it up.


 
givw what up ? You reckon im a cunt because i think its wrong for a grown man to be walking around in public with his bollocks out.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> no i dont think that . I dont think kissing someone is comparable to to anexhibitionist flashing his cock at all and sundry


 
Depends whether the exhibitionist is an exhibitionist. Do you merely perceive it as exhibitionism because that's what was beaten into you at school, rather than there actually being any exhibitionistic intent on the part of the naked rambler?
Perhaps you have a secret guilt, and decry male nakedness because of a secret longing to see more of it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> givw what up ? You reckon im a cunt because i think its wrong for a grown man to be walking around in public with his bollocks out.


 
Nah, you're a cunt for not elucidating *why* it's wrong beyond the fact that it somehow offends your sense of propriety.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Firstly, 4 replies made by you to this thread within 15 minutes suggest a somewhat unhealthy fixation.
> 
> Secondly, I agree with you to this extent: An exhibitionist isn't forcing entry into the body of anyone else. Therefore by my standards, the exhibitionist is less harmful than the molester.


 
Perhaps exhibitionism is a "gateway behaviour" to molestation? 
Quick, get the names of those toddlers paddling naked in the sea!!! They're likely to turn into nonces unless they're disciplined away from such reprobate behaviour!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Give it up.


 
His secret lust for cock?


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, you're a cunt for not elucidating *why* it's wrong beyond the fact that it somehow offends your sense of propriety.


 
its because it *actually offends my sense of propriety* . Im not exactly a puritan . Im not talking about a hemline above the knee . Im talking about a man walking about all the time with his bell end out . There is actually such a thing as* actual propriety .* Its not something Mary Whitehouse made up, no matter how stalinist it might appear to some .

If you dont believe me, tomorrow morning approach your neighbours kids with no clothes on , point to your exposed penis and explain in detail to them its function ,its folds , your testes etc  while stressing the absolute, utmost , unmistakable importance of your actions being completely non sexual , just in case there might be a misunderstanding .

Youll soon see how old fashioned i am then.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> so youll tell your kids.._cheer up,_ _could have been worse_


Sweetie, I don't have children.  Thank you for your assumption.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> <snip> tomorrow morning approach your neighbours kids with no clothes on , point to your exposed penis and explain in detail to them its function ,its folds , your testes etc while stressing the absolute, utmost , unmistakable importance of your actions being completely non sexual , just in case there might be a misunderstanding .
> 
> Youll soon see how old fashioned i am then.


Definitely fixated.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Sweetie, I don't have children. Thank you for your assumption.


 
ok..then explain to someone elses scared and distressed children it was just a man getting his cock out to them, who didnt actually want or get round to bumming them . Just someone who likes kids watching his cock as opposed too being bummed . That will set their minds at rest , and im sure theyll feel quite silly later on for all the hullabaloo . As would any sensible parent .

Meanwhile while theres a fuss about UKIP foster parents being discrimnated against not enough is being done for naked men who want to be foster parents . Its a disgrace, this discrimination lark .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> its because it *actually offends my sense of propriety* . Im not exactly a puritan . Im not talking about a hemline above the knee . Im talking about a man walking about all the time with his bell end out . There is actually such a thing as* actual propriety .* Its not something Mary Whitehouse made up, no matter how stalinist it might appear to some .
> 
> If you dont believe me, tomorrow morning approach your neighbours kids with no clothes on , point to your exposed penis and explain in detail to them its function ,its folds , your testes etc while stressing the absolute, utmost , unmistakable importance of your actions being completely non sexual , just in case there might be a misunderstanding .
> 
> Youll soon see how old fashioned i am then.


 
No-one is talking about actual direct contact with children and pointing to the penis except you, you hysteric. The thread is about someone who is harmlessly perambulating around with no clothes on. People who do such things generally look absurd and not particularly attractive, but it's hardly threatening. It's only your socialisation that eventually makes it threatening.


----------



## xes (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red has a strange fixation on sexualising this. Fucking pervert.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> ok..then explain to someone elses scared and distressed children it was just a man getting his cock out to them, who didnt actually want or get round to bumming them . Just someone who likes kids watching his cock as opposed too being bummed . That will set their minds at rest , and im sure theyll feel quite silly later on for all the hullabaloo . As would any sensible parent .
> 
> Meanwhile while theres a fuss about UKIP foster parents being discrimnated against not enough is being done for naked men who want to be foster parents . Its a disgrace, this discrimination lark .


 
So this fella has "got his cock out" to children, rather than walking past them naked?
catch a hold of yourself!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

xes said:


> Casually Red has a strange fixation on sexualising this. Fucking pervert.


 
I think a Christian Brother may have bumfingered him.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Definitely fixated.


 
no, fuck off . Seriously walk up to your neighbours kids with your cock out . See what happens . The people who have a problem with this actually wont be sexually fixated on your cock . That wont actually be their problem, and its not mine either.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

xes said:


> Casually Red has a strange fixation on sexualising this. Fucking pervert.


Not to mention being obsessed with talking about VP's bits.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> So this fella has "got his cock out" to children, rather than walking past them naked?
> catch a hold of yourself!


 
ok, "walk past your local kids naked" as opposed to " getting your cock out to kids"

everyone will appreciate the subtle difference im sure


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> no, fuck off . Seriously walk up to your neighbours kids with your cock out . See what happens . The people who have a problem with this actually wont be sexually fixated on your cock . That wont actually be their problem, and its not mine either.


Your problem, among several others sweetie, is that you've assumed that I'm male.  How the Hel can I flash what I haven't got?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> ok, "walk past your local kids naked" as opposed to " getting your cock out to kids"
> 
> everyone will appreciate the subtle difference im sure


 
The difference is hardly fucking subtle, is it? The former implies an action taken that has no link to children being passed at some stage of the rambler's walk, the latter implies actively whipping his cock out in the presence of kids, you shrieking hysterical booby.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> ok, "walk past your local kids naked" as opposed to " getting your cock out to kids"
> 
> everyone will appreciate the subtle difference im sure


Those who are civilised and not neurotic about such things would know the difference.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> No-one is talking about actual direct contact with children and pointing to the penis except you, you hysteric. The thread is about someone who is harmlessly perambulating around with no clothes on. People who do such things generally look absurd and not particularly attractive, but it's hardly threatening. It's only your socialisation that eventually makes it threatening.


 
hes a freak , and jails the best and possibly safest place for the weird attention seeker . Its not trolling or taking the piss to actually hold the view that public adult nudity is actually not on . Its not exactly talibanish . Its pretty fucking normal and theres good reasons why most people oppose it.
The guy is a fucking twat deserving of no sympathy at all


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Those who are civilised and not neurotic about such things would.


 
a
ok, advetise yourself as a naked babysitter . Im sure the offers will be flying in, from the fritzl, west, sutcliffe,  glitter and saville extended families


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> a
> ok, advetise yourself as a naked babysitter . Im sure the offers will be flying in, from the fritzl, west, sutcliffe, glitter and saville extended families


Fuck off.  I did my share of babysitting when younger and have neither the time, energy, not inclination for it now - naked or otherwise.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

Greebo said:


> Your problem, among several others sweetie, is that you've assumed that I'm male. How the Hel can I flash what I haven't got?


 
. My apologies .You keep calling me sweetie, which made me thinKyou were a big camp gayer witha moustache and leather gestapo hat,  as opposed to someone who has a ladys fanny parts and is therefore a lady person.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> hes a freak , and jails the best and possibly safest place for the weird attention seeker . Its not trolling or taking the piss to actually hold the view that public adult nudity is actually not on . Its not exactly talibanish . Its pretty fucking normal and theres good reasons why most people oppose it.
> The guy is a fucking twat deserving of no sympathy at all


 
I'm sure he thinks you're a cunt too.
As for public adult nudity, it's already permitted in some small parts of the UK. It's not something I find aesthetically-pleasing, but it's not something any kid who's ever seen their own genitals or (shock! horror!) the genitals of their parents is going to be particularly shocked by unless they've been piled high with spurious religious or moral hangups about having genitals in the first place. There's worse things out there that warrant more attention than some leathery old naturist who *doesn't* despite what you've said, actively expose himself to children.


----------



## Greebo (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> . My apologies .You keep calling me sweetie, which made me thinKyou were a big camp gayer witha moustache and leather gestapo hat, as opposed to someone who has a ladys fanny parts and is therefore a lady person.


----------



## Casually Red (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I There's worse things out there that warrant more attention than some leathery old naturist who *doesn't* despite what you've said, actively expose himself to children.


 
mostly because theres no kids in gaol


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 2, 2012)

Pretty sure I took my kids and grand-kids to the Art Gallery in Edinburgh and there was nudity in there...we should shut it down, it's a paedophile trap! 

Or burn it, maybe jail it indefinitely.


----------



## LiamO (Dec 2, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> I think a Christian Brother may have bumfingered him.


 
I think he was too ugly for them... and has carried the shame of his rejection ever since 

Anyways he has tottered off home now, God Bless him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 2, 2012)

lets hope no naked joggers intercept him


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> lets hope no naked joggers intercept him


There's a naked rambler in all of us.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> There's a naked rambler in all of us.


But if it's outside...you go to jail.


----------



## Ax^ (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> <Snip>
> The guy is a fucking twat deserving of no sympathy at all



Bone him


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Ax^ said:


> Bone him


 
Shit in his hand bag.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> . My apologies .You keep calling me sweetie, which made me thinKyou were a big camp gayer witha moustache and leather gestapo hat, as opposed to someone who has a ladys fanny parts and is therefore a lady person.


 
Mate, you let yourself down slightly with that post. FWIW, I've got some sympathy with your argument - A grown man inflicting his nakedness on anyone unfortunate enough to be in his vacinity can't really be a good thing - It's somehow arrogant for one thing and that's without even considering aesthetics. I've got little sympathy for the guy, don't reckon he should be doing time though, I doubt he's a pervert just a clown.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Dec 2, 2012)

Wilf said:


> As I sit here in my nudery, you can have every coin in my.... _pocket_


 
I've had many a wet penny in my pocket - One of the reasons I stopped wearing chinos.


----------



## Wilf (Dec 2, 2012)

Frances Lengel said:


> Mate, you let yourself down slightly with that post. FWIW, I've got some sympathy with your argument - A grown man inflicting his nakedness on anyone unfortunate enough to be in his vacinity can't really be a good thing - It's somehow arrogant for one thing and that's without even considering aesthetics. I've got little sympathy for the guy, don't reckon he should be doing time though, I doubt he's a pervert just a clown.


Yep, agree with that (both the point and the reply to CR). At an abstract level I agree with the nudey feller, it would be good if we started to be a bit more relaxed about each others bods - and to take the law out of it. However, as you say, it's his assumption that he can impose it that fucks me off a bit. Gone way beyond a stand on a point of principle, become just an obesession. Bit of a Brian Hawe without a war to fight. Sometimes people choose to take themselves away from their family, their life, to fight some evil, some real point of principle. Hard to see he's doing that now, just fighting to not give in. Often it's impressive to see that, but I'm not sure this is. 

... but, having said all that, there is something truly repulsive here - the actions of the state towards him. Just as he might be pursing a fairly pointless principle, so are they defending it. Difference is they can keep a man locked up year after year (a lot of it is solitary?), when the best reaction to his silliness would be to ignore it.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 3, 2012)

I'd imagine the reaction of the majority of children who spot this man out and about, so to speak, would be absolute hilarity, maybe curiosity and a little embarrassment too. I can't imagine any of them getting upset or traumatised unless that emotion was modelled by an adult they were with. My childhood self would have school lunched out on a story like this bloke for months, and I was raised proper full on Catholic.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2012)

it wasn't his swinging balls when we come down to it. It was a battle of wills between his exposed gonads and the local judiciary who refused to accept his purple headed truth. Thank the lord that he is now in a place where his old mans pubes can be stroked by the wind without threatening his liberty.


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2012)

DotCommunist said:


> it wasn't his swinging balls when we come down to it. It was a battle of wills between his exposed gonads and the local judiciary who refused to accept his purple headed truth. Thank the lord that he is now in a place where his old mans pubes can be stroked by the wind without threatening his liberty.


Have you been reading 50 shades?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 3, 2012)

DexterTCN said:


> Have you been reading 50 shades?


 
Reading? He wrote the fucker, to his everlasting shame! He was so disgusted he threw the manuscript away and some Yank bint picked it up off of Kettering High Street and...well, the rest is history!


----------



## DexterTCN (Dec 3, 2012)




----------



## Shirl (Dec 3, 2012)

We had a visit from him a few weeks ago here in Hebden. He got arrested and then some of the locals had a naked and semi-naked protest in the centre of town the following Sunday in his support


----------



## Orang Utan (Dec 3, 2012)

Casually Red said:


> oh yeah... someone who shall remain nameless just reminded me you got your ginger cock out for thrills on the internet. My apologies for suggesting some bearded fop likes getting his cock out for thrills.


you were misinformed.
pissed again?


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Dec 14, 2012)

Banged up again , If anybody is interested.


----------



## framed (Dec 14, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Banged up again , If anybody is interested.


 
This might have been asked before, but I can't be arsed to go through the whole thread to check... Anyhoo, what happens once he's banged up? Does he wear prison uniform, or does the _nudiness_ continue in the clink?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 14, 2012)

apparently he's bollock naked in jail as well

/
dot


----------



## framed (Dec 14, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> apparently he's bollock naked in jail as well
> 
> /
> dot


 


I'd imagine that he doesn't get too much hassle in prison, mad feckers become instant celebrities with their fellow cons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 15, 2012)

framed said:


> I'd imagine that he doesn't get too much hassle in prison, mad feckers become instant celebrities with their fellow cons.


 
If he's nekkid, they'll keep him in the VPU, where all the weirdos, nonces and ex-coppers live, anyway.


----------



## rover07 (Dec 15, 2012)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Banged up again , If anybody is interested.



He made it to Oxfordshire from Fife that's pretty impressive!

I hope he makes it home soon.


----------



## xes (Dec 15, 2012)

in out in out shake it all about......


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 18, 2013)

Charges dropped in South Warks after December arrest:

http://www.stratford-herald.com/local-news/6407-charges-dropped-against-naked-rambler.html


----------



## Greebo (Feb 18, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Charges dropped in South Warks after December arrest:
> 
> http://www.stratford-herald.com/local-news/6407-charges-dropped-against-naked-rambler.html


A triumph for common sense.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Feb 18, 2013)

Lib Dem supporter, apparently!


----------



## weltweit (Feb 18, 2013)

> ......
> Police confirmed the 53-year-old, from Eastleigh, Hampshire, was arrested in Carterton, Oxfordshire on 4 December.


 
He is probably trying to get back to Easleigh in time for the byelection!


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 18, 2013)

DexterTCN said:


> Have you been reading 50 shades?


 
I think that was frogwoman posting under his login.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

FFS - 'nationwide ASBO' now!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-is-covered-by-a-nationwide-asbo-8515548.html


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2013)

That's what he gets for voting lib dem.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Mar 1, 2013)

so he'll end up back in prison then


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 1, 2013)

Asbo only effective to May 10th though & weather should warm up after that. Banned from being naked in all public places in the UK? We need a human rights lawyer quick......


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2013)

He is starting to look a little haggard, when he started out he was looking like the tough ex special forces person that he was, now he looks more like a clothless bum.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 1, 2013)

Given that all the media coverage just seems to focus on court action and the like, I think he has forgotten his message, if he had one, because he still has adequate opportunity to get an agenda across but he seems not to be attempting so to do.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Given that all the media coverage just seems to focus on court action and the like, I think he has forgotten his message, if he had one, because he still has adequate opportunity to get an agenda across but he seems not to be attempting so to do.


Perhaps he needs you as his PR guru.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Mar 1, 2013)

> “We sought an order for him to wear sufficient clothing in public to at least cover his genitalia and buttocks.


 
They seem to be saying officially that a teeny pair of speedos would be fine & not offend public decency in any context. 

Clearly that won't be enough for him - is it any progress on what was required before though?


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 1, 2013)

weltweit said:


> He is starting to look a little haggard, when he started out he was looking like the tough ex special forces person that he was, now he looks more like a clothless bum.



Prison food and I say he's not poppin to the prison gym nakid ...

Not really surprising


----------



## stuff_it (Mar 1, 2013)

Ms Ordinary said:
			
		

> They seem to be saying officially that a teeny pair of speedos would be fine & not offend public decency in any context.
> 
> Clearly that won't be enough for him - is it any progress on what was required before though?



One of those posing pouch thingies? Th if i had young kids i would rather he was completely naked.


----------



## scifisam (Mar 1, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Asbo only effective to May 10th though & weather should warm up after that. Banned from being naked in all public places in the UK? We need a human rights lawyer quick......



Isn't the general populace banned from that in all but a few public places anyway?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Mar 1, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Isn't the general populace banned from that in all but a few public places anyway?


 
Not explicitly, no. Hence the issue taken up by Mr Gough and other naked ramblers like Vincent Bethell. Public nakedness is not solely in or of itself indecent, or indeed sexual.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 1, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Isn't the general populace banned from that in all but a few public places anyway?


Its not illegal to be naked in public as the naked body itself is not regarded as obscene so you can't be done for any sort of sexual offence like indecent exposure if you are just naked. The 'catch all' law is 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace' ie your nakedness may cause others to break the law. The Asbo gives Gough less freedom than anybody else in the country & could probably be challenged in court. Interestingly most non sexual public nudity cases that do come before magistrates do not result in a conviction but an order for several £100s in costs as an incentive for not doing it again.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 1, 2013)

Getting confusing now. Banged up again, I think.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 2, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Getting confusing now. Banged up again, I think.


Crikey .... seems his tour of Britain seems to take in too many overnight stops in prisons.
I am quite worried for this guy, he seems like a stuck record, unable to modify his behaviour at all.


----------



## Ms Ordinary (Mar 2, 2013)

SaskiaJayne said:


> Its not illegal to be naked in public as the naked body itself is not regarded as obscene so you can't be done for any sort of sexual offence like indecent exposure if you are just naked. The 'catch all' law is 'conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace' ie your nakedness may cause others to break the law. *The Asbo gives Gough less freedom than anybody else in the country & could probably be challenged in court.* Interestingly most non sexual public nudity cases that do come before magistrates do not result in a conviction but an order for several £100s in costs as an incentive for not doing it again.


 
That's answered my question really well, ta!



> They seem to be saying officially that a teeny pair of speedos would be fine & not offend public decency in any context.
> Clearly that won't be enough for him - is it any progress on what was required before though?


 
I was pondering why some incidents of mass public nakedness are generally seen as unthreatening - Naked Bike Ride, mass naked photo shoots etc and your post helps explains that as well (can't recall if this came up earlier in the thread). They aren't viewed as indecent because there's apparently a reason for the nakedness, and there's a sort of safety in numbers factor: one naked person is (seen as) a wierdo, a group of naked people is more likely to be seen as a bunch of jolly pranksters.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Mar 2, 2013)

Ms Ordinary said:


> I was pondering why some incidents of mass public nakedness are generally seen as unthreatening - Naked Bike Ride, mass naked photo shoots etc and your post helps explains that as well (can't recall if this came up earlier in the thread). They aren't viewed as indecent because there's apparently a reason for the nakedness, and there's a sort of safety in numbers factor: one naked person is (seen as) a wierdo, a group of naked people is more likely to be seen as a bunch of jolly pranksters.


I think its simply that you cannot arrest a large group of naked people such as naked bike riders/protesters when they are not actually committing a crime. There is another group that hold organized naked swims in rivers & lakes etc, just a social event. They don't get arrested either, I'm guessing again simple logistics, so safety in numbers, bearing in mind these publicly naked groups are not committing a crime simply by being naked....

However, the solo publicly naked person is subject to arrest but generally they don't get convicted of anything. For example there is quite a movement for naked rambling in reasonably remote country areas & often these folk do not get arrested, one was, by an off duty copper who 'believed the rambler might cause offence'(nobody had complained), the naked rambler was later released without charge but his day out was obviously ruined. A drunken naked cyclist(dared to do it by his mates)was arrested in a Suffolk village, what made his 'crime' worse was to be seen by schoolkids. He appeared before magistrates, was not convicted but was ordered to pay £500 in costs as was another bloke in similar circumstances. Ie no grounds for conviction but the price of being nude in public could still be several £100s so an incentive not to repeat the nakedness.

Gough's public nudity is unprecedented & he simply will not stop but he is not really breaking the law. Naturists are divided on him. Some say he is doing harm to the cause of those who campaign for parts of local beaches to be set aside for naturists etc, others see him as a harmless persecuted nutter. This really is a human rights issue but I don't think anybody really cares enough to organize any support for him. There are far more important issues than the right to be naked in public in a country with such poor weather.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Jailed again. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/19/naked-rambler-stephen-gough-jailed-asbo


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 19, 2013)

what a cock


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Good.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Fuck the two people above

What an utter farce, how fucking perverted are we as a society?

This is actually making me really angry


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

To ruin someone's life because we're afraid of our own bodies


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> what a cock


 

Mines bigger. Do you want to see it?


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Fuck the two people above
> 
> What an utter farce, how fucking perverted are we as a society?
> 
> This is actually making me really angry


 

Agree. I can't see that he's causing anybody alarm or distress. Like folk have never seen a penis before.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

i cant beleieve this arsehole is still intent on showing everyne his arsehole

he should catch a flippin grip the eejit


----------



## pogofish (Jun 19, 2013)

This will displease the Scottish Police Service - I'm reliably informed that when he recently indicated a desire to head back here later this summer, a rather large book was opened on the first officer to nick him!


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> Agree. I can't see that he's causing anybody alarm or distress. Like folk have never seen a penis before.


 
you should test that amazing theory out by talking a walk bollock naked through your nearest housing estate and then stopping for a chat with the lollipop lady outside the primary school . Then in for a chat in your local mosque .
Dont forget to let us know later how you got on and how reasonable everybody else in the world was compared to the 2 or 3 penis intolerant gits on here .


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you should test that amazing theory out by talking a walk bollock naked through your nearest housing estate and then stopping for a chat with the lollipop lady outside the primary school . Then in for a chat in your local mosque .
> Dont forget to let us know later how you got on and how reasonable everybody else in the world was compared to the 2 or 3 penis intolerant gits on here .


 

That's there hang up not mine. I remember once I got fucked up on ketamine and ended up naked in the street. Bastard neighbours all took photos and laughed at me.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you should test that amazing theory out by talking a walk bollock naked through your nearest housing estate and then stopping for a chat with the lollipop lady outside the primary school . Then in for a chat in your local mosque .
> Dont forget to let us know later how you got on and how reasonable everybody else in the world was compared to the 2 or 3 penis intolerant gits on here .



All nudity is the same as flashing school kids?

Not to say this guy doesn't bring it on himself, but it's important to distinguish between him and some sex case.


----------



## xes (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> you should test that amazing theory out by talking a walk bollock naked through your nearest housing estate and then stopping for a chat with the lollipop lady outside the primary school . Then in for a chat in your local mosque .
> Dont forget to let us know later how you got on and how reasonable everybody else in the world was compared to the 2 or 3 penis intolerant gits on here .









serious question, aproximatly how many times have you had this picture posted in reply to something you've said?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

has he been whipping the veg and meat out again? I admire the mans dedication but really. If he carries on this way he will be naked in prison for ever


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

Does he g naked in prison too?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> All nudity is the same as flashing school kids?
> 
> Not to say this guy doesn't bring it on himself, but it's important to distinguish between him and some sex case.


 
where di i say it was ?

I was simply responding to some punter who was expressing incredulity that anyone could be alarmed or distressed at the sight of naked people in general walking about in public  . Its highly likely to cause alarm and distress in quite a few quarters, giggles in others . But the likelihood is people will take offence .


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> where di i say it was ?
> 
> I was simply responding to some punter who was expressing incredulity that anyone could be alarmed or distressed at the sight of naked people in general walking about in public  . Its highly likely to cause alarm and distress in quite a few quarters, giggles in others . But the likelihood is people will take offence .



I'm pretty sure he managed to walk the whole countries length, without getting himself into much bother.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

xes said:


> serious question, aproximatly how many times have you had this picture posted in reply to something you've said?


 
twice

and a deliberate red herring on both occasions


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm pretty sure he managed to walk the whole countries length, without getting himself into much bother.


 
walking it while it in a prison van counts as a bit of bother.


fucking libertarians, jesus


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> That's there hang up not mine. I remember once I got fucked up on ketamine and ended up naked in the street. Bastard neighbours all took photos and laughed at me.


 
it appears from that post alone youve got obvious hang ups about it yourself . Otherwise you wouldnt have to get fucked up on horse tranquilisers first and you wouldnt be annoyed about your neighbours taking pictures either.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> walking it while it in a prison van counts as a bit of bother.
> 
> 
> fucking libertarians, jesus



The first time. The cops let him do it. Didn't seem to bother anyone. Papers got a few stories. No harm done. 

I don't even know what you mean by "libertarians" in this context. If you mean "people who don't want to stop others doing things which have no impact on anyone else", then why do such people make you do the mad face? Send pretty innocuous to me.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it appears from that post alone youve got obvious hang ups about it yourself . Otherwise you wouldnt have to get fucked up on horse tranquilisers first and you wouldnt be annoyed about your neighbours taking pictures either.


 
Why do you care if someone else takes drugs? What hang ups do you suggest it mean they have?


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it appears from that post alone youve got obvious hang ups about it yourself . Otherwise you wouldnt have to get fucked up on horse tranquilisers first and you wouldnt be annoyed about your neighbours taking pictures either.


 
My point was that nobody was particularly outraged about it.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> Mines bigger. Do you want to see it?


what a cock


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

like i said, if its innocuous then take to strolling about your locality with your cock out . And then let us know about how you got on .


And what makes me do the mad face is fucking libertarians acting all hip and surprised when they encounter a negative reaction to some idiot who wants to wander about naked wherever takes his fancy with fuck all regard to the wider populations sensibilities.
Ive no problem at all with someone expressing the view that ~it would be nice to be able to walk about naked where it not for the fact that people take the hump over it. Thats a personal point of view someones entitled to hold as well as an acceptance of basic realities.

But acting all astonished at someone pointing out that people actually do get annoyed or worried ..thats just an affectation bordering on taking the piss . You cant conceivably be unaware people get stroppy over this . Even lifetime naturists know they have to go to naturist resorts and beaches and cant be doing this stuff among the wider population .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> My point was that nobody was particularly outraged about it.


 

you were completely fucked up on ketamine . At the risk of sounding a tad  pedantic Id say your not all that a reliable source as regards peoples reactions . Someone could have set one of your neighbours on fire and youd have laughed your horse tranquillised bare bollocks clean off .


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Redser's right on this one - The naked rambler guy's more than likely not a sex case, but still though, fuck it, for reasons of aesthetics, and just having the decency to not offend the sensibilities of the majority of people who do (rightly or wrongly, but I say rightly), abide by the  convention that we keep our undercarriages covered up in public, the guy's out of order - And fucking _arrogant._ Don't bang him up for having his skinny, nik-nakesque cock out, bang him up for his arrogance. Fuck him. Skinny cuntchya.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> like i said, if its innocuous then take to strolling about your locality with your cock out . And then let us know about how you got on .
> 
> 
> And what makes me do the mad face is fucking libertarians acting all hip and surprised when they encounter a negative reaction to some idiot who wants to wander about naked wherever takes his fancy with fuck all regard to the wider populations sensibilities.
> ...



I don't think I've acted astonished. I've just pointed out that, actually, nobody does seem that bothered. Really. Nobody gives a fuck. Plenty of people think he's an idiot who's bringing his legal troubles on himself, but I don't know of a single person who thinks its right he should be banged up for being naked. It seems to me that his should be a special case of "ignore all rules" (as in the Wikipedia policy which basically states that if following the rules ends up being counterproductive, then don't follow them...) for our friends in the courts and constabulary.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 19, 2013)

What a fucking waste of public money incarcerating someone because they want to be in the buff all the time If he wants to be naked that bad let him FFS


----------



## free spirit (Jun 19, 2013)

I got locked out of a hotel room once stark bollock naked having mistaken the room door for the toilet door.

Liberating as it might have been to streak through the hotel courtyard in search of somewhere to piss, then shin across the roof to get back in through the window, I reckon the novelty had worn off inside the first few seconds of being called a weird naked bloke.

No idea what this guy gets out of it tbh.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> To ruin someone's life because we're afraid of our own bodies


 
Why's his life been ruined? He's had to do a bit of time. Mostly by his own choice. Not life ruining stuff.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I don't think I've acted astonished. I've just pointed out that, actually, nobody does seem that bothered. Really. *Nobody gives a fuck*. Plenty of people think he's an idiot who's bringing his legal troubles on himself, *but I don't know of a single person who thinks its right he should be banged up for being naked.* It seems to me that his should be a special case of "ignore all rules" (as in the Wikipedia policy which basically states that if following the rules ends up being counterproductive, then don't follow them...) for our friends in the courts and constabulary.


 
theres three people in the last 2 pages of this thread alone whove openly said _good_ . Others have liked their posts . Youre plainly deliberately feigning ignorance .
And if you honestly believe nobody gives a fuck about men walking around in public naked then its very simple . The weathers warm . Take all your gear off right now and have a stroll to your local corner shop and buy the local paper . Then put the paper over your face and take a photo of you like that in public and post it here, anonymity intact.

Cant think of a better way for you to prove your point . And if you dont fancy it I can only assume youve had second thoughts and decided not only might other people give a fuck but you might as well .

Otherwise give over.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Why's his life been ruined? He's had to do a bit of time. Mostly by his own choice. Not life ruining stuff.


 
not like anyone was going to employ him running about in that state anyway . Any ruination is completely self inflicted . All he has to do is put on some trousers .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Redser's right on this one - The naked rambler guy's more than likely not a sex case, but still though, fuck it, for reasons of aesthetics, and just having the decency to not offend the sensibilities of the majority of people who do (rightly or wrongly, but I say rightly), abide by the convention that we keep our undercarriages covered up in public, the guy's out of order - And fucking _arrogant._ Don't bang him up for having his skinny, nik-nakesque cock out, bang him up for his arrogance. Fuck him. Skinny cuntchya.


 
yeah, its like dickheads who insist on playing their music too loud all the time because its what they want to do and fuck everyone else who has to put up with it. They arent actually harming anyone physically . Neither is some asshole who likes picking his nose and eating it in front of people . Harming no one. But seriously anti social . Absolutely no consideration for others who have to share the same space and find it well unpleasant to be around. But raise a voice against their right to be an anti social prick and the libertarians get all excercised and high minded.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> theres three people in the last 2 pages of this thread alone whove openly said _good_ . Others have liked their posts . Youre plainly deliberately feigning ignorance .
> And if you honestly believe nobody gives a fuck about men walking around in public naked then its very simple . The weathers warm . Take all your gear off right now and have a stroll to your local corner shop and buy the local paper . Then put the paper over your face and take a photo of you like that in public and post it here, anonymity intact.
> 
> Cant think of a better way for you to prove your point . And if you dont fancy it I can only assume youve had second thoughts and decided not only might other people give a fuck but you might as well .
> ...



I don't think anyone's expressed shock and horror at his nakedness, though. They just seem fed up with is antics which seem attention seeking. Can't say I blame them. But not concerned at the sight of his genitalia.

Which point of mine would I be making by getting naked in public? The point that nobody seems that bothered about naked rambler guys nakedness? Because, y'know, I'm not him. I've made it quite clear that I feel he's a "special case". I've no interest in wandering about naked. 

Nobody cares.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Why's his life been ruined? He's had to do a bit of time. Mostly by his own choice. Not life ruining stuff.


 

He's spend the last several years of his life in and out of prison, he's lost his family, all because of other people's insecurities

Anyone offended by a naked body is a fucking pervert, and that includes everyone in this thread rejoicing at this guy's arrest.



Casually Red said:


> not like anyone was going to employ him running about in that state anyway . Any ruination is completely self inflicted . All he has to do is put on some trousers .


 

Why should he?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I don't think anyone's expressed shock and horror at his nakedness, though. They just seem fed up with is antics which seem attention seeking. Can't say I blame them. But not concerned at the sight of his genitalia.
> 
> Which point of mine would I be making by getting naked in public? The point that nobody seems that bothered about naked rambler guys nakedness? Because, y'know, I'm not him. I've made it quite clear that I feel he's a "special case". I've no interest in wandering about naked.
> 
> Nobody cares.


 
squirmy wiggly liberatarian cop out

keks off and down to the shop or give over


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> yeah, its like dickheads who insist on playing their music too loud all the time because its what they want to do and fuck everyone else who has to put up with it. They arent actually harming anyone physically . Neither is some asshole who likes picking his nose and eating it in front of people . Harming no one. But seriously anti social . Absolutely no consideration for others who have to share the same space and find it well unpleasant to be around. But raise a voice against their right to be an anti social prick and the libertarians get all excercised and high minded.


 

Well, I dunno about libertarians, but broadly - Yeah - There's things you don't do - Out of consideration for others. The nostril picking analogy was a good one.

And though I said I dunno about libertarians, the more I think about it, the more I'm coming round to the idea that yeah, the naked rambler's position and that of his sympathisers is a libertarian, and therefore essentially right wing, one. The logic's inescapable.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, I dunno about libertarians, but broadly - Yeah - There's things you don't do - Out of consideration for others. The nostril picking analogy was a good one.
> 
> And though I said I dunno about libertarians, the more I think about it, the more I'm coming round to the idea that yeah, the naked rambler's position and that of his sympathisers is a libertarian, and therefore essentially right wing, one. The logic's inescapable.


 

Fucking bollocks
I despise individualism, this is individualism at its worst (my hangups trump someone else's right to be free)
Libertarianism in its proper form is not right wing either


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> *He's spend the last several years of his life in and out of* *prison, he's lost his family, all because of other people's insecurities*
> 
> Anyone offended by a naked body is a fucking pervert, and that includes everyone in this thread rejoicing at this guy's arrest.
> 
> ...


 
Fuck all to do with other peoples insecurities - He's lost his family and done time coz of whatever character deficiency in himself meant he felt he had to do his pointless & attention seeking naked campaign rather than be there for his family.

Nowt to do with being offended by the naked human body.


----------



## spliff (Jun 19, 2013)

Using an ASBO to imprison people for something which is not a crime (except for the breaching of the ASBO) is becoming more and more commonplace and seems to be being accepted by some members of this board.

Also:


DotCommunist said:


> *has he been whipping the veg and meat out again?* I admire the mans dedication but really. If he carries on this way he will be naked in prison for ever





Casually Red said:


> like i said, if its innocuous then take to strolling about your locality *with your cock out * . And then let us know about how you got on .


Both of these statements imply clothing and exposing oneself. Being naked is not *'whipping out your dick'* it is actually a natural state of being.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Fucking bollocks
> I despise individualism, this is individualism at its worst (my hangups trump someone else's right to be free)
> Libertarianism in its proper form is not right wing either


 
Yeah, you're just wrong though. And, here, put yer kex back on, we're not skinny dipping in the canal now.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> That's there hang up not mine. I remember once I got fucked up on ketamine and ended up naked in the street. Bastard neighbours all took photos and laughed at me.


 
I had a similar experience on 300 mushies when I was 17 - a nightmare trip where I was convinced walking under power lines would fry your brain. That reality was just a recurring dream and that my parents and a social worker were talking to me in prison. As I had left my mates in the fields magnificently gazing at a stairway to heaven in the clouds I managed somehow to find my way home - on the street where I lived I ripped off all my clothes, bit the petrol cap of my brother's moped , smashed the glass porch of my parent's house (thank god they were out) and crashed out to be whilst listening to Pink Floyd's Animals. It was sheep on the record that brought me down to earth.

Back on topic I feel sorry for him he has borderline (or not so borderline) mental health issues. And given his service record (Help for Heroes anyone?) it would be more noble for the criminal justice system to just ignore him and let him get on with his mostly unremarkable life. I was on one of the much missed bendy buses going over Westminster Bridge when the naked bike ride went past - the vast majority of people laughed and smiled , many took photos and one mum joked to her two sons to look the other way - which she didn't meant and of which they took no notice anyway. No one thought it was pervies on a jolly and I have heard one accused him of anything other than eccentriciy. LET HIM GO.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, I dunno about libertarians, but broadly - Yeah - There's things you don't do - Out of consideration for others. The nostril picking analogy was a good one.
> 
> And though I said I dunno about libertarians, the more I think about it, the more I'm coming round to the idea that yeah, the naked rambler's position and that of his sympathisers is a libertarian, and therefore essentially right wing, one. The logic's inescapable.


 
its totally right wing, the individual right to do whatever you want without any regard to the collective sensibilities and well being of others, taken to a ridiculous degree by the idiot in this case .
Along with a blind refusal to accept that anyone could be offended . His sympathisers will argue that nobody....no right thinking person.. could be offended because none of their libertarian social set are. Therefore nobody outside that worldviews existence matters a fuck.
But challenge one of them to simply stroll to their corner shop in the buff...._Im simply not interested in walking about naked_

 yeah, just not interested. Its  because they know bloody well the broad mass of people would take offence at it . And what they think and espouse will come into conflict with collective will . Its always *I* with these libertarians. Theres a facist in there just waiting to jump out of most of them, probably with his cock out


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> its totally right wing, the individual right to do whatever you want without any regard to the collective sensibilities and well being of others, taken to a ridiculous degree by the idiot in this case .
> Along with a blind refusal to accept that anyone could be offended . His sympathisers will argue that nobody....no right thinking person.. could be offended because none of their libertarian social set are. Therefore nobody outside that worldviews existence matters a fuck.
> But challenge one of them to simply stroll to their corner shop in the buff...._Im simply not interested in walking about naked_
> 
> yeah, just not interested. Its because they know bloody well the broad mass of people would take offence at it . And what they think and espouse will come into conflict with collective will . Its always *I* with these libertarians. Theres a facist in there just waiting to jump out of most of them, probably with his cock out


 
Yeah and if we tolerate this then your children will be next ...


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 19, 2013)

spliff said:


> Being naked is not *'whipping out your dick'* it is actually a natural state of being.


 
Humans have been wearing clothes for 170,000 years... I reckon in alot of situations/circumstances our 'natural state of being' has evolved to be clothed more often than not


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> He's spend the last several years of his life in and out of prison, he's lost his family, all because of other people's insecurities


 
He lost his family because he wanted to walk the country naked.

What a cunt.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Fucking bollocks
> I despise individualism, this is individualism at its worst (my hangups trump someone else's right to be free)
> Libertarianism in its proper form is not right wing either


 

_The Duke: We Fascists are the only true anarchists, naturally, once we're masters of the state. In fact, the one true anarchy is that of power._


This is the hang ups as you call them...sensibilities as most people would call them...of the collective will versus one solitary self important individualist who insists on getting his balls out regardless of those sensibilities. Its one of the most right wing arguments Ive ever heard . The people have no right to be offended by his anti social behaviour. The people have to see his genitals whether they want to or not . They have no right not to see his genitals when taking the dog for a walk or the missus to the pictures. His individualist genitals trump everyones collective  sensibilities.

Its as right wing an argument as it comes.



> someone else's right to be free


 
free from the societal restraints of the collective . Its right wing liberatarian as fuck, way into Ron Paul territory .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

spliff said:


> Using an ASBO to imprison people for something which is not a crime (except for the breaching of the ASBO) is becoming more and more commonplace and seems to be being accepted by some members of this board.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...


 
being a naked male in public invariably involves getting ones dick out in public . Its goes  with the territory  .

And if its that natural...now that weve established none of the smug libertarians are actually going to prove their point by going to the shop naked...then tell us how many naked people you saw walking around town last week . And compare it to how many people you saw walking naked about town this week . Id hazard a guess the number is none . Unless there was some random crackhead who had no idea what he was doing .
so if theres none either they are so badly oppressed they live in a virtually fascist state too terrified to transgress against laws . Or the collective convention usually is theres a time and a place for nudity, and its not in public whenver it takes your fancy .


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> _The Duke: We Fascists are the only true anarchists, naturally, once we're masters of the state. In fact, the one true anarchy is that of power._
> 
> 
> This is the hang ups as you call them...sensibilities as most people would call them...of the collective will versus one solitary self important individualist who insists on getting his balls out regardless of those sensibilities. Its one of the most right wing arguments Ive ever heard . The people have no right to be offended by his anti social behaviour. The people have to see his genitals whether they want to or not . They have no right not to see his genitals when taking the dog for a walk or the missus to the pictures. His individualist genitals trump everyones collective sensibilities.
> ...


 
Fuck you. There is no collective will just as there is no self. You're an individualist because you think human rights are less important than your neuroses. 

Anti social behaviour? Anti social behaviour is dictating that everyone conform to your victorian morality. If you don't want to look at his genitals, fucking look away. What harm is there in seeing genitals anyway? You fucking pervert.


Why do you insist in covering your body with fabric? What are you afraid of?


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> being a naked male in public invariably involves getting ones dick out in public . Its goes with the territory .
> 
> And if its that natural...now that weve established none of the smug libertarians are actually going to prove their point by going to the shop naked...then tell us how many naked people you saw walking around town last week . And compare it to how many people you saw walking naked about town this week . Id hazard a guess the number is none . Unless there was some random crackhead who had no idea what he was doing .
> so if theres none either they are so badly oppressed they live in a virtually fascist state too terrified to transgress against laws . Or the collective convention usually is theres a time and a place for nudity, and its not in public whenver it takes your fancy .


 


I'd like you to explain what this man has done wrong in in clear terms, without appealing to tradition, popularity or some vague collective consensus


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> You're an individualist because you think human rights are less important than your neuroses.


 
Stop saying that, you fucking idiot.

It's wank.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

You fucking individualist pervert


----------



## Big Gunz (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> He lost his family because he wanted to walk the country naked.
> 
> What a cunt.


 
Selfish cunt you mean?


----------



## cdg (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> Unless there was some random crackhead who had no idea what he was doing


 

Big snip I know but you are a nasty piece of work aren't you?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

[quote="Left, post: 12330503, member:


> Fuck you. There is no collective will just as there is no self.


 

who says..oh thats right..you . And like any good individualist the world revolves around you and your say so .



> You're an individualist because you think human rights are less important than your neuroses.


 
you do know that its not me personally putting him in my jail, or cops doing it on my orders ? Therefore my neuroses as you call it have got fuck all to do with him being in jail and to even attempt to suggest so is blatantly dishonest. As well as a bit thick .



> Anti social behaviour? Anti social behaviour is dictating that everyone conform to your victorian morality.


 
my morality eh ? again its not me whos stuck him in the big house,. And suggesting I have the power to make anyone, much less everyone conform to a single shred of my outlook is utterly preposterous .



> If you don't want to look at his genitals, fucking look away. .


 
I dont have to and neither does anyone else . Hes in jail . And if he gets his knob out on the street again hes going straight back there .




> What harm is there in seeing genitals anyway? You fucking pervert


 
hes in jail for getting his nadgers out, not me





> Why do you insist in covering your body with fabric? What are you afraid of


 
what am I hiding mebbe..ehh Herr Flick ?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> Big snip I know but you are a nasty piece of work aren't you?


 

Nah, he's not - He's right(IMO) on some things, he's wrong (IMO) on others, he's not a cunt though. Nor a wanker. And he's right on this one.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> I'd like you to explain what this man has done wrong in in clear terms, without appealing to tradition, popularity or some vague collective consensus


 
Well, he's broke the law for one thing.

E2a and his fucking _arrogance_ - Fuck all do with tradition, consensus etc - I don't wanna see his cock and I don't want my brothers/sisters/nieces/nephews/godchildren etc seeing his cock either.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Why are you obsessed with his genitals? He has a whole body you know. @ CR


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, he's broke the law for one thing.


 

Doesn't answer my question


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah, he's not - He's right(IMO) on some things, he's wrong (IMO) on others, he's not a cunt though. Nor a wanker. And he's right on this one.


 
mebbe he thinks im having a go at him over drugs and stuff . Im not and if i gave that impression to him im honestly sorry . Probably shouldnt have used the word crackhead . That was a bit insensitive .


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Doesn't answer my question


 
He gets his dick out in front of everyone - Whether they like it or not - He doesn't seek their approval first. An arrogant wankers trick IMO.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

cdg said:


> Big snip I know but you are a nasty piece of work aren't you?


 
I honestly wasnt having a go at you or trying to infer anything .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Why are you obsessed with his genitals? He has a whole body you know. @ CR


 
hes the one in jail for refusing to put them away . I think its a question better addressed to him .


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> He gets his dick out in front of everyone - Whether they like it or not - He doesn't seek their approval first. An arrogant wankers trick IMO.


 

SO FUCKING WHAT? WHAT THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING OFFENSIVE ABOUT A HUMAN FUCKING PENIS? 

HE IS WALKING AROUND NAKED, NOT FLASHING PEOPLE. ANYONE OFFENDED BY THAT IS SICK IN THE HEAD.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> hes the one in jail for refusing to put them away . I think its a question better addressed to him .


 

No, he's walking around naked. You're the one obsessing about his genitals.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Rebel without a cause, Brian Haw without a war. He's defending a principle, he's right, we shouldn't be hung up about bodies, but why take this to the wire (and beyond)?  Feels like it's now and has long been an obsession rather than principle, sort of pacifist Charles Bronson.  Who knows, might even be he can't face up to what his life might be like if he wasn't doing this?  I'm sympathetic, but kind of not.  It has to be said he's now choosing to 'fight' rather than engage in any kind of politics or conversation...

... but, having said all that the state is doing to him is despicable.  Long periods in solitary will make worse whatever issues he has, spending millions by now (literally).  It's beyond inhumane and it lacks any kind of creativity/sense.  Fucking madness to be playing cat and mouse with him.  Obvious solution is to ignore him and only ever get involved if he really does keep going near schools etc (which he doesn't).  To be honest, he's a bit of an idiot in my book, but the English scots authorities are far, far worse.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, he's broke the law for one thing.
> 
> E2a and his fucking _arrogance_ - Fuck all do with tradition, consensus etc - I don't wanna see his cock and I don't want my brothers/sisters/nieces/nephews/godchildren etc seeing his cock either.


 
we have a right not to see his cock, or anyone elses we dont want to see while going about our daily business . Walk into work naked and youll be sacked . Appear naked to a female work colleague and regardless of how non sexual you insist  the situation is she has a pefect right to go to HR, demand your dismissal and refuse to ever work alongside you again or be alone with you again, naked or clothed . As do any of your work colleagues . We have a pefect right not to have to put up with peoples genitals we dont want to see . No matter how many whingy trendy libertarians insist we have no right to be offended and call us perverts if we dont agree with their oddball quackery.


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 19, 2013)

Don't you think it shows rather a large lack of empathy, and also as stated; arrogance, to essentially force other people to accept his nudity whether they like it or not?

Personally I have no problem with the silly bugger being naked, but a hellava lot of people do... and therein lies the problem.

What if I was to decide I enjoyed going about my daily life smeared in my own feocal matter? Sod the rest of you, but I wish to ride the train to work/ go on holiday/ramble the cairngorms covered in my own shite. Fuck how it may offend or upset you... I'm going to do it anyway.

I'd be labelled an uncomprimising gobshite wouldn't I? Rightly so.

There are loads of beaches, natural places where this guy can happily enjoy being naked as the day without offending others. The fact that he refuses to, and persists with his actions is just antagonistic. Whether those people are 'right' to be offended by his naked body is not really the point, why would you knowingly do it? Stop rubbing it in their face, as it were


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)




----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> SO FUCKING WHAT? WHAT THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING OFFENSIVE ABOUT A HUMAN FUCKING PENIS?
> 
> HE IS WALKING AROUND NAKED, NOT FLASHING PEOPLE. ANYONE OFFENDED BY THAT IS SICK IN THE HEAD.


 
What's the diffference from walking round naked and flashing? Apart from a mac? I don't wanna see another guys cock when I'm out for a stroll about my business - The penis itself is not offensive - It's the arrogance of the man attached to it who feels the need to swing it about. And yeah, it'd be just the same script if it was a woman swinging (though there's much less scope for swinging) her clopper around.Just wear some clothers, ya clown.

And it's not even about that - This guy would clearly _rather_ spend his time doing time or otherwise devoting himself to this (let's be honest) fucking _pointless_ cause, rather than be there for his family. Something wrong there, no mistake.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> And it's not even about that - This guy would clearly _rather_ spend his time doing time or otherwise devoting himself to this (let's be honest) fucking _pointless_ cause, rather than be there for his family. Something wrong there, no mistake.


 Suspect that's true.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


>


 
You could've chose a less unprepossessing member to delight us with - The phallus in it's glory can be a thing of beauty.


----------



## Left (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> What's the diffference from walking round naked and flashing?


#

Are you fucking serious? Flashing is a sexually aggressive act intended to upset and humiliate. Walking around naked is walking around naked.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Nah, he's not - He's right(IMO) on some things, he's wrong (IMO) on others, he's not a cunt though. Nor a wanker. And he's right on this one.


 
He is a cunt. And a wanker. He's sometimes right but often spectacularly wrong. But yes, he's got this one fucking nailed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> Why are you obsessed with his genitals? He has a whole body you know. @ CR


 
Oh for fucks sake


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> You could've chose a less unprepossessing member to delight us with - The phallus in it's glory can be a thing of beauty.


Bigger cocks on urban, NOW!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 19, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> He gets his dick out in front of everyone - Whether they like it or not - He doesn't seek their approval first. An arrogant wankers trick IMO.


 

Middle class flashing.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

meatus. well you learn something new everyday.


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 19, 2013)

I don't think posting a giant picture of a cock and balls has helped your argument in any way...


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

DaRealSpoon said:


> I don't think posting a giant picture of a cock and balls has helped your argument in any way...


You sound like my art teacher at school.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> SO FUCKING WHAT? WHAT THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING OFFENSIVE ABOUT A HUMAN FUCKING PENIS?
> 
> HE IS WALKING AROUND NAKED, NOT FLASHING PEOPLE. ANYONE OFFENDED BY THAT IS SICK IN THE HEAD.


 
This could be a script for a scene in a _gritty cop show_. The lines hissed by a weird looking sex case defending his mate for being a bit _different_.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> This could be a script for a scene in a _gritty cop show_. The lines hissed by a weird looking sex case defending his mate for being a bit _different_.


The Postmodernism of the Longdistance Rambler.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Wilf said:


> He's defending a principle, he's right, we shouldn't be hung up about bodies, .


 
no offence, most of your post is commendable, but I fundamentally disagree with this . The vast majority of us arent hung up about bodies . We are perfectly comfortable with nudity in certain, and even many, situations . But there are situations were we arent comfortable with it and he is resolutely refusing to accept that . Hes not right, hes well wrong . As are you in this particular instance . His insistence that evryone should be totally comfortable with nudity at all times is simply his outlook, not how it is or even how it shoud be.

Ill give you just one example . The screws in the jails over here particularly dealing with the republican prisoners will put you on a charge if you get naked in front of them . They wont do full strip searches, they insist on you being partially clothed. Thats not them being cunts, although they are . Thats because after years and years of a very high suicide rate of screws manning the H Blocks the prison psychiatrists worked out that its not mentally healthy for a lot of people, particularly men, to be confronted continually with the sight of other naked men . Which was how the prisoners were on the blanket . It can really upset some people, they find it well unpleasant and its nothing to do with them being perverts or victorian . These days protesting prisoners actually use nudity as a psychological weapon against the screws as they know it fucks with their heads , and the screws know they know. And so they get punished for it . So its not all about silly hang ups, its about actually upsetting people .

Doesnt upset you , thats ok . Thats your business . But your business isnt everyone elses . And like I said if you think female work colleagues are simply being Victorian prudes if they got offended at you  walking up to them naked at work, that they should have no right to complain or be offended....thats seriously individualistic and unrealistic .

Which is what this guys problem really is . I honestly dont want to see him come to harm and Im well aware how mentally destructive prison can be . I hope he gets the help he needs because plainly hes lost the plot at some stage . But at the same time if theres a precedent set with him then anyone could at any time appear naked in front of anyone they wanted and thats simply not on . The rest of us have rights and sensibilities that should be respected .


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 19, 2013)

Wilf said:


> You sound like my art teacher at school.


 
I too never quite learned that teachers were not impressed by cock and ball pictures... A searing inditement on the backwards repressive nature of our education system? Or my own arrogant stupidity?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

spliff said:


> Using an ASBO to imprison people for something which is not a crime (except for the breaching of the ASBO) is becoming more and more commonplace and seems to be being accepted by some members of this board.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...


 
sophistry. I'm not whipping it out cos it was already out. Take that m'lud.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

Left said:


> No, he's walking around naked. You're the one obsessing about his genitals.


 
HE'S NOT THE ONE SHOUTING ABOUT THEM IN BIG LETTERS THOUGH, IS HE?


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

post that cock picture * that i just editted out*to a female boss in particular at work, or indeed any female at work, and see what happens



> SO FUCKING WHAT? WHAT THE FUCK IS SO FUCKING OFFENSIVE ABOUT A HUMAN FUCKING PENIS?
> 
> IM WALKING AROUND NAKED, NOT FLASHING PEOPLE. ANYONE OFFENDED BY THAT IS SICK IN THE HEAD.


 
and dont forget to say that to HR

hell you might even get a promotion.....

if youd been working for the jimmy saville trust in 1978


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

I'm glad Left posted a picture of a flaccid penis. Its a rare thing to see that sort of thing.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

It is the opposite of raging. Placid, perhaps.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 19, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> no offence, most of your post is commendable, but I fundamentally disagree with this . The vast majority of us arent hung up about bodies . We are perfectly comfortable with nudity in certain, and even many, situations . But there are situations were we arent comfortable with it and he is resolutely refusing to accept that . Hes not right, hes well wrong . As are you in this particular instance . His insistence that evryone should be totally comfortable with nudity at all times is simply his outlook, not how it is or even how it shoud be.


Thing is, whilst I didn't go into that I pretty much agree with you.  Us, our society, just call it people if you want, aren't comfortable with nudity in all situations. That's part of the reason why I think he's a bit self indulgent. He's pushing a purist point about what might be 'healthy' to an unhealthy and selfish extent.  It's neither a left nor right wing view of liberty, more a teenage one.  Same time, this all pales into insignificance in terms of the state. To imprison someone - _for fucking years_ - is both stupid and sickening.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Middle class flashing.


 
Inherently bourgouis. Stinks of proto fascism.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 19, 2013)

DaRealSpoon said:


> I don't think posting a giant picture of a cock and balls has helped your argument in any way...


 
He's displaying the same arrogant attitude to this thread as yer man is to his fucking pathetic obsession.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> He's displaying the same arrogant attitude to this thread as yer man is to his fucking pathetic obsession.


 

jail him


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

DaRealSpoon said:


> I don't think posting a giant picture of a cock and balls has helped your argument in any way...


 
i quoted that but ediited it out afterwards, as its unpleasant

I also refuse to accept that anything is called a meatus, and that some joker has just made that up for the laugh.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> He's displaying the same arrogant attitude to this thread as yer man is to his fucking pathetic obsession.


 
i was just thinking that meself actually


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Wilf said:


> Same time, this all pales into insignificance in terms of the state. To imprison someone - _for fucking years_ - is both stupid and sickening.


 
I wish he wasnt there and was in some facility being helped instead . As well as being helped into his trousers .


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 19, 2013)

I think all the people objecting probably don't mind, they just don't want it rammed down their throats


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 19, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> He is a cunt. And a wanker. He's sometimes right but often spectacularly wrong. But yes, he's got this one fucking nailed.


 
thankyou fanny features . I can only assume this evenings graciousness is largely down to your piles going into remission . Long may it continue .


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jun 20, 2013)

Good luck to him, if he wants to walk around naked, then let him get on with it. Tbh I really don't give a fuck if anybody walks around naked in my locality & what is so daft is that if he was ignored & just left to get on with his naked rambling then after a few mnths of being ignored he would just find something else to try & annoy people with. Arresting him is feeding the troll but then everybody just tells everybody else not to feed the troll & by doing that they are feeding the troll. This is making me quite annoyed because its a human rights issue, he is being percecuted. Unfortunately for him though those that do care don't really care enough to campaign for him, well ilustrated by me not even being arsed to read the last 3 pages of this thread since the last bump.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 20, 2013)

I wish I hadn't clicked on this thread after what I just saw.


----------



## dessiato (Jun 20, 2013)

There seems to be a ridiculous amount of money being spent on stopping this man from wandering around naked. I wonder how many people are genuinely bothered by him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> meatus. well you learn something new everyday.


 

chapseye imo


----------



## Mation (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well, he's broke the law for one thing.
> 
> E2a and his fucking _arrogance_ - Fuck all do with tradition, consensus etc - I don't wanna see his cock and I don't want my brothers/sisters/nieces/nephews/godchildren etc seeing his cock either.


Who cares?

Sending someone to prison because of other people's ridiculous hangups is disgusting.


----------



## Mation (Jun 20, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> But at the same time if theres a precedent set with him then anyone could at any time appear naked in front of anyone they wanted and thats simply not on .


Why the fuck not? Can you not hear how ridiculous that sounds? Bodies are just bodies. If you can't deal with them, that's your problem.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Don't see similar levels of righteous indignation and imprisonings about page 3 tits out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

tits are different from balls. For one, they are higher up, usually bigger and don't shrink in the cold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Don't see similar levels of righteous indignation and imprisonings about page 3 tits out.


Of course not. They're women.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Of course not. They're women.


Mind you, you sometimes get this sort of furiousness about breast feeding in public too - though I don't think anyone's been imprisoned for it.


----------



## cdg (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Of course not. They're women.


 
Quite.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Of course not. They're women.


 
Not at all - That's already been addressed - If it was a woman walking round with her clout on display, it'd be exactly the same script. And page three's not an accurate comparison - Anyone's got the choice whether or not to buy a crappy small newspaper and look at it's (fairly distasteful) contents, but the naked rambler isn't giving anyone a choice about clapping eyes on his poorly maintained physique and less than impressive cock.

E2a - The guy shouldn't be doing time though , but neither should loads of other people. The naked rambler having to go to prison more or less by his own choice is, IMO, far less of a scandal than all the young men and women who're in and out of jail for not much more than being who they are and/or living where they do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Not at all - That's already been addressed - If it was a woman walking round with her clout on display, it'd be exactly the same script. And page three's not an accurate comparison - Anyone's got the choice whether or not to buy a crappy small newspaper and look at it's (fairly distasteful) contents, but the naked rambler isn't giving anyone a choice about clapping eyes on his poorly maintained physique and less than impressive cock.


i daresay the naked rambler pays more attention to his physique than you do. he does, after all, ramble on the few occasions he is free. what exercise do you do?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

His mates should just greet him from jail, bundle him into the back of a car and don't let him out till they hit germany. Its the kindest option really.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i daresay the naked rambler pays more attention to his physique than you do. he does, after all, ramble on the few occasions he is free. what exercise do you do?


 
Frenetic masturbation.

Plus I use a bike to get about, or walk when the mood takes me. I don't ramble though, I fucking _yomp._ How about you? Fencing's my guess. Something like that anyway.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> His mates should just greet him from jail, bundle him into the back of a car and don't let him out till they hit germany. Its the kindest option really.


Or maybe that place in Spain (or is it Portugal) where that other guy wanders round naked, but in towns rather than rambling.


----------



## coley (Jun 20, 2013)

He should have been sectioned long enough ago, not jailed, the bloke needs help.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Or maybe that place in Spain (or is it Portugal) where that other guy wanders round naked, but in towns rather than rambling.


 
well, somewhere in europe where his flagrant dedication to nudity will be treated as an eccentricity rather than a criminal offense.

cos here he seems locked in a titanic struggle with the authorities and over such a small matter


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Frenetic masturbation.
> 
> Plus I use a bike to get about, or walk when the mood takes me. I don't ramble though, I fucking _yomp._ How about you? Fencing's my guess. Something like that anyway.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> well, somewhere in europe where his flagrant dedication to nudity will be treated as an eccentricity rather than a criminal offense.
> 
> cos here he seems locked in a titanic struggle with the authorities and over such a small matter


Well, yep, exactly. No wonder kids are growing up with these reported hang ups about appearance, this sort of massive overreaction feeds straight into that.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

to my knowledge of the mans situation he has never masturbated in public, never sported a raging hard on or done anything that in any way sexualises his nudity in a manner that would be wrong. Nobody wants to see a naked man when they are going about their day to day life but if he's not acting the perv then its hard to see the justification in jailing him. Cost of keeping him on the spesh wing must be enormous. Let him go. In a way, all of us are rambling naked- and the Man doesn't accept that


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, yep, exactly. No wonder kids are growing up with these reported hang ups about appearance, this sort of massive overreaction feeds straight into that.


 
Whether or not you support Stevie Gough in his naked rambling, I honestly don't reckon his situation has any bearing whatsoever on young people suffering body dysmorphia.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Whether or not you support Stevie Gough in his naked rambling, I honestly don't reckon his situation has any bearing whatsoever on young people suffering body dysmorphia.


Why not?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Why not?


 
Well short answer - I just don't. Nah, only messin but he isn't someone most young people would aspire to be like is he? The main reason, IMO, why people end up with body dysmorphia is from being bombarded with/trying to aspire to unrealistic images of physical perfection. All he'd be is a laughing stock. Is he the reason teenage girls think they need boob jobs? I really doubt it. Do lads start banging up steroids coz the naked ramblers been locked up again?Probably not, I'd say.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well short answer - I just don't. Nah, only messin but he isn't someone most young people would aspire to be like is he? The main reason, IMO, why people end up with body dysmorphia is from being bombarded with/trying to aspire to unrealistic images of physical perfection. All he'd be is a laughing stock. Is he the reason teenage girls think they need boob jobs? I really doubt it. Do lads start banging up steroids coz the naked ramblers been locked up again?Probably not, I'd say.


 

its not what he looks like its the state reaction to him in his birthday suit.Giving the message that nudity is wrong. Pass the fucking figleaves adam, gods coming for a chat. etc.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well short answer - I just don't. Nah, only messin but he isn't someone most young people would aspire to be like is he? The main reason, IMO, why people end up with body dysmorphia is from being bombarded with/trying to aspire to unrealistic images of physical perfection. All he'd be is a laughing stock. Is he the reason teenage girls think they need boob jobs? I really doubt it. Do lads start banging up steroids coz the naked ramblers been locked up again?Probably not, I'd say.


Yebbut obv it would be better that they weren't bombarded with unrealistic images in the first place; but making an over-the-top fuss about hiding away a normal body (even though it's being displayed in sometimes inappropriate places, arguably) just reinforces that thing of only displaying the "perfect" body.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> its not what he looks like its the state reaction to him in his birthday suit.Giving the message that nudity is wrong. Pass the fucking figleaves adam, gods coming for a chat. etc.


 
I know, but I regardless of the figleaf/shame about nudity argument or whether or not you thing Stephen Gough's got a point/deserves to have the key thrown away or whatever, I just don't reckon his situation has any bearing on the (entirely separate IMO) issue of body dysmorphia.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yebbut obv it would be better that they weren't bombarded with unrealistic images in the first place; but making an over-the-top fuss about hiding away a normal body (even though it's being displayed in sometimes inappropriate places, arguably) just reinforces that thing of only displaying the "perfect" body.


 
Well yeah maybe, but not really - He's not being locked up for not having a perfect body is he?

The fuss is OTT, but I've got little sympathy for him for reasons I've already outlined - I won't bore ya by going into them again.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Well yeah maybe, but not really - He's not being locked up for not having a perfect body is he?
> 
> The fuss is OTT, but I've got little sympathy for him for reasons I've already outlined - I won't bore ya by going into them again.


No, he's not being locked up for not having the perfect body. But it's a mixed message for kids in terms of what's OK to be blatantly in their face all the time. There's a weird disconnect here with people getting so het up about him, yet not so het up about all the seemingly OK-cos-it-looks-perfect-and-"tastefully"-displayed imagery everywhere else.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> No, he's not being locked up for not having the perfect body. But it's a mixed message for kids in terms of what's OK to be blatantly in their face all the time. There's a weird disconnect here with people getting so het up about him, yet not so het up about all the seemingly OK-cos-it-looks-perfect-and-"tastefully"-displayed imagery everywhere else.


 

without getting too into it cos I have a dentists appointment in a mo- but perhaps the shame/outrage of the exposed penis runs right through christian and therefor modern social mores. Recall the one of Noahs sons who saw the old boys meat n veg and was cursed?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> No, he's not being locked up for not having the perfect body. But it's a mixed message for kids in terms of what's OK to be blatantly in their face all the time. *There's a weird disconnect here with people getting so het up about him, yet not so het up about all the seemingly OK-cos-it-looks-perfect-and-"tastefully"-displayed imagery everywhere else.*


 
Now I halfway agree with that bit, but I'd argue that it's the "Ok coz it looks perfect" imagery that's the main (if not sole) contributory factor to body dysmorphia, and not the authorities (admittedly draconian) response to Gough. It's not the authorities saying "nudity is bad" that makes people hate their own bodies, it's adverts etc saying "nudity is good, but only if you look like this" that fucks peoples heads up.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> without getting too into it cos I have a dentists appointment in a mo- but perhaps the shame/outrage of the exposed penis runs right through christian and therefor modern social mores. was *Recall the one of Noahs sons who saw the old boys meat n veg and cursed?*


 
For it was cold that morning and great was Noah's shame.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> without getting too into it cos I have a dentists appointment in a mo- but perhaps the shame/outrage of the exposed penis runs right through christian and therefor modern social mores. Recall the one of Noahs sons who saw the old boys meat n veg and was cursed?


Chucked out of the Garden of Eden etc. Oh, and all those fig leaves that defaced were painted onto renaissance art

Edit: Piers Anthony's Split Infinity series is quite good for looking at the wearing of clothes as privilege, if you haven't already read them.


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 20, 2013)

I think yet again the point (to my mind) is mostly being missed.

I don't think anyone here is saying that nudity is wrong per se, but forcing said nudity upon others is in fact the issue.

He is trying to exercise his 'human right' to be naked, fair enough. What about other peoples 'human right' to not have to be exposed to said nudity if they so wish?

Unfortunately, he is in the minority and therefore it is he who should comprimise and stick to enjoying his nudity in the same way that the rest of us have to, the privacy of our own homes, the privacy of near isolated countryside, the company of other like minded nudy loving folk at nudy-friendly establishments both indoor and outdoor.


And also, this story really has fuck all to do with why people suffer body dysmorphia... Come on, tenuous as fuck.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 20, 2013)

Are there any groups of people anywhere in the world who go around naked all the time?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Now I halfway agree with that bit, but I'd argue that it's the "Ok coz it looks perfect" imagery that's the main (if not sole) contributory factor to body dysmorphia, and not the authorities (admittedly draconian) response to Gough. It's not the authorities saying "nudity is bad" that makes people hate their own bodies, it's adverts etc saying "nudity is good, but only if you look like this" that fucks peoples heads up.



It's the mixed message that's the problem. If all sorts of bodies of all kinds were regularly displayed in the media as a matter of course, then the authorities' draconian response to public nudity outside designated areas would be more consistent and make more sense. But that's not what we have - we have profit-message public, varying displays of nudity via the media but only the idealised versions; and public outcry (in some quarters, to varying degrees) plus locking up of non-profit-message, public display of non-idealised body. Disconnect.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's the mixed message that's the problem. If all sorts of bodies of all kinds were regularly displayed in the media as a matter of course, then the authorities' draconian response to public nudity outside designated areas would be more consistent and make more sense. But that's not what we have - we have profit-message public, varying displays of nudity via the media but only the idealised versions; and public outcry (in some quarters, to varying degrees) plus locking up of non-profit-message, public display of non-idealised body. Disconnect.


 
There is a disconnect, but I really don't think that disconnect has much (if anything) to do with dysmorphia.


----------



## elbows (Jun 20, 2013)

Those suggesting he should be sectioned should be careful. I've seen no evidence that he has a mental illness or severe personality disorder. Perhaps he has, but nothing in his actions can be used to assume he has. And you can't start sectioning people simply for their beliefs, even if those beliefs are incompatible with societal norms and cause him problems. Even if you believe that on a certain level he is eccentric, a bit mad or whatever, sectioning is used to deal with very clear sets of behaviour, thought disturbances etc. To extend it beyond that has a range of unpleasant implications including the potential use of mental health legislation to deal with political issues.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> There is a disconnect, but I really don't think that disconnect has much (if anything) to do with dysmorphia.


If you look back, I originally said it feeds straight into it. I didn't say it directly causes it. Why don't you think the disconnect/mixed messages that kids get are a factor though?


----------



## coley (Jun 20, 2013)

elbows said:


> Those suggesting he should be sectioned should be careful. I've seen no evidence that he has a mental illness or severe personality disorder. Perhaps he has, but nothing in his actions can be used to assume he has. And you can't start sectioning people simply for their beliefs, even if those beliefs are incompatible with societal norms and cause him problems. Even if you believe that on a certain level he is eccentric, a bit mad or whatever, sectioning is used to deal with very clear sets of behaviour, thought disturbances etc. To extend it beyond that has a range of unpleasant implications including the potential use of mental health legislation to deal with political issues.



Sectioning can be used after a mental capacity assessment,has this bloke been assessed regarding his comprehension IRO offending/alarming others?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> If you look back, I originally said it feeds straight into it. I didn't say it directly causes it. Why don't you think the disconnect/mixed messages that kids get are a factor though?


 
Fair enough, you did.

I'm not saying (or maybe I am, who knows what anyone's trying to say in these crazy times, eh?) that mixed messages aren't a factor. All I originally said was (and I stand by this), Gough and his treatment at the hands of the state/public/whoever probably has little or no bearing on the issue of dysmorphia among young people. IMO there are wider issues at play. I really do doubt the naked rambler's misadventures form any part of a mixed message mixture - I just don't reckon he has any relevence to the issue of dysmorphia.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

Does he insist on being naked in jail? That might prove interesting for him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> No wonder kids are growing up with these reported hang ups about appearance, this sort of massive overreaction feeds straight into that.


 
Kids are growing up with appearance issues because people get the hump with some twat cruising the country with his bollocks out?

What a load of auld crap!


----------



## elbows (Jun 20, 2013)

coley said:


> Sectioning can be used after a mental capacity assessment,has this bloke been assessed regarding his comprehension IRO offending/alarming others?


 

I find it extremely unlikely that there is anything in this blokes case that would trigger concern under that aspect of the system. Even in cases where there are obvious physical reasons why someones mental capacity to make decisions has been impaired, the system is designed to be very careful in judging whether they have the mental capacity to make decisions, very much including decisions that others think are unwise. So I highly doubt that taking this angle would in anyway override peoples right to let a personal principal override a range of other factors, or allow us to short-circuit that right by claiming that their capacity to make such a judgement was lacking.

These case studies demonstrate this pretty well, although for obvious reasons they have little in common with this case: http://www.amcat.org.uk/case_studies/?page=1

And whilst mental health care in the context of the prison system is not exactly highly regarded, the number of run-ins he has had with courts etc would lead me to expect that they are likely to have explored most avenues for dealing with him under mental health legislation and drawn a blank.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Kids are growing up with appearance issues because people get the hump with some twat cruising the country with his bollocks out?
> 
> What a load of auld crap!


I love it when you do your huntin, fishin, shootin, drivin, big macho man stuff


----------



## elbows (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Does he insist on being naked in jail? That might prove interesting for him.


 

I believe this is why he spends most of his jail time isolated from other prisoners.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I love it when you do your huntin, fishin, shootin, drivin, big macho man stuff


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Does he insist on being naked in jail?


 
Apparently so.

Fucking eejit.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Apparently so.
> 
> Fucking eejit.


 
Better than wearin prison issue though. Next man's underpants? Nah.


----------



## Enviro (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Does he insist on being naked in jail? That might prove interesting for him.


 

I believe he does, and that it doesn't cause him much trouble.

As for Lengel's refuting the connection with dysmorphia, I think it's all connected and that Gough's treatment does little to cause dysmorphia directly, but the way he is treated is symptomatic of the way that we view the human body generally as a society, and that the way he is treated certainly goes no way in changing how we feel/ think about the body generally (as a society) - rather it probably reinforces it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

elbows said:
			
		

> I believe this is why he spends most of his jail time isolated from other prisoners.



Ah right. Seems sensible.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:
			
		

> I believe he does, and that it doesn't cause him much trouble.



Ok different answer here. Which is it?


----------



## Greebo (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> <snip>Fucking eejit.


 
Eejit, maybe, but at least sticking to his principles.  Fair play to him for that.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 20, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Eejit, maybe, but at least sticking to his principles. Fair play to him for that.


 
Sticking to most things in this weather, I reckon.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Greebo said:


> Eejit, maybe, but at least sticking to his principles. Fair play to him for that.


 
Fair play my arse, Greebs. 

His principles are fucked.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 20, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Sticking to most things in this weather, I reckon.


 
I dunno, he might be allowed talc.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> but the way he is treated is symptomatic of the way that we view the human body generally as a society ....


 
You mean "if you go out in public, put some fucking clothes on"?

What's wrong with that?



> ... and that the way he is treated certainly goes no way in changing how we feel/ think about the body generally (as a society) - rather it probably reinforces it.


 
Good. Lots of folk are perfectly happy with society's views on public nudity. Not every societal attitude needs changing, many are perfectly reasonable.

Nobody is being a prude here. If someone wants to get naked, fine. But do it somewhere with like minded people where others who don't want to see you naked can avoid you.

Your wish to walk the streets starkers doesn't override the wishes of those who don't want you to. What the fuck is so unreasonable about this?


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

I don't know what you're getting so het up about, Spymaster, it's not as though he's going around with an erection or caressing himself. He's in the nip and unless you really look you'll probably not even see his flaccidness. He'll pass you by in the street within seconds, and then he's gone (unless you turn around to gawp and lap up your moral outrage of course).

Something about the phrase, "no sex please, we're British" that rings true on this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> I don't know what you're getting so het up about, Spymaster, it's not as though he's going around with an erection or caressing himself. He's in the nip and unless you really look you'll probably not even see his flaccidness. He'll pass you by in the street within seconds, and then he's gone (unless you turn around to gawp and lap up your moral outrage of course).
> 
> Something about the phrase, "no sex please, we're British" that rings true on this thread.


 
Read the last few pages. Anything I post will simply be repeating what some of us have already advanced. Nobody has come close to rebutting the arguments put forward by Red and Frances regarding this man's arrogance and twattishness. All that's come out is the usual shite about people having hang-ups about nudity which misses the point spectacularly.

Of a UK population of 60 million people there's just _*one*_ cunt who feels the need to do this shit.


----------



## Enviro (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen 66: So he's in an isolated part of the prison. I believe he is fine with this if that is what must be done to allow his nakedness in jail to continue. Therefore I don't believe it's any great trouble to him?

Spymaster: No I don't mean "if you go out in public, put some clothes on", what I mean is that it doesn't surprise me that one eccentric individual suffers persecution because of the way he chooses to live, particularly because he wants to be naked and we, as a society, have major issues with sexuality and the human body.

If the human body was not a commodity to be bought and sold, and if it was not a marketing tool used to sell products, then maybe there would be less extreme reactions to Gough's choices. I'm not saying that prostitution and the use of sex to sell things are causing the problems we have, again they are more symptomatic, and reinforce our current thinking about the body.

I'm rambling now so I'll stfu... But basically I'm not at ease with how Gough is treated. I can see that you wouldn't want him hanging around school gates when it's kick out time, but I also think that everyone has a right to do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone else. And I don't see any evidence that what he's doing is hurting anyone else.


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Of a UK population of 60 million people there's just _*one*_ cunt who feels the need to do this shit.


 

There's probably a lot more than one person who'd like to go about unclothed but don't because of fear of being called a nonce / pervert or whatever or worse, violence.

I see the British Naturist website is encouraging members to report hate crime:

http://www.bn.org.uk/articles.php/_/campaigning/current-issues/reporting-hate-crime-r220



> Any naturist who suffers abuse, threats, discrimination, intimidation or assault should use the True Vision website to report the incident. As the website says: "By reporting hate crime when it happens, you can help stop it happening to someone else. You will also help the police to better understand the level of hate crime in your local area, and improve the way they respond to it." If naturists regularly used the website to report incidents of hate crime, it might encourage the police to take such cases more seriously.


 

I am sure you're capable of seeing the overlap between naturism and him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> Spymaster: No I don't mean "if you go out in public, put some clothes on", what I mean is that it doesn't surprise me that one eccentric individual suffers persecution because of the way he chooses to live, particularly because he wants to be naked and we, as a society, have major issues with sexuality and the human body.


 
Speak for yourself. What are these "major issues" and how would they be addressed by allowing people to walk around starkers?



> If the human body was not a commodity to be bought and sold, and if it was not a marketing tool used to sell products, then maybe there would be less extreme reactions to Gough's choices. I'm not saying that prostitution and the use of sex to sell things are causing the problems we have, again they are more symptomatic, and reinforce our current thinking about the body.


 
This is an argument regarding the commodification of the human body. It has bollock all to do with allowing people to walk the streets naked.



> .... everyone has a right to do what they want if it isn't hurting anyone else.


 
No they fucking don't.

Do I have a right to have a wank off the side of Westminster Bridge during rush hour? It isn't hurting anyone else.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

If he were just wandering around naked in one small town, it'd be different. People would know he was harmless, know where to avoid him and be able to tell their kids "oh, that's just Naked Nobby" and maybe chat about it later, or maybe not, since he'd be just a local eccentric.

Though I'm not sure he could be persuaded from not wandering naked past the local primary school even then, since his last conviction was for doing just that after the cops offered to give him a lift - naked - past the school then let him out, still naked, and he refused.

It's wandering all over the country that makes it different. Most people seeing him wouldn't know why he's doing it. They'd likely assume he was either a danger to someone else - that if he could do that, what else could he do? - or think he was a danger to himself, either fucked up on drugs or mentally ill. So I bet lots and lots of people have actually called the police because of him.

I called the cops on a naked bloke once, when he was lying next to a kids' playpark, because I thought it likely that he was off his head to do something like that and also that he was very vulnerable to assault or theft (he had a bag and a phone in his hand).

I also wouldn't particularly want to see a naked stranger in an unexpected place shortly after I'd been sexually assaulted. He wouldn't be safe old Naked Nobby, he'd be a grown man whose history and intentions I don't know. I would be the one who had to leave because I felt very unsafe. 

And I wouldn't want to be helping a kid recover from sexual abuse and then have it put back a step due to mixed messages about when it's ok for a grown man to let kids see his penis.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster No need to introduce sex (you wanking) into it. Complete red herring.


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

Never thought Spymaster wanking would be used as a moral yard stick.


----------



## Enviro (Jun 20, 2013)

Wow you're really frothing aren't you, SM?  Of course Firky shouldn't do that - it's a sexual act that could be seen by anyone. Being naked in itself is not a sexual act.

As for you stating that my argument is about the commodification of the human body and that that has nothing to do with public nakedness... Am I alone in thinking that your statement is rather self defeating, what with the whole 'human body' and 'being naked'? We are subjected to hundreds of images of practically naked women (and men) in an effort to sell us ... everything?! And you think that the commodification of the human body has nothing to do with how we perceive public nakedness?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Spymaster No need to introduce sex (firky wanking) into it. Complete red herring.


 
Edited for the humourless.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Spymaster No need to introduce sex (you wanking) into it. Complete red herring.


Edited to reflect Spymaster's edit


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

((((my moral yard stick)))


----------



## Firky (Jun 20, 2013)

Firky said:


> Never thought Spymaster wanking would be used as a moral yard stick.


 

edited to reflect other's edits


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> - it's a sexual act that could be seen by anyone. Being naked in itself is not a sexual act.


 
So what? Why shouldn't we be allowed to perform sexual acts in public? They don't hurt anyone else and that seemed to be your yardstick earlier.



> As for you stating that my argument is about the commodification of the human body and that that has nothing to do with public nakedness... Am I alone in thinking that your statement is rather self defeating, what with the whole 'human body' and 'being naked'? We are subjected to hundreds of images of practically naked women (and men) in an effort to sell us ... everything?! And you think that the commodification of the human body has nothing to do with how we perceive public nakedness?


 
Of course it has, but I've said nothing whatsoever to the contrary. I said your argument went nowhere as to explaining why public nudity of this sort should be _allowed._


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> If he were just wandering around naked in one small town, it'd be different. People would know he was harmless, know where to avoid him and be able to tell their kids "oh, that's just Naked Nobby" and maybe chat about it later, or maybe not, since he'd be just a local eccentric.
> 
> Though I'm not sure he could be persuaded from not wandering naked past the local primary school even then, since his last conviction was for doing just that after the cops offered to give him a lift - naked - past the school then let him out, still naked, and he refused.
> 
> ...


 
Good post.


----------



## Enviro (Jun 20, 2013)

Obviously if a child sees a sexual act then it could be disturbing for them.

And my argument implies that if we are subjected to tens or hundreds of images of nudity on a daily basis, then why are we so outraged when an actual real life person decides they do not wish to wear clothes, when we constantly have the arses, tits, legs and other bits of people who are deemed to be attractive enough to sell a product shoved in our faces?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> Obviously if a child sees a sexual act then it could be disturbing for them.


 
Why? Isn't sex as natural as nudity?



> And my argument implies that if we are subjected to tens or hundreds of images of nudity on a daily basis ....


 
We're not.

When and where did you last see such an image?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> When and where did you last see such an image?


 
That's got to be tempting fate, hasn't it?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> That's got to be tempting fate, hasn't it?


Well it's tempting a link to the naked urbanites thread


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

This is a local interest story for me, and Mr Gough's escapades are often featured in the local paper.

There's an ex-copper that always comments on the articles with comments on a similar lines. This occasion is no different, so I thought I'd share the wisdom of 'Inform Al':


> This perverted soul should be kept in a secure mental hospital until, if ever, he comes to his senses. Prison is probably the wrong place for him but if he were to appear naked in front of my 13 year old daughter he may quickly come to his senses.


----------



## Enviro (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Why? Isn't sex as natural as nudity?


 

I am a parent of a 7 year old boy. I don't mind being naked in front of him, but I wouldn't have sex in front of him. We're all born into this world naked. We're not all born into this world wanking.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> I am a parent of a 7 year old boy. I don't mind being naked in front of him, but I wouldn't have sex in front of him. We're all born into this world naked. We're not all born into this world wanking.


 

speak for yourself, I used my birth certificate as a wank rag an I haven't stopped since


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> We're all born into this world naked. We're not all born into this world wanking.


 
As Jim Morrison famously sang 'like a dog without a bone, into this world we're thrown'


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> speak for yourself, I used my birth certificate as a wank rag an I haven't stopped since


have you similar plans for your death certificate?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> Obviously if a child sees a sexual act then it could be disturbing for them.


best for them to be disturbed in their teens then i suppose


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> have you similar plans for your death certificate?


 

i'll be aiming for the hangmans eye with my final shot


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> I am a parent of a 7 year old boy. I don't mind being naked in front of him, but I wouldn't have sex in front of him. We're all born into this world naked. We're not all born into this world wanking.


 
Pah, complete red herring. Someone had to fuck in order that we'd all be born. So why is public fucking frowned upon?

At the end of the day it's because some people would find it offensive or frightening or ... something.

It's the same, albeit to a lesser extent, with public nudity. Some people find it offensive, possibly frightening, confusing etc.,

Lots of people do.

Who are you to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way? More importantly who is Mr Gough?

If your kid came home tonight and told you he wanted to go to school naked tomorrow, what would you say?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Pah, complete red herring. Someone had to fuck in order that we'd all be born. So why is public fucking frowned upon?
> 
> At the end of the day it's because some people would find it offensive or frightening or ... something.
> 
> ...


it's frowned upon by people like you to hide their inadequacies, so they never get to find out how good people like me are at it


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

Enviro said:


> Obviously if a child sees a sexual act then it could be disturbing for them.
> 
> And my argument implies that if we are subjected to tens or hundreds of images of nudity on a daily basis, then why are we so outraged when an actual real life person decides they do not wish to wear clothes, when we constantly have the arses, tits, legs and other bits of people who are deemed to be attractive enough to sell a product shoved in our faces?



Where do you live that you see hundreds of naked images a day without meaning to?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Where do you live that you see hundreds of naked images a day without meaning to?


i don't think enviro said s/he didn't mean so...


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think enviro said s/he didn't mean so...



Ok. Not quite the same point though, if he just looks at naked people a lot by choice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Where do you live that you see hundreds of naked images a day without meaning to?


 
Quite. That's total nonsense.

Fannies, knobs, bollocks, and naked arses are covered in mainstream advertising. 

Mr Gough is simply being asked to do the same. There's no inconsistency here.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Pah, complete red herring. Someone had to fuck in order that we'd all be born. So why is public fucking frowned upon?
> 
> At the end of the day it's because some people would find it offensive or frightening or ... something.
> 
> It's the same, albeit to a lesser extent, with public nudity.


 
Public sex is a universal taboo, nudity isn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think enviro said s/he didn't mean so...


 
She was trying to make the point that we're bombarded with imagery of nudity on a daily basis, and as such shouldn't be "outraged" by this twats exhibitionism.

The point is that we aren't exposed to nude imagery anything like as frequently as Enviro suggested, so the argument fails.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> She was trying to make the point that we're bombarded with imagery of nudity on a daily basis, and as such shouldn't be "outraged" by this twats exhibitionism.
> 
> The point is that we aren't exposed to nude imagery anything like as frequently as Enviro suggested, so the argument fails.


has 'this twat' walked down your street naked?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Quite. That's total nonsense.
> 
> Fannies, knobs, bollocks, and naked arses are covered in mainstream advertising.
> 
> Mr Gough is simply being asked to do the same. There's no inconsistency here.


Check out Tom Ford, Calvin Klein, Toesox, American Apparel, Dolce e Gabbana. Oh, and PETA of course.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> has 'this twat' walked down your street naked?


 
No, but I've got the dogs ready just in case he makes it past the mosque at the bottom of the road.

And I'm exercising my right to be outraged on behalf of others!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No, but I've got the dogs ready just in case he makes it past the mosque at the bottom of the road.
> 
> And I'm exercising my right to be outraged on behalf of others!


you're exercising your right to bore people to tears on others' behalf. i thought more of you, i really did, fuck knows why


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> you're exercising your right to bore people to tears on others' behalf. i thought more of you, i really did, fuck knows why


I'm quite entertained cos I had no idea that all that machismo was a front for such prudery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm quite entertained cos I had no idea that all that machismo was a front for such prudery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm quite entertained cos I had no idea that all that machismo was a front for such prudery.


he'd rather be a dick than see a dick from the sound of things.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Check out Tom Ford, Calvin Klein, Toesox, American Apparel, Dolce e Gabbana. Oh, and PETA of course.


 
Show me an ad from any of them that we see "hundreds of times a day" and includes a bloke with his nuts out, or a woman flashing her clunge.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Has he ever explained his position, perhaps on a website or in an interview or something.

Since I have been aware of him I have yet to learn why, really why, he is doing this.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> he'd rather be a dick than see a dick from the sound of things.


Maybe the indignation (not just Spy) is concern in case the lasses see flaccid penises - oh noes! Forgetting, of course, that the lasses have the care of those at the birth and illness and aging of mens.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Show me an ad from any of them that we see "hundreds of times a day" and includes a bloke with his nuts out, or a woman flashing her clunge.


Ah, I see you're narrowing it down from your unfortunate earlier post.


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Check out Tom Ford, Calvin Klein, Toesox, American Apparel, Dolce e Gabbana. Oh, and PETA of course.



Do they have actual naked people in public adverts? I mean, you walk down the street and see them? I bet there have been complaints and so on then. Never seen any naked ads myself.

Argh. This is so urban. If someone on here posted about being upset about being flashed by a stranger, making them feel unsafe in a supposedly safe place, then everyone would be sympathetic. This really isn't any different unless you expect everyone this bloke passes to know exactly why he's doing it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Show me an ad from any of them that we see "hundreds of times a day" and includes a bloke with his nuts out, or a woman flashing her clunge.


no i will not satisfy your prurient curiosity


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

afaict humans are the only animals to wear clothes.

even in warm places where they are not needed to ward against the cold.

funny lot .. them humans ..


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> Do they have actual naked people in public adverts? I mean, you walk down the street and see them? I bet there have been complaints and so on then. Never seen any naked ads myself.
> 
> Argh. This is so urban. If someone on here posted about being upset about being flashed by a stranger, making them feel unsafe in a supposedly safe place, then everyone would be sympathetic. This really isn't any different unless you expect everyone this bloke passes to know exactly why he's doing it.


Flashing's different to this. Flashing's an act to deliberately upset/unnerve someone. It only has shock value for a limited amount of time unless it's coupled with a direct threat to attack. It's nothing like what this bloke (or that bloke in Spain/Portugal) is doing.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> It's the same, albeit to a lesser extent, with public nudity. Some people find it offensive, possibly frightening, confusing etc.,
> 
> Lots of people do.
> 
> Who are you to tell them that they're wrong to feel this way? More importantly who is Mr Gough?


 
Some people find non-whites living in the UK offensive, possibly frightening, confusing etc.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

loads of adverts have womens arses in them, we are supposed to assume there is a G string. Everyone does it. Womens bodies sell product- hairy sacked rambling men do not.

I dunno.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> Some people find non-whites living in the UK offensive, possibly frightening, confusing etc.


 
As was mentioned on another thread recently, people get offended. So what!


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Ah, I see you're narrowing it down from your unfortunate earlier post.


 
Oh don't be so ridiculous.

Enviro said we were bombarded with nude imagery and equated it to a bloke walking the country with his dick and bollocks hanging out. I refuted that such imagery existed saying that fannies, knobs, bollocks and naked arses are covered in mainstream advertising. You then listed some designers and PETA to make the point that I was wrong and I asked you to show us the adverts.

I'll make it even easier for you. Show us some mainstream ads from any of your list where even full nudity is the norm.

The point that Enviro made and you tried to support, is a poor one.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> As was mentioned on another thread recently, people get offended. So what!


 
Quite.  A simple 'some people are offended by this' argument as posited by Spymaster is a non-starter AFAICS.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Society at large values clothes, who was it that said: naked people have virtually no influence on society? We wear clothes for warmth, for protection, for identity, for status, for fashion, for all sorts of reasons.

Indeed this guy himself has not totally discarded all manmade stuff, he wears walking boots and I think socks.

However it is understandable that someone like this is going to make a lot of people, who themselves would never dare to be naked in public, uncomfortable.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Oh don't be so ridiculous.
> 
> Enviro said we were bombarded with nude imagery and equated it to *a bloke walking the country with his dick and bollocks hanging out.* I refuted that such imagery existed saying that fannies, knobs, bollocks and naked arses are covered in mainstream advertising. You then listed some designers and PETA to make the point that I was wrong, and I asked you to show us the adverts.
> 
> ...


 

but what pray is intrinsically bad about that activity? OK so you are sitting down to a big feast at the Hugry Horse eatery with nephews and nieces and some cunts ordered a double on your tab- then a naked man might perturb, annoy and so on.


But he isn't up in the hungry horse, waving his chap about. He's just wandering paths that you'd never even think of bothering with. He's not there, in your face with a proper diamond cutter tickling himself unto climax is he?

I say let him wander. Who is he hurting-He's not bursting into the local WI meeting with gonads a go-go is he


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> .. He's not bursting into the local WI meeting with gonads a go-go is he


 
Wish he would, and then the mail write about it


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

The disingenuous nature of legally justifying things like the naked bike ride (annual green protest) in contrast pisses me off more than Gough's willy tbh.

I was out for a works do a couple of weeks ago when the street was suddenly filled with naked men and women on bikes and skateboards, whilst the police looked on. I was outside the pub having a fag at the time and asked the coppers what differentiated it from the naked rambler. The answer they'd been given by their superiors was that it was an advertised and publicised event and people therefore had a choice, and could avoid it if they wished.

Which in reality was utter bollocks. I had no idea it was due to go past, and neither did anyone else in the 20-strong crowd of smokers standing there gawking. In fact, I'd suggest that Gough's received far more publicity than the naked bike ride.

The truth is that Gough's nakedness is seen as 'weird' whereas the naked protest is seen as 'wacky', and that's why he's arrested and they aren't. The flimsy attempt to cover this by reference to publicity and choice is pathetic.

ETA: To clarify - I'm not in favour of arresting the protesters _or _Gough. Nakedness is not the same thing as pornography.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> The disingenuous nature of legally justifying things like the naked bike ride (annual green protest) in contrast pisses me off more than Gough's willy tbh.
> 
> *I was out for a works do a couple of weeks ago when the street was suddenly filled with naked men and women on bikes and skateboards,* whilst the police looked on. I was outside the pub having a fag at the time and asked the coppers what differentiated it from the naked rambler. The answer they'd been given by their superiors was that it was an advertised and publicised event and people therefore had a choice, and could avoid it if they wished.
> 
> ...


 
must have kept the bank filled for fucking weeks


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> must have kept the bank filled for fucking weeks


 
Eh? 

ETA: Oh, _that_ kind of bank! 

Took me a minute, sorry.  No - not really - there was nothing sexy about it at all.  I had a brief chat with some random bloke also out for a smoke - he was a proper 'lad' iykwim - he was really genuinely confused as to why he wasn't turned on.  "If I was dancing with her in a club and thought I'd get to see her naked I'd be like a dog in heat, but there she is completely naked in front of me and... nothing!"  _*glances at his own crotch and looks puzzled*   _


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> He's just wandering paths that you'd never even think of bothering with.


 
Is he fuck.

He's been getting naked on planes, in courts, prison car parks, towns (Hebden Bridge) and cities (Perth, Halifax).


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jun 20, 2013)

they'll still be talking about it in Halifax in 20 years.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Is he fuck.
> 
> He's been getting naked on planes, in courts, prison car parks, towns (Hebden Bridge) and cities (Perth, Halifax).


 

I find it hard to see which of those places could not be improved by the sight of a man wielding his rusty sherrifs badge. Especially prison car parks.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> .... I was out for a works do a couple of weeks ago when the street was suddenly filled with naked men and women on bikes and skateboards, whilst the police looked on. I was outside the pub having a fag at the time and asked the coppers what differentiated it from the naked rambler. The answer they'd been given by their superiors was that it was an advertised and publicised event and people therefore had a choice, and could avoid it if they wished. ...


 
You might like to see this woman's reaction to that demonstration


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

What sort of a jail sentence can men get for pissing in public btw, especially in one of those open urinal public conveniences?


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> but what pray is intrinsically bad about that activity? OK so you are sitting down to a big feast at the Hugry Horse eatery with nephews and nieces and some cunts ordered a double on your tab- then a naked man might perturb, annoy and so on.


 
Even if he was, so what? As long as he sat on a towel that is.

If I was out with my son, nephews, or nieces and he sat down at the next table then they'd undoubtedly wonder what was up with that. So I'd tell them. Kids are curious, but they aren't necessarily thick. They ask about difference, that's all. We sat next to a guy who'd tattooed his entire face blue once, and they asked about that. So I explained. They've seen people with various disabilities that make them stand out to them as different, and I've explained about that. They've asked about people with dreadlocks, piercings, two men kissing, and dozens of other things that are new to them. So I've explained, and it's no big deal. It's _*adults*_ that have the hang-ups, not kids. But we seem absolutely determined to pass them on to the next generation at any given opportunity.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> You might like to see this woman's reaction to that demonstration




Wow.

I wonder how a man complaining in similar fashion and referencing the flat-chestedness of the female protesters would be received?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> What sort of a jail sentence can men get for pissing in public btw, especially in one of those open urinal public conveniences?


 
do it in the wrong place and you can find yourself on the register. I know a bloke who bitches endlessly about being on the register for a mis-timed piss up a school wall at three am.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

of course nobody ever buys the 'it was just an innocent slash' story


proper fucked


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> do it in the wrong place and you can find yourself on the register. I know a bloke who bitches endlessly about being on the register for a mis-timed piss up a school wall at three am.


Pissing on a school wall at any time is a mistake


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> Even if he was, so what? As long as he sat on a towel that is.
> 
> If I was out with my son, nephews, or nieces and he sat down at the next table then they'd undoubtedly wonder what was up with that. So I'd tell them. Kids are curious, but they aren't necessarily thick. They ask about difference, that's all. We sat next to a guy who'd tattooed his entire face blue once, and they asked about that. So I explained. They've seen people with various disabilities that make them stand out to them as different, and I've explained about that. They've asked about people with dreadlocks, piercings, two men kissing, and dozens of other things that are new to them. So I've explained, and it's no big deal. It's _*adults*_ that have the hang-ups, not kids. But we seem absolutely determined to pass them on to the next generation at any given opportunity.


 

I don't do likes so I'll just say 'true say'

why the towel though- ball sweat?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

I once got caught pissing on a church door by the vicar. One of my finer moments.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I once got caught pissing on a church door by the vicar. One of my finer moments.


Did he call the OB?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Did he call the OB?



Nah, he just said: "that's disgusting, bloody disgusting!" in a David Bellamy type voice.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Nah, he just said: "that's disgusting, bloody disgusting!" in a David Bellamy type voice.


Probably didn't fancy washing it off.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Probably didn't fancy washing it off.



He's probably forgiven me.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> He's probably forgiven me.


Wasn't an RC church then or you'd have had to a penance or summat


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I once got caught pissing on a church door by the vicar. One of my finer moments.


 

perfect time for a wine into water gag


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Flashing's different to this. Flashing's an act to deliberately upset/unnerve someone. It only has shock value for a limited amount of time unless it's coupled with a direct threat to attack. It's nothing like what this bloke (or that bloke in Spain/Portugal) is doing.



It's no different from the point of view of the people he exposes himself to. They don't know what his intentions are.

I do think there would be quite a few people with traumatic experiences who would be extremely unnerved (at the least) to have this bloke revealing his genitals to them, and that's more important than his supposed right to show his genitals to whoever he likes. I'm actually quite surprised that you disagree with that.

Jail is not the answer, but apparently he doesn't qualify as needing help enough to be sectioned, which is weird.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Wasn't an RC church then or you'd have had to a penance or summat



Priests are RC aren't they and Vicars CofE? Or at least that's what I thought the difference was.


----------



## comrade spurski (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> He's probably forgiven me.


 

Nah...he's just chilled in the knowledge that you'll burn in hell


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> .. Jail is not the answer, but apparently he doesn't qualify as needing help enough to be sectioned, which is weird.


 
IIRC someone can be sectioned when they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and have a treatable mental illness. I don't know that this guy qualifies, he certainly isn't a danger, to himself or others.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Priests are RC aren't they and Vicars CofE? Or at least that's what I thought the difference was.


Nah, you can get Anglican priests as well. And vicars general in the RC church. Edit, but yes broadly speaking it's as you say


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Nah, you can get Anglican priests as well. And vicars general in the RC church



Not the first time I've been wrong about something, it's gotta be said. 

But yeah, it was CofE.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

but is he not by his nakedness signalling the fact that his crown jewels will be on display? no doubt shrunken by cold and almost entirely hidden by his manbush?

It's not an act of transgressive behavior to unleash that which already has no leash. He's not sidling up in a dirty mac and then exposing himself in order to get his jollies. He just doesn't like clothes. We have all been there, aged four and not liking this clothes thing. Let him go.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> but is he not by his nakedness signalling the fact that his crown jewels will be on display? no doubt shrunken by cold and almost entirely hidden by his manbush?
> 
> It's not an act of transgressive behavior to unleash that which already has no leash. He's not sidling up in a dirty mac and then exposing himself in order to get his jollies. He just doesn't like clothes. We have all been there, aged four and not liking this clothes thing. Let him go.


On that aged 4 note - I wonder what the concerned cut off point, age wise, for nudity is.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

Wouldn't you get your collar felt for having your kid naked in public? I mean if they're not having a piss or somesuch.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't do likes so I'll just say 'true say'
> 
> why the towel though- ball sweat?


 
Or poor wiping technique...


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Wouldn't you get your collar felt for having your kid naked in public? I mean if they're not having a piss or somesuch.


What about in the countryside/beach?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> On that aged 4 note - I wonder what the concerned cut off point, age wise, for nudity is.


 

Without getting mailish about it you can be nicked for pics of your own naked children in the paddling pool. Strange days.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> What about in the countryside/beach?



Dunno. I doubt many people risk their kids being naked in those places nowadays due to paedo mania.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Without getting mailish about it you can be nicked for pics of your own naked children in the paddling pool. Strange days.


Can you? Blimey.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Can you? Blimey.



Yep. Child porn innit.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Without getting mailish about it you can be nicked for pics of your own naked children in the paddling pool. Strange days.


 
I'm assuming there needs to be a particular _mens rea_ for that though?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Dunno. I doubt many people risk their kids be naked in those places nowadays due to paedo mania.


Too many naked baby ads etc


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Yep. Child porn innit.


 

means you are basically responsible for somebody elses hard on over kid pics. Welcome to the free world


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> means you are basically responsible for somebody elses hard on over kid pics. Welcome to the free world



There was that controversy over that female artist who took photos of her daughter in the bath. Although they were for exhibition so that might change things compared with family snaps.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Without getting mailish about it you can be nicked for pics of your own naked children in the paddling pool. Strange days.


 
Not sure about that. Got any links?

I seem to remember some case where an overeager photo processing bod called the fuzz over some family photos, but not the OB nicking anyone for innocent pics of their own kids.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> There was that controversy over that female artist who took photos of her daughter in the bath. Although they were for exhibition so that might change things compared with family snaps.


 
iirc they pulled that exhibition.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> means you are basically responsible for somebody elses hard on over kid pics. Welcome to the free world


 
When people primarily photographed with film, they sent their films to a lab (Boots, Truprint.. whatever) to be developed. There were a few high profile cases of the lab reporting images of children to the police and the photographer then having their collars felt. One was a woman in Wales who photographed her kid in the bath IIRC, her case was quite public for a while. Now with digital photography so popular I imagine that old route to a prosecution is much reduced.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> *Not sure about that. Got any links?*
> 
> I seem to remember some case where an overeager photo processing bod called the fuzz over some family photos, but not the OB nicking anyone for innocent pics of their own kids.


 
nope. Its just happened to someone I used to know. Take my word for it or don't- but recall that the law currently can have someone up as participant in assault if they were tied, bent over and whipped soundly in a consensual manner. Its not a logical thing, law.


----------



## cdg (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> IIRC someone can be sectioned when they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others and have a treatable mental illness. I don't know that this guy qualifies, he certainly isn't a danger, to himself or others.


 
You could argue that by being naked in public he is at risk of violence against him. I believe a member of his family claimed he was mentally unwell, in fact it may have been his wife/partner.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

So what's the cut-off age for being allowed to have photos of your kids naked  now then? Not allowed once they've left the hospital after being born? What happens with home births?


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

cdg said:


> You could argue that by being naked in public he is at risk of violence against him. I believe a member of his family claimed he was mentally unwell, in fact it may have been his wife/partner.


 
Oh I think probably "the light is on but there is no one home" mentally. I am sure it would not break a real agenda to wear a pair of shorts on entering a town or something. His going naked immediately on leaving prison resulting in immediate re-arrest does not seem to me to be the action of a person who is completely well.

But as to whether he has some recognisable condition it is less clear, perhaps he is just rather odd


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Its just happened to someone I used to know.


 
In what circumstances? What was the offence?


----------



## cdg (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Oh I think probably "the light is on but there is no one home" mentally. I am sure it would not break a real agenda to wear a pair of shorts on entering a town or something. His going naked immediately on leaving prison resulting in immediate re-arrest does not seem to me to be the action of a person who is completely well.
> 
> But as to whether he has some recognisable condition it is less clear, perhaps he is just rather odd


 
Was he under an ASBO when he was arrested? I do wonder if his military background has affected his mental wellbeing?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> In what circumstances? What was the offence?


 

father of three autistic kids, churchgoing man. Production and distribution of. Thats not the name of a proper charge is it?

He was held up though-they racked him sorely. Dead of heart attack six years later because he had a shit ticker.

No idea how or why OB got involved, but he did publish the photos on his church blog.

Will ask ma- regardless the laws can be read in a manner to nick someone like he.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Julia Somerville (new reader) arrested in a relevant case in 1995 - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html

That story gives the impression that the law is pretty badly defined on the subject when applied to family photos.

Not been able to find anything more up-to-date though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 20, 2013)

Kids up to 10 go nuddy on the beach every day from April to October and no one bats an eyelid.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

I forgot to say earlier in response to this:


DotCommunist said:


> _*I don't do likes*_ so I'll just say 'true say'


 
*Snob!  *


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Kids up to 10 go nuddy on the beach every day from April to October and no one bats an eyelid.


That sounds more sensible.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Or maybe that place in Spain (or is it Portugal) where that other guy wanders round naked, but in towns rather than rambling.


 
Do you mean the one from Barcelona? I think it's called Ramblasing


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> Do you mean the one from Barcelona? I think it's called Ramblasing


Not sure. It might be earlier in the thread 

I was drawn here earlier by the disgusted green ink comments from last night tbh. There's only so much intersectionality/anti-intersectionality that's bearable before needing some light relief.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> If he were just wandering around naked in one small town, it'd be different. People would know he was harmless, know where to avoid him and be able to tell their kids "oh, that's just Naked Nobby" and maybe chat about it later, or maybe not, since he'd be just a local eccentric.
> 
> Though I'm not sure he could be persuaded from not wandering naked past the local primary school even then, since his last conviction was for doing just that after the cops offered to give him a lift - naked - past the school then let him out, still naked, and he refused.
> 
> ...


 
I haven't noticed that being a significant part of any reports I've read on this.

Can anyone who's followed this story more closely confirm or refute?


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> I haven't noticed that being a significant part of any reports I've read on this.
> 
> Can anyone who's followed this story more closely confirm or refute?



You're so right. The numbers of people raped and abused is SO low that this man can never have exposed himself to them while wandering the country. And there is no way anyone could ever have been afraid for his wellbeing enough to call the police. The police were alerted by homing beacons.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I once got caught pissing on a church door by the vicar. One of my finer moments.


 
Did you claim it as a political act?


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> You're so right. The numbers of people raped and abused is SO low that this man can never have exposed himself to them while wandering the country. And there is no way anyone could ever have been afraid for his wellbeing enough to call the police. The police were alerted by homing beacons.


 
So that's a "no" then...


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

This thread has it all

Stranger danger
Safe spaces
Unashamed sexual nudity advertising being a lesser evil than an eccentric naked rambler
Jail sentencing
Paedo mania
Religious or other morality
Lone naked rambler more of a threat than mass naked bike rides

There must be a few I've left off the list


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> This thread has it all
> 
> Stranger danger
> Safe spaces
> ...


 
You missed the pun in my post #691


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> You missed the pun in my post #691


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


>


 
Don't know why I bother...


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> Don't know why I bother...


It's like living in Nazi Germany


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> It's like living in Nazi Germany


 
Is it? How?

As it happens, when I was in Berlin about 20 years ago, I was slightly surprised by the relative commonness and apparent acceptance of nakedness in public parks.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> Did you claim it as a political act?


 

Nah, I fucked off sharpish.


----------



## ibilly99 (Jun 20, 2013)

He seems like a harmless inoffensive (apart from his nudity to some) kind of fella - why can't his kids disabuse him of his obsession.


----------



## andysays (Jun 20, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Nah, I fucked off sharpish.


 
No commitment


----------



## scifisam (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> This thread has it all
> 
> Stranger danger
> Safe spaces
> ...



You missed "showing your bits to whoever you like being more important than what they feel about it. Show your bits to a rape victim - that's OK." He's walking about in public so he HAS to be exposing himself to victims of rape, recent ones even. The odds of that not happening are astronomical.

So we take the piss out of that point of view. Even you do. It's really fucking weird. I honestly do not understand it from intelligent people like you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> You missed "showing your bits to whoever you like being more important than what they feel about it. Show your bits to a rape victim - that's OK." He's walking about in public so he HAS to be exposing himself to victims of rape, recent ones even. The odds of that not happening are astronomical.
> 
> So we take the piss out of that point of view. Even you do. It's really fucking weird. I honestly do not understand it from intelligent people like you.


 
So far there have been plenty of reasonable posts arguing why this guy shouldn't be indulged. I've yet to see a single post on here outlining a compelling reason why he should be.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> So far there have been plenty of reasonable posts arguing why this guy shouldn't be indulged. I've yet to see a single post on here outlining a compelling reason why he should be.


 
That's because you've already decided what you think.

I haven't, and have seen reasonable cases on both sides.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Unashamed sexual nudity advertising being a lesser evil than an eccentric naked rambler


 
Why are you drawing this comparison? Has anybody shown one example of equivalent levels of nudity (i.e full frontal) in mainstream advertising?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> I haven't, and have seen reasonable cases on both sides.


 
Quote me one from the Pro-Rambler side.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Has anybody shown one example of equivalent levels of nudity (i.e full frontal) in mainstream advertising?


 
Nope. She's been asked a couple of times now though.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

andysays said:


> Is it? How?
> 
> As it happens, when I was in Berlin about 20 years ago, I was slightly surprised by the relative commonness and apparent acceptance of nakedness in public parks.


It's a standing jokey phrase for perceived oppression. A bit like being told to tidy your bedroom. That sort of thing. 

Yes, I'm aware that there isn't the same level of societal taboo regarding public nudity in Germany and the Scandinavian countries, particularly Finland.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm worried by the "effect on abuse victims" angle tbh.

I *get* it, but there's once again something there about nakedness being equated to sex - or in this case sexual abuse or even rape.  That doesn't feel right...

If people didn't automatically assume that all nakedness was sexual, then would it be an issue for abuse victims?  Or is it *because* people relate nakedness with sex that nakedness also feels related to their abuse?  In societies where public nudity is normal, do abuse victims feel threatened and/or upset by it?  I dunno.  I'm not for one moment telling anyone how they should or shouldn't feel, just relating my gut reaction iykwim.

I don't honestly know what my opinion is on this tbh, so I'm thinking out loud more than anything.  I _want_ it to not be a problem if someone wants to walk around naked, because it's just a willy, labia, bum etc, and _so what_?  I recognise the world isn't always that simple though.  Opinion in the process of evolving.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Quote me one from the Pro-Rambler side.


 
No. You've already categorically stated that you don't find any of them compelling, and I have no interest in having a boring and fruitless argument about them with you.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Combustible said:


> Why are you drawing this comparison? Has anybody shown one example of equivalent levels of nudity (i.e full frontal) in mainstream advertising?


I'm drawing that comparison *now* (note, not earlier, if you'd read the thread; also you've inserted full frontal not me - because it suits you) because there's a prolific level of varying amounts of sexuality- based nudity in mainstream advertising - which I've given examples of - that simply does not attract the same levels of outrage compared to this.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. She's been asked a couple of times now though.


Liar. It's the first time I've directly made that comparison.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> You've already categorically stated that you don't find any of them compelling ....


 
Which do _you_ find compelling?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 20, 2013)

He's got a great beard. I might not even look at his cock.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

scifisam said:


> You missed "showing your bits to whoever you like being more important than what they feel about it. Show your bits to a rape victim - that's OK." He's walking about in public so he HAS to be exposing himself to victims of rape, recent ones even. The odds of that not happening are astronomical.
> 
> So we take the piss out of that point of view. Even you do. It's really fucking weird. I honestly do not understand it from intelligent people like you.


I said stranger danger. Perhaps I should have worded it your way. I'm a rape victim and I don't equate (a) nudity with sexual threat and/or (b) that strangers are the people that are the main perpetrators of rape and sexual abuse. If you've got stats otherwise, I'd be happy to look at them and perhaps revise my view.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Which do _you_ find compelling?


 
The one about not being interested in a boring and fruitless argument.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Liar. It's the first time I've directly made that comparison.


 
I asked you for examples when you sought to bolster the argument being made by Enviro.

So what am I lying about?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I asked you for examples when you sought to bolster the argument being made by Enviro.
> 
> So what am I lying about?


I gave you examples. Then you changed your mind to full frontal.


----------



## Combustible (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I'm drawing that comparison *now* (note, not earlier, if you'd read the thread also you've inserted full frontal not me - because it suits you) because there's a prolific level of varying amounts of sexuality- based nudity in mainstream advertising - which I've given examples of - that simply does not attract the same levels of outrage compared to this.


 
I didn't insert full frontal because it suits me but because that is the comparable level of nudity to that which Gough displays.  The reason why 'Unashamed sexual nudity advertising' is generally considered a lesser evil for most people is that it does not feature full frontal nudity whilst this man has been walking around fully naked. Whether or not there are ads with half naked/partially concealed individuals is irrelevant when full frontal nudity is clearly the societal taboo which the issue in this case. And as far as I can see you didn't give any examples of adverts with comparable levels of nudity.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Combustible said:


> I didn't insert full frontal because it suits me but because that is the comparable level of nudity to that which Gough displays.  The reason why 'Unashamed sexual nudity advertising' is generally considered a lesser evil for most people is that it does not feature full frontal nudity whilst this man has been walking around fully naked. Whether or not there are ads with half naked/partially concealed individuals is irrelevant when full frontal nudity is clearly the societal taboo which the issue in this case. And as far as I can see you didn't give any examples of adverts with comparable levels of nudity.


I gave examples of mainstream brands that are well known for their use of sexual-based nudity that sells their products and that also project the idealistic body. It's relevant because of the disconnect between what is perceived as taboo plus the importance we comparatively attach to the impact of advertising compared to lone examples of eccentricity where the adverse impact - if any - can be easily managed. Societal taboo in this case is clearly a matter of opinion as our society allows naked public mass bike rides.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 20, 2013)

Dillinger4 said:


> meatus. well you learn something new everyday.


 Might come up in the church quiz?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> I gave you examples. Then you changed your mind to full frontal.


 
No.

Enviro equated nudity in advertising with a bloke that's wandering around the country constantly exposed.

I challenged that, and you gave examples didn't cut the mustard, so I asked you draw an equivalence. Which you haven't.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> No.
> 
> Enviro equated nudity in advertising with a bloke that's wandering around the country constantly exposed.
> 
> I challenged that, and you gave examples didn't cut the mustard, so I asked you draw an equivalence. Which you haven't.


They cut the mustard for your original question. You then changed your question. So if you want to complain that I didn't answer your revised question - by all means do so. But don't fucking misrepresent what's a matter of record earlier in the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> They cut the mustard for your original question.


 
Cobblers.

You don't even seem to understand what the original question was.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Cobblers.
> 
> You don't even seem to understand what the original question was.


Mandy Rice-Davies.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 20, 2013)

Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Mandy Rice-Davies.


 
WTF are you on about?


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> WTF are you on about?


lMFGTY


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.


Well, a good compromise for that would be to insist that he stays in the countryside and away from inhabitation. Then the only thing he'd spoil would be Spymaster's aim.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

I'm gonna make a spliff. See if you make any sense when I'm stoned.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Well, a good compromise for that would be to insist that he stays in the countryside and away from inhabitation. Then the only thing he'd spoil would be Spymaster's aim.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I'm gonna make a spliff. See if you make any sense when I'm stoned.


I doubt it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Me too but I'm going to give it a go.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Me too but I'm going to give it a go.


Looking forward to stoned version of macho green ink, although I don't suppose you'll attain the entertaining levels of last night's apoplexy.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> lMFGTY



Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

Well I was stoned last night too.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Has he ever explained his position, perhaps on a website or in an interview or something.
> 
> Since I have been aware of him I have yet to learn why, really why, he is doing this.


 
Coz he's a nob who's hiding from himself and whatever unresolved issues he's got.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Looking forward to stoned version of macho green ink, although I don't suppose you'll attain the entertaining levels of last night's apoplexy.


 
 Which bits specifically?


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.


 
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what's your rational justification for that?

_Holby City_ causes varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to people that have had friends or relatives die or be seriously injured/ill in hospital.  I personally found it really upsetting when I accidentally caught part of it around the time my wife had suffered a massive brain aneurysm.  I don't think it should be banned though.

So I'm not convinced that causing offence etc is a justification on its own.

What differentiates Gough's nakedness from Holby City?

None of the above is rhetorical argument btw.  In case you missed my previous, my opinion is very much up in the air on this.


----------



## cesare (Jun 20, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Which bits specifically?


I think it was CR's depiction of people that weren't particularly offended plus critical of the jail time; as far right fascists that had me rolling around in laughter.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what's your rational justification for that?
> 
> _Holby City_ causes varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to people that have had friends or relatives die or be seriously injured/ill in hospital. I personally found it really upsetting when I accidentally caught part of it around the time my wife had suffered a massive brain aneurysm. I don't think it should be banned though.
> 
> ...


 
No one's making you watch Holby City (thank fuck), but if you're just mooching about and happen to cross paths with Gough then, why aye, it's one in the eye. Whether you like it or not.

The guy's a clown who needs to sort his napper out, we've had 25 pages of sensible heads stating that it's his arrogance in forcing his nudity on others rather than his nudity  _per se_ that's the problem, but people still seem to want to make it into an argument about prudishness and hang ups about the human body. Which it patently isn't.


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> No one's making you watch Holby City (thank fuck), but if you're just mooching about and happen to cross paths with Gough then, why aye, it's one in the eye. Whether you like it or not.


 
How is mooching about different to channel-surfing?

ETA: Your post sound a *bit* similar to the police's argument


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.


 
But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's natural bodies?


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's bodies?


 
Indeed it is. That's why I said 'shit but true'. In an ideal world things would be different, but that's a whole separate thread


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> *How is mooching about different to channel-surfing?*
> 
> ETA: Your post sound a *bit* similar to the police's argument


 
Coz by the very act of switching on the telly you're choosing to view whatever's on there - You can have a squizz through TV Quick and, if there's anything on there that you might not be down with, you can avoid that channel. No such avoidance mechanism exists when old in-the-buff-Gough's out making his rounds. Surely you can see the difference?

And in response to your edit - Dibble's on my side - Now there's novel


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

twentythreedom said:


> Indeed it is. That's why I said 'shit but true'. In an ideal world things would be different, but that's a whole separate thread


 
I don't have a great body image, I can't see myself revealing my white translucent body in even as much as speedos or shorts in public (could be a new thread in that) let alone walking Britain nude like this guy!

But it interests me, many nudists are not exactly totally body beautiful themselves, there are plenty old and wrinkled bodies in nudist camps (I saw somewhere anyhow!) but despite not being exactly Charles Atlas they are confident enough to mingle in the buff with just anyone that might pass by.

What have they got that mr & mrs hide behind the twitching net curtains don't have?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's natural bodies?


 
Most of us aren't ashamed or alarmed though - Objection for the most part stems from the aesthetic.

And imagine how dour and po faced the world would be if nakedness wasn't a thing to be pointed and sniggered at.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I don't have a great body image, I can't see myself revealing my white translucent body in even as much as speedos or shorts in public (could be a new thread in that) let alone walking Britain nude like this guy!
> 
> But it interests me, many nudists are not exactly totally body beautiful themselves, there are plenty old and wrinkled bodies in nudist camps (I saw somewhere anyhow!) but despite not being exactly Charles Atlas they are confident enough to mingle in the buff with just anyone that might pass by.
> 
> *What have they got that mr & mrs hide behind the twitching net curtains don't have?*


 
Mr & Mrs behind the net curtains have a bit of self awareness and a sense of the ridiculous that's completely lacking in the joyless and just generally thick-as-shit nudists.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Mr & Mrs behind the net curtains have a bit of self awareness and a sense of the ridiculous that's completely lacking in the joyless and just generally thick-as-shit nudists.


 
Don't you think they, "Mr & Mrs behind the net curtains", might occasionally fantasise about stripping off into their underwear and dancing wildly in the street outside their homes during a pelting warm summer skin soaking rainstorm?


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> i cant beleieve this arsehole is still intent on showing everyne his arsehole
> 
> he should catch a flippin grip the eejit


Most people's arseholes aren't on display unless they go to some trouble to do so. I think you may need a brief lesson in anatomy - that's probably his belly button you're looking at


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Coz by the very act of switching on the telly you're choosing to view whatever's on there - You can have a squizz through TV Quick and, if there's anything on there that you might not be down with, you can avoid that channel. No such avoidance mechanism exists when old in-the-buff-Gough's out making his rounds. Surely you can see the difference?


That's not 'normal' behaviour though - screening the Radio Times to ensure we don't stumble across (pre-watershed) content that may have an upsetting effect on us due to personal experience. So in reality you're no more "choosing to view" it than you're choosing to see Gough naked by choosing to go outside rather than remain indoors.


Frances Lengel said:


> And in response to your edit - Dibble's on my side - Now there's novel


Lol. 

The argument they're putting to excuse one but not the other is spurious to say the least though isn't it?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Don't you think they, "Mr & Mrs behind the net curtains", might occasionally fantasise about stripping off into their underwear and dancing wildly in the street outside their homes during a pelting warm summer skin soaking rainstorm?


 
Quite possibly, but fantasies are best kept in the realm of fantasy. Coz, one way or another, making it a reality will likely cause problems or, at the very least, disappoint. And probably result in catching your death of cold.

A fact which the (entirely fictitious) Mr & Mrs behind the nets understand instinctively.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> That's not 'normal' behaviour though - screening the Radio Times to ensure we don't stumble across (pre-watershed) content that may have an upsetting effect on us due to personal experience. So in reality you're no more "choosing to view" it than you're choosing to see Gough naked by choosing to go outside rather than remain indoors.
> 
> Lol.
> 
> *The argument they're putting to excuse one but not the other is spurious to say the least though isn't it?*


 
Undoubtedly. And I'm not down with that naked bike ride either. But you're right, it shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another.

But I would argue that looking in a TV guide to plan your nights viewing is fairly normal. And yeah, I do choose the telly I watch.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> it appears from that post alone youve got obvious hang ups about it yourself . Otherwise you wouldnt have to get fucked up on horse tranquilisers first and you wouldnt be annoyed about your neighbours taking pictures either.


Diagnosis on the internet. Don't do it, folks - it's usually crap, and it always looks bad.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Quite possibly, but fantasies are best kept in the realm of fantasy. Coz, one way or another, making it a reality will likely cause problems or, at the very least, disappoint. And probably result in catching your death of cold.<snip>


 
You probably have a point there but once in a while reality lives up to the anticipated fantasy and is well worth the sand in your crack, catching a cold etc.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Greebo said:


> You probably have a point there but once in a while reality lives up to the anticipated fantasy and is well worth the sand in your crack, catching a cold etc.


 
I'll take your word for that - I'm still sitting on a doughnut-cushion after that time in the bogs on the trans euro express though.


----------



## Greebo (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> I'll take your word for that - I'm still sitting on a doughnut-cushion after that time in the bogs on the trans euro express though.


 
Fair enough, but you'll be more likely to die wondering - your choice. *shrug*


----------



## Corax (Jun 20, 2013)

existentialist said:
			
		

> Diagnosis on the internet. Don't do it, folks - it's usually crap, and it always looks bad.



This is probably crap, and possibly looks bad - but I admit I've wondered about PTSD in Gough's case...?

Note: "wondered"


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> This is probably crap, and possibly looks bad - but I admit I've wondered about PTSD in Gough's case...?
> 
> Note: "wondered"


I have wondered if there may be something wrong, but what he is doing is just outside my limited experience of the variety of mental health issues.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

Corax said:


> This is probably crap, and possibly looks bad - but I admit I've wondered about PTSD in Gough's case...?
> 
> Note: "wondered"


 
There's clearly sumat wrong with him - Dunno about PTSD though, could be, from his forces days, could be somethin else. But the fact that he'd _rather_ keep going in an out of prison and walk up and down the country with nowt on instead of being there for his Mrs and _his kids ffs_ tells you loud and clear all's not right with the guy.


----------



## existentialist (Jun 20, 2013)

DaRealSpoon said:


> Humans have been wearing clothes for 170,000 years... I reckon in alot of situations/circumstances our 'natural state of being' has evolved to be clothed more often than not


Evolution doesn't work that fast. Our societal norms may have "evolved", but we haven't. Though most of us would probably be dead if we dispensed with clothing altogether (see what I did there? )


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

> Humans have been wearing clothes for 170,000 years...


 
Is there any evidence for that?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Is there any evidence for that?


 
Yeah, that's how long since yer mam last changed her smalls.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> There's clearly sumat wrong with him - Dunno about PTSD though, could be, from his forces days, could be somethin else. But the fact that he'd _rather_ keep going in an out of prison and walk up and down the country with nowt on instead of being there for his Mrs and _his kids ffs_ tells you loud and clear all's not right with the guy.


 To be honest that's my problem with him - his choices.  I'd rather it was something really important that you went into pacificist-Bronson mode over, that you abandoned your life over, that you kept on doing to the detriment of your health.  His choice of course and as I've said, as I'm sure everyone agrees, the police/court reaction is the _real_ problem.  However he's the one who thinks it's so important that it over-rides the interests of those who might not want to see his winky.  For whatever reason, be it mental health or bloody mindedness, it's a good(ish) point made badly or, more accurately, made for too long in an obsessive way.  Best reaction is to leave him alone, but he could make that a bit easier.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Yeah, that's how long since yer mam last changed her smalls.


Sorry to put a damper on things but my mam is 6ft underground, she don't change naught anymore!


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Sorry to put a damper on things but my mam is 6ft underground, she don't change naught anymore!


 
Soz.


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 20, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Evolution doesn't work that fast. Our societal norms may have "evolved", but we haven't. Though most of us would probably be dead if we dispensed with clothing altogether (see what I did there? )


 
Actually, it can do... but in this case, yes- it is probably more a case of phenotypic adaptation rather than evolution. You could argue that the evolution of Hominidae, culminating in Homo sapiens, our gradual loss of body hair, use of tools (in this case clothes) has led us to our current 'natural state' being one of a clothed form.. Which was what I was getting at.



weltweit said:


> Is there any evidence for that?


 
Yes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982204009856?np=y


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

DaRealSpoon said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982204009856?np=y


 
Does the origin of body lice correlate with clothing?

Do naked people not get lice?


----------



## DaRealSpoon (Jun 20, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Does the origin of body lice correlate with clothing?
> 
> Do naked people not get lice?


 
Have you read that paper? 

What they are saying is that body lice, which is a distinctly different sub species to head lice.. Evolved with the advent of clothing in one form or another



> the origin of body lice reflects the origin of clothing; it is possible that clothing existed for some time before lice exploited this new ecological niche, in which case the origin of clothing could be much more ancient than the origin of body lice...
> 
> clothing may have allowed early modern humans to colonize more extreme latitudes than their archaic predecessors, and hence might have been a factor in the successful spread of modern humans out of Africa.


 
Thats just one paper but there is a loads of evidence highlighting that humans have been wearing clothing for between 100-200,000 years







Hold on a minute... If body lice only evolved because we started wearing clothes thousands of years ago, maybe we should all go back to being naked! 

Shiiiiiit


----------



## ChrisD (Jun 20, 2013)

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Wom...tory-19341863-detail/story.html#axzz2Wm6nkwBg

Seems that some people get offended by costumes of genitalia !


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 20, 2013)

cesare said:


> Yes, I'm aware that there isn't the same level of societal taboo regarding public nudity in Germany and the Scandinavian countries, particularly Finland.


 
Much to my immature satisfaction on holiday in Majorca when I was 14.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 20, 2013)

In Florida years ago with my then Spanish girlfriend, she accosted a policeman about going topless on the beach which she explained to him she did all the time in Spain. The policeman reacted as if she had been snorting cocaine in front of him or something .. he was simply outraged!


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 21, 2013)

existentialist said:


> Most people's arseholes aren't on display unless they go to some trouble to do so. I think you may need a brief lesson in anatomy - that's probably his belly button you're looking at


 
he was on telly once climbing up a lamp post, that took some trouble and there was anus and balls everywhere . It was a sphincter/scrotum holocaust

i refuse to look, any sign of him on any media and i put my hands over my eyes. Hes then rendered incapable of assaulting me visually with either his genitals or anus. The immodest git .


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2013)

Frances Lengel said:


> Undoubtedly. And I'm not down with that naked bike ride either. But you're right, it shouldn't be one rule for one and one rule for another.


 
Forty of those naked cyclists were rubbing their ringpieces, scrotums, and fannies on the saddles of Boris Bikes too.


----------



## andysays (Jun 21, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> Forty of those naked cyclists were rubbing their ringpieces, scrotums, and fannies on the saddles of Boris Bikes too.


 
Not a total waste of time then


----------



## brogdale (Jun 21, 2013)

andysays said:


> Not a total waste of time then


 
You keen on snurging, then?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2013)

Casually Red said:


> he was on telly once climbing up a lamp post ....


 
Should've lit a fire at the bottom. That'll learn him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 21, 2013)

brogdale said:


> ... snurging ...


 
I just looked that up. There's actually a word for it now!


----------



## andysays (Jun 21, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I just looked that up. There's actually a word for it now!


 
Yeah, I also had to look it up. Interesting that brogdale apparently knew the word already...

I was attempting to allude to the fact that potential riders of the said "Boris Bikes" might perhaps be put off as a result of not knowing quite what they were sitting on.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 21, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> I just looked that up. There's actually a word for it now!


I've learned quite a few new words on this thread.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 6, 2014)

16 months in jail

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/06/naked-rambler-jailed-16-months-breaching-asbo


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> 16 months in jail
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/06/naked-rambler-jailed-16-months-breaching-asbo


 
He's obviously going to keep doing this.  I do wonder whether there is any real benefit to society or public finances by keeping him in jail for most of the rest of his life.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 6, 2014)

8ball said:


> He's obviously going to keep doing this.  I do wonder whether there is any real benefit to society or public finances by keeping him in jail for most of the rest of his life.



Couldn't he be exiled to California? He would be fine in Venice or some such place.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> Couldn't he be exiled to California? He would be fine in Venice or some such place.


 
I don't think that works unless they want him there.  Could swap him for the Unabomber, I s'pose.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 6, 2014)

8ball said:


> I don't think that works unless they want him there.  Could swap him for the Unabomber, I s'pose.



Yes, I was imagining a black bag operation where he's bundled into a van, sedated, whisked to a military airfield and dropped off on the beach by frogmen.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2014)

if it becomes clear that a man will simply not wear his clothes despite all pressure brought to bear on him both legal or social then surely its time to just allow him. He's not stroking an engorged member next to a playground. He just wants to be naked- IN SCOTLAND. Let the elements deal with him, for legal procedures just seem too much. Ball Riot


----------



## elbows (Jan 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if it becomes clear that a man will simply not wear his clothes despite all pressure brought to bear on him both legal or social then surely its time to just allow him. He's not stroking an engorged member next to a playground. He just wants to be naked- IN SCOTLAND. Let the elements deal with him, for legal procedures just seem too much. Ball Riot



He has been back in england since october 2012.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 6, 2014)

I suppose we / he should be thankful that plod aren't restraining him and force-dressing him. Dunno... They force-feed people, why not force-dress someone?

It's all a bit weird tbh. He's harming no one, but he can't expect to walk around swinging his bellend and clackers without upsetting some hard-working families.

I feel sorry for him, but then he's just being a dick.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 6, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> if it becomes clear that a man will simply not wear his clothes despite all pressure brought to bear on him both legal or social then surely its time to just allow him. He's not stroking an engorged member next to a playground. He just wants to be naked- IN SCOTLAND. Let the elements deal with him...


 


Thing is, the State will never back down without overwhelming force from the other side.  What he needs is a nuke.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 6, 2014)

8ball said:


> Thing is, the State will never back down without overwhelming force from the other side.  What he needs is a nuke.



no, just a pair of keks and a boot in the hole

Is this eejit still at it ?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 6, 2014)

What he needs is to adopt an IRA style strategy of disrupting major financial centres, only he'll have to do it using only his unclothed body which while annoying does not have the clout of plastic explosives.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 7, 2014)

Presumably he can't strut around starkers in jail? Would kind of defeat the object of his principled stand.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Presumably he can't strut around starkers in jail? Would kind of defeat the object of his principled stand.



read the thread bruv, they keep him on the beast wing cos he refuses to wear even his prison issue clothing. He is hardcore


----------



## pogofish (Jan 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> What he needs is to adopt an IRA style strategy of disrupting major financial centres, only he'll have to do it using only his unclothed body which while annoying does not have the clout of plastic explosives.



That is more or less what he was doing when I first heard of the guy, years back - Pitching-up naked at demos in London's financial district and sometimes demoing naked on his own IIRC the very first time I noticed him, he was chained up a lamp post, naked.  The Police made a big thing of covering his bits before cutting the chain and hauling him down!


----------



## pogofish (Jan 7, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Presumably he can't strut around starkers in jail? Would kind of defeat the object of his principled stand.



That's just what he did when he was in Perth Prison and the reason he served his entire sentence there - no early release.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> That is more or less what he was doing when I first heard of the guy, years back - Pitching-up naked at demos in London's financial district and sometimes demoing naked on his own.


 
How did that work?

"What do I want? NO CLOTHES?  When do I want them?  Oh, I'm not wearing any..."


----------



## pogofish (Jan 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> How did that work?
> 
> "What do I want? NO CLOTHES?  When do I want them?  Oh, I'm not wearing any..."



I think it was more of holding a "feeedom to go naked" placard and speeching once he stripped-off.  Back then, he would arrive clothed and unobtrusive, then quickly strip and climb-up somewhere prominent to get his message out.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> What he needs is to adopt an IRA style strategy of disrupting major financial centres, only he'll have to do it using only his unclothed body which while annoying does not have the clout of plastic explosives.



not a bollock not an ounce


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> That's just what he did when he was in Perth Prison.


There must be rules he'd be breaking, presumably earning punishment? 

Maybe they'd handcuff him and put a sock on his wanger before an appearance before the Governor


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

there are much better and sounder principles to be going to jail for . This is completely irrational extreme individualism, utterly selfish .


----------



## pogofish (Jan 7, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> There must be rules he'd be breaking, presumably earning punishment?
> 
> Maybe they'd handcuff him and put a sock on his wanger before an appearance before the Governor



I think that was why he was denied the usual early release for non-violent prisoners in Scotland and they just left it at that.  The management at Perth seemed unwilling to get into a battle of wills with him - The result could only be an incessant round of extra punishment sentencing that would only prolong/complicate matters.  They just wanted shot of him.

I would not want to be that sock-wielding officer!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

this geezers meat and veg must be some really unholy terror of a sight to justify all these nickings. 


He must have the worlds most offensive penis. The only other reason would be that hard and inflexible (stop it) authorities just can't handle the balls


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm surprise it hasn't shrivelled up beyond all recognition the cold he must have endured.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> I'm surprise it hasn't shrivelled up beyond all recognition the cold he must have endured.



his wizened stones are clearly made of sterner stuff than us mere mortals. I salute you naked rambler.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

We seem to be a society devoid of humour.   my guess is that many of those responsible for punishing this man for his 'crimes' are small minded repressed and nasty god botherers who see their role as being one of protecting the public from the sin of observing the naked human form -   at the same time as spending hours wanking over the naked human forms that they invite onto their laptops.

Personally i would lack the courage to be seen naked in public, so i sneakily admire this man's hilarious and strange stance against authority.

Maybe someone should suggest a compromise, ie, that he gets his lower body covered in fashionable tattoos (which seems to have the effect of creating the illusion of someone fully clothed even if they are not) as a way of avoiding endless and ridiculous prison sentences.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

would any one on here call he police and complain if they saw him walking down the road, booted and backpacked?


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> We seem to be a society devoid of humour...



i disagree - the evidence suggests that the Police/courts in England go out of their way to _not_ prosecute/convict him, they repeatedly ask him for a little bit of flexibility (oo-er missus..) in his stance but he gives them nothing, they give him chance after chance to make potential prosecutions/convictions go away if only he'd put clothes on for 10 minutes and then go about his business, but he won't.

i admire his strength of charactor, and i think he has a point with regards to public nudity - but he's a fool because he's been trying the same tactic for a dogs age and its not working, but he won't change tack. theres little admirable in foolishness.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

You seem to be saying that the 'authorities' have no alternative other than continuing to punish this curious man kebabking.  In fact they do, and they could decide that there is no public interest in wasting resource on punishing someone who has developed an inconvenient mindset.

Leave the bloke alone would be the best policy response - relax, and learn to celebrate diversity and eccentricity.


----------



## kebabking (Jan 7, 2014)

even when the law is an ass, and i think it is, he _flouts_ the law. the law is either the law or its not, and he gives the authorities little choice but to implement the law when, if he was a bit cleverer about it, they'd happily ignore him.

would i call the police if i saw him - bollocks, boots and rucksack - walk down my street? no, i wouldn't, but i'd rather he kept his _au naturel_ in the, err... au naturel.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 7, 2014)

He's changing nowt, his obssesion, bordering on mental illness isn't achieving anything other than giving him somewhere warm to kip and three meals a day.

If his plan is publicity through noteriety people are getting bored of him. Like kebabking pointed out, if he shook up his "Tactics" he may change public perception of what he is doing and get some support.

But he is basically a fucking idiot/a broken rcord


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

why don't we just all pretend he isn't naked, that way nobody needs to get offended and he won't get nicked. Untill a small kid breaks the consensual mass delusion and says 'Look mummy that mans got no clothes!'


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Lots of laws are flouted everyday.  The law isn't applied equal handedly and at all times, far from it.  Judgements are made by those within the judicial process about when to prosecute and when not to.  Often blind eyes are turned - consider tax avoidance amongst the wealthy for example.

Real human beings are making interconnected decisions about whether its appropriate or not to prosecute this naked rambling man for very trivial matters.  i would prefer that they stop being so dogmatically inclined to persecute him and instead focus public attention upon real criminals who violate against society.  Why isn't Blair (among others) before the courts for war crimes for example - were his crimes invisible?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> would any one on here call he police and complain if they saw him walking down the road, booted and backpacked?



It would depend where he was.

The thing is there are a fucking lot of people who _don't_ want to see this geezer walking around their towns and cities starkers. Why do his wishes trump theirs?

Whilst the hip and right-on folk of Urban may consider him to be an eccentric oddity, others may be genuinely alarmed or offended. I'd be extremely pissed off if he were traipsing around/near schools for example.

I couldn't give a fuck if he wants to wander naked through country fields, we can leave that up to the farmers and their dogs, but he's been told time and time again to put some gear on in certain situations and he refuses. This cunt has no message that I'm aware of beyond sticking two fingers up to authority and shouting a hearty "fuck you" with regards to the feelings of those he forces to see him in the buff.

He's fucking idiot.


----------



## youngian (Jan 7, 2014)

kebabking said:


> i disagree - the evidence suggests that the Police/courts in England go out of their way to _not_ prosecute/convict him, they repeatedly ask him for a little bit of flexibility (oo-er missus..) in his stance but he gives them nothing, they give him chance after chance to make potential prosecutions/convictions go away if only he'd put clothes on for 10 minutes and then go about his business, but he won't.
> 
> i admire his strength of charactor, and i think he has a point with regards to public nudity - but he's a fool because he's been trying the same tactic for a dogs age and its not working, but he won't change tack. theres little admirable in foolishness.



Indeed, he's gone to jail for contempt of court rather than the nudity offence. This man has failed to attract a single follower to start a social movement of mass naked rambling so that should tell him something. He's not a man who has shown much desire to reach a social compromise on the issue either.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> We seem to be a society devoid of humour.



Yeah, cos he's fucking hilarious.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Lots of laws are flouted everyday.  The law isn't applied equal handedly and at all times, far from it.  Judgements are made by those within the judicial process about when to prosecute and when not to.  Often blind eyes are turned - consider tax avoidance amongst the wealthy for example.



This is a stupid, reductive argument which if extrapolated would see practically none but the worst crimes prosecuted. The fact is that hundreds of people have complained about this dickhead. There were over 30 formal complaints in Hampshire alone which led to the asbo that he's just been jailed for breaching. Should the authorities ignore these complaints from the public? If so, why?


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

a vocal minority of people who are terrified of their bodies probably should just stay at home reading their dailymails.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> a vocal minority of people who are terrified of their bodies probably should just stay at home reading their dailymails.



How do you know that's who they are?

How do you know that they aren't just older people who don't see things the way that you do, or people who've been sexually abused, or intimidated by men, or have cultural beliefs that are offended by public nudity, or folk who simply want to control for themselves how their children are introduced to nakedness?  

For that matter, how do you know it's a "vocal minority" that take offence?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> a vocal minority of people who are terrified of their bodies probably should just stay at home reading their dailymails.



Particularly in Hampshire it seems..


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Particularly in Hampshire it seems..



Scotland's where he's done the most time.

Personally I don't think anything else needs to be done with the bloke unless it's decided that he should be sectioned.
Let the cycle continue. Release him, then bust him when he takes his gear off outside the jail and throw him back inside for another year. It's not like it's costing a fortune in policing or court time.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

The youtube video above shows a naked man receiving a pasting from a few males who appear to be offended by a combination of nudity and car top dancing.  i found it quite instructive, and it reminded me of just how rapidly lynchmob mentality can gather pace in certain circumstances.

Some seem to believe that the naked rambler is seeking to spearhead a mass movement for nakedity - but this isn't clear to me.  More likely that he's a harmless unfortunate (lacking any insight into accepted social mores).  

But the idea that imprisonment fits the 'crime' is just laughable.   There are more important matters to become irate about.  People failing to clear up their dogshit for example.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> How do you know that's who they are?
> 
> How do you know that they aren't just older people who don't see things the way that you do, or people who've been sexually abused, or intimidated by men, or have cultural beliefs that are offended by public nudity, or folk who simply want to control for themselves how their children are introduced to nakedness?
> 
> For that matter, how do you know it's a "vocal minority" that take offence?


You can always find some people to be offended by something. Trying to cater for this is pointless.
You have to accept that you are owed no special shield from being offended. Why should the rest of the world care if you are offended. So what? I am offended by one of my neighbours awful hats. I'm not crying and asking anyone to do anything about it. I would be if he was wearing aweful hats and wanking in the post office, but I don't think he is.

And I said "minority" from the small number of complaint the police get from having spent the last decade rambling about naked.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> But the idea that imprisonment fits the 'crime' is just laughable.



No it's not. This is about more than the nudity issue. It's about contempt of court and breaching asbo's. 

Gough has given the authorities no choice _but_ to jail him. He's the one being unreasonable, nobody else.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> You can always find some people to be offended by something. Trying to cater for this is pointless.
> You have to accept that you are owed no special shield from being offended. Why should the rest of the world care if you are offended. So what? I am offended by one of my neighbours awful hats. I'm not crying and asking anyone to do anything about it. I would be if he was wearing aweful hats and wanking in the post office, but I don't think he is.



It's not just offensive though is it? You've conveniently avoided the examples I gave where folk could be genuinely alarmed or intimidated. 



> And I said "minority" from the small number of complaint the police get from having spent the last decade rambling about naked.



The number of complaints is not the number of people that don't want it happening.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

i'd be happy to see people thrown in prison for smoking outside public buildings, shops and pubs and the like.  But, i imagine this is a minority view, so  i shrug and accept that loads of people will offend me with their activities on a daily basis.  

There ought to be a mass shrug about the naked rambler, not shrill calls for persecution and klink.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Some seem to believe that the naked rambler is seeking to spearhead a mass movement for nakedity - but this isn't clear to me.  More likely that he's a harmless unfortunate (lacking any insight into accepted social mores).



I think its a bit more complicated then that, I believe he is an ex soldier so at one point understood what is expected of him.  I agree his 'protest' appears to be an individual act with no desire to start any sort of mass movement, but frankly he comes across as damaged quite badly.



> But the idea that imprisonment fits the 'crime' is just laughable.   There are more important matters to become irate about.  People failing to clear up their dogshit for example.



It was said further up the thread that the crime in this case was contempt of court which is taken very seriously and if found guilt you should always expect a jail sentence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i'd be happy to see people thrown in prison for smoking outside public buildings, shops and pubs and the like.



Again you miss the point.

There is no law against smoking outside public buildings and the people doing it haven't been issued orders to stop and aren't in contempt or court.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> There ought to be a mass shrug about the naked rambler, not shrill calls for persecution and klink.



I suspect you'd be hard pushed to find a single shrill call and klink as you put it.  I think mostly people just want him to put some shreddies on and I suspect the courts would be happy if they never saw him again.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's not just offensive though is it? You've conveniently avoided the examples I gave where folk could be genuinely alarmed or intimidated.


I would say that its their own problem to deal with, and they shouldn't expect other people to tip toe round them.
My point is that there isn't anything wrong with nudity. And anyone who has a problem with it needs to deal with that themselves, rather than expecting the world to revolve around them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> My point is that there isn't anything wrong with nudity.



This isn't just nudity though. It's public nudity bordering exhibitionism, the flouting of ASBO's and being in contempt of court!



> And anyone who has a problem with it needs to deal with that themselves ....



No they don't. The law is on their side and Gough will continue to get busted unless and until he changes his behaviour.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

i wouldn't dispute at all that this man may be quite damaged Teaboy.  

But isn't it quite sad to think that the only way of dealing with damaged humans is to further inflict them with prison sentences?  Maybe treatment and kindness fit the bill?  Someone prepared to go to prison for contempt when the original charges were pretty trivial don't seem to have much of a grasp of what being part of a society involves, and imprisonment is unlikely to 'reform' their difficult behaviour?


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This isn't just nudity though. It's public nudity bordering exhibitionism, the flouting of ASBO's and being in contempt of court!


You are demented if you think this is exhibitionism. 


> No they don't. The law is on their side and Gough will continue to get busted unless and until he changes his behaviour.


It shouldn't be


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Maybe treatment and kindness fit the bill?



This has been tried. 

He cannot be treated against his will without being sectioned, and he has refused to be mentally assessed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> It shouldn't be



I disagree.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

what if he just grew his pubes out so the bush hides the offending cock and balls? a compromise surely?


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

I'd love to be able to pop out to the shops without having to bother getting dressed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> You are demented if you think this is exhibitionism.



Not at all. His behaviour fits all aspects of exhibitionism except perhaps the sexual gratification bit. Hence "bordering".


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i wouldn't dispute at all that this man may be quite damaged Teaboy.
> 
> But isn't it quite sad to think that the only way of dealing with damaged humans is to further inflict them with prison sentences?  Maybe treatment and kindness fit the bill?  Someone prepared to go to prison for contempt when the original charges were pretty trivial don't seem to have much of a grasp of what being part of a society involves, and imprisonment is unlikely to 'reform' their difficult behaviour?



I wouldn't disagree with any of that and prison is clearly not the right place for him.  I don't know whether the appropriate support is there for him, but it seems that he doesn't want support, he wants to walk around the country naked which rightly or wrongly is illegal. 

Its just a sad story really, maybe he likes prison?  I doubt it though, he's just wasting his life really.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

So, slam him up repeatedly Spymaster, but don't be surprised when his behaviour does not change.  Prison creates criminals and further damages the damaged.  The man is probably not reformable.

What then are we left with?

Execution?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Maybe they should tattoo some kecks on him.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

I feel for the bloke.People should just ignore his bare bollocks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> So, slam him up repeatedly Spymaster...



Yes, of course. The alternative is to allow him to do what he's doing.

He's been offered help, he's been told to desist. What more is there besides letting him break the law?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, of course. The alternative is to allow him to do what he's doing.
> 
> He's been offered help, he's been told to desist. What more is there besides letting him break the law?


Change the law.


----------



## malatesta32 (Jan 7, 2014)

put yr pants on man.
manifesto:


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Change the law.



To allow the breaching of asbos and contempt of court? 

Can't see it myself.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> To allow the breaching of asbos and contempt of court?
> 
> Can't see it myself.


Neither can I but it would still be the right thing to do.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

well asbos can fuck of for starters, they basically mean a specific law invented just for one individual and as such are a damn sight away from lady justice


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Neither can I but it would still be the right thing to do.



Well clearly I disagree.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

i'm for an ignore response to the naked man Spymaster.

i don't care to elevate 'the law' into the lofty area of humanities finest achievements, as though there is an obligation on all to regard 'the law' as something hallowed and worthy of worship.  It isn't.  The judicial system isn't properly accountable to the public, only to a small section of it, mainly those who sit at the very pinnacle of the establishment.

i'd have a different attitude to a judiciary (and process) that was accountable to all society, and where regular elections ensured that accountability wasn't class biased and dominated by privilege.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Neither can I but it would still be the right thing to do.


 
I think if there was a way to ignore him without creating any iffy legal precedents that might come back to bite us, the authorities might be more up for that course of action.  It's not like no compromises have been suggested.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think if there was a way to ignore him without creating any iffy legal precedents that might come back to bite us, the authorities might be more up for that course of action.  It's not like no compromises have been suggested.


What possible compromise is there? He is either naked or clothed?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> i don't care to elevate 'the law' into the lofty area of humanities finest achievements, as though there is an obligation on all to regard 'the law' as something hallowed and worthy of worship.  It isn't.  The judicial system isn't properly accountable to the public, only to a small section of it, mainly those who sit at the very pinnacle of the establishment.
> 
> i'd have a different attitude to a judiciary (and process) that was accountable to all society, and where regular elections ensured that accountability wasn't class biased and dominated by privilege.



Well you can stand on that soapbox for as long as you like and it's probably the subject of another thread, but at the end of the day law is necessary. Ours isn't perfect but it's as good as most and better than many. If you want to try to change it go right ahead. 

In the meantime ...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> What possible compromise is there? He is either naked or clothed?


 
In which case there is no issue at all since he is wearing boots.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well you can stand on that soapbox for as long as you like and it's probably the subject of another thread, but at the end of the day law is necessary. Ours isn't perfect but it's as good as most and better than many. If you want to try to change it go right ahead.
> 
> In the meantime ...


Lots of our laws are not necessary at all.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Lots of our laws are not necessary at all.


 
And lots of lawyers are not necessary at all (corporate lawyers, I may or may not be looking at you).  We could create a whole forum with arguments about why the law is asinine, but in terms of where we are at the moment, the simplest humane responses to dealing with him are liable to create precedents which may be abused later.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Lots of our laws are not necessary at all.



Many aren't. But which are and which aren't is subjective.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Laws making people cover their genitals are as ridiculous as a law that makes women cover their heads or forces men to have beards. People should learn to be more tolerant and raise their children to be more tolerant.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Many aren't. But which are and which aren't is subjective.


I am right and you are wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> I am right and you are wrong.



Ah, ok. 

You should've said so earlier!


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, ok.
> 
> You should've said so earlier!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

you'd think an old soldier would know to gird his loins


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I'd love to be able to pop out to the shops without having to bother getting dressed.


I'm not sure I'd want people flopping their meat all over the fresh produce in the supermarket.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

If i'd been wondering around the town naked few would have eyesight acute enough to have noticed the offending member

i'd have been 'let off' with a sympathetic smile for failing to disturb the peace..

Not that i suffer from any sort of envy you understand.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm not sure I'd want people flopping their meat all over the fresh produce in the supermarket.


 
That's why you are instructed to wash your fruit and veg.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm not sure I'd want people flopping their meat all over the fresh produce in the supermarket.


 (((((Salad bars)))))


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 7, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm not sure I'd want people flopping their meat all over the fresh produce in the supermarket.


Some sort of hair net?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Some sort of hair net?




a genital snood?


----------



## silverfish (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm suprised he hasn't

1. Ended up on some sort of register

2. Not had some immediate neanderthal street justice dished out to him at some point 

not suggesting either, just wondering


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I'm not sure I'd want people flopping their meat all over the fresh produce in the supermarket.



On the refrigerated aisles maybe the 'reduced' shelf would be ok?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

frequenting the tramps in the buff-et


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I'm suprised he hasn't
> 
> 1. Ended up on some sort of register
> 
> ...


What "register"?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> What "register"?


 
He's on this one.  Right near the bottom.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 7, 2014)

I can't help but feel sorry for the guy. Nearly two years for going about with your nads out seems excessive. Otoh, it all seems very self-centred. It comes across as a bit me me me and sod you if you don't like it. Some people get offended by the wearing of the veil or headscarf even and I think quite rightly we regard that as none of their business. But public nudity, and in particular this quite strident nudity is somewhat different. It's not just different, it's radically out of step with the way the rest of us behave. And as we aren't just a bunch of isolated individuals, I think the general reaction should be taken seriously.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

I don't think widely held social mores hold validity simply because they are widely held. Anti-semitism was once widely held in this country and a matter of casual accepted bigotry.

obviously nobody really wants this oddballs meat n two in their eyeline as they tuck into a hotdog- but one man out of a 40-60 mil population? He's not wanking off in public ffs.

as I have stated before its not really about his nudity now. It's a battle of will(ies) between him and the judiciary now. Contempt is treated with the utmost severity because the judiciary maintain their power by enforcing that lady justice will not be mocked. Yes, all law is class law, but I'm looking at it from the view of the court. It's not the nudity per se that keeps getting him nicked but the repeated refusal to kow tow before the judges and the system


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> On the refrigerated aisles maybe the 'reduced' shelf would be ok?


Don't imagine it would be very much of a problem in the chilled aisle...
You could operate a zoned system I suppose, like in swimming pools: plastic overpants must be worn beyond this point. Certainly no genitals in the bakery or among the soft fruit. Common decency innit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

I mean look at huhne- it was a speeding ticket. But his attempts to get one over on the court was what landed him in trouble, not the offence itself.

cunt got out after a very short spell and got a NS column.

class law rules again


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Because most realise there is some sort of psychological issue involved here, there is no lack of sympathy for our naked rambler's aberration.  DotCommie identifies the pertinent issue though - the lickspittles of the judiciary don't enjoy being ignored, and have invented this mystical 'last word' alter of 'contempt' to which each must genuflect.

Their preferred method of dealing with individuals who display unreasonable dissent is to throw the book firmly.  How could they do otherwise?  Its due process regardless. Their positions and appearance depend upon it being upheld.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> - the lickspittles of the judiciary don't enjoy being ignored, and have invented this mystical 'last word' alter of 'contempt' to which each must genuflect.
> 
> Their preferred method of dealing with individuals who display unreasonable dissent is to throw the book firmly.  How could they do otherwise?  Its due process regardless. Their positions and appearance depend upon it being upheld.



Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

There's nothing "mystical" about contempt laws and they (or there equivalents) are an essential part of every judicial system.

Nothing about the case of Stephen Gough suggests that he's been treated in any way unfairly by "the system" ...... maaaaan.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 7, 2014)

German cities like Berlin & Munich have naturist areas in their public parks where office workers can strip off to eat their bockwursts etc naked at lunchtime. I'm sure a naturist area of Hyde Park would be equally popular with central London office workers in warm weather & Gough could be groundsman or whatever, they could try him on day relief from jail to see how he got on.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> German cities like Berlin & Munich have naturist areas in their public parks where office workers can strip off to eat their bockwursts etc naked at lunchtime. I'm sure a naturist area of Hyde Park would be equally popular with central London office workers in warm weather & Gough could be groundsman or whatever, they could try him on day relief from jail to see how he got on.


 A naturist park keeper - 'Oi you! Get them pants off, you're in contravention of by-law 346'.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> .... they could try him on *day relief* from jail to see how he got on.



 Parapraxis?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2014)

Imagine if the government did propose to get rid of the laws regarding nudity, you can see the press now......... Perverts Charter!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Imagine if the government did propose to get rid of the laws regarding nudity, you can see the press now......... Perverts Charter!!!!!!!!!!!!


 Somehow, they'd blame Bulgarians and the BBC.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
> 
> There's nothing "mystical" about contempt laws and they (or there equivalents) are an essential part of every judicial system.
> 
> Nothing about the case of Stephen Gough suggests that he's been treated in any way unfairly by "the system" ...... maaaaan.



Doesn't fair or unfair rather depend upon ones perspective Spymaster?

i've not used either term in relation to Mr Gough - it has simply been pointed out that the judicial system is designed to be the last word -  of those who control it.

Surely this is an uncontentious matter?


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Somehow, they'd blame Bulgarians and the BBC.



Naked Bulgarians?  That's the only logical conclusion to the EU project.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> There's nothing "mystical" about contempt laws and they (or there equivalents) are an essential part of every judicial system.




As you well know contempt, perverting the course and other such laws are in place to ensure a judicial framework doesn't have the piss ripped out of it. When that becomes the basis for prosecution however it obfuscates the ungravity of the initial crime and actually becomes more about a legal authority exercising powers to maintain the inviolate nature of Lady Justice ( and LOL cos she lifts her skirts for anyone with the right money). It is then an exercise in power


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Doesn't fair or unfair rather depend upon ones perspective Spymaster?



No, not really in this case. Few people outside of these boards would consider Gough's actions to be reasonable and the courts have been exceptionally lenient with him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> As you well know contempt, perverting the course and other such laws are in place to ensure a judicial framework doesn't have the piss ripped out of it.



Of course.



> When that becomes the basis for prosecution however it obfuscates the ungravity of the initial crime and actually becomes more about a legal authority exercising powers to maintain the inviolate nature of Lady Justice ( and LOL cos she lifts her skirts for anyone with the right money). It is then an exercise in power



Yes, and a very necessary one. If people were able to pick and choose which law to comply with the system would obviously fail.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a very necessary one. If people were able to pick and choose which law to comply with the system would obviously fail.


Like fox hunting perhaps?


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

i'm reminded of when i was a horny handed toiler in the 1980s.  This older colleague (early 60s) lost his wife suddenly.  On returning to work after some weeks, he appeared ok.  One day he is in his works vehicle, parked up on the busy high street.  He starts jerking off in full view of all..  Telephone calls produced police response.  Arrested, later released into management hands.  

He was sent home on sick leave.  His line manager though had to discipline him when he eventually returned to work.  Ended with a verbal warning.

As a TU activist at the time it was one of the few occasions when i felt sorry for the manager tasked with dealing with the matter.

All round sadness.  A bit like this poor geezer Gough.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 7, 2014)

ah he's back  amazing


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Like fox hunting perhaps?



Err, yeah.


----------



## Ungrateful (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn....
> 
> Nothing about the case of Stephen Gough suggests that he's been treated in any way unfairly by "the system" ...... maaaaan.


 


Spymaster said:


> If people were able to pick and choose which law to comply with the system would fail.


 
I disagree. The length of prison sentence for matters so trivial does suggest an unfairness. I don't like seeing dangily bits either, but unless he is doing it to intimidate (like a flasher) or as a prelude to a sexual assault, which he isn't. Then this is just an aesthetic difference. I don't like socks with sandals, adults wearing full football kits (unless they are playing football), people wearing the colours of a rival football team, sleazy t-shirt slogans and a thousand other fashion irritations, but I wouldn't see them go to prison. If ever there was a matter for the court to practice _de minimis__ non curat lex _[have I got that right] _- this is it._

And people can and do pick which laws to follow without a break down into civil disorder. Today many, many people will break the speed limit, illegally download copyrighted entertainment, keep a recording of a TV programme for more than 28 days, pay cash-in-hand, not fully disclose all their income to the Taxman or the Benefits department - few of them will, as a result go on to kill the innocent, rob the elderly or import pistachio nuts from Iran without proper documentation. Millions didn't pay the Poll tax and that lead to a period of greater social cohesion in many communities than obeying the law. if a law is ridiculous or its enforcement unwarranted and authoritarian, then it is right to disobey it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Ungrateful said:


> And people can and do pick which laws to follow without a break down into civil disorder. Today many, many people will break the speed limit, illegally download copyrighted entertainment, keep a recording of a TV programme for more than 28 days, pay cash-in-hand, not fully disclose all their income to the Taxman or the Benefits department - few of them will, as a result go on to kill the innocent, rob the elderly or import pistachio nuts from Iran without proper documentation. Millions didn't pay the Poll tax and that lead to a period of greater social cohesion in many communities than obeying the law. if a law is ridiculous or its enforcement unwarranted and authoritarian, then it is right to disobey it.



I was thinking about that. You're right that people can and do break laws and the penalties are often less severe. The difference is the contempt aspect. If I break the speed limit and get caught I get a fine. If I do it again, and again, and again, and again, the sanction gets increasingly harsh. Gough gets told to put some fucking clothes on and walks out of the court naked, again, and again, and again ... !


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

The picture of him in this (don't worry, it's work safe) suggests his obsession/treatment by the state isn't doing him any favours. Looks very thin.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/06/naked-rambler-jailed-16-months-breaching-asbo

At an obvious level he's right, it would be nice if we could loosen up a bit about bodies.  It would also be nice if the cops and ppl reporting him could put him on ignore.  Same time, it's gone long past being any kind of social protest, right into pure obsession (or so it seems). Brian Haw without a cause, Charles Bronson without the violence, all a bit sad really.  Most of all though, cops, cps, the whole lot of them should just lighten up a bit.  Last time he went down I seem to remember the costs of all this were in the hundred thousands - and more to the point it's not doing him or his family any good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> The picture of him in this (don't worry, it's work safe) suggests his obsession/treatment by the state isn't doing him any favours. Looks very thin.
> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/06/naked-rambler-jailed-16-months-breaching-asbo
> 
> At an obvious level he's right, it would be nice if we could loosen up a bit about bodies.  It would also be nice if the cops and ppl reporting him could put him on ignore.  Same time, it's gone long past being any kind of social protest, right into pure obsession (or so it seems). Brian Haw without a cause, Charles Bronson without the violence, all a bit sad really.  Most of all though, cops, cps, the whole lot of them should just lighten up a bit.  Last time he went down I seem to remember the costs of all this were in the hundred thousands - and more to the point it's not doing him or his family any good.



its not about that to them any more. Iys about his naked defiance of court orders. At this point they are hammering him for disobedience not for exactly what that disobedience entails


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its not about that to them any more. Iys about his naked defiance of court orders. At this point they are hammering him for disobedience not for exactly what that disobedience entails


Yeah, I wasn't very clear - it's longed since slipped away from being the outrage of the local burghers to an issue of compliance and authority.  And whilst I've no sympathy with plod or the courts - the fuckers should have come up with some creative avoidance strategy long ago, something that didn't risk permanent imprisonment - ironically, they are now trapped in the same compliance.  Admittedly, they get to go home at night, but they've played the whole thing in a way that leaves no obvious exit strategy for anyone. Fucking madness.


----------



## rover07 (Jan 7, 2014)

Its ridiculous that the Judge refused to let him speak in Court. 

How is that fair or even legal? 

Time is on his side. He has committed no crime and sooner or later will win the right for people to dress how they please.

Those who are offended should mind their own business.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> And whilst I've no sympathy with plod or the courts - the fuckers should have come up with some creative avoidance strategy long ago ...



Like what?



> ..... but they've played the whole thing in a way that leaves no obvious exit strategy for anyone.



No they haven't. Gough has!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Its ridiculous that the Judge refused to let him speak in Court.



He didn't. 

He refused to let him address the court naked. All the silly twat needed to do was put some shorts on.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> He has committed no crime and sooner or later will win the right for people to dress how they please.



He has, and he won't.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Yeah, I wasn't very clear - it's longed since slipped away from being the outrage of the local burghers to an issue of compliance and authority.  And whilst I've no sympathy with plod or the courts - the fuckers should have come up with some creative avoidance strategy long ago, something that didn't risk permanent imprisonment - ironically, they are now trapped in the same compliance.  Admittedly, they get to go home at night, but they've played the whole thing in a way that leaves *no obvious exit strategy for anyone.* Fucking madness.



Like has already been said, the obvious exit strategy would be for the daft twat to put some kex on - He's got a Mrs and kids and yet the self-absorbed clown persists with this completely fucking _pointless_ campaign. The man's a fool.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Like what?
> 
> 
> 
> No they haven't. Gough has!



Give over Spymaster - who holds the power, Gough, a sad person with problems,  or the courts who hold an entourage of well paid highly trained and effective staff, along with the ability to influence people in high places?


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> *Like what?* {probation, nominal fines, conditional discharge - most of all, recognising that prison is expensive, nasty and pointless for him}
> 
> 
> 
> *No they haven't. Gough has!* {they have - _and_ he has. As I've said, I only agree with him at an abstract level.  Earlier in this thread I called him self indulgent.  I think that's still true, but I'm not quite sure where the boundary between that, obsession and mental health lie.  I've got a lot of sympathy for how he's been treated - even if he seems like a bit of an idiot}


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Like has already been said, the obvious exit strategy would be for the daft twat to put some kex on - He's got a Mrs and kids and yet the self-absorbed clown persists with this completely fucking _pointless_ campaign. The man's a fool.



He has (or did have) a girlfriend that did some nude shit with him in Scotland. His wife and kids left him because of his behaviour.

Cool eh? 

He's a selfish cunt.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Time is on his side. He has committed no crime and sooner or later will win the right for people to dress how they please.



Since no human society in history has ever allowed people to dress as they please, this seems unlikely.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Since no human society in history has ever allowed people to dress as they please, this seems unlikely.


 
Neanderthals would go fucking mental whenever one of them took to wearing a stovepipe hat.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> Like has already been said, the obvious exit strategy would be for the daft twat to put some kex on - He's got a Mrs and kids and yet the self-absorbed clown persists with this completely fucking _pointless_ campaign. The man's a fool.


 Sorry if I sound like I'm flipping around all over the fucking shop, but I agree with that entirely - and took some stick when this thread was going last time, calling him self indulgent I think.  Suppose what I mean is, what the courts have done is pointless, isn't going to help anyone and has, ahem, stiffened his resolve. He is indeed an idiot who prefers to keep doing this rather than seeing his family, but the courts are pretty much guaranteeing that he will carry on doing the same thing.


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He has (or did have) a girlfriend that did some nude shit with him in Scotland. His wife and kids left him because of his behaviour.
> 
> Cool eh?
> 
> He's a selfish cunt.



He probably is quite a selfish person.  His single minded dedication in the pursuit of the right to exercise curious behaviour strongly suggests a rather swollen ego, maybe borderline insane.

But when did it become ok to imprison those with mental health issues?

(sorry, temporarily overlooked the fact that prisons are bursting with people who formerly would have been in mental health institutions).


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> But when did it become ok to imprison those with mental health issues?



He hasn't been diagnosed with any MH issue, afaia.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He hasn't been diagnosed with any MH issue, afaia.



He's obviously got some though.


----------



## spliff (Jan 7, 2014)

pogofish said:


> That is more or less what he was doing when I first heard of the guy, years back - Pitching-up naked at demos in London's financial district and sometimes demoing naked on his own IIRC the very first time I noticed him, he was chained up a lamp post, naked.  The Police made a big thing of covering his bits before cutting the chain and hauling him down!


That was another guy named Vincent Bethel not Stephen Gough


----------



## redcogs (Jan 7, 2014)

Is not being diagnosed with MH issues a guarantee that he is a full shilling then Spymaster?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Is not being diagnosed with MH issues a guarantee that he is a full shilling then Spymaster?



Of course not. What should happen to people whose MH issues lead them to consistently break the law and cause others alarm or distress?


----------



## peterkro (Jan 7, 2014)

Alarm and distress FFS.In a society that tries to sell everything by sex and naked flesh they lock up a guy who is bumbling about with out his clothes,anything less sexual is hard to imagine.Who exactly are these people who are alarmed and distressed as far as I can see most people who come across him are slightly amused and otherwise not bothered in the slightest.He's one determined bloke and as far as mental health issues go I'd suggest those complaining and those banging him up have the mental health issues.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Of course not. What should happen to people whose MH issues lead them to consistently break the law and cause others alarm or distress?


 Well, yeah, it's difficult, there's no easy answer - and in a post-Savile era there's every chance that someone will misinterpret his nudity and give him a serious leathering at some point (just to be clear I'm his aware his nudity is non-sexual).  However almost permanent prison for him is pure insanity. 

Probably the best solution is him settling down somewhere and the community either coming to terms with his eccentricity (unlikely, I'll admit) - or repeatedly calling him a daft bastard to the point where he puts a sock on it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

rover07 said:


> Its ridiculous that the Judge refused to let him speak in Court.
> 
> How is that fair or even legal?
> 
> ...




he has repeatedly committed a number of crimes, namely indecent exposure and contempt of court . And its people should mind their own business now ? Really ? Ignore the freak whos climbing up lamposts bollock naked and shouting, and inviting the media to accompany him on his bollock festival ?

Well Ill mind my own business . He can rot in jail and Ill simply encourage anyone who talks about it to ignore it and mind their own business .

Fucking libertarians .


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Alarm and distress FFS.In a society that tries to sell everything by sex and naked flesh they lock up a guy who is bumbling about with out his clothes,anything less sexual is hard to imagine.Who exactly are these people who are alarmed and distressed as far as I can see most people who come across him are slightly amused and otherwise not bothered in the slightest.He's one determined bloke and as far as mental health issues go I'd suggest those complaining and those banging him up have the mental health issues.




If you want to know remove your clothing and walk into the nearest housing estate and walk up and down saying hello to people . Youll soon find out who they are .

Fucking libertarians.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

redcogs said:


> Give over Spymaster - who holds the power, Gough, a sad person with problems,  or the courts who hold an entourage of well paid highly trained and effective staff, along with the ability to influence people in high places?



He has the power to put on a pair of trousers. Hes not a prisoner of conscience, hes a prisoner of his own fucking idiocy .


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 7, 2014)




----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> He has the power to put on a pair of trousers. Hes not a prisoner of conscience, hes a prisoner of his own fucking idiocy .


 'Bring forth the pantaloons of compromise!'


----------



## weltweit (Jan 7, 2014)

The question I ask myself is, has his campaign if you could call it that, had any effect on the general public or legislators. I don't think it has which is a shame for him as it makes his continued cycle of offence and punishment seem rather pointless.

Still, if there was an award for sticking to your guns, he would win it!


----------



## Wilf (Jan 7, 2014)

weltweit said:


> Still, if there was an award for sticking to your guns, he would win it!


 And also for sticking to the upholstery.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 7, 2014)

Wilf said:


> 'Bring forth the pantaloons of compromise!'



the underpants of the underdog,


Frances Lengel said:


> Like has already been said, the obvious exit strategy would be for the daft twat to put some kex on - He's got a Mrs and kids and yet the self-absorbed clown persists with this completely fucking _pointless_ campaign. *The man's a fool*.



A fool with his cock out, the worst sort .


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> A fool with his cock out, the worst sort .


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 7, 2014)

SaskiaJayne said:


> German cities like Berlin & Munich have naturist areas in their public parks where office workers can strip off to eat their bockwursts etc naked at lunchtime. I'm sure a naturist area of Hyde Park would be equally popular with central London office workers in warm weather & Gough could be groundsman or whatever, they could try him on day relief from jail to see how he got on.



Have to admit I was a bit stunned the first time I saw that, back in the '80s - walking through the Tiergarten chugging a bottle of Berliner Kindl, and seeing people picnicking and sunbathing starkers.


----------



## youngian (Jan 7, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> His wife and kids left him because of his behaviour.
> 
> Cool eh?
> 
> He's a selfish cunt.



I wonder if he offered to pick the kids up from the local primary school.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 9, 2014)

redcogs said:


> If i'd been wondering around the town naked few would have eyesight acute enough to have noticed the offending member
> 
> i'd have been 'let off' with a sympathetic smile for failing to disturb the peace..
> 
> Not that i suffer from any sort of envy you understand.


There once was a young man called Rex
With diminutive organs of sex.
When done for exposure,
He said with composure
"De minimis non curat lex"


----------



## gosub (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He has (or did have) a girlfriend that did some nude shit with him in Scotland. His wife and kids left him because of his behaviour.
> 
> Cool eh?
> 
> He's a selfish cunt.



So he's pretty much painted himself into a corner, no amount of Her Majesty's free board and lodgings is going to be worse than loosing your family over making an unnecessary point


----------



## Greebo (Jan 21, 2014)

"The Naked Rambler" BBC1 tonight 10.35-11.25


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

The fucking wingnut is on BBC1 atm


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> The fucking wingnut is on BBC1 atm




are the good on display?


----------



## Greebo (Jan 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> are the good on display?


Some of the time, fleetingly.  There are indoor shots of him wearing at least a shirt.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> are the good on display?


Yes. His mate has written an acoustic number about "the wind tickling your testicles" - and he plans to record it


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Yes. His mate has written an acoustic number about "the wind tickling your testicles" - and he plans to record it




fundraiser for his legal costs


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

The stuff about him not seeing his kids and wife is pretty sad though  Just cos he wants to wave his bellend in public.

He seems pretty mentally unstable


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> fundraiser for his legal costs


His legal costs will be more than £1.87 though


----------



## Sirena (Jan 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> The fucking wingnut is on BBC1 atm


 I personally can't see why he is so fixed on making the point and I think his point-making has become the only thing he is now (which I think is too limiting for someone insistent on the concept of freedom) but I still respect him.

He's like one of those Indian holy men who arrive in a village one day and spent the next thirty years standing on one leg.  You might not understand it but it doesn't depend on your understanding.  It's not your business.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

FFS  Walking through a bunch of schoolkids. That's really selfish and unnecessary. Fucking idiot


----------



## Sweet FA (Jan 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> FFS  Walking through a bunch of schoolkids. That's really selfish and unnecessary. Fucking idiot


Yebbut


twentythreedom said:


> He seems pretty mentally unstable


----------



## IC3D (Jan 21, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> FFS  Walking through a bunch of schoolkids. That's really selfish and unnecessary. Fucking idiot


I'm sure it was only the parents that were bothered.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

Sirena said:


> I personally can't see why he is so fixed on making the point and I think his point-making has become the only thing he is now (which I think is too limiting for someone insistent on the concept of freedom) but I still respect him.
> 
> He's like one of those Indian holy men who arrive in a village one day and spent the next thirty years standing on one leg.  You might not understand it but it doesn't depend on your understanding.  It's not your business.


Yeah, absolutely. I respect him standing up for his beliefs, but he shouldn't be walking past schoolkids - he could at least stay out of the way for half an hour. But yeah, I agree with your point in principle.


----------



## IC3D (Jan 21, 2014)

I think its mad that he's about to see his own kids after seven yrs and takes such s big risk.


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2014)

Sirena said:


> It's not your business.





twentythreedom said:


> Walking through a bunch of schoolkids.



 he can, in all likelihood, fuck off


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 21, 2014)

Sweet FA said:


> Yebbut


Yeah. The whole thing strikes me as pretty sad  He's evidently a nice guy, and I respect him standing up for what he believes, but he should put his family first. Swinging your chopper in the vicinity of schoolkids is never going to end well


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 21, 2014)

would the germans not take him...


----------



## peterkro (Jan 21, 2014)

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but fucking good luck to him.What is so bad about being naked,including in front of children,what the fuck is it about naked bodies that freaks a lot of people out.The attempt to make out he is mentally ill is right up there with Soviet/U.S. psychiatry e.g. you're different so you are mentally ill.The bit about "won't anybody think of the children" and the how can he be in jail and think he's free is bollocks,you are either free or not,being in jail is not much different than being on the outside.What I mean by that is you are free or you are not.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 21, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but fucking good luck to him.What is so bad about being naked,including in front of children,what the fuck is it about naked bodies that freaks a lot of people out.The attempt to make out he is mentally ill is right up there with Soviet/U.S. psychiatry e.g. you're different so you are mentally ill.The bit about "won't anybody think of the children" and the how can he be in jail and think he's free is bollocks,you are either free or not,being in jail is not much different than being on the outside.What I mean by that is you are free or you are not.


I agree with you. although I haven't seen the program..

being naked is not the same as being sexual.


----------



## free spirit (Jan 21, 2014)

He's his own worst enemy though - I reckon he could go naked rambling in the countryside almost forever without any problems, but he insists on doing it through the towns, cities, villages along the route despite knowing he's likely to get nicked if he does.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 21, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but fucking good luck to him.What is so bad about being naked,including in front of children,what the fuck is it about naked bodies that freaks a lot of people out.The attempt to make out he is mentally ill is right up there with Soviet/U.S. psychiatry e.g. you're different so you are mentally ill.The bit about "won't anybody think of the children" and the how can he be in jail and think he's free is bollocks,you are either free or not,being in jail is not much different than being on the outside.What I mean by that is you are free or you are not.


I suspect 90%+ on this thread would agree it's nasty, vindictive and counter productive locking him up.  A lot might also agree in the abstract about non-sexual nudity (inc. me).  But is his cause really that _important_?  Only saw the last 20 minutes, but he genuinely seemed to think it was more important than being in his kids lives.  Whether that's diversity, eccentricity or just plain selfish obsession, he's got some weird priorities. In some senses he's a working class version of some retired solicitor who spends 16 hours a day and the families savings fighting some trivial local council decision.  He might have more of a cause,, but not much more.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 21, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but fucking good luck to him.What is so bad about being naked,including in front of children,what the fuck is it about naked bodies that freaks a lot of people out.The attempt to make out he is mentally ill is right up there with Soviet/U.S. psychiatry e.g. you're different so you are mentally ill.The bit about "won't anybody think of the children" and the how can he be in jail and think he's free is bollocks,you are either free or not,being in jail is not much different than being on the outside.What I mean by that is you are free or you are not.



That's what half the wallies on urban were saying at the beginning of the thread when the few people who had the temerity to suggest all was/is not well with the guy were shrilly dismissed as prudes.

I think it was scifisam  who made an excellent point earlier in this thread - What if this guy crosses paths with someone who's been sexually abused and is being helped to come to terms with it? The sight of his tubesteak & clockweights could easily undo whatever progress has been made. The self-absorbed twat doesn't give a fuck about that though.

Fuck him AFAIC, throw the key away - It's probably what he wants anyway. Stupid twat's too inadequate to participate in life & instead chooses to martyr himself to this completely fucking pointless "cause". Let him be a martyr then.


----------



## belboid (Jan 21, 2014)

peterkro said:


> What is so bad about being naked


except he isnt, he has shoes and socks on. He's not a nudist, he just likes his bollocks being on display


----------



## Wilf (Jan 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> except he isnt, he has shoes and socks on. He's not a nudist, he just likes his bollocks being on display


So, he's a _fraud_!


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 21, 2014)

belboid said:


> except he isnt, he has shoes and socks on. He's not a nudist, he just likes his bollocks being on display



Hiking in bare feet?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

Wilf said:


> So, he's a _fraud_!


well, _he_ doesnt call himself 'the Naked Rambler', I believe he calls himself 'Steve'


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 22, 2014)

I've defended his heroic balls vigourously on this thread, but walking through a crowd of kids? not kosher is it?


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Hiking in bare feet?


plenty of people have done it over the millenia. if he wants to make about wandering around naked, he should actually be _naked_


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> That's what half the wallies on urban were saying at the beginning of the thread when the few people who had the temerity to suggest all was/is not well with the guy were shrilly dismissed as prudes.
> 
> I think it was scifisam  who made an excellent point earlier in this thread - What if this guy crosses paths with someone who's been sexually abused and is being helped to come to terms with it? The sight of his tubesteak & clockweights could easily undo whatever progress has been made. The self-absorbed twat doesn't give a fuck about that though.
> 
> Fuck him AFAIC, throw the key away - It's probably what he wants anyway. Stupid twat's too inadequate to participate in life & instead chooses to martyr himself to this completely fucking pointless "cause". Let him be a martyr then.


Whataboutery,nice.How about if someone who has been sexually abused sees him in his nakedness and sees the fabled dick then sees it's nothing to be afraid of but a skin flap with some veins and makes plans not to be afraid and to have options to prevent it happening to them again.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 22, 2014)

Maybe he just likes porridge ?


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Whataboutery,nice.How about if someone who has been sexually abused sees him in his nakedness and sees the fabled dick then sees it's nothing to be afraid of but a skin flap with some veins and makes plans not to be afraid and to* have options to prevent it happening to them again.*



At the risk of derailing the thread that's fucked - Are you saying victims of abuse have the choice to stop it happening to them? I'm sure you _can't_ be, but that's how your post reads.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2014)

I'd like to have heard more of the scene in the dentists. 
_'Have you come to see the hygienist sir?'_


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Maybe he just likes porridge ?



He does. It's easier for him to carry on with his nonsensical bullshit than it is for the feeble, inadequate twat to face life.


----------



## joustmaster (Jan 22, 2014)

does anyone really think that it should be illegal to be naked?
sounds so insane to me.

your natural state is some how unacceptable, and you have to cover parts of yourself in cloth.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> At the risk of derailing the thread that's fucked - Are you saying victims of abuse have the choice to stop it happening to them? I'm sure you _can't_ be, but that's how your post reads.


You can't be that dense,what I said was being aware of the dangers you may face may protect you if the situation arises.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> You can't be that dense,*what I said was being aware of the dangers you may face may protect you if the situation arises.*



You didn't, you said



peterkro said:


> Whataboutery,nice.How about if someone who has been sexually abused sees him in his nakedness and sees the fabled dick then sees it's nothing to be afraid of but a skin flap with some veins and makes plans not to be afraid and to *have options to prevent it happening to them again.*



Calling me dense won't get you out of that one, chief.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> does anyone really think that it should be illegal to be naked?
> sounds so insane to me.
> 
> your natural state is some how unacceptable, and you have to cover parts of yourself in cloth.


Well yeah, I feel much more outraged by the acres of teenage starlet flesh that run down the right hand side of most newspaper websites than this idiot's meat and two veg.  I just struggle, however much oppression he's up against, to see him as a martyr for anything _worthwhile_.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> You didn't, you said
> 
> 
> 
> Calling me dense won't get you out of that one, chief.


"chief" that's close to "pal",in case you are not following this what I said in both cases was being aware of the dangers and having options to defend yourself is better than trying to shield yourself from some amorphous danger "out there".


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 22, 2014)

You don't see streakers at sporting events much anymore. What was all that about? I have a hazy recollection of it happening quite a bit in the 80s but was too young to appreciate what it was all about other than attention seeking.


----------



## gosub (Jan 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You don't see streakers at sporting events much anymore. What was all that about? I have a hazy recollection of it happening quite a bit in the 80s but was too young to appreciate what it was all about other than attention seeking.


they deliberately don't film them, so you don't see it when it happens so it doesn't happen as much


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> "chief" that's close to "pal",in case you are not following this what I said in both cases was *being aware of the dangers and having options to defend yourself *is better than trying to shield yourself from some amorphous danger "out there".



What has being aware of potential dangers got to do with being confronted with the unwelcome sight of this skinny, self-absorbed weirdo in all his naked resplendent glory? Fuck all I'd say.



peterkro said:


> Whataboutery,nice.*How about if someone who has been sexually abused sees him in his nakedness and sees the fabled dick then sees it's nothing to be afraid of but a skin flap with some veins* and makes plans not to be afraid and to have options to prevent it happening to them again.



So why isn't that method used in treating survivors of abuse - Confront them with a cock with the aim of eventually getting them to touch it? A bit like how they try to cure spider phobia? You really are chatting some unmitigated shit you know.

But enough with this derail (and I acknowledge, it was me that instigated said derail) - Bottom line is this guy _wants_ to keep getting locked up for his absolutely farcical and pointless "cause" - Coz he's an inadequate who can't face up to life or himself or any of that shit. And yeah, I'll concede, bringing sex and abuse into the debate muddied the waters a bit, but purely from an aesthetic point of view, what right has this idiot got to inflict his pallid, goosepimpled body and cold-weather atrophied genitals on a public who haven't given consent for him to do so. Fuck the selfish prick.


----------



## Grace Johnson (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Whataboutery,nice.How about if someone who has been sexually abused sees him in his nakedness and sees the fabled dick then sees it's nothing to be afraid of but a skin flap with some veins and makes plans not to be afraid and to have options to prevent it happening to them again.



That's not really the way recovery from trauma works though is it....


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> What has being aware of potential dangers got to do with being confronted with the unwelcome sight of this skinny, self-absorbed weirdo in all his naked resplendent glory? Fuck all I'd say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Inadequate,skinny,self absorbed,face up to life,atrophied genitals,goose pimples etc,you really have bought into the "Daily Mail" list of non-u people haven't you?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2014)

This whole argument underlines to me how far humans are from being rational creatures.  The whole lot of you.

Yes, I'm looking at you when I say that.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2014)

Anyway, enough of this nonsense, I'm off to the Naked Thread...


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Inadequate,skinny,self absorbed,face up to life,atrophied genitals,goose pimples etc,you rally have bought into the "Daily Mail" list of non-u people haven't you?



No. But in the absence of having an argument of any substance feel free to bandy the "Daily Mail" about all you like.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Inadequate,skinny,self absorbed,face up to life,atrophied genitals,goose pimples


I'm having that as my tag line.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> being in jail is not much different than being on the outside.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> No. But in the absence of having an argument of any substance feel free to bandy the "Daily Mail" about all you like.


You are grasping at shadows,would you care to make any criticism of my posts without degenerating into frothing?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> You are grasping at shadows



Hopefully fully clothed ones.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


>


I'd suggest you ask someone who has done time before you ridicule what I said.


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I'd suggest you ask someone who has done time before you ridicule what I said.


that really is utter, utter, bollocks.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> You are grasping at shadows,would you care to make any criticism of my posts without degenerating into frothing?



Read back over our exchange and realise how disingenuous the above post of yours is - I have engaged with your posts without degenerating into insults or "frothing" as you choose to put it. You, by contrast, are the one who's been flinging around phrases like "How dense are you?" with carefree abandon as well as baseless and lazy Daily Mail references.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 22, 2014)

peterkro said:


> I'd suggest you ask someone who has done time before you ridicule what I said.


What, like me for example


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 22, 2014)

It does seem bizarre that something so natural as the naked human body is criminalised. However, that's how we're now socialised. You can't just undo hundreds (thousands?) of years of that. Male stranger indecency can also be threatening to women. His stance is based on individualistic self-centredness.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You don't see streakers at sporting events much anymore. What was all that about? I have a hazy recollection of it happening quite a bit in the 80s but was too young to appreciate what it was all about other than attention seeking.



The tradition endures in the southern hemisphere. We had one at the 2013 State of Origin.


----------



## SaskiaJayne (Jan 22, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You don't see streakers at sporting events much anymore. What was all that about? I have a hazy recollection of it happening quite a bit in the 80s but was too young to appreciate what it was all about other than attention seeking.


It was indeed an 80s thing, Erica Roe probably made a living from it for a while.


----------



## Onket (Jan 22, 2014)

Can't smoke in stadiums anymore, she'll get kicked out for that.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 22, 2014)

According to Wiki streaking was named as such in 1973,I personally think that's wrong as a drunken four person streak around Wellington is still burned in my memory and I'd left NZ by 1973.(Wikipedia.en is notorious for being UScentric of course).It seemed everybody and their dog was doing it in the early/mid seventies.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 22, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> does anyone really think that it should be illegal to be naked?
> sounds so insane to me.
> 
> your natural state is some how unacceptable, and you have to cover parts of yourself in cloth.



That's a bit simplistic really.  When I lived in Reading my house was opposite a primary school, I had to call the police once because there was a bloke hiding in the bushes near the school with no clothes on.  He may have just had a prank played on him but he could easily have been a wrong un, the fact is he had no business being there and could cause great worry to the teachers / parents and the police should have powers to address that.

There is a context to everything and as numerous people on this thread have said if you want to walk around with your knackers out there is plenty of opportunity to do so, but this guy's cause seems as much to be challenging the police and courts, there will only be one winner in that situation.


----------



## Sweet FA (Jan 22, 2014)

I've probably missed something but I didn't hear him say anything substantive about why he's doing what he does. He was asked a couple of times but said something about 'freedom' and not much else. Does he have a 'cause'? The reason I commented about his mental health wasn't because of what he's doing per se, more that there seemed to be no reason for it. By the end of the programme I was none the wiser as to his motivation tbh


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

A good bit at the end of the Guardian review:

Is he just an exhibitionist and a flasher? Does he have mental health issues (he refuses psychiatric assessment)? If the answer to either is yes, then this probably should never have been made.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 22, 2014)

well clearly he isn't a flasher. By definition a flasher keeps his bits covered until he can 'flash' them at his victim. So you can't be an exhibitionist AND a flasher. Poor show, guardian


----------



## belboid (Jan 22, 2014)

stop living in seventies sitcoms!  'Flasher' is just another word for indecent exposure


----------



## IC3D (Jan 22, 2014)

The best thing about him is he's doing it for no reason, I'd like to see him go to Iran by way of Ireland next.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2014)

Naked rambler Stephen Gough loses human rights case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29800016


> The so-called naked rambler Stephen Gough has lost his case at the European Court of Human Rights after claiming he suffered repression over his nudity.
> Mr Gough, 55, complained about his repeated convictions and imprisonment.
> Since 2003 he has been arrested dozens of times in Scotland and England for being naked in public.
> He was convicted a number of times for breach of the peace, with his sentences increased with each offence and was often rearrested as he left prison.
> Between May 2006 and October 2012 he enjoyed a total of seven days' liberty and spent most of his detention in segregation because he refused to wear clothes.



Amazing, between May 2006 and Oct 2012 he enjoyed a total of seven days liberty!!


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 28, 2014)

What a cock


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 28, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> What a cock



Impressive is it?


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 28, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Impressive is it?


Weathered, I imagine


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Seems a bizarre thing to choose to protest about. Especially given the British weather.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Are there still streakers nowadays at sporting events etc? I remember it being a popular pastime in the 70s and 80s. Was there a political message behind it that I was too young to appreciate or was it just exhibitionism? Erika someone or other springs to mind.  I'm sure I've asked this before but can't remember the response. I hope it wasn't on this thread.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are there still streakers nowadays at sporting events etc? I remember it being a popular pastime in the 70s and 80s. Was there a political message behind it that I was too young to appreciate or was it just exhibitionism? Erika someone or other springs to mind.  I'm sure I've asked this before but can't remember the response. I hope it wasn't on this thread.


See the top of this page


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

My pages don't parse like yours on tapatalk but I can jump back.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

weltweit said:


> See the top of this page


Fucking hell, the post is almost identical! 

It wasn't answered though hence my persistent curiosity.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 28, 2014)

'Morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public' said the judgement.

If his body offends you to the point you feel he should be imprisoned then you have a serious problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> 'Morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public' said the judgement.
> 
> If his body offends you to the point you feel he should be imprisoned then you have a serious problem.


It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.


FFS!    This is somethign previously discussed at length and in full on this very thread.  Do me a favour and go back and read it, before I say somehting wwhich I'm defintiely going to regret but not as much as you will!


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.



How sad we live in an age where not wearing clothes as a personal choice is deemed as a sexual misdemeanour.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> ...someone not conforming ... can be confusing/scary to children.



Not just children.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> FFS!    This is somethign previously discussed at length and in full on this very thread.  Do me a favour and go back and read it, before I say somehting wwhich I'm defintiely going to regret but not as much as you will!


That's my view. I don't need to read the entire thread in order to make it more palatable for you. Besides, I've responded before so obviously read it before. I don't agree with him being jailed over this at all but neither do I think someone's right to wear no clothes ranks above others' right to not want to see that person naked.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> How sad we live in an age where not wearing clothes as a personal choice is deemed as a sexual misdemeanour.


I acknowledged that point when I said 'rightly or wrongly'. It's fucking anti social though if you're doing something that everyone else would rather you didn't.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Not just children.


So you agree with his cock out protest?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I acknowledged that point when I said 'rightly or wrongly'. It's fucking anti social though if you're doing something that everyone else would rather you didn't.


So's a lot of things. Like public displays of affection, esp if you are gay. Should they wind it in too?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I acknowledged that point when I said 'rightly or wrongly'. It's fucking anti social though if you're doing something that everyone else would rather you didn't.



It depends on the relative merits of the act, and there are merits to both sides of the argument here - there is a tension between the duty of tolerance and the duty to try and rub along smoothly with others* for the most part.

* - God, the filth - you people really depress me sometimes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> So's a lot of things. Like public displays of affection, esp if you are gay. Should they wind it in too?


Nice try. Would you like to meld homosexuality with paedophilia too, or suggest I would, or are we done with this line of reasoning?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 28, 2014)

No, but I would like to link things that _should_ be acceptable but aren't cos a lot of people are dicks.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So you agree with his cock out protest?



I think imprisoning him requires a better justification than 'most people don't do it, and people doing things that most people don't is a problem for some people'.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No, but I would like to link things that _should_ be acceptable but aren't cos a lot of people are dicks.


So my view towards naked rambler is because I'm a dick? I haven't even expressed my personal view btw, I explained why it was anti social in the context of our society in my view.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So my view towards naked rambler is because I'm a dick? I haven't even expressed my view btw, I explained why it was anti social in the context of our society.


I didn't say that, did i? Because you didn't express your view. But anti-social is not necessarily wrong. Sometimes society is wrong.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

I'd love to be able to be naked.
There is nothing sexual about just being naked. If you think so, then something is badly wrong with your head.
Its good that he is trying to stick to his cause, regardless of everything.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I haven't even expressed my view btw, I explained why it was anti social in the context of our society.



Well, it's not unanimous on here but the law agrees with that assessment.  So what is your view?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> There is nothing sexual about just being naked. If you think so, then something is badly wrong with your head.



I think what is considered sexual is strongly defined by social norms.  It's not about anyone's 'head being wrong', it's a lot more complex than that.  I think.  God, I sound like some kind of beardy lefty with a room full of books.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think what is considered sexual is strongly defined by social norms.  It's not about anyone's 'head being wrong', it's a lot more complex than that.  I think.  God, I sound like some kind of beardy lefty with a room full of books.


Of course its 'wrong in the head' to assume someone just being naked is being sexual.
"those topless women on them beaches - they're gagging for it, mate"


----------



## JimW (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> ...God, I sound like some kind of beardy lefty with a room full of books.


Dirty books, no doubt


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

JimW said:


> Dirty books, no doubt



You know what those beardy types are like.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 28, 2014)

JimW said:


> Dirty books, no doubt



Jillie Cooper and Jackie Collins I reckon.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Of course its 'wrong in the head' to assume someone just being naked is being sexual.



I'll give you a clue as to where you might have headed off the piste in your thinking.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> FFS!    This is somethign previously discussed at length and in full on this very thread.  Do me a favour and go back and read it, before I say somehting wwhich I'm defintiely going to regret but not as much as you will!


This seems an overly emotional/threatening response to my comment, tbh. I agree that nakedness doesn't mean sex or sexual violence in itself, but in the context of the society we live in for many it does. I guess you would argue that the reaction to that should be a shift in attitudes towards nakedness and I would agree. However, one man doing the protest alone will never achieve those aims and those who do conflate male nudity in public with threatening behaviour shouldn't be told they're 'wrong'.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'll give you a clue as to where you might have headed off the piste in your thinking.


what do you find or see to be sexual about walking from one point to another?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, it's not unanimous on here but the law agrees with that assessment.  So what is your view?


See my last post.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> ...those who do conflate male nudity in public with threatening behaviour shouldn't be told they're 'wrong'.



I agree with this.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> what do you find or see to be sexual about walking from one point to another?



No, wrong way.  Go back the other way.  Look for the orange flags.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, wrong way.  Go back the other way.  Look for the orange flags.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> See my last post.



There's not very much to go on there.  I agree with a big part of your point if I'm looking at the right post (#1032), but I don't sense that I share your view.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> However, one man doing the protest alone will never achieve those aims


its a start.
how many people need to join him before you think its ok?


> and those who do conflate male nudity in public with threatening behaviour shouldn't be told they're 'wrong'.


why?
if they are wrong, they are wrong.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, it's not unanimous on here but the law agrees with that assessment.  So what is your view?


I'm hard left libertarian. Personal freedoms galore but a close second to the wishes of the community. But this is in the context of the current society; a patriarchy which deals out shit to women and children. So my view is in that context.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


>



I was originally trying to agree with the point that being naked _in itself_ is not _exclusively_ a signal of anything sexual going on in terms of display or intent.  That does not mean that you do not bring sexual connotations with you when you get naked outside the 'normal' non-sexual situations where nudity is sanctioned, however.

As an example to highlight the social confusion over this - you made a reference to topless beaches, which you rightly (in my view) say should not be seen as / is not some sexualised arena.   However, now try Googling 'topless beaches' and you'll see that society at large is not quite 100% behind us on this.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> This seems an overly emotional/threatening response to my comment, tbh. I agree that nakedness doesn't mean sex or sexual violence in itself, but in the context of the society we live in for many it does. I guess you would argue that the reaction to that should be a shift in attitudes towards nakedness and I would agree. However, one man doing the protest alone will never achieve those aims and those who do conflate male nudity in public with threatening behaviour shouldn't be told they're 'wrong'.


By that logic, an elderly person who finds non whites alarming shouldn't be told that they're wrong either.  Because one person trying to be non racist on his/her own will achieve nothing.

Also I was right on the outer edge of a migraine, and what I said was the absolute truth.  It's a state of mind in which I can just about read, can barely type, and the censor (that thing which usually lets you refrain from saying or doing things which you know will hurt, or at least lets you pull your punches) is switched off.  Given that situation, I was remarkably self-restrained.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm hard left libertarian. Personal freedoms galore but a close second to the wishes of the community. But this is in the context of the current society; a patriarchy which deals out shit to women and children. So my view is in that context.



I can see where you're coming from, though in most cases I'd put personal freedoms ahead of the wishes of the community (which might sometimes be quite barmy) - which way I'd go with that would depend very much on the particular case.  On the whole, if someone individually wants to be a bit barmy in a harmless way, I would not support a barmy community in suppressing them.  I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel with this case in saying that, I should point out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> its a start.
> how many people need to join him before you think its ok?
> 
> why?
> if they are wrong, they are wrong.


One man can eat a kebab on a packed bus without the consent of everyone else and stink the place out.

Is the answer to get more people eating kebabs on buses or for the singular person to respect the wishes of the majority?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> I was originally trying to agree with the point that being naked _in itself_ is not _exclusively_ a signal of anything sexual going on in terms of display or intent.  That does not mean that you do not bring sexual connotations with you when you get naked outside the 'normal' non-sexual situations where nudity is sanctioned, however.
> 
> As an example to highlight the social confusion over this - you made a reference to topless beaches, which you rightly (in my view) say should not be seen as / is not some sexualised arena.   However, now try Googling 'topless beaches' and you'll see that society at large is not quite 100% behind us on this.


ok.
thanks for the reply..


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 28, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> How sad we live in an age where not wearing clothes as a personal choice is deemed as a sexual misdemeanour.


Being naked isn't against the law - it's all the contempt of court / bail terms / probation stuff that gets him jail repeatedly


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> One man can eat a kebab on a packed bus without the consent of everyone else and stink the place out.
> 
> Is the answer to get more people eating kebabs on buses or for the singular person to respect the wishes of the majority?


it rains a lot in scotland, he must be constantly washed. I'm sure his cock smells better than your kebab.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> One man can eat a kebab on a packed bus without the consent of everyone else and stink the place out.
> 
> Is the answer to get more people eating kebabs on buses or for the singular person to respect the wishes of the majority?



Just how noxious is this kebab?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> By that logic, an elderly person who finds non whites alarming shouldn't be told that they're wrong either.  Because one person trying to be non racist on his/her own will achieve nothing.
> 
> Also I was right on the outer edge of a migraine, and what I said was the absolute truth.  It's a state of mind in which I can just about read, can barely type, and the censor (that thing which usually lets you refrain from saying or doing things which you know will hurt, or at least lets you pull your punches) is switched off.  Given that situation, I was remarkably self-restrained.


Self restrained over what? Ironically you're arguing in favour of people not being self restrained as long as it suits themselves. The elderly person analogy doesn't work as I'm talking about behaviour going against social conditioning of groups and not just the whims of an individual.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> I can see where you're coming from, though in most cases I'd put personal freedoms ahead of the wishes of the community (which might sometimes be quite barmy) - which way I'd go with that would depend very much on the particular case.  On the whole, if someone individually wants to be a bit barmy in a harmless way, I would not support a barmy community in suppressing them.  I'm not trying to draw a direct parallel with this case in saying that, I should point out.


Anyone is at liberty to play their music at 100db anywhere in the world as long as it doesn't piss off anyone else. It isn't brain science, is it?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Self restrained over what? Ironically you're arguing in favour of people not being self restrained as long as it suits themselves. The elderly person analogy doesn't work as I'm talking about behaviour going against social conditioning of groups and not just the whims of an individual.


Your beahviour on this thread.  Bye Sweetie.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyone is at liberty to play their music at 100db anywhere in the world as long as it doesn't piss off anyone else. It isn't brain science, is it?


i can see how loud music would be upsetting.
i can see how being on a bus full of kebabs could be upsetting.
i can't see anything upsetting about a naked person walking down a road.
can you explain, in words, why you find the idea so upsetting?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Just how noxious is this kebab?


Tbf it could be slathered in extra hot chilli sauce and stuffed with raw shredded onions,  but is that any more deliberately malevolent than eating a pack of peanuts on very crowded public transport without checking that nobody in that section has a life threatening allergy to nuts?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Your beahviour on this thread.  Bye Sweetie.


What 'behaviour'? Given you're seemingly fighting tooth and nail for the freedom for this guy to have his dick out wherever he wants you're not quite so liberal over opposing views on the matter. You should have a think about that. And I'm not going to add a patronising epithet at the end.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What 'behaviour'? Given you're seemingly fighting tooth and nail for the freedom for this guy to have his dick out wherever he wants you're not quite so liberal over opposing views on the matter. You should have a think about that. And I'm not going to add a patronising epithet at the end.



do you really think that its just this one guy who wants to be able to be naked?
a lone nudity wolf..?


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 28, 2014)

I admire his principled and determined stand, and yes he should be able to strut naked, but he knows that he's going to get nicked every time, and he chooses to still do it. I admire his spirit and fearlessness, but I think he should channel his energies into making his point in a different way that doesn't involve jail for starters. Doing what he's doing, he's being a fucking dick tbh


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Tbf it could be slathered in extra hot chilli sauce and stuffed with raw shredded onions,  but is that any more deliberately malevolent than eating a pack of peanuts on very crowded public transport without checking that nobody in that section has a life threatening allergy to nuts?



Slightly different case in that the community as a whole isn't too bothered about someone eating some peanuts, but a very small number of individuals really could be objectively harmed.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> do you really think that its just this one guy who wants to be able to be naked?
> a lone nudity wolf..?



I said it's the one guy doing the protest. Which is a strong signifier of the percentage of the populace who feel this issue is more important than the other ten zillion shitty things out there to make a stand about. Can you explain how the fight for nudity also fights for other issues beyond individualist self expressionism? Where does it slide into class politics, for example?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> i can see how loud music would be upsetting.
> i can see how being on a bus full of kebabs could be upsetting.
> i can't see anything upsetting about a naked person walking down a road.
> can you explain, in words, why you find the idea so upsetting?



Have you actually been reading my posts?

I couldn't give a shit. But I can think of others who would feel threatened by it.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2014)

Important points of principle abound here, the individual versus the collective, whether an oversexualised society can ever perceive nudity in non-sexual ways - but I tend to focus on whether the cops put plastic sheeting on the car seats when they arrest him.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

it doesn't matter if people feel threatened by it, as long as there is no actual real threat.

my 3 year old niece is frightened of the wind. lets ban it.
my gran was frightened of black people. lets ban them.
my uncle is frightened of gays... etc.



Citizen66 said:


> I said it's the one guy doing the protest. Which is a strong signifier of the percentage of the populace who feel this issue is more important than the other ten zillion shitty things out there to make a stand about.


so we should only protest against the most 'important' things first? have you got a list in the right order that I can look at?
how many people have to want to be able to be naked before you deem it worthy?



> Can you explain how the fight for nudity also fights for other issues beyond individualist self expressionism? Where does it slide into class politics, for example?


i haven't mentioned class or any other issue. so I have no idea why you are posting about it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Why would women who have been the victim of or threatened by male sexual violence feel threatened by unsolicited male nudity chancing upon them. Fucking hell, the krypton factor.

Up the rights for the individual!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> it doesn't matter if people feel threatened by it, as long as there is no actual real threat.
> 
> my 3 year old niece is frightened of the wind. lets ban it.
> my gran was frightened of black people. lets ban them.
> ...



Fuck off you middle class liberal.

Edit: changed cunt to liberal.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck off you middle class cunt.



I'm not sure what JM has said that justifies that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure what JM has said that justifies that.



I edited as you were typing. 

All this equating racism with the right to get your dick out is getting on my nerves though. Like the two are remotely alike.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Why would women who have been the victim of or threatened by male sexual violence feel threatened by unsolicited male nudity chancing upon them. Fucking hell, the krypton factor.
> 
> Up the rights for the individual!


yes, its sad that people can feel unsafe. 
but the world can't walk on eggshells to try and make sure everyone else is ok, all the time.
my friend doesn't like men with ginger beards because of an abusive boyfriend. but he doesn't expect ginger men to shave around him.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I edited as you were typing.
> 
> All this equating racism with the right to get your dick out is getting on my nerves though. Like the two are remotely alike.



Well, there was also the case of the wind...

I can see that might get you riled, but I don't see the class angle - maybe a liberalism angle but I agree with JM that individual rights are important.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck off you middle class liberal.
> 
> Edit: changed cunt to liberal.


am i middle class?



Citizen66 said:


> All this equating racism with the right to get your dick out is getting on my nerves though. Like the two are remotely alike.


i'm not saying they are equal.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> am i middle class?
> 
> 
> i'm not saying they are equal.


So why use it as an example in your earlier post? I'd say you are middle class yeah but it's irrelevant to the discussion what class you are I guess.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, there was also the case of the wind...
> 
> I can see that might get you riled, but I don't see the class angle - maybe a liberalism angle but I agree with JM that individual rights are important.


There is no class angle. That was my point. Does this naked rambling bullshit in any way serve the interests of the working class? No. So why mention it? Because it makes it easier to nail the position as irrelevant. It's liberal stuff.
 You're libertarian right though so I expect you'd disagree.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So why use it as an example in your earlier post? I'd say you are middle class yeah but it's irrelevant to the discussion.


where did i mention anything to do with class?

for your records:
i was born, and spent the first half of my life, in a very working class northern family. I might be middle class these days, though - I don't know what the symptoms are.
I managed to get a degree at an old poly and now have a job that can pay for a couple of weeks holiday each year.
i still shop at morrisons though...


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm hard left libertarian. Personal freedoms galore but a close second to the wishes of the community. But this is in the context of the current society; a patriarchy which deals out shit to women and children. So my view is in that context.


This is about it for me as well. It's always going to be a messy mix of the individual Vs the collective, a position that you can't always apply to other situations, but one that in his case balances a theoretical (and I'll be honest, for me,  _not very important_) right to nudity against the just plain common sense chance of offending people.  I'm not offended, by his nob, most people I know wouldn't be, but there's enough offence around for me to think insisting on showing your cock ain't all that grand.

I can admire his fuck you attitude, his not giving in, but then... I don't really.  It's gone way past even being a point of principle, into obsession, maybe a mental health thing. He's certainly chosen to put nudity above everything else in his life, including seeing his kids. Think I've said before on this thread he's a kind of Brian Haw, but for a shit cause.  But then... what the state and courts have done to him is the real horror story. As well as costing a million quid to keep the daft bastard in prison, it's pretty monstrous that they just keep slamming him back inside (even if he, sort of, wants that to happen).  Any humane or just plain sensible system would pretty much ignore him or at least be a bit creative.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

I meant your argument has no grounds in class based politics. Which generally means something else.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 28, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> it doesn't matter if people feel threatened by it, as long as there is no actual real threat.
> 
> my 3 year old niece is frightened of the wind. lets ban it.
> my gran was frightened of black people. lets ban them.
> my uncle is frightened of gays... etc.


I agree utterly! Its a small step from this to banning anyone seen as devient in their presentation such as transgendered people!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 28, 2014)

Wilf said:


> This is about it for me as well. It's always going to be a messy mix of the individual Vs the collective, a position that you can't always apply to other situations, but one that in his case balances a theoretical (and I'll be honest, for me,  _not very important_) right to nudity against the just plain common sense chance of offending people.  I'm not offended, by his nob, most people I know wouldn't be, but there's enough offence around for me to think insisting on showing your cock ain't all that grand.
> 
> I can admire his fuck you attitude, his not giving in, but then... I don't really.  It's gone way past even being a point of principle, into obsession, maybe a mental health thing. He's certainly chosen to put nudity above everything else in his life, including seeing his kids. Think I've said before on this thread he's a kind of Brian Haw, but for a shit cause.  But then... what the state and courts have done to him is the real horror story. As well as costing a million quid to keep the daft bastard in prison, it's pretty monstrous that they just keep slamming him back inside (even if he, sort of, wants that to happen).  Any humane or just plain sensible system would pretty much ignore him or at least be a bit creative.


Beautifully put. I always end up in a row but this totally chimes with my position. I need sleep. This is a good note to end it on.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 28, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Any humane or just plain sensible system would pretty much ignore him or at least be a bit creative.



Yep.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I agree utterly! Its a small step from this to banning anyone seen as devient in their presentation such as transgendered people!


I suspect some of that is in there in terms of the way the state has responded to him, a similar impulse to people tutting away at gay couples kissing, yes all that. Ironically though, the response of the police and courts is no longer about that, it's become a defence of their _authority_, a mad position that leaves neither him nor them with a way out.  However, I do think you can be as liberated and open as anyone and still not be impressed by what he's doing. Can't remember really, but when I saw the original programme on his walk about 10 years ago, I didn't particularly like him but was rooting for him to get through. Since then though it's spilled over into a pure obsession rather than a social campaign.  Really hope he finds a way to live outside of prison and most of all wish the police would keep away unless he was causing _real, actual_ distress - and even then they should intervene with a light touch. Same time, it would be nice if he was willing to acknowledge that not everyone wants to see his genitals.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

I wouldn't want him near me its true!! But thats a far cry from wanting him in prison!

If he has mental health issues then they should be treated. Sounds to me that the way he's been treated has actually fuelled any underlying issues he might have had!


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.



Such wrongness in one post. It's just his body. Best for everyone on the planet when we stop getting worked up about nudity.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

So, the same old uber-libertarian pish being spouted on this thread as the last time then.

Plenty of hand-wringing, and amorphous nonsense about his right to be naked, "it's only his body", but little or nothing about the rights of others _not_ to be exposed to his obsessive behaviour.

Prison should be a last resort in any situation. This twat has forced the hand of the courts and given them no option but to imprison him time and time again. The fuckwit has walked passed primary schools in the nude. Anyone who thinks that's ok is also a fuckwit.

All Gough has to do is put some gear on and stay clothed in public and he'll be released and not nicked again.

Those posters decrying his treatment "because he could be mentally ill" are probably the same ones who'd be up in arms if he was sectioned.

The only options Gough is giving the courts are to allow him to continue his self-centered obsession, or to bang him up and fortunately the first isn't happening.

He's made his choice and he can change it at any time.

Good luck to him.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Such wrongness in one post. It's just his body. Best for everyone on the planet when we stop getting worked up about nudity.


So the same applies to flashers too then? Women should just stop getting worked up about it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There is no class angle. That was my point. Does this naked rambling bullshit in any way serve the interests of the working class? No. So why mention it? Because it makes it easier to nail the position as irrelevant. It's liberal stuff.
> You're libertarian right though so I expect you'd disagree.



Why is not wanting people jailed for their idiosyncrasies 'liberal'? 

There is no sign that you are a libertarian whatsoever.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So the same applies to flashers too then? Women should just stop getting worked up about it.



Perhaps you should stop doing it. You are willy waving here, so maybe that's you irl.

Of course that's an unfair argument, rather like equating the guy to a sex pest, of which there is no evidence. 

Your mock outrage on behalf of women and girls is just dismal. Unless you can show us where a woman has felt threatened by him in this fashion.

Quit while you are behind.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Why is not wanting people jailed for their idiosyncrasies 'liberal'?
> 
> There is no sign that you are a libertarian whatsoever.


Can you point to where I supposedly supported incarceration please? 

My position is the rights of the individual shouldn't impose negatively on those around them. Telling people that their views on unsolicited nudity are  'wrong' doesn't make it any less anti social.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Perhaps you should stop doing it. You are willy waving here, so maybe that's you irl.
> 
> Of course that's an unfair argument, rather like equating the guy to a sex pest, of which there is no evidence.
> 
> ...


Of course I can't be sure if women and girls have ever felt threatened by his nudity but what I do know is that he doesn't bother seeking their consent either.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Why is not wanting people jailed for their idiosyncrasies 'liberal'?



He's not being jailed for his idiosyncrasies. He's being jailed for continually breaking not unreasonable laws. The ECHR was absolutely correct on this:



> "However, the applicant's imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, un-warned members of the public going about their ordinary business."


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2014)

maybe we could compromise and just have him wear pixels over his meat n two. And is ringpiece when he bends over. Thats how they stop nudity offending on the tele.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2014)

The prison service could, on releasing him, drive him and his rucksacks to a nudist colony and release him in his preferred environment making it clear that if he leaves the colony he has to wear trousers or he will be locked up.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 29, 2014)

But it is a bit bizzare that we are so offended by our own bodies.

We are the only animal that is. AFAICT


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you point to where I supposedly supported incarceration please?
> 
> My position is the rights of the individual shouldn't impose negatively on those around them. Telling people that their views on unsolicited nudity are  'wrong' doesn't make it any less anti social.



It's implied that you dismiss concern about the issue as 'liberal'. But if you don't agree with incarceration just say so.

I'd rather he put his clothes on frankly, but given his intransigence on the point I don't wish it resolved by him being jailed.

If he starts rubbing himself in public whilst harassing women then that's another matter.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> He's not being jailed for his idiosyncrasies. He's being jailed for continually breaking not unreasonable laws. The ECHR was absolutely correct on this:



That quote is utter BS. You could jail just about anyone for something using that.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 29, 2014)

Maybe he just likes jail food ?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Of course I can't be sure if women and girls have ever felt threatened by his nudity but what I do know is that he doesn't bother seeking their consent either.



Ludicrous. Do women need your consent to show a lot of cleavage?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> That quote is utter BS. You could jail just about anyone for something using that.



Bollocks. You could jail anyone _who consistently breaks the law_ on that basis.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> It's implied that you dismiss concern about the issue as 'liberal'. But if you don't agree with incarceration just say so.
> 
> I'd rather he put his clothes on frankly, but given his intransigence on the point I don't wish it resolved by him being jailed.
> 
> If he starts rubbing himself in public whilst harassing women then that's another matter.


I just don't get why there's clamour to uphold the rights of this fellow over and above the wishes of everyone else. There doesn't appear to be great support for nakedness in public. I've certainly never heard any of my mates piss and moan about living under the tyranny of clothing. 

I don't agree with locking him up at all. He isn't a danger to anyone and this is just the state reacting to its authority being challenged.   But there's a discussion to be had over what would be the correct response to anti social acts, and if nudity falls into that bracket or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I'd rather he put his clothes on frankly, but given his intransigence on the point I don't wish it resolved by him being jailed.



How would you have it resolved?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

The standard liberal position is that conduct should only be criminalised if it harms others. Of course there is much debate around what is meant by 'harm' in this context. One interpretation is that it involves unjustified physical interferences with the person or their property or threats of such interferences. Other lesser forms of harm, such as those that are merely offensive or annoying or anti-social are best dealt with by socialisation, condemnation and scorn rather than criminal sanction on this account.

However, sometimes the boundary between conduct that is 'merely' offensive and conduct that is threatening is difficult to identify. Public flashing to my mind undoubtedly falls on the side of 'threatening' conduct, it is directed at particular individuals and often the victims are young. What about public masturbation? This could still amount to threatening conduct imo, even if not directed against a particular individual. How about reading a pornographic magazine in the public? This is less obviously threatening, but is nevertheless entirely inappropriate and very offensive. Such conduct is largely discouraged through social norms, but should the criminal law exist as a backstop in the rare circumstances where this discouragement fails? Arguably, this example might suggest that the concept of criminalisable (that should be a word!) harm could in some limited circumstances be extended to conduct that is _grossly_ offensive even if they are not directly threatening. 

The offensiveness of adult public nudity is rather context specific - at a nudist beach or a naked bike ride its not offensive at all (at least not to me), in a children's playground its clearly unacceptable. In a public highway? Personally I think that even if we disapprove of such conduct or consider it anti-social, or weird or eccentric, it should probably fall short of criminal conduct. Tolerance, at least legal tolerance at any rate, is the best policy imo.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Ludicrous. Do women need your consent to show a lot of cleavage?


You asked me to prove whether anyone had felt threatened by his nudity which is a ridiculous request. But given he doesn't seek consent and views are both varied and many, what do you suppose the probability is?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

This guy reminds me a bit of that bloke who did the one man protest camp outside parliament for years.  There is something correct about his central point but the whole thing just makes me sad and like that Parliament bloke I can help thinking its a lfe wasted.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I just don't get why there's clamour to uphold the rights of this fellow over and above the wishes of everyone else.



Hampshire police alone received over 30 complaints from the public last year which prompted their asbo application.

Why should one man trump (at least) 30.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Those posters decrying his treatment "because he could be mentally ill" are probably the same ones who'd be up in arms if he was sectioned.
> .



Not me! Not if it was justified and genuinely meant he'd be getting the treatment and support he needed!


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2014)

if he grows out his bush he could cover up with that.

I have strongly defended this geezers right to walk around naked on this thread but he's lost every appeal. I like that he maintains his nakedness in jail though. Keeping it real.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Hampshire police alone received over 30 complaints from the public last year which prompted their asbo application.
> 
> Why should one man trump (at least) 30.


Is it only one man who feels strongly about presenting nude though? I thought there were thousands of people who would if they could but probably would prefer not to be arrested.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I have strongly defended this geezers right to walk around naked on this thread but he's lost every appeal. I like that he maintains his nakedness in jail though. Keeping it real.



He even walks around naked on this thread?  Is there anywhere the man won't get his todger out?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> Is it only one man who feels strongly about presenting nude though? I thought there were thousands of people who would if they could but probably would prefer not to be arrested.



Eh?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?


not heard of the naturist movement then?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> not heard of the naturist movement then?



Wtf are you on about?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Wtf are you on about?


obviously not. Heard of Google?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> obviously not. Heard of Google?



Oh fuck off. As far as I'm aware there are few, if any, naturists campaigning for the right to walk through streets and past schools with their bollocks out.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So the same applies to flashers too then? Women should just stop getting worked up about it.


this is dodgy ground.
comparing walking somewhere naked to someone committing a sexual attack.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck off. As far as I'm aware there are few, if any, naturists campaigning for the right to walk through streets and past schools with their bollocks out.


you fuck off


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Hampshire police alone received over 30 complaints from the public last year which prompted their asbo application.
> 
> Why should one man trump (at least) 30.


According to Mr Moose it's their views that are wrong and not the actions of this individual.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> this is dodgy ground.
> comparing walking somewhere naked to someone committing a sexual attack.


Both are unsolicited. I agree that one is passive though.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

I reckon if I went to certain parts of the UK and made no effort to look more female I would easily run up 30 complaints. Especially if I wore a short skirt and walked past a school!! Doesn't mean they're right!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> you fuck off



Sorry but if you post patronising shit here "obviously not, heard of Google" you're going to get your post rammed up your arse.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Both are unsolicited. I agree that one is passive though.


most things, if not all, in public are unsolicited


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry but if you post patronising shit here "obviously not, heard of Google" you're going to get your post rammed up your arse.


as far as I'm concerned you became offensive first. I was repsonding to your tone. Please assume I've fucked off and stop bothering me!

I've put you on ignore.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck off. As far as I'm aware there are few, if any, naturists campaigning for the right to walk through streets* and past schools* with their bollocks out.




I think news reports earlier in the thread indicated that he had walked starkers through a crowd of schoolkids? That ties in with jeffs long post- the point about where and when nudity is acceptable in public.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> most things, if not all, in public are unsolicited


I'm sure we get to hear about all the other anti social acts too.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I reckon if I went to certain parts of the UK and made no effort to look more female I would easily run up 30 complaints. Especially if I wore a short skirt and walked past a school!! Doesn't mean they're right!



To clarify, you think there are parts of the UK where if you walked past a school with a short skirt on there would be complaints to the police?  Really?  Perhaps you should name them?


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> To clarify, you think there are parts of the UK where if you walked past a school with a short skirt on there would be complaints to the police?  Really?  Perhaps you should name them?


I've seen a news report where a trans woman was actually ASBOed to stay away from schools even though she lived next to one because her skirts were deemed too short.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I've put you on ignore.



I know you'll have a sneaky peek later. 

So bollocks to ya.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> To clarify, you think there are parts of the UK where if you walked past a school with a short skirt on there would be complaints to the police?  Really?  Perhaps you should name them?



Ah, she's a fucking idiot.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I've seen a news report where a trans woman was actually ASBOed to stay away from schools even though she lived next to one because her skirts were deemed too short.



Really.  Where?  I'd love to see the context of that because there I can't see any law being infringed there, how short were the skirts?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?



He's the naked rambler not the naked public transport user.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Hampshire police alone received over 30 complaints from the public last year which prompted their asbo application.
> 
> Why should one man trump (at least) 30.



Its not a case of straight forward arithmetic through. We're weighing his liberty interest - a fundamental interest - against the interest of 30 plus people not being offended by his naked body - which in comparison is a fairly trivial concern. Certain TV shows and radio programs generate thousands of complaints by people who are offended by things that are said and done on them, but they don't involve any serious demands for criminalising such conduct. Why? Because most people agree that there has to be certain threshold of seriousness before conduct can be criminalised. 

FWIW I am not defending his unilateral and uncompromising rebellion against a near universally held societal norm. It's anti-social and ultimately counter-productive to any naturist cause at any rate. I just think that it falls within the category of conduct that is better dealt with without recourse to the criminal law.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Really.  Where?  I'd love to see the context of that because there I can't see any law being infringed there, how short were the skirts?


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cross-dresser-faces-jail-after-breaching-748046


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> He's the naked rambler not the naked public transport user.


Surely the argument is about the freedom to do this anywhere? There's already places for nudists to go if they so wish.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 29, 2014)

He has the right to be naked. Others have the right not to see others naked.
The responsibility is on him not to inflict his nudity on others.
I think he has some kind of problem as he seems to prefer to go to jail than to live in a way where he can express his naturalism without breaking the law.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I just think that it falls within the category of conduct that is better dealt with without recourse to the criminal law.



Again, what would that recourse be? 

What hasn't been tried that could resolve the situation. Allowing him to carry on or "ignoring him" is not a resolution.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's already places for nudists to go if they so wish.


that quote doesn't sit right, with me.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Again, what would that recourse be?
> 
> What hasn't been tried that could resolve the situation. Allowing him to carry on or "ignoring him" is not a resolution.



Personally, I think it probably is the best resolution in this instance.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

comrade spurski said:


> He has the right to be naked. Others have the right not to see others naked.
> The responsibility is on him not to inflict his nudity on others.
> I think he has some kind of problem as he seems to prefer to go to jail than to live in a way where he can express his naturalism without breaking the law.



naturism surely!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Personally, I think it probably is the best resolution in this instance.



But it isn't a resolution. His law breaking will continue to alarm and offend a lot of other members of society.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> But it isn't a resolution. His law breaking will continue to alarm and offend a lot of other members of society.



So do all manner of people - radio shock jocks and journalists for example. Criminalisation isn't always the solution to the causing of alarm and offence.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

has anyone explained why its offencive, to be undressed, yet?
which bit is specifically the offensive bit?
is it worse to have the balls or the dick out? what about having a bit of pubes showing?

people were once alarmed by the showing of ankles, or the wearing of bikinis. eventually these became acceptable to whatever the dailymail types were called back then.

a smaller group causing alarm to a larger group isn't reason enough to stop them.
in life, people are often offended.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cross-dresser-faces-jail-after-breaching-748046



Well yes, context.  Not just a trans woman as such, he / she was dressing as a schoolgirl and hung around school gates when he had no obvious reason for being there, thats a bit different then a woman walking past a school with a short skirt and besides the law came down on his side (with regard to jail) eventually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-12345390


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> naturism surely!



Nah there's more to it then that.  This guy is directly seeking out confrontation with the law, he's a very sad case and this whole thing is just eating him up.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> So do all manner of people - radio shock jocks and journalists for example.



But they rarely break the law. He has been jailed for contempt and for breaking social orders. 

There's a reason that this guy is considered by many to be a freak and that's because as you mentioned, he's bucking against millenia of universal social norms. 

Why are those norms thus? Why haven't they changed over the last several thousand years? Why should they change now because a handful of fruitcakes say so?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why are those norms thus? Why haven't they changed over the last several thousand years? Why should they change now because a handful of fruitcakes say so?


even over the last 100 years, attitudes to nudity have changed, a lot.
and some of our closest neighbouring countries have very different approaches to being naked.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 29, 2014)

i recon the taboo against having ones genitals on display is cos the femoral artery is so close to the area- hence 'gird your loins'

/science


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> But they rarely break the law. He has been jailed for contempt and for breaking social orders.
> 
> There's a reason that this guy is considered by many to be a freak and that's because as you mentioned, he's bucking against millenia of universal social norms.
> 
> Why are those norms thus? Why haven't they changed over the last several thousand years? Why should they change now because a handful of fruitcakes say so?



Obviously he's breaking the law, but the debate here is whether his conduct should have been criminalised in the first place. 

The taboo against public nudity is not a universally observed, and at any rate the pervasiveness of a norm is not a justification of it. I have nothing against people contesting and challenging the repression of public nudity, but I think the uncompromising way the naked rambler has gone about doing so is wrong and counterproductive. Nevertheless I think it falls short of conduct worthy of criminalisation.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> I've seen a news report where a trans woman was actually ASBOed to stay away from schools even though she lived next to one because her skirts were deemed too short.



I'm going to come back to this because I'm utterly astonished.  There was a adult male dressing up as a schoolgirl and hanging around the school gates even though he had no kid at the school.  You don't think parents should be concerned about that and raise their concerns?  You have to be kidding me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 29, 2014)

Do you have to use words like freak, Spymaster ?


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> naturism surely!


Probably ... I am not sure of the correct term


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> that quote doesn't sit right, with me.


In what way? It's like a rave. Having a gathering with loud music is acceptable in some circumstances but anti social in another. Do you think naturism should be free of such nuances?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?


Nobody has answered this yet. Maybe you can give it a crack, joustmaster


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> In what way? It's like a rave. Having a gathering with loud music is acceptable in some circumstances but anti social in another. Do you think naturism should be free of such nuances?


yes.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I'm going to come back to this because I'm utterly astonished.  There was a adult male dressing up as a schoolgirl and hanging around the school gates even though he had no kid at the school.  You don't think parents should be concerned about that and raise their concerns?  You have to be kidding me.


When this happened I was crossdressing regularly and having to pass a school that was half a block from me. The reports I read about this said she was in her own front garden when the complaints that led to the original ASBO were made.

So yes! I had reason to be concerned about this!!

I'd at that point been threatened by Flickr management about putting pics of me dressed as a woman on my account because some users thought their children would be corrupted! That is seriously what they told me. Slippery slope, that's all I'm saying. We have to be careful about who we decide to criminalise and why!


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes.



I put this scenario to you before on this very thread but I once reported a man with no clothes on hiding in the bushes next to a primary school at playtime.  Following your logic means I was wrong to do so.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Well yes, context.  Not just a trans woman as such, he / she was dressing as a schoolgirl and hung around school gates when he had no obvious reason for being there, thats a bit different then a woman walking past a school with a short skirt and besides the law came down on his side (with regard to jail) eventually.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-12345390


try harder with your pronouns!

Will you be referring to me as he/ she next?


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> When this happened I was crossdressing regularly and having to pass a school that was half a block from me. The reports I read about this said she was in her own front garden when the complaints that led to the original ASBO were made.
> 
> So yes! I had reason to be concerned about this!!



Well, exactly context and nuances.  If a cross-dresser was getting grief simply because they walked past a school in a short skirt then that would clearly be wrong and I suspect everyone on this thread would agree with me.  But clearly a adult male dressed as a schoolgirl hanging around the school gates warrants attention from the authorities.

Its like this sad case, there are literally thousands of miles of this country he could wander around with his shrivelled pecker on display and no one would give a shit, but thats not his bag he seeks out confrontation which he finds and then loses.  Its a massive waste of time and money but mostly a life.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> try harder with your pronouns!
> 
> Will you be referring to me as he/ she next?



There was nothing in either article to suggest how they identify themselves, tbh how anyone wants to identfy themselves is really up them.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes.



So you reckon it's ok for some geezer to cruise through a crowd of kids with his cock out? 

There's probably an argument for keeping him banged up for his own safety too. I can think of several areas where he'd likely end up lynched or with a rottweiler swinging from his nutsack if he pulled that shit again.


----------



## Sea Star (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> try harder with your pronouns!





Teaboy said:


> There was nothing in either article to suggest how they identify themselves, tbh how anyone wants to identfy themselves is really up them.


if someone identifies as female and dresses as a female then I think its fair to use female pronouns until you get better information.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Do you have to use words like freak, Spymaster ?



Fair do's. 

Apologies.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

AuntiStella said:


> if someone identifies as female and dresses as a female then I think its fair to use female pronouns until you get better information.



Sure, as I say I have no information on how he identifies and similarly no info on whether this is an everyday thing or just on some days.  The only cross dresser I know is a high-flying business man who is always male accept on Thursday evenings when he is female. 

TBH though with the cross dresser dressing as a school girl I'm more concerned with his behaviour then the niceties on how he would like to be addressed and on which day. Also you using it as an example on this thread when in fact it was a good example of why laws around clothing (or lack of) are useful.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

This thread needs Casually Red back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> that quote doesn't sit right, with me.



Mm. Smacks of "if you don't like it, leave the country" sort of guff.


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2014)

Apologies if it hasn't been mentioned, but apparently the N/R has spent a total of seven years in prison, much of it in solitary


all I can say is 'fucking crazy'.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This thread needs Casually Red back.



I suspect that is the first time that statement has ever been made.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

treelover said:


> Apologies if it hasn't been mentioned, but apparently the N/R has spent a total of seven years in prison, much of it in solitary
> 
> 
> all I can say is 'fucking crazy'.



Well yes, but perhaps your phrasing is a bit insensitive.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Mm. Smacks of "if you don't like it, leave the country" sort of guff.


Serious question. A couple of heroin addicts set up camp on your doorstep. Cool, yeah?


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So you reckon it's ok for some geezer to cruise through a crowd of kids with his cock out?
> 
> There's probably an argument for keeping him banged up for his own safety too. I can think of several areas where he'd likely end up lynched or with a rottweiler swinging from his nutsack if he pulled that shit again.



That "cruise" comment reads wrong, too


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Serious question. A couple of heroin addicts set up camp on your doorstep. Cool, yeah?



Serious answer; this guy is not an addict or a danger to anyone.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Serious answer; this guy is not an addict or a danger to anyone.



Why is an addict a problem?  Are they suddenly a danger because they are an addict?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Serious answer; this guy is not an addict or a danger to anyone.


Addicts are only a danger to themselves. So if it's fine to walk about bollock naked wherever we like it should be fine to shoot up wherever we please too. Yeah?


----------



## treelover (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> Well yes, but perhaps your phrasing is a bit insensitive.




Yeah, can see that maybe


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Addicts are only a danger to themselves. So if it's fine to walk about bollock naked wherever we like it should be fine to shoot up wherever we please too. Yeah?



A few different issues there. The thing about shooting up in public is that it would lead to needles being left lying around that could pose threats to other members of the public. The prohibition of certain drug consumption is often justified on the basis that addictions can lead to crimes and other forms of anti-social behaviour that threaten others. Naked rambling, in and of itself, does not lead to any such harms. Its merely the act itself that causes offence.


----------



## krtek a houby (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Addicts are only a danger to themselves. So if it's fine to walk about bollock naked wherever we like it should be fine to shoot up wherever we please too. Yeah?



 How is the natural state akin to addiction???



Teaboy said:


> Why is an addict a problem?  Are they suddenly a danger because they are an addict?



Speaking from experience, some are a danger unto themselves and some are a danger to others.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> A few different issues there. The thing about shooting up in public is that it would lead to needles being left lying around that could pose threats to other members of the public. The prohibition of certain drug consumption is often justified on the basis that addictions can lead to crimes and other forms of anti-social behaviour that threaten others. Naked rambling, in and of itself, does not lead to any such harms. Its merely the act itself that causes offence.



How about public wanking? 

Shagging in Tesco?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> How about public wanking?



I've already dealt with that. I think that that can be understood as either threatening behaviour or at the very least is grossly offensive and warrants criminalisation as a result. I don't think public nudity in and of itself crosses that threshold.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> How is the natural state akin to addiction???
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking from experience, some are a danger unto themselves and some are a danger to others.


We're exploring your apparent permissive view that the wishes of an individual trump the wishes of those they encounter. However it's now clear that you're not quite so permissive if anti social behaviour were to land on your own doorstep.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?


Are we all completely ignoring the possibility of this scenario then?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I've already dealt with that. I think that that can be understood as either threatening behaviour or at the very least is grossly offensive and warrants criminalisation as a result.



Why is it more offensive or threatening than this twat walking through a crowd of schoolkids with his cock and bollocks out? 

Surely having a quiet wank in the park or a quick bunk up in the frozen foods aisle with just adults around is preferable to that?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Teaboy said:


> I put this scenario to you before on this very thread but I once reported a man with no clothes on hiding in the bushes next to a primary school at playtime.  Following your logic means I was wrong to do so.


I would have called the cops.
anyone hiding in the bushes next to a school is a worry (dressed, or otherwise).
its all about intention. 
a gay man walking past a school is not a bad thing (although some think it is). a gay man hiding in a bush by a school looks a bit dodgy... the gay bit isn't important.
you need to make a differentiation between being undressed and wanting to fuck everything.



Spymaster said:


> So you reckon it's ok for some geezer to cruise through a crowd of kids with his cock out?


its not clear what you mean, but it read like you are implying that the person is getting off on showing his cock to kids - which is bad.
involving someone, against their will, for your sexual gratification is bad.
a naked person happening to walk past a group of kids, on their way somewhere is fine.
being undressed doesn't have to be sexual.



Spymaster said:


> How about public wanking?


"if that woman can have her tits out on the beach then i can wank in this carpark.. its the same thing."
why do you keep thinking that not wearing clothes is a sexual choice? these are very different things. 
have you never been in public sauna? did you have to start wanking?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All those coming out in defense of him: how do you suppose a victim of male sexual violence might feel about a naked man plonking himself next to them on a bus?


Liberal dilemma.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> ....a naked person happening to walk past a group of kids, on their way somewhere is fine.



Seriously?

If you think that people should be allowed to force their non-sexual nudity (by incident or design) on minors, then we have a fundamental disagreement that's unlikely to be resolved.



> "if that woman can have her tits out on the beach then i can wank in this carpark.. its the same thing."
> why do you keep thinking that not wearing clothes is a sexual choice? these are very different things.
> have you never been in public sauna? did you have to start wanking?



That's not the point that was being made.

The reason that people don't fuck or wank in public is because it's deemed socially unacceptable. That's the same reason that you're rejecting for Gough being sanctioned for his public nudity.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Seriously?
> 
> If you think that people should be allowed to force their non-sexual nudity (by incident or design) on minors, then we have a fundamental disagreement that's unlikely to be resolved.


what do you think will happen to a child if it glances at a passing lady garden or a willy? will they be mentally messed up for the rest of their lives?
should they be blind folded in changing rooms?



> That's not the point that was being made.
> 
> The reason that people don't fuck or wank in public is because it's deemed socially unacceptable. That's the same reason that you're rejecting for Gough being sanctioned for his public nudity.


the reason people don't wank in public is not due to social niceties, its because its a sexual act that you shouldn't involve non willing parties in.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> what do you think will happen to a child if it glances at a passing lady garden or a willy? will they be mentally messed up for the rest of their lives?
> should they be blind folded in changing rooms?



Adult non sexual nudity isn't harmful in and of itself but normalising it in any and every given situation would prove useful to those who do have criminal intentions towards minors.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> the reason people don't wank in public is not due to social niceties, its because its a sexual act that you shouldn't involve non willing parties in.



Why does the fact that it's a sexual act make any difference?

I'm not harming anyone by tossing-off on a bench in Trafalgar Square. I'm not involving anyone else. People should mind their own business.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why does the fact that it's a sexual act make any difference?
> 
> I'm not harming anyone by tossing off on a bench in Trafalgar Square. I'm not involving anyone else. People should mind their own business.


are you being purposefully dense?
wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
walking isn't a sex act.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Adult non sexual nudity isn't harmful in and of itself but normalising it in any and every given situation would prove useful to those who do have criminal intentions towards minors.


so could wearing a large smock.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> are you being purposefully dense?
> wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
> walking isn't a sex act.


Voyeurism is though and you're forcing people into that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> so could wearing a large smock.


Now who's being puposefully dense? You're yet to answer my earlier question btw.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> are you being purposefully dense?
> wanking in front of people involves them in your sex act. I would call it sexual assault.
> walking isn't a sex act.



No, you're being inconsistent.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to "involve" people in my sex act (insofar as allowing them to watch it constitutes "involvement"). They don't have to look. What's wrong with that? It's only sex. Perfectly natural.

Answer the question. What's wrong with me performing a public sex act?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Why is it more offensive or threatening than this twat walking through a crowd of schoolkids with his cock and bollocks out?
> 
> Surely having a quiet wank in the park or a quick bunk up in the frozen foods aisle with just adults around is preferable to that?



I wasn't aware that he'd walked through a crowd of school kids. I think public masturbation could be seen as threatening to a member of the public in the sense that it could be interpreted as a precursor to a sexual assault. If there's nobody around to catch you go for it if you want - as long as you clear any mess up 

Sex in public - there probably isn't anything inherently wrong with this but the norm of confinement of sex to private sphere means that many people would find it distressing to witness. I think the difference between this and mere public nudity is that the latter is not inherently sexual. In fact naked rambling is probably the least sexual thing you could imagine! Whilst it may offend and shock some people, I think most people would find the sex more alarming. Like I said, I think public nudity (subject to context) probably falls on the side of the non-criminal for me, but these are distinctions of degree rather than kind fundamentally.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Voyeurism is though and you're forcing people into that.


forcing someone one to get off on looking at a non sexual person in a sexual way? I don't think thats a thing. thats something driven by the viewer. a choice by them, not the naked person.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Now who's being puposefully dense? You're yet to answer my earlier question btw.


which one?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> No, you're being inconsistent.
> 
> Why shouldn't I be allowed to "involve" people in my sex act (insofar as allowing them to watch it constitutes "involvement"). They don't have to look. What's wrong with that? It's only sex. Perfectly natural.
> 
> Answer the question. What's wrong with me performing a public sex act?


I have answered it.
sexual assault is bad.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I have answered it.
> sexual assault is bad.



But I wouldn't be assaulting anyone.

I'm just trying to have a quiet tug, ffs. In Trafalgar Square.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> forcing someone one to get off on looking at a non sexual person in a sexual way? I don't think thats a thing. thats something driven by the viewer. a choice by them, not the naked person.


If people see something out of the ordinary they look. It's involuntary as you do a double take for the brain to register the new information. If a naked bloke walks down the high st I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that people have a choice whether to look or not. Arousal can be involuntary also.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> But I wouldn't be assaulting anyone.
> 
> I'm just trying to have a quiet tug, ffs. In Trafalgar Square.


you don't have to be touching people to sexually assault them.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If people see something out of the ordinary they look. It's involuntary as you do a double take for the brain to register the new information. If a naked bloke walks down the high st I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that people have a choice whether to look or not. Arousal can be involuntary also.


I wasn't talking about looking or not.
If someone looks at something and finds it a turn on, fair enough. I sometimes look at someone in the street and find them to be a turn on.
Them being naked makes no difference.
Just like when I am in a changing room, sauna, beach, and there are naked people about.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

So when my gf's daughter has her ten year old mates round, it's acceptable for me to wander around the house starkers, in your view?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> you don't have to be touching people to sexually assault them.



Ah right, so what you're saying is that my behaviour could cause some people to feel intimated.

Is that right?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> How about public wanking?
> 
> Shagging in Tesco?


 Bucket List?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Ah right, so what you're saying is that my behaviour could cause some people to feel intimated.
> 
> Is that right?


No, I'm saying you are performing a sex act. One that involves unwilling participants. A sexual assault.
Where as the bearded fellow is just walking along a road.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So when my gf's daughter has her ten year old mates round, it's acceptable for me to wander around the house starkers, in your view?


You're sort of not really making an argument if you just ignore the awkward questions.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> No, I'm saying you are performing a sex act. One that involves unwilling participants. A sexual assault.
> Where as the bearded fellow is just walking along a road.



I disagree. Show me a definition of sexual assault that would include public wanking.

What you mean is that others may find my actions sexually intimidating, and you'd be right.

Well guess what, there are people out there who find beardy fellas in the buff intimidating too. No doubt you'd call them uptight prudes who need to get a life.

The thing is, uptight prudes have just as many rights as you or Gough have. so now tell me why you or he trump them.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

All the comparisons with trans people being harrassed in public or the recent stories on gay couples getting thrown of the bus or whatever show this isn't a question of absolute principles.  Unambiguously anybody who claims they should be protected from seeing gay couples live their lives openly should be to fuck right off.  However, my judgement call is that there's a real chance that a display of your genitals will call genuine offence or alarm _in certain circumstances_.  Yes, we should all lighten up about the human body and even more so the state should play the whole thing with a light touch. It's insanity what has happened to him in this battle of wills with the courts & prison service.  Same time, it's just one of those occasions where a _reasonable, thoughtful adult should exercise their rights in a way that considers other people_ - in particular, keeping it covered up in town centres etc.  Not a statement of principle, just a sensible way of living your life..... _in this case_.

Suppose what I'm really saying is living your life with an eye to not so much conventions, but real people's feelings is tricky, messy and contradictory, but something that's at least worth thinking about. Trouble is, withe Gough thing it's gone way beyond that and just become a horrible cat and mouse game with the state.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nobody has answered this yet. Maybe you can give it a crack, joustmaster



Because it's fucking stupid and you playing that well beloved game 'Internets'.

Are you imagining it's somehow trumped all arguments and no one can answer it?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You're sort of not really making an argument if you just ignore the awkward questions.


it depends on why you are doing it, and what you are specifically doing.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Nobody has answered this yet. Maybe you can give it a crack, joustmaster





joustmaster said:


> yes, its sad that people can feel unsafe.
> but the world can't walk on eggshells to try and make sure everyone else is ok, all the time.
> my friend doesn't like men with ginger beards because of an abusive boyfriend. but he doesn't expect ginger men to shave around him.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

I'd add that being shocked or offended by something shouldn't automatically lead us to demand that the offending practice is banned or suppressed. Sometimes it's worth critically reflecting upon our reactions and asking whether they are justified, and encouraging others to do the same. From what I can tell this guy has never expressed any desire to harm or upset others. For whatever reason, he regards being permanently naked as deeply important to his sense of self. Would it not behoove us as a society to try to at be tolerant to his idiosyncratic quirk? Would we not be the better for that?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So you reckon it's ok for some geezer to cruise through a crowd of kids with his cock out?
> 
> There's probably an argument for keeping him banged up for his own safety too. I can think of several areas where he'd likely end up lynched or with a rottweiler swinging from his nutsack if he pulled that shit again.



Has this ever happened? It doesn't seem to me that his nudity actually bothers too many people.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree. Show me a definition of sexual assault that would include public wanking.
> 
> What you mean is that others may find my actions sexually intimidating, and you'd be right.
> 
> ...


I would entirely consider someone masturbating in public a form of sexual abuse. especially having had a couple of friends the victim of such a thing.

not a case of intimidation. but of assault.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes, its sad that people can feel unsafe.
> but the world can't walk on eggshells to try and make sure everyone else is ok, all the time.
> my friend doesn't like men with ginger beards because of an abusive boyfriend. but he doesn't expect ginger men to shave around him.


But you're actually arguing the opposite. That naked rambler should be accommodated and to hell with how everyone else feels about it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> it depends on why you are doing it, and what you are specifically doing.


Just answer the question. It's cool for me to wander around stark naked when there's ten year old kids in the house y/n?


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'd add that being shocked or offended by something shouldn't automatically lead us to demand that the offending practice is banned or suppressed. Sometimes it's worth critically reflecting upon our reactions and asking whether they are justified, and encouraging others to do the same. From what I can tell this guy has never expressed any desire to harm or upset others. For whatever reason, he regards being permanently naked as deeply important to his sense of self. Would it not behoove us as a society to try to at be tolerant to his idiosyncratic quirk? Would we not be the better for that?


 Good post and all undoubtedly true - particularly at and abstract or general level.  However it's the reality on the ground, whether somebody in a shop is okay about having a nudey feller in close  proximity - all that lived experience that brings the rights of communities back in. 

Suppose I'm arguing a 'rights and responsibiliites' line, which feels slightly uncomfortable and conservative. However I struggle to go with a pure libertarian position that his priorities should over ride those around him.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But you're actually arguing the opposite. That naked rambler should be accommodated and to hell with how everyone else feels about it.


yes. thats what I am saying.
things that endanger people should be restricted.
things that a number of people aren't keen on shouldn't.

a ginger bearded man isn't a danger, but it is upsetting to some people. there is no danger. so this shouldn't be banned.
a naked man passing a person who has been sexually assaulted in the past is upsetting, but not a danger. so it shouldn't be banned.
spymaster wanking in town is sexually motivated against people who are not willing participants. its dangerous. it is banned.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Because it's fucking stupid and you playing that well beloved game 'Internets'.
> 
> Are you imagining it's somehow trumped all arguments and no one can answer it?


What of the rights of sexual abuse victims not to feel threatened by male nakedness everywhere they turn? I suspect a bit of sexism behind your stance to hand all rights to gough and fuck everyone else.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Just answer the question. It's cool for me to wander around stark naked when there's ten year old kids in the house y/n?


i did answer the question.
its not ok in some circumstances.
it is ok in others.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes. thats what I am saying.
> things that endanger people should be restricted.
> things that a number of people aren't keen on shouldn't.



So you wouldn't even ask the kids or their parents if they minded at all oh selfish child of Thatcher?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Just answer the question. It's cool for me to wander around stark naked when there's ten year old kids in the house y/n?



You are missing the point. It's fine for some things to be considered against the norm. Our Naked buddy can't expect a job in a school or in customer service. In fact probably selling Ice Creams on a nudist beach is going to be it other than home-working. He can also be refused entry to both private and public establishments. But prison?

We can just reserve the right to ostracise and criticise. We don't need to stick him in jail.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What of the rights of sexual abuse victims not to feel threatened by male nakedness everywhere they turn? I suspect a bit of sexism behind your stance to hand all rights to gough and fuck everyone else.


people are frightened of all sorts of things. such is life.
the important things that our laws should be doing is protecting from actual dangers.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Has this ever happened?



Twice.

Once in Dunfermline and once in Fife.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> You are missing the point. It's fine for some things to be considered against the norm. Our Naked buddy can't expect a job in a school or in customer service. In fact probably selling Ice Creams on a nudist beach is going to be it other than home-working. He can also be refused entry to both private and public establishments. But prison?
> 
> We can just reserve the right to ostracise and criticise. We don't need to stick him in jail.


What is pissing me off is that at the heart of this you're basically arguing in favour of doing as you please regardless of the feelings of others and if there's a problem then it's their attitude at fault and not your behaviour because you say so.

What an incredibly selfish outlook but sadly all too common.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What of the rights of sexual abuse victims not to feel threatened by male nakedness everywhere they turn? I suspect a bit of sexism behind your stance to hand all rights to gough and fuck everyone else.



What? You think female victims of sexual abuse are most worried about the behaviour of eccentric, probably damaged individuals? I would imagine it's the run of the mill, casual behaviour of cocky ordinary men that bothers them the most.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Good post and all undoubtedly true - particularly at and abstract or general level.  However it's the reality on the ground, whether somebody in a shop is okay about having a nudey feller in close  proximity - all that lived experience that brings the rights of communities back in.
> 
> Suppose I'm arguing a 'rights and responsibiliites' line, which feels slightly uncomfortable and conservative. However I struggle to go with a pure libertarian position that his priorities should over ride those around him.



My position is not that his priorities should override everyone else's interests, but rather that others should at least reflect on whether he really is harming their interests. We don't want to become an ossified society in which the first reaction to anything that makes us feel uncomfortable or awkward is ban it! stop it! As joustmaster pointed out, in the past people were scandalised by the sight of exposed ankles. All I'm saying is that when it comes to offending people's sensibilities its a two way street in which both the offender and the offended should take stock of their actions and reactions.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So you wouldn't even ask the kids or their parents if they minded at all oh selfish child of Thatcher?


Where did I say that?
I said in some circumstances it would be OK. In others it wouldn't.
I have some friends who I am sure wouldn't mind me being naked in front of their kids. I have some that would mind. Thats not what we are talking about. here though. We are talking about a man walking from one place to another undressed, past strangers.

What's with this thatcher stuff?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What is pissing me off is that at the heart of this you're basically arguing in favour of doing as you please regardless of the feelings of others and if there's a problem then it's their attitude at fault and not your behaviour because you say so.
> 
> What an incredibly selfish outlook but sadly all too common.


I've just had a look out of the window at central London. There are loads of people there.
Literally everything I do will offend someone.
And, in turn, I am offended several times a day by other people. But I can't remember the last time I demanded any be put in prison.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> What is pissing me off is that at the heart of this you're basically arguing in favour of doing as you please regardless of the feelings of others and if there's a problem then it's their attitude at fault and not your behaviour because you say so.
> 
> What an incredibly selfish outlook but sadly all too common.



You do like to play daft don't you? I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying we can condemn his behaviour just like we can air our disapproval to Lady Gaga and her distasteful meat dress. 

He can be excluded from public life and denied certain work unless he meets the expected behaviour. We can ask him to cover up. We can tell him we don't like it.

But we should not imprison him merely for being naked and disobedient. All the stuff about sexual behaviour is a red herring unless he actually commits sexual misconduct.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> not a case of intimidation. but of assault.




Only by your reckoning. 

Do you not think that there are people out there who find Gough's nudity just as repellent as you'd find my wanking in Trafalgar Square?


----------



## twentythreedom (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> All the comparisons with trans people being harrassed in public or the recent stories on gay couples getting thrown of the bus or whatever show this isn't a question of absolute principles.  Unambiguously anybody who claims they should be protected from seeing gay couples live their lives openly should be to fuck right off.  However, my judgement call is that there's a real chance that a display of your genitals will call genuine offence or alarm _in certain circumstances_.  Yes, we should all lighten up about the human body and even more so the state should play the whole thing with a light touch. It's insanity what has happened to him in this battle of wills with the courts & prison service.  Same time, it's just one of those occasions where a _reasonable, thoughtful adult should exercise their rights in a way that considers other people_ - in particular, keeping it covered up in town centres etc.  Not a statement of principle, just a sensible way of living your life..... _in this case_.
> 
> Suppose what I'm really saying is living your life with an eye to not so much conventions, but real people's feelings is tricky, messy and contradictory, but something that's at least worth thinking about. Trouble is, withe Gough thing it's gone way beyond that and just become a horrible cat and mouse game with the state.


This


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Only by your reckoning.
> 
> Do you not think that there are people out there who find Gough's nudity just as repellent as you'd find my wanking in Trafalgar Square?



Out of interest, what is it about Trafalgar Square that arouses you so much? Do you imagine sliding along Nelson's Column?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Only by your reckoning.
> 
> Do you not think that there are people out there who find Gough's nudity just as repellent as you'd find my wanking in Trafalgar Square?


no. not anyone of sound mind.
do you seriously think its the same?

I think its offensive to victims of that sort of sexual attack to even suggest it is on a par.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> ...
> 
> What's with this thatcher stuff?



Just the latest in a line of insult throwing arguments covering selfishness, 'woolly liberalism' sexism and lack of sensitivity to victims of abuse.

Merely because of a wish to keep a lid on the states ability to lock people up. And this is the 'libertarian left' on Urban!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

> Sheriff Williamson told Gough he realised his motives for refusing to get dressed were not "sinister", but slammed him for his refusal to co-operate with the preparation of a social background report.
> 
> He said: "I had hoped it [the report] would assist me in dealing with you without sending you back to prison -- but you leave me no choice.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...iled-again-after-refusing-to-get-dressed.html

I've no problem with this arrogant wanker being in prison.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Twice.
> 
> Once in Dunfermline and once in Fife.



Can't deny it's a bizarre 'cause'.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> no. not anyone of sound mind.



You arrogant arse.

Who the fuck made you the arbiter of what people may or may not find intimidating?

There are whole sections of our society that could find this nudity alarming. Traditional Asian women would be horrified, possibly victims of abuse, older people, kids ....

But they're all insane!


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> You do like to play daft don't you? I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying we can condemn his behaviour just like we can air our disapproval to Lady Gaga and her distasteful meat dress.
> 
> He can be excluded from public life and denied certain work unless he meets the expected behaviour. We can ask him to cover up. We can tell him we don't like it.
> 
> But we should not imprison him merely for being naked and disobedient. All the stuff about sexual behaviour is a red herring unless he actually commits sexual misconduct.


But I haven't argued in favour of putting him in prison which I made clear several times last night.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You arrogant arse.
> 
> Who the fuck made you the arbiter of what people may or may not find intimidating?
> 
> ...


your question was are there people "who find Gough's nudity just as repellent as you'd find my wanking in Trafalgar Square".
not "do people find his nudity intimidating."


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Just the latest in a line of insult throwing arguments covering selfishness, 'woolly liberalism' sexism and lack of sensitivity to victims of abuse.
> 
> Merely because of a wish to keep a lid on the states ability to lock people up. And this is the 'libertarian left' on Urban!


Oh fuck off misrepresenting my position repeatedly.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You arrogant arse.
> 
> Who the fuck made you the arbiter of what people may or may not find intimidating?
> 
> ...


They need to sort their attitude out then etc


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> your question was are there people "who find Gough's nudity just as repellent as you'd find my wanking in Trafalgar Square".
> not "do people find his nudity intimidating."



You don't get it do you?

There are people who would be as deeply intimidated by public nudity as_ others _would be by public sex.

But according to you, they're mentally ill and should be disregarded.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You don't get it do you?
> 
> There are people who would be as deeply intimidated by public nudity as_ others _would be by public sex.
> 
> But according to you, they're mentally ill.


I can't imagine anyone finding a passive non sexual act equal to a sexual attack.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I can't imagine anyone finding a sexual attack equal to a passive non sexual act


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> i did answer the question.
> its not ok in some circumstances.
> it is ok in others.


So you now admit it's not always acceptable. Now we're getting somewhere. Do you also accept that what is acceptable is subjective? Because earlier you seemed to be deciding for everyone else what should or shouldn't be acceptable.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I can't imagine anyone finding a passive non sexual act equal to a sexual attack.



Will you agree that some people may be confused as to Gough's intentions when seeing him walking past a kids playground stark bollock naked, at least?


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Will you agree that some people may be confused as to Gough's intentions when seeing him walking past a kids playground stark bollock naked, at least?


yes. 
and thats their problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

As a community, it's your problem too Thatcher devil child.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes.
> and thats their problem.



Well thankfully, seemingly, the weight of public opinion, and more importantly the law, is against you so we don't have to bother ourselves with your pompous wibblings.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So you now admit it's not always acceptable. Now we're getting somewhere. Do you also accept that what is acceptable is subjective? Because earlier you seemed to be deciding for everyone else what should or shouldn't be acceptable.


if i'm in charge of someones kids in my own home, then i would follow their instructions.
thats not really anything to do with this thread or this naked fella walking down a road.

acceptable is a very subjective term. law needs a clear language.

personal opinion isn't really relevant. if something like this isn't harmful, then it shouldn't be banned..


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> As a community, it's your problem too Thatcher devil child.


And I addressed that. Its impossible for everyone to be happy, so we must tolerate other people. Being offended doesn't really mean anything. Its just complaining. Usually meaning you don't like something thats different to you and your tribe.

Please stop with the insults, too. Being compared to thatcher is far worse than you calling me a cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> law needs a clear language.



It's crystal clear as regards Gough. 

It says "put some fucking kecks on, especially around kids, or go to jail". 

Good.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

I've just realised that I am naked, in public, in my profile picture


----------



## Greebo (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I've just realised that I am naked, in public, in my profile picture


And very tasteful nudity it is, too.  Sorry joustmaster, I saw this clip and immediately thought of Citizen66,  with whom I still CBA to engage.


Spoiler


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And very tasteful nudity it is, too.  Sorry joustmaster, I saw this clip and immediately thought of Citizen66,  with whom I still CBA to engage.
> 
> 
> Spoiler



I keep thinking of this:

(contains nudity)


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Can't deny it's a bizarre 'cause'.



It's more than bizarre, it's utterly fucked up.

Did you see the bit about his family?



> Earlier this month Gough's former partner Alison Ward, the mother to his two children, Kiana, 16 and Yarin, 14, said she could not comprehend that he had given up family life, and knowing his children, simply to walk around naked.
> 
> She said: "I don't think Steve is a bad person, but he's made bad decisions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> And I addressed that. Its impossible for everyone to be happy, so we must tolerate other people. Being offended doesn't really mean anything. Its just complaining. Usually meaning you don't like something thats different to you and your tribe.
> 
> Please stop with the insults, too. Being compared to thatcher is far worse than you calling me a cunt.


Well the rights and whims of the individual regardless of the wishes of the community is text book Thatcherism. No such thing as society people are but atoms etc.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Well the rights and whims of the individual regardless of the wishes of the community is text book Thatcherism. No such thing as society people are but atoms etc.


i'm not saying that. 
i think society is important.
I'm saying that its a social responsability to put up with things that are annoying (a bearded naked man walking past you when you're eating breakfast) and reject things that are dangerous (someone wanking infront of you uninvitedly). society needs to reflect on if something is a danger or an annoyance for some.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> And very tasteful nudity it is, too.  Sorry joustmaster, I saw this clip and immediately thought of Citizen66,  with whom I still CBA to engage.
> 
> 
> Spoiler



Quite ironic given your hero didn't spare a thought for his own.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> i'm not saying that.
> i think society is important.
> I'm saying that its a social responsability to put up with things that are annoying (a bearded naked man walking past you when you're eating breakfast) and reject things that are dangerous (someone wanking infront of you uninvitedly). society needs to reflect on if something is a danger or an annoyance for some.


A fly is an annoyance. We're socially conditioned to see public nudity as unacceptable in some instances. This isn't something that's happened overnight and I find it incredibly arrogant to expect everyone else to suck it up when these are things people pick up from birth.

Anyway, getting a bit bored of this now.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> I'm saying that its a social responsability to put up with things that are annoying (a bearded naked man walking past you when you're eating breakfast) and reject things that are dangerous (someone wanking infront of you uninvitedly).



Oh ffs, now who's being thick?

Why can't you grasp the fact that some people would be just as alarmed by his nudity as you are by public wanking? 

Their boundaries are just different to yours. To some people, public nudity is _extremely wrong_.

It's really not a difficult concept.

How would you feel if your friends and your concerns over public sex displays were dismissed as "that's your problem".

Fucking aida.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh ffs, now who's being thick?
> 
> Why can't you grasp the fact that some people would be just as alarmed by his nudity as you are by public wanking?
> 
> ...


I'm not interested in going over this with you, again.



Citizen66 said:


> Anyway, getting a bit bored of this now.


me too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm just trying to have a quiet tug, ffs. In Trafalgar Square.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's more than bizarre, it's utterly fucked up.
> 
> Did you see the bit about his family?


Can you imagine what Jesus's family said about him, or what the relatives of his disciples said?

Do you think the suffragists, let alone the suffragettes, had wholehearted family support?  Even if your relatives and friends think you're either crazy or just plain wrong, it doesn't mean that you're not right in doing something about what matters to you.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Comparing him to Jesus. Heard it all now.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Can you imagine what Jesus's family said about him, or what the relatives of his disciples said?
> 
> Do you think the suffragists, let alone the suffragettes, had wholehearted family support?  Even if your relatives and friends think you're either crazy or just plain wrong, it doesn't mean that you're not right in doing something about what matters to you.



Lol at Jesus comparison! 

That's all fine and dandy as long as you're not impinging on other peoples rights. The Scottish sheriff was absolutely right about other people having the right not to see naked men in public.

And "doing something that matters to you"?

Any sympathy I may have had with that, or admiration for his indefatigability, evaporated when I found out that he rejected his wife and children to walk around naked, and went to prison rather than avoid a park full of children whilst starkers.

Fuck him.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 29, 2014)

I wasn't joking about Jesus.  Christian I am not, but I have far too much respect for the beliefs of others to use him as a joke.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I wasn't joking about Jesus.  Christian I am not, but I have far too much respect for the beliefs of others to use him as a joke.



It was the comparison that I found amusing. Gough is nothing close to Jesus.

He's a very naughty boy.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Oh fuck off misrepresenting my position repeatedly.



I'm not at all. That's exactly what you are doing.

You are a cartoon lefty, that's evident with your vague allegations of sexism and 'thatcher's children' in the place of serious debate. Pathetic.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not at all. That's exactly what you are doing.
> 
> You are a cartoon lefty, that's evident with your vague allegations of sexism and 'thatcher's children' in the place of serious debate. Pathetic.



And you're a heeeeey maaaaaaan hipster liberal tosspot. Your avatar says it all really.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> yes.
> and thats their problem.


 Seriously?  Just that, nothing else, no need to even think about how other people might react?  An absolute, 'I want to be nekkid', nothing else to worry about?  With that line of thought it ends up as nothing more than individualism.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It was the comparison that I found amusing. <snip>


You really should read the NT in greater depth - failing that, look at revolutionary Christianity.


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Seriously?  Just that, nothing else, no need to even think about how other people might react?  An absolute, 'I want to be nekkid', nothing else to worry about?  With that line of thought it ends up as nothing more than individualism.


Did you read the rest of my posts? Or just the one where I gave a short answer due to being sick of repeating myself?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 29, 2014)

In spite of how the Catholic Church depicts events on their crucifixes, Jesus, along with all others who got nailed up, was executed naked.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Poor downtrodden Gough not allowed to walk past kids with his keks off.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Seriously?  Just that, nothing else, no need to even think about how other people might react?  An absolute, 'I want to be nekkid', nothing else to worry about?  With that line of thought it ends up as nothing more than individualism.



This is what I mean about being Thatchers kids. Apparently that makes me a 'cartoon lefty'.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Greebo said:


> You really should read the NT in greater depth - failing that, look at revolutionary Christianity.



It was a gag to get "very naughty boy" in.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> Did you read the rest of my posts? Or just the one where I gave a short answer due to being sick of repeating myself?



But you wouldn't have been repeating yourself since you've studiously avoided explaining why it's ok for naked strangers to walk through areas populated by young children beyond the piss weak 'it's ok if he's just walking by'.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> That's all fine and dandy as long as you're not impinging on other peoples rights.


 
What about my right not to see crocs or Ugg boots!!


----------



## joustmaster (Oct 29, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> But you wouldn't have been repeating yourself since you've studiously avoided explaining why it's ok for naked strangers to walk through areas populated by young children beyond the piss weak 'it's ok if he's just walking by'.


tell me why its wrong. (remembering that the person isn't being sexual, or sexually driven)


----------



## Idaho (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Poor downtrodden Gough not allowed to walk past kids with his keks off.



It's just a human body. Are you saying that children might be confused as they are meant to be ashamed of the human body?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 29, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> tell me why its wrong.



How about the confusing message it sends out to kids, many of whom will have been told that ones genitalia are intensely private and not to be shown to strangers, for starters?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Idaho said:


> It's just a human body. Are you saying that children might be confused as they are meant to be ashamed of the human body?



Have you ever read Modern Parents in Viz?

That aside, I'm saying no such thing so no need to put words in my mouth. I've just had enough life experience to know that not everyone would be happy about chancing upon a naked bloke as they go about their business. The argument is mainly 'fuck them' on one side and 'don't you think you should consider others' on the other. I know which attitude I'd rather have.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Seriously?  Just that, nothing else, no need to even think about how other people might react?  An absolute, 'I want to be nekkid', nothing else to worry about?  With that line of thought it ends up as nothing more than individualism.



No one is saying it's absolutely fine and that his rights outdo any others. It's the prison thing that is a step too far imo.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Poor downtrodden Gough not allowed to walk past kids with his keks off.



So lock the bastard up?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In spite of how the Catholic Church depicts events on their crucifixes, Jesus, along with all others who got nailed up, was executed naked.



Had it coming the dirty fecker walking around kids with just his loin cloth on. Individualistic pre Thatcherite that he was.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> So lock the bastard up?



I'm not really in favour of prisons full stop so obviously not. But what did he expect would happen? It doesn't require my support one way or the other to know the state will respond to a challenge like that in a predictable way. That's ten years he could have been enjoying the company of his wife and kids that he chose estrangement instead in order to pursue his little protest that doesn't even have a wave of support. There's one born every day, so they say.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Have you ever read Modern Parents in Viz?
> 
> That aside, I'm saying no such thing so no need to put words in my mouth. I've just had enough life experience to know that not everyone would be happy about chancing upon a naked bloke as they go about their business. The argument is mainly 'fuck them' on one side and 'don't you think you should consider others' on the other. I know which attitude I'd rather have.



Life is full of annoying people, wearing not enough clothes, too many clothes, going naked, wearing niqabs and burkas. We can put our POV and decide that there are limits to their participation in certain circumstances. But I'd rather we just ignored the intransigent ones (unless they commit an offence worthy of the name) than imprison them.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not really in favour of prisons full stop so obviously not. But what did he expect would happen? It doesn't require my support one way or the other to know the state will respond to a challenge like that in a predictable way. That's ten years he could have been enjoying the company of his wife and kids that he chose estrangement instead in order to pursue his little protest that doesn't even have a wave of support. There's one born every day, so they say.



He's utterly bonkers, yes. I have no psychiatric qualifications but that's my diagnosis.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Even the Court acknowledged that this was a trivial matter, only complicated by the reluctance of Gough to obey. 

A problem for me is that the 'norm' in this case, the covering of the body in public for the avoidance of shame, is one which seems to lead to body dysmorphia on an epidemic scale, to Anorexia and bulimia, self alienation. These wide spread afflictions don't speak of a position of strength from which to pass the harshest of judgements. 

Is seeing one sad fellow naked worse for kids (is this really about kids anyway?) than the pornographisation of culture for example?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not really in favour of prisons full stop so obviously not. But what did he expect would happen? It doesn't require my support one way or the other to know the state will respond to a challenge like that in a predictable way. That's ten years he could have been enjoying the company of his wife and kids that he chose estrangement instead in order to pursue his little protest that doesn't even have a wave of support. There's one born every day, so they say.



That's a very feeble way of saying 'yes' lock him up. And you know it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Life is full of annoying people, wearing not enough clothes, too many clothes, going naked, wearing niqabs and burkas. We can put our POV and decide that there are limits to their participation in certain circumstances. But I'd rather we just ignored the intransigent ones (unless they commit an offence worthy of the name) than imprison them.



But we're not talking about someone being annoying. We're talking about someone challenging cultural norms with scant regard to how the narrative plays out for others. We're socially conditioned to not accept public nudity. I'm not arsed either way but I wouldn't force that view onto others. Coincidentally I was at the baths with my gf and the kids a few months back and this young lad went into the showers - which are visible to the pool - and stripped starkers and had a good old scrub of his nob in full view of everyone. It appeared to be universally accepted that the behaviour was out of order and I think a member of staff approached him and had a word in his ear. Are all of those people wrong and the lad in the shower right? Call me old fashioned but I always shower with my trunks still on at public pools. Have a proper shower when I get home.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But we're not talking about someone being annoying. We're talking about someone challenging cultural norms with scant regard to how the narrative plays out for others. We're socially conditioned to not accept public nudity. I'm not arsed either way but I wouldn't force that view onto others. Coincidentally I was at the baths with my gf and the kids a few months back and this young lad went into the showers - which are visible to the pool - and stripped starkers and had a good old scrub of his nob in full view of everyone. It appeared to be universally accepted that the behaviour was out of order and I think a member of staff approached him and had a word in his ear. Are all of those people wrong and the lad in the shower right? Call me old fashioned but I always shower with my trunks still on at public pools. Have a proper shower when I get home.



But he wasn't imprisoned. It's right he was told and if he hadn't listened he and his member should rightly have had their membership dismembered.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

There seems to be two debates happening here then. One is the imprisonment of someone for public nudity which I don't agree with. The other is someone feeling they're entitled to express themselves in this way regardless of what others think which I also don't agree with. The argument of today has mainly focused on the latter with only you really bringing up the incarceration argument again.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

Even though everyone has now left the building and I'm sitting here on my own I've been trying to think of useful analogies to get my point across. If we stick with what is socially acceptable and what isn't and subjectivity and context the best I can think of is drug use and swearing. Back when I smoked weed in my teens it was known about in my family. But I can't recall ever feeling the need to roll a doobie up and sparking it in front of my mam as if to prove some absolute right I had to do it. I'd have been insane to blatantly do it in front of the old bill. Many on here - including myself - argue for drugs to be legalised. But it's anti social to stretch it to sparking up wherever you feel like and for others to get over it. I wouldn't have dreamed of rolling a fat one over Christmas dinner although I did neck a trip one year and they were none the wiser. Similarly with swearing. Saying cunt is really offensive to some. It gets used quite a bit on here and I find it's acceptable with some mates; my gf hates it. Only a complete prick would start some self centred campaign for their right to say cunt and light up joints wherever they wish IMO. Of course, saying cunt isn't illegal. But I wonder how many here crying over Gough's right to get his nob out would freely swear and smoke weed in every situation and not be pissed off if their friends traversed social norms regarding these too when around people they love and care about.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> So lock the bastard up?


No, I've said several times it's insane the dance he and the courts have got locked into.  I'm just miffed about the contributions on this thread along the lines of 'tough, if people are embarrassed/upset, it's their problem'.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Even though everyone has now left the building and I'm sitting here on my own I've been trying to think of useful analogies to get my point across. If we stick with what is socially acceptable and what isn't and subjectivity and context the best I can think of is drug use and swearing. Back when I smoked weed in my teens it was known about in my family. But I can't recall ever feeling the need to roll a doobie up and sparking it in front of my mam as if to prove some absolute right I had to do it. I'd have been insane to blatantly do it in front of the old bill. Many on here - including myself - argue for drugs to be legalised. But it's anti social to stretch it to sparking up wherever you feel like and for others to get over it. I wouldn't have dreamed of rolling a fat one over Christmas dinner although I did neck a trip one year and they were none the wiser. Similarly with swearing. Saying cunt is really offensive to some. It gets used quite a bit on here and I find it's acceptable with some mates; my gf hates it. Only a complete prick would start some self centred campaign for their right to say cunt and light up joints wherever they wish IMO. Of course, saying cunt isn't illegal. But I wonder how many here crying over Gough's right to get his nob out would freely swear and smoke weed in every situation and not be pissed off if their friends traversed social norms regarding these too when around people they love and care about.


Strangely enough I was thinking of the same example last night.  I'll have a smoke and don't give a toss who knows I do.  But if someone came round the house who might be 'uncomfortable' with it, I certainly wouldn't skin up in front of them.  I don't lose anything fundamental in not having a smoke for a while - and neither does gough putting his undercrackers on when he's in town.  Neither of us have our 'rights' breached, we just choose when is the right time and place to assert them.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 29, 2014)

I find it interesting that libertarian left positions can be equated with social conservatism. This does happen sometimes but the thinking behind it is completely different with the latter often making a moral argument and the former making a social argument by trying to reflect and balance the desires of a community over the individual. The libertarian left also shares ideas with political conservatism too with the main difference being the existence of hierarchy and orders from above on the one side and similarities such as lesser reliance on the state and self reliance on the other. 

Just trying to ascertain why I keep agreeing with cunty on some issues a lot lately.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 29, 2014)

Wilf said:


> No, I've said several times it's insane the dance he and the courts have got locked into.  I'm just miffed about the contributions on this thread along the lines of 'tough, if people are embarrassed/upset, it's their problem'.



Not a line I have taken. I'm solely concerned with the threshold for jailing. But it's always worth analysing why something upsets you to a great degree.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 29, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Not a line I have taken. I'm solely concerned with the threshold for jailing. But it's always worth analysing why something upsets you to a great degree.


Though on the latest phase of this thread I think only 1 poster (spy) has agreed with the jailing.

As an anarchist I'm not in the business of devising some point where the police should intervene.  However I'd have thought they should be ignoring him whenever possible, just getting involved when he really is causing distress - or is danger of getting battered.  Basically, try and take the drama and confrontation out of a situation that isn't really worth it either way. However I can't translate that into a point of principled support for someone who is behaving like a prat (or in more recent years has seemingly become driven by something he can't pull out of - even to the extent of not seeing his kids grow up).  I really hope he manages to move on.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Even though everyone has now left the building and I'm sitting here on my own I've been trying to think of useful analogies to get my point across.



My mum, sadly, doesnt think same sex couples should show affection for each other in public.  The reasons are pretty much the same as those given for Gough, it is sexual behaviour, children might see and be corrupted, children whove been abused by gays might be traumatised, it is against social norms and people have the right not to have to witness it - although she has nothing against gay people as long as they keep it behind closed doors, she dont like it on the telly though.  This may seem shocking now, but this view was perfectly normal whilst I was growing up, in fact it was quite liberal - lots of people still thought gay people should be imprisoned.

I think Goughs a bit of a twat and i wish he'd go see his kids.  But thats irrelevent, surely this boils down to whether you think our social attitudes to nudity are a bit fucked up, or arent.  I think they are a bit, its not the most important thing in the world to me, its certainly not as important in my opinion as for example lgbt rights, but thats the starting point isnt it - has Gough got a point? And any debate about the rights or wrongs of what he's doing should be informed by that.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

I think he's got a point, and society is far too focused on the sexuality of the human body. in an ideal world, nakedness should not be equated with threat, or sex. but we don't live in that world.

while he is clearly doing this to make a point, not to cause upset to anyone, and i don't see his actions as any threat to anyone, i don't want to live in a place where it is acceptable to walk around naked, until society has grown up enough that nudity won't be used to harass others. have a look at any of the threads on the expereinces of women facing harassment and abuse for walking down the street while being female. i really don't want to imagine how much worse those experiences would be if the harassers had the right to get their dick out while engaged in that kind of behavior. 

that said, i do wish that he could find some kind of compromise that he and the authorities could accept, that dosen't involve him giving up, or being imprisoned. because i think the kind of debates that his actions encourage are needed. and society having less hangups about bodies and sexualising them less would be a pretty good thing.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 30, 2014)

Good point but AFAIK, this bloke really hasn't engaged in any sexual harassment, even of the mildest kind.  He hasn't made his public nakedness sexual.  He doesn't even stroke his crotch in public, let alone wank.  He's not rubbing himself against people.  He's not propositioning anyone.  He's not kerbcrawling.

It's about the intent, which he's repeatedly made clear:  He wants to legalise the act of doing something nonsexual while happening to be naked, and raise awareness of the difference between nudity and sex.  He's not getting his cock out to walk through town centres or past schools, it wasn't covered at any part of that day.

Sexual nakedness (eg exposing genitals while making suggestive comments and/or stroking yourself etc) in public could still remain illegal and prosecutable.  

Difficulty in getting police to take street harrassment seriously is not Stephen Gough's fault.


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 30, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Though on the latest phase of this thread I think only 1 poster (spy) has agreed with the jailing.
> 
> As an anarchist I'm not in the business of devising some point where the police should intervene.  However I'd have thought they should be ignoring him whenever possible, just getting involved when he really is causing distress - or is danger of getting battered.  Basically, try and take the drama and confrontation out of a situation that isn't really worth it either way. However I can't translate that into a point of principled support for someone who is behaving like a prat (or in more recent years has seemingly become driven by something he can't pull out of - even to the extent of not seeing his kids grow up).  I really hope he manages to move on.



Some form of Mental illness, attention seeking possibly or is it just the fame?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

Greebo said:


> It's about the intent,



No. It's about how his actions are perceived by others.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

Greebo said:


> He's not getting his cock out to walk through town centres or past schools,





> He was found guilty last month of committing a breach of the peace by strolling naked near swing park where children were playing in Dunfermline, also Fife, and refusing to put on clothes.





> "You were given three options -- one, change direction, two, cover your private parts, or three, enter a police van which would take you around the playpark and release you on your way at the other side.
> 
> "Despite that, you refused, which showed disregard for other members of the public, in particular children who have the right not to see naked men.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> No. It's about how his actions are perceived by others.


Right, so you're telling me that having, say, an upper arm dryhumped on a crowded bus (and I mean so crowded that getting out was impossible at that point) is less bad than seeing a bloke walk pask, in walking boots and a big rucksack with hipbelt?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Right, so you're telling me that having, say, an upper arm dryhumped on a crowded bus (and I mean so crowded that getting out was impossible at that point) is less bad than seeing a bloke walk pask, in walking boots and a big rucksack with hipbelt?



I'm saying nothing of the sort.

I'm saying that if other people could find his actions intimidating their feelings should be considered.

His intent is far less relevant than their perceptions. Most who happen across him won't have a clue what his intentions are.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

smokedout said:


> But thats irrelevent, surely this boils down to whether you think our social attitudes to nudity are a bit fucked up, or arent.



Whether you think they are or they aren't is somewhat immaterial. That's the way it is and many people find male public nudity (female too I don't doubt) objectionable to the extent of alarming or intimidating for a variety of reasons.

Just to be clear, I've no objection to Gough going naked. He just needs to do it in places where he's unlikely to bother anyone else .

Christ, we've even had someone arguing here that it's ok for Gough to walk through or past crowds of children naked, a position that I don't think would even be supported by the majority of U75 libertarians, never mind the wider public.

So, different people's perceptions of what is or isn't acceptable vary massively.

Those people with a lower threshold of "alarming or intimidating" should not be told "it's their problem" or be considered 'mentally ill' for the sake of accommodating this selfish bastard.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Whether you think they are or they aren't is somewhat immaterial. That's the way it is and many people find male public nudity (female too I don't doubt) objectionable to the extent of alarming or intimidating.
> 
> Just to be clear, I've no objection to Gough going naked. He just has to do it in places where he's unlikely to bother anyone else .
> 
> ...



I don't see any basic difference between his essentially hostile behaviour and that of the street harassers who are rightly being denounced on the thread in world politics.


----------



## weltweit (Oct 30, 2014)

Assuming that he wants to advance the case for being naked in public, his strategy is not ideal because it results in him not being naked in public rather him being naked in prison!

As such I think he should change his strategy, and the fact that he won't or can't suggests some non normal issues he needs to deal with, otherwise he will just remain in prison and no one will be convinced by the cogence of his argument.


----------



## comrade spurski (Oct 30, 2014)

I honestly dont understand some of this.
He chooses to walk around naked in public and refuses to compromise even when offered alternatives.
The idea that we have a human right to be naked anywhere we want is fine in theory...but we live with others and their rights are involved. To dismiss peoples uncomfortableness at nudity being enforced upon you as you go about you life as them being "stuffy" misses the point. 
He does have the right to be naked in public in certain areas and circumstances...he chooses to ignore these boundaries.  
He is not oppressed by being asked to wear clothing...I dont agree with jail for lots of "crimes" including this one but imo he is displaying signs of not being mentally healthy and needs to receive help. I have no idea where he gets his money from but doesn't seem to need to work so he could be naked all day at home but to him being naked is not enough...he needs to be naked in public and being naked in public is not a human right.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't see any basic difference between his essentially hostile behaviour and that of the street harassers who are rightly being denounced on the thread in world politics.



i think i've learnt enough about his intent not to find him particularly bothering. but i don't know that about every other bloke that might try this if it became more acceptable.

the least worst scenario i can think of is bloke who stands too close to seated women. is he standing with his dick almost resting on my shoulder, so he does bump into me when the bus moves because he's ignorant of other people's need for personal space or because he's aware of it and intentionally ignoring it. but i'm still sitting there with a dick next to my face, and he's either through intent, or through not giving a fuck about women, taking ownership of the space i'm occupying. i'm not going any further, because i am scared of this becoming commonplace. to the point I'm getting the edges of an anxiety attack thinking about it. and while you could legislate against overt harassment, you can't legislate against standing next to someone, you can't stop acting in such a way as to claim exclusive control over public space. and if no one (as in no one ther at the time)  takes it seriously about the shit on the harassment threads, who is going to take it seriously that i could have a real problem with standing too close.

and i'm left wondering if i can completely ignore the feelings of those who find gough's current actions to be similarly problematic.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think i've learnt enough about his intent not to find him particularly bothering. but i don't know that about every other bloke that might try this if it became more acceptable.
> 
> the least worst scenario i can think of is bloke who stands too close to seated women. is he standing with his dick almost resting on my shoulder, so he does bump into me when the bus moves because he's ignorant of other people's need for personal space or because he's aware of it and intentionally ignoring it. but i'm still standing there with a dick next to my face, and he's either through intent, or through not giving a fuck about women, taking ownership of the space i'm occupying. i'm not going any further, because i am scared of this becoming commonplace. to the point I'm getting the edges of an anxiety attack thinking about it. and while you could legislate against overt harassment, you can't legislate against standing next to someone, you can't stop acting in such a way as to claim exclusive control over public space. and if no one (as in no one ther at the time)  takes it seriously about the shit on the harassment threads, who is going to take it seriously that i could have a real problem with standing too close.
> 
> and i'm left wondering if i can completely ignore the feelings of those who find gough's current actions to be similarly problematic.



Top post. 

Now I wonder if anyone's going to tell you "that's your problem".


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Top post.
> 
> Now I wonder if anyone's going to tell you "that's your problem".



There's people liking toggle's post who completely disagreed with me when arguing the same position.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Top post.
> 
> Now I wonder if anyone's going to tell you "that's your problem".



It's a much bigger and much more threatening problem than Gough and his bizarre lifestyle.

The only reason people have been asking what basis is there for absolute objection is around imprisonment. Once again, his actions are not reasonable and anyone has a right to object. But ultimately he is not doing harm that requires imprisonment. I think you are trying to build a case of him harassing through his nakedness and disturbing children that doesn't hold water and you are doing it to justify locking him up.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's people liking toggle's post who completely disagreed with me when arguing the same position.



Poor you. ((((((Citizen66))))))


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think i've learnt enough about his intent not to find him particularly bothering. but i don't know that about every other bloke that might try this if it became more acceptable.
> 
> the least worst scenario i can think of is bloke who stands too close to seated women. is he standing with his dick almost resting on my shoulder, so he does bump into me when the bus moves because he's ignorant of other people's need for personal space or because he's aware of it and intentionally ignoring it. but i'm still standing there with a dick next to my face, and he's either through intent, or through not giving a fuck about women, taking ownership of the space i'm occupying. i'm not going any further, because i am scared of this becoming commonplace. to the point I'm getting the edges of an anxiety attack thinking about it. and while you could legislate against overt harassment, you can't legislate against standing next to someone, you can't stop acting in such a way as to claim exclusive control over public space. and if no one (as in no one ther at the time)  takes it seriously about the shit on the harassment threads, who is going to take it seriously that i could have a real problem with standing too close.
> 
> and i'm left wondering if i can completely ignore the feelings of those who find gough's current actions to be similarly problematic.


 I think this says it really well.  You can come into this topic with an abstract right forhim to do what he wants, to wander around naked.  I've no real problem with that, I'd say I even support it (kind of - even if I don't think it's a particularly important right).  However I'd rather think about what you _*do*_ with that right, whether you take it as an absolute, whether you think about other people.  It won't just be women who will feel uncomfotable, or worse, but the scenarion above is a real possibility if he insists on nudity in every circumstance and regardless of who is there.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Poor you. ((((((Citizen66))))))



It just exposes the inconsistency of the opposing view.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 30, 2014)

Did this thread get bumped for a reason? I scrolled back, but couldn't see anything. I've always felt sorry for this bloke in many ways, as I've said before in this thread, but did he do something again like refusing to put his cock away when asked or get in a van to bypass a school playground?

Note: this bloke is not only naked in public, but refuses to stop being naked when asked and given good reasons for doing so and even when given a way to be naked but not in front of children.

Doe anyone know why this bloke isn't under psychiatric care rather than in a prison? 



Mr Moose said:


> What? You think female victims of sexual abuse are most worried about the behaviour of eccentric, probably damaged individuals? I would imagine it's the run of the mill, casual behaviour of cocky ordinary men that bothers them the most.



We don't know what category the random naked bloke fits into. Also, eccentric, damaged individuals do commit sex crimes, too. Plus, men and boys can be victims of sexual abuse, not just women and girls.



joustmaster said:


> I can't imagine anyone finding a passive non sexual act equal to a sexual attack.



I don't think anyone has ever said that. That said, I don't think talking about Thatcher is fair for you. I don't really get where you're coming from on this topic but Thatcher is a step too far.

FWIW, I think wanking in public can actually be classified as sexual assault. At least that's what I was told when I called the cops to report a bloke wanking in a park near a kids' playground - not in sight of the playground, but en route to it. Said bloke was lying down, clearly out of it, probably didn't choose the location, and wanking very obviously (my young daughter was the one who pointed him out) but apart from my daughter seeing it one of the reasons I reported it was because an out-of-it bloke wanking near a kids' playground is likely to face much worse outcomes than getting arrested. But sexual assault was one of the things mentioned over the phone.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

He lost his human rights high court challenge the other day.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 30, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Did this thread get bumped for a reason? I scrolled back, but couldn't see anything. I've always felt sorry for this bloke in many ways, as I've said before in this thread, but did he do something again like refusing to put his cock away when asked or get in a van to bypass a school playground?
> 
> Doe anyone know why this bloke isn't under psychiatric care rather than in a prison?
> 
> ...


 The bump was because he had an appeal turned down.
From memory, I think he had a psych assessment and was found to be sane, a few years ago. Since then he's refused a further evaluation.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> There's people liking toggle's post who completely disagreed with me when arguing the same position.



congrats. you've become an honourary woman. 


cue responses of

sniggers
you're imagining it
she just explains it better
you're just being oversensitive


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

toggle said:


> congrats. you've become an honourary woman.
> 
> 
> cue responses of
> ...



I'm being hysterical. 

I'm looking forward to the unsolicited male harassment though.


----------



## toggle (Oct 30, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Top post.
> 
> Now I wonder if anyone's going to tell you "that's your problem".



i do recognise that some parts of this are my problem, because i'm looking at how we treat one individual by discussing my fears of a potential scenario by someone else. and i loathe the idea that i'm supporting treating this bloke badly because of my fears. 

but for that, i think you need to put the blame onto those people who cannot be trusted to act responsibly in public while in posession of a penis. not those of us who have learnt through decades of deeply unpleasent expereince to be afraid of men like that


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> The only reason people have been asking what basis is there for absolute objection is around imprisonment. Once again, his actions are not reasonable and anyone has a right to object. But ultimately he is not doing harm that requires imprisonment. I think you are trying to build a case of him harassing through his nakedness and disturbing children that doesn't hold water and you are doing it to justify locking him up.



Utter bollocks I'm afraid.

There have been two distinct strands to this thread. Gough's "right" to go naked; and whether or not he should be imprisoned. I'm capable of arguing both seperately.

I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm probably in a minority of one round here on the latter. No big surprise there given that I consider Vlad The Impaler to have been a liberal in matters of punishment. However, the substantive issue over the last half a dozen or so pages has had little or nothing to do with imprisonment and everything to do with Gough's 'rights' trumping those of others, and mainly in debate with Joustmaster whose opinion seems quite strange.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 30, 2014)

I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 30, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.



i'm inclined to agree - i'm thinking particularly of my 9yo neice who wears the cast offs from a Christina Aguillera video while living over the road from a convicted sex offender.

seeing this scrawny ginger chap tackle-out in a brisk east wind will do nothing whatsoever to urge them to explore their more adult urges, being treated like, and dressed like, adults when in fact they are nothing of the sort, is imv, far more dangerous.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.



I see you're returning to this point of yours despite absolutely nobody on the thread claiming that children would be in any way damaged by seeing a naked man. It's a complete straw man.


----------



## scifisam (Oct 30, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.


Do you have any idea how inane that statement is? I mean, seriously, try harder.

Greebo, do you like every single post?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 30, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Do you have any idea how inane that statement is? I mean, seriously, try harder.
> 
> Greebo, do you like every single post?


Bye Sweetie  

Edited to add:  I don't need you getting on my back today. Or the rest of this week.  Also, read the bloody thread and you'd see that not everything gets liked by me, so grow the fuck up or chill out!


----------



## scifisam (Oct 30, 2014)

Greebo, the sweetie thing just isn't annoying, because everyone knows it's what you use to try to annoy people. You need a new tactic. 

Except that apparently you won't read this because the "bye" thing implies you've put me on ignore for querying your likes one time and never otherwise disagreeing with you AFAIR, which is just fucking bizarre.

Edited: I posted the above before your explanation. I still don't know why you've chosen me to get pissed off at for a very minor comment. Hope your week gets better and I hope you remember that you're not the only one going through tough times.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.



But there's no money in random weirdo nakedness so therefore it's evil.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

Idaho said:


> I think children are far more "damaged" by the constant and loaded sexual and sexualised imagery in everyday life than by seeing some random weirdo walking past naked.



This post wins the "I haven't read this thread so I'll post a dick-headed non-sequitur" prize.

Well done!


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 30, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I see you're returning to this point of yours despite absolutely nobody on the thread claiming that children would be in any way damaged by seeing a naked man. It's a complete straw man.





Spymaster said:


> How about the confusing message it sends out to kids, many of whom will have been told that ones genitalia are intensely private and not to be shown to strangers, for starters?



So it's a confusing message, but not one that causes any damage? Help me out here. Wtf are you two arguing?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 30, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> So it's a confusing message, but not one that causes any damage? Help me out here. Wtf are you two arguing?



One person saying 'confusing message' totally means another poster saying 'it will cause damage'.

Haven't you got a novel or TV show to invent you daft cunt?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 30, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> So it's a confusing message, but not one that causes any damage? Help me out here. Wtf are you two arguing?



Do you really think that conflating two different responses to two different points furthers your argument?

Are you a complete dickhead?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

I think that's called "synchronicity"! ^^^


----------



## xenon (Oct 31, 2014)

CBA going back and liking the posts. Spymaster, Citizen66 and Wilf have been spot on in this thread IMO.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> But there's no money in random weirdo nakedness so therefore it's evil.



there's a whole long discussion possible about acceptable and non acceptable nudity, sexual and non sexual, based on who it is and who it can be controlled and owned by. 

to me though, that's a side point to the one i've already made about public behavior and trust


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It just exposes the inconsistency of the opposing view.


Or toggle's superior rhetoric


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Or toggle's superior rhetoric



Please explain this.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Some people are better at stating their case than others.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Some people are better at stating their case than others.



Well you're not doing too well with yours.

Spit it out ya fackin tool.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

I don't have one. I am reading this thread with interest but not all of the comments have made me stop and think.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

So why refer to the most reasoned and balanced contributions in 45 pages as rhetoric?


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't have one. I am reading this thread with interest but not all of the comments have made me stop and think.



beams with pride.

superior rhetoric from a severe dyslexic is a huge success.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So why refer to the most reasoned and balanced contributions in 45 pages as rhetoric?



hes using it as a neutral term. the art of persuasive language.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> So why refer to the most reasoned and balanced contributions in 45 pages as rhetoric?


Eh? Any post in an online debate is rhetoric. Otherwise why bother?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> hes using it as a neutral term. the art of persuasive language.


Aye. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

i've apparently picked up a few tricks while trying to define various aspects of Victorian political rhetoric



just shoot me if i ever start trying to use the evangelical stuff


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Eh? Any post in an online debate is rhetoric. Otherwise why bother?



In terms of persuasion, almost nothing in online "debates" is rhetoric.  It's almost entirely baiting, witch hunts, intra-group value reinforcement and fragile claims to moral or intellectual superiority.  In varying proportions.


----------



## coley (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> beams with pride.
> 
> superior rhetoric from a severe dyslexic is a huge success.


But typing in a response in tiny letters,forcing us with poor eyesight to squint isn't  My headache is on your conscience


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> In terms of persuasion, almost nothing in online "debates" is rhetoric.  It's almost entirely baiting, witch hunts, intra-group value reinforcement and fragile claims to moral or intellectual superiority.  In varying proportions.


As it has always been. I don't think the likes of Aristotle were immune from it.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> As it has always been. I don't think the likes of Aristotle were immune from it.



No, you are.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> In terms of persuasion, almost nothing in online "debates" is rhetoric.  It's almost entirely baiting, witch hunts, intra-group value reinforcement and fragile claims to moral or intellectual superiority.  In varying proportions.



well i'm clearly superior.


and i'm going to really regret playing this game in the morning


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, you are.


No one is


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> No one is



I hadn't accounted for my post accidentally making technical grammatical sense there.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> hes using it as a neutral term. the art of persuasive language.





Orang Utan said:


> Eh? Any post in an online debate is rhetoric. Otherwise why bother?



Apologies, Ape face.

Take a look at Jousty's and Mr Moose's posts for examples of bell-ended, misplaced, liberalism. But skip over anything posted by Idaho. He's a monkey.


----------



## coley (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> well i'm clearly superior.
> 
> 
> and i'm going to really regret playing this game in the morning


*Bugger off*


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Apologies, Ape face.




anyway, i'm not that good. if i was, i'd have you as a signed up member of the feminist monothought clique


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> anyway, i'm not that good. if i was, i'd have you as a signed up member of the feminist monothought clique



"Ape face" was to OU, just to be clear!


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

are you actually trying ot be a gentleman to urban's arch-feminist bitch queen from hell?

that will only end badly


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Some people are better at stating their case than others.


I suggested that a victim of male sexual violence may feel threatened by public male nudity chancing upon them and their feelings should be considered. Can you suggest how I can reword that for the terminally stupid to understand or do I just need to be in possession of a pair of tits?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> One person saying 'confusing message' totally means another poster saying 'it will cause damage'.
> 
> Haven't you got a novel or TV show to invent you daft cunt?





Spymaster said:


> Do you really think that conflating two different responses to two different points furthers your argument?
> 
> Are you a complete dickhead?





Spymaster said:


> I think that's called "synchronicity"! ^^^



What a couple of utter babies. Page after page of ludicrous argument and now you can't even agree why the act is problematic or whether 'confusing' is an issue or not.

Fellow travellers, fellow authoritarians who deserve each other. The only difference is that spymaster wouldn't need a fig leaf to put the electrodes on your testicles whereas citizen would still think he was right on and invent a new category of deviant for you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I suggested that a victim of male sexual violence may feel threatened by public male nudity chancing upon them and their feelings should be considered. Can you suggest how I can reword that for the terminally stupid to understand or do I just need to be in possession of a pair of tits?


I'm not sure if they would unless they were masturbating and staring at them. Would a victim be upset at seeing a streaker?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure if they would unless they were masturbating and staring at them. Would a victim be upset at seeing a streaker?


A streaker generally doesn't invade personal space. You're missing that both me and toggle specifically used public transport as an example.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Did Gough use public transport? I don't think he did. He is a naked rambler.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not sure if they would unless they were masturbating and staring at them. Would a victim be upset at seeing a streaker?



They live to play naked Internets and call other people 'liberals'. It's the one glimmer of hope in the daily grind.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> A streaker generally doesn't invade personal space. You're missing that both me and toggle specifically used public transport as an example.



Fucking hell. Do you ever leave this forum? You need some rest.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I suggested that a victim of male sexual violence may feel threatened by public male nudity chancing upon them and their feelings should be considered. Can you suggest how I can reword that for the terminally stupid to understand or do I just need to be in possession of a pair of tits?



Yes, you've been frotting on about it for days now. I think we get the idea.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Did Gough use public transport? I don't think he did. He is a naked rambler.


Fuck sake. Have you actually read the thread? People are arguing that everyone should be free to derobe themselves whenever and wherever they want.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Fucking hell. Do you ever leave this forum? You need some rest.


Funny how you always seem to be here too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Straw man arguments innit. People don't really give a shit about this eccentric potentially offending a male rape victim. They just want to win an argument.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck sake. Have you actually read the thread? People are arguing that everyone should be free to derobe themselves whenever and wherever they want.



I'm not. Unless you believe that by being reluctant to imprison that effectively is. But then that makes you a prison advocate something you've tried to weasel out of like a big...weasel.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Fuck sake. Have you actually read the thread? People are arguing that everyone should be free to derobe themselves whenever and wherever they want.


I'm not


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Straw man arguments innit. People don't really give a shit about this eccentric potentially offending a male rape victim. They just want to win an argument.



QED.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

I'm not sure that I can be arsed going over it all again for late comers. Especially as you appear to agree with my point as long as it's toggle making it.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Funny how you always seem to be here too.



I go months without posting.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> QED.



Do you know what that means? 

Because it doesn't make sense where you've put it!


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Do you know what that means?
> 
> Because it doesn't make sense where you've put it!



Another one who never sleeps. Who lives for pedantry.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I go months without posting.


I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Another one who never sleeps. Who lives for pedantry.



Lol, I've been working for 3 hours, 

Get yourself a dictionary! 

QED


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm looking forward to it.



Well I'm probably done on this thread. And I've probably got a marketing campaign or a book launch, or a boutique record label to run and you've got your shift at the colliery or docks to get to.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I'm not. Unless you believe that by being reluctant to imprison that effectively is. But then that makes you a prison advocate something you've tried to weasel out of like a big...weasel.


Are you being deliberately obtuse? You do realise that it's possible to not agree with someone being incarcerated for something whilst also not agreeing with what they are doing to get incarcerated, no?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

"Derobe themselves wherever they want"  Why not?  As long as it's *nonsexual* nudity and the person who does it accepts that the law of the land is not the same as what various places of work or worship enforce as a minimum standard.

The strawman yet again of "it's confusing for children":  Do I confuse Muslim children while waiting at a bus stop, with bare arms and my head uncovered, near a mosque?  Of do I trust their parents and my general demeanour in public to teach them that there's more than one way to behave decently?

BTW Citizen66  seeing as I've been a victim of male sexual violence, you can stop dismissing my opinion that *one naked man who is merely walking in public,* who isn't flashing, wanking, making suggestive comments, groping, rubbing against others, or stalking anyone *is far less distressing than any of the street harassment from clothed humans who consider themselves to be men.*


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Straw man arguments innit. People don't really give a shit about this eccentric potentially offending a male rape victim. They just want to win an argument.


Yeah. I'm arguing that people's actions should take into account other people just to win an argument.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Well I'm probably done on this thread. And I've probably got a marketing campaign or a book launch, or a boutique record label to run and you've got your shift at the colliery or docks to get to.


Railway but close enough a guess.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Lol,





Spymaster said:


> Lol, I've been working for 3 hours,
> 
> Get yourself a dictionary!
> 
> QED



Doesn't work on me all this pedantic outrage. But you enjoy it and feel patted on the head.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> "Derobe themselves wherever they want"  Why not?  As long as it's *nonsexual* nudity and the person who does it accepts that the law of the land is not the same as what various places of work or worship enforce as a minimum standard.
> 
> The strawman yet again of "it's confusing for children":  Do I confuse Muslim children while waiting at a bus stop, with bare arms and my head uncovered, near a mosque?  Of do I trust their parents and my general demeanour in public to teach them that there's more than one way to behave decently?
> 
> BTW Citizen66  seeing as I've been a victim of male sexual violence, you can stop dismissing my opinion that *one naked man who is merely walking in public,* who isn't flashing, wanking, making suggestive comments, groping, rubbing against others, or stalking anyone *is far less distressing than any of the street harassment from clothed humans who consider themselves to be men.*


Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Well I'm probably done on this thread. And I've probably got a marketing campaign or a book launch, or a boutique record label to run and you've got your shift at the colliery or docks to get to.



Wow, you're so successful. 

So much better than a miner or a docker. 

Congratulations!


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then?


Like you give a shit


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Like you give a shit


Don't pretend that you know me.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Wow, you're so successful.
> 
> So much better than a miner or a docker.
> 
> Congratulations!



V slowly. I think you'll find the implication is I'm none of those things. Whoosh, there it goes. Over your head.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't pretend that you know me.



But it is odd that you've been banging on about how a victim of male sexual violence would feel and then when one tells you your retort is 'Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then'?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't pretend that you know me.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> But it is odd that you've been banging on about how a victim of male sexual violence would feel and then when one tells you your retort is 'Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then'?


Because my position is you consider the feelings of the many. Plus it was a bit of a cunty trick to say I was 'dismissing the view of a victim of sexual violence' when It was the first time I'd been informed of the fact.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I think you'll find the implication is I'm none of those things.



All that your posts have implied so far is that you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 63153


Suggesting it's all for show just proves that you don't know me.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Because my position is you consider the feelings of the many. Plus it was a bit of a cunty trick to say I was 'dismissing the view of a victim of sexual violence' when It was the first time I'd been informed of the fact.



Er, no. That was your reaction to Greebo. It's no 'cunty trick' of mine.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Er, no. That was your reaction to Greebo. It's no 'cunty trick' of mine.


I never said it was a cunty trick of yours. You really are fucking dense.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Suggesting it's all for show just proves that you don't know me.


Not you, your board persona.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Not you, your board persona.


I don't have a 'persona'. You're talking directly to a person.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't have a 'persona'. You're talking directly to a person.


Everyone does. That's how you appear in the way you conduct yourself on here.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Everyone does. That's how you appear in the way you conduct yourself on here.


And its entirely unconnected to my views in real life?


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I never said it was a cunty trick of yours. You really are fucking dense.



No, you are not being clear and I posted FTAOD. Stop being so daft.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> No, you are not being clear and I posted FTAOD. Stop being so daft.


When does your break from the boards start again?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> And its entirely unconnected to my views in real life?


Of course not. Your views are irrelevant in this argument


----------



## scifisam (Oct 31, 2014)

Ok, for the record, here's a victim of male sexual violence who would feel very uncomfortable if a stranger walked up to me naked (except at a naked beach or whatever, before any funny person decides to nitpick). Closer to the event I definitely would have been scared by it and I'd say most people would then, even if they're fine long term. 

But I guess I'm just making that up to try to win an argument, it's not my genuine feeling at all.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Of course not. Your views are irrelevant in this argument


If they're irrelevant why are you pushing the point that they're not representative of me? Surely it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If they're irrelevant why are you pushing the point that they're not representative of me? Surely it wouldn't matter.


I wasn't.  I have not suggested that your views here are different from your real life ones, just that the way you present your arguments make it look like all you care about is winning, which is why I took more from one togglepost than a plethora of yours


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Ok, for the record, here's a victim of male sexual violence who would feel very uncomfortable if a stranger walked up to me naked (except at a naked beach or whatever, before any funny person decides to nitpick). Closer to the event I definitely would have been scared by it and I'd say most people would then, even if they're fine long term.
> 
> But I guess I'm just making that up to try to win an argument, it's not my genuine feeling at all.


Check mate.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> "Derobe themselves wherever they want"  Why not?  As long as it's *nonsexual* nudity and the person who does it accepts that the law of the land is not the same as what various places of work or worship enforce as a minimum standard.



Because other people, _who are not you_, may find it intimidating. 



> The strawman yet again of "it's confusing for children":  Do I confuse Muslim children while waiting at a bus stop, with bare arms and my head uncovered, near a mosque?  Of do I trust their parents and my general demeanour in public to teach them that there's more than one way to behave decently?



Talking of strawmen, this is one.

Do you think that maybe muslim kids growing up in a country where women with uncovered arms and heads is the absolute societal norm; where their parents have decided that it's ok for them to be exposed to such behaviour; is a bit different to a bloke walking through a park with his clangers out?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Check mate.


See? It's just a game to you.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

I'm a victim of male sexual violence but I feel differently to Sam, just to balance that out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Anyway this is done. All that's left is for people to argue that toggle and scifi sam's feelings are secondary to the rights of male public nudity. So you either out yourself as a cunt or concede defeat.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Do you think that maybe muslim kids growing up in a country where women with uncovered arms and heads is the absolute societal norm; where their parents have decided that it's ok for them to be exposed to such behaviour; is a bit different to a bloke walking through a park with his clangers out?


No.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> No.



Absolutely astonishing.

Really.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway this is done. All that's left is for people to argue that toggle and scifi sam's feelings are secondary to the rights of male public nudity. So you either out yourself as a cunt or concede defeat.


Newsflash:  Not all women think the same, and not all feminists think the same.  Your assumptions that they do (let alone should) is sexism of the highest order.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Newsflash:  Not all women think the same, and not all feminists think the same.  Your assumptions that they do (let alone should) is sexism of the highest order.


I don't know about of the highest order, but it's definitely sexism in itself.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Newsflash:  Not all women think the same, and not all feminists think the same.  Your assumptions that they do (let alone should) is sexism of the highest order.



He's not making that assumption though is he? 

You seem to be though. 

You're arguing that because _you_ find this nudity inoffensive, that it's ok. 

What about _other_ people?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway this is done. All that's left is for people to argue that toggle and scifi sam's feelings are secondary to the rights of male public nudity. So you either out yourself as a cunt or concede defeat.


The thread is done cos you say it is. You have won this bout. Applause for the tough guy. Lap of honour.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> I don't know about of the highest order, but it's definitely sexism in itself.


Thank you.  I've had enough of apparent white knighting on this thread by male posters on behalf of women's feelings in the last few days.


Spymaster said:


> <snip>You're arguing that because _you_ find this nudity inoffensive, that it's ok.
> 
> What about _other_ people?


Such as you?  Deal with street (and other public place) harassment, which is a far bigger problem.  Then tell me that one man's refusal to wear clothes is a threat.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Anyway this is done. All that's left is for people to argue that toggle and scifi sam's feelings are secondary to the rights of male public nudity. So you either out yourself as a cunt or concede defeat.


Greebo and my views aren't secondary either.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Newsflash:  Not all women think the same, and not all feminists think the same.  Your assumptions that they do (let alone should) is sexism of the highest order.


Can you point to where I said any of this? I've argued consistently against selfish individualism. Consider the feelings of others. How awful of me.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> I don't know about of the highest order, but it's definitely sexism in itself.


Sexism where?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Sexism where?


The proposition that two women's views are representative of women generally, or feminists generally, ignoring two other women's views that were entirely different.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you point to where I said any of this? I've argued consistently against selfish individualism. Consider the feelings of others. How awful of me.



But when others like Greebo share their feelings you call them cunts or cunty. Your chivalry towards women evaporates into a bad smell.

You absolutely come across as someone who just wishes to win an argument.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Greebo and my views aren't secondary either.


I didn't say that they are, nor those of toggle, not those of scifisam.  

And yet, it's strange that you show up days after male posters had whipped themselves into a froth defending the delicate sensibilities of unknown women and children, rather than admitting to their own problems with the subject.  Maybe all three of you have been busy?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> The proposition that two women's views are representative of women generally, or feminists generally, ignoring two other women's views that were entirely different.


I haven't mentioned women. They just happen to be two posters who have come forward objecting to it. If they had been men my position would have been identical. I ask again, what sexism?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> I didn't say that they are, nor those of toggle, not those of scifisam.
> 
> And yet, it's strange that you show up days after male posters had whipped themselves into a froth defending the delicate sensibilities of unknown women and children, rather than admitting to their own problems with the subject.  Maybe all three of you have been busy?


Eh?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

I said 'victims of male sexual violence'. If by that you think I mean women then it is you who is the sexist.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I haven't mentioned women. They just happen to be two posters who have come forward objecting to it. If they had been men my position would have been identical. I ask again, what sexism?


You said:



Citizen66 said:


> Anyway this is done. All that's left is for people to argue that toggle and scifi sam's feelings are secondary to the rights of male public nudity. So you either out yourself as a cunt or concede defeat.



Why not use Greebo and my views?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Such as you?



No not me in particular. I've been clear that I don't much care personally *as long as it's not upsetting other people. 
*
Now there are at least 2 people _just on this thread_ who have said that they would find Gough's behaviour alarming in given situations. Those people are left libertarians not known for being particularly prudish or puritanical. Can you imagine how many people in wider society would have a problem with it?

And stop trying to polarize this as being all about women. That's just one aspect of the debate. There are plenty of non-feminists, kids, and yes, blokes, who could also find it disturbing.

Why should yours or Gough's views take precedence over theirs?


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Eh?


Please do me one huge favour, and just read the all of thread since the recent bump.  Notice the sex of who says what; for once it's relevant.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Please do me one huge favour, and just read the all of thread since the recent bump.  Notice the sex of who says what; for once it's relevant.


I've been posting on this thread for months.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> You said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why not use Greebo and my views?


Because you're not objecting to it


----------



## Idaho (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster and Citizen66, do you really think a thread is a place where you can "win" an argument? If so, what have you learnt from the many years on this board?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Please do me one huge favour, and just read the all of thread since the recent bump.  Notice the sex of who says what; for once it's relevant.


It isn't relevant at all.


----------



## Greebo (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> I've been posting on this thread for months.


So have I.  And yet you've noticed no white knighting this week?  Because I have.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> Why not use Greebo and my views?



Because you and Greebs wouldn't be upset at NOT seeing Gough naked.

Others _would be_ concerned at seeing him bollock starkers.

Who's views should take precedence, those to whom it means nothing or those who could potentially be distressed?


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> So have I.  And yet you've noticed no white knighting this week?  Because I have.


What I don't understand is why you said it was odd me turning up when I did, when I've been posting on this thread for months. I haven't actively posted anything much anywhere on the boards over the past few days because I've been busy but I've been reading it and "liking" where I've agreed in whole or in part with something someone has said. There was nothing more odd about it than having a few minutes and just saying that my view balances out what Sam had said.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> What I don't understand is why you said it was odd me turning up when I did ....



I think Greebs messed up the quote. That was C66.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Idaho said:


> Spymaster and Citizen66, do you really think a thread is a place where you can "win" an argument? If so, what have you learnt from the many years on this board?


It strikes me that people aren't interested in why someone holds the views they do, just in trying to cut them down/prove them wrong/win the argument.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I think Greebs messed up the quote. That was C66.


Ah! That makes sense, cheers.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> It strikes me that people aren't interested in why someone holds the views they do, just in trying to cut them down/prove them wrong/win the argument.



On Urban? I won't have it.


----------



## cesare (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> On Urban? I won't have it.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> It strikes me that people aren't interested in why someone holds the views they do, just in trying to cut them down/prove them wrong/win the argument.


Sour grapes.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

cesare said:


> It strikes me that people aren't interested in why someone holds the views they do, just in trying to cut them down/prove them wrong/win the argument.



I honestly don't think that's the case here. C66, myself, and a few others have put forward some pretty solid argument as to why Gough shouldn't be allowed _absolute_ freedom to do as he pleases wherever he pleases.

The opposing view is simply that "he's doing no harm" when others have clearly said they'd find it intimidating (or understand that someone else might). So in that respect, he potentially is harmful.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

And then the retort to that was 'tough'.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

Anyway, I have to get back to the coal face and my phone doesn't work down the pit.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> N
> 
> And stop trying to polarize this as being all about women. That's just one aspect of the debate. There are plenty of non-feminists and, yes, blokes, kids, who could also find it intimidating.
> 
> Now why should yours or Gough's views take precedence over theirs?



It might just be me, but whren I was growing up we had communal showers after games, which you had to use.  Nudity amogst people of the same sex was normal, and quite often the games teachers would get in the showers and wash their knobs.  Looking back theres obviously child protection issues there, and i imagine it doesnot happen anymore, but the local swimming baths were the same, in the male changing rooms lots of men showered and walked about naked and no-one thought anything of it.  I imagine this is the same pretty much the world over, so to say this is more than about the valid concerns of people regarding male sexual abuse, is quite an eccentric position.

I think Toggle point is fair, but theres a big difference between nudity in an enclosed space, and in the street or on a mountain.  I dont think its unreasoanle to expect everyone using a bus to wear clothes, for hygeine reasons if nothing else, people leak from down there.

Also prison is central to this, no-one on this thread is cheerleading Gough or particularly agrees with what he's doing - the point is should someone who refuses to wear clothes be locked in a cell for most of their life, thats whats happening, and that stark fact underpins the debate.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> "Derobe themselves wherever they want"  Why not?  As long as it's *nonsexual* nudity and the person who does it accepts that the law of the land is not the same as what various places of work or worship enforce as a minimum standard.
> 
> The strawman yet again of "it's confusing for children":  Do I confuse Muslim children while waiting at a bus stop, with bare arms and my head uncovered, near a mosque?  Of do I trust their parents and my general demeanour in public to teach them that there's more than one way to behave decently?
> 
> BTW Citizen66  seeing as I've been a victim of male sexual violence, you can stop dismissing my opinion that *one naked man who is merely walking in public,* who isn't flashing, wanking, making suggestive comments, groping, rubbing against others, or stalking anyone *is far less distressing than any of the street harassment from clothed humans who consider themselves to be men.*



I have dipped in and out of this thread, but I think this post sums it up best for me.

There are already laws against indecent exposure, sexual assault and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace which can be used to protect against the various problems people have cited. That they are not currently used in ways which protect everyone who might be affected by genuinely unpleasant or unwanted behaviour is not the responsibility of the Naked Rambler or anyone arguing in vague support of his position.

From what I've read about this (and I admit I haven't read as widely as many) the core issues here appear to be the questions of whether nakedness should *always* be regarded as indecent (I don't think it should) and whether someone has the right to protest for their cause (however weird we might think it is) in a way and in a place which is chosen by them.

I'm also concerned by the way in which the powers that be have sought to limit his behaviour by using ASBOs, rather than the existing criminal laws, though I'm not sure if what he was first arrested/imprisoned for was breach of ASBO or a criminal offence. Someone can hopefully clarify that bit.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then?



I think Greebo's point (she will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong  ) is that *no one* speaks for all victims of sexual violence, that different people respond in different ways, and that you and others are over simplifying when you say "victims of sexual violence will be upset" (or children will be damaged/confused) as if they will all react the same way.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> ....when you say "victims of sexual violence will be upset" (or children will be damaged/confused) as if they will all react the same way.



How many have to find it distressing to make it unacceptable?


----------



## scifisam (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> I have dipped in and out of this thread, but I think this post sums it up best for me.
> 
> There are already laws against indecent exposure, sexual assault and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace which can be used to protect against the various problems people have cited. That they are not currently used in ways which protect everyone who might be affected by genuinely unpleasant or unwanted behaviour is not the responsibility of the Naked Rambler or anyone arguing in vague support of his position.
> 
> ...


Those are the laws he was charged under, aren't they? I mean, he wasn't arrested quietly rambling at all, since that implies he was in the countryside. He was arrested because he refused help to not flash a school playground. 

That's why there's an argument, really. His refusal to let cops drive him past a school, so he'd still be naked but not visible to the playground, is very different to him innocently wandering around minding his own business. 

Though I'm not sure I'd want to bump into him on my own in a wood or whatever either. I can't speak for all women, but it does seem very likely to me that most victims of male sexual violence would find such an encounter disturbing if it occurred not long after the actual attack. Long term feelings would vary more, but short term? It'd be a very tough person who was completely unperturbed by that. 

Also, the fact that other men harass women on the street does not mean that such exhibitionism is a-OK. Unless anyone wants to make the parallel argument that the fact that some men also rape women means that we shouldn't worry about street harassment.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think Greebo's point (she will doubtless correct me if I'm wrong  ) is that *no one* speaks for all victims of sexual violence, that different people respond in different ways, and that you and others are over simplifying when you say "victims of sexual violence will be upset" (or children will be damaged/confused) as if they will all react the same way.



'victims of sexual violence' was just an example I was using. Objections will be many and varied. My position is those people should be listened to. The people arguing against me are basically saying as gough isn't harming anyone he should be at liberty to do as he pleases regardless of any objections which strikes me as a pretty anti social position.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> How many have to find it distressing to make it unacceptable?



I don't have an off-the-cuff answer to that question, but IMO their distress certainly has to be legally tested as being reasonable in the circumstances, it shouldn't just be a case of one random person claiming to be distressed, therefore we bang him up.

How many people have actually found it distressing, as demonstrated by testifying that that's the case in a court where he was being prosecuted? because it seems to me that much of this is about the state getting offended on supposed behalf of notional individuals rather than actual offence being caused to children, previous victims of assault or anyone else.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> 'victims of sexual violence' was just an example I was using. Objections will be many and varied. My position is those people should be listened to. The people arguing against me are basically saying as gough isn't harming anyone he should be at liberty to do as he pleases regardless of any objections which strikes me as a pretty anti social position.



I think *all* people should be listened to, and I think it's far from clear how we weigh up the interests of one "side" against the other in a reasonable way.

But one thing I'm certain of is that it's not enough for those seeking to prevent Gough from acting in this way to simply raise an objection or say they are offended or others might be offended, for the state to intervene in this way they (and you, in the context of this thread) actually need to be able to demonstrate that he has caused significant harm to actual people judged in a court to be reasonable.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> I don't have an off-the-cuff answer to that question, but IMO their distress certainly has to be legally tested as being reasonable in the circumstances, it shouldn't just be a case of one random person claiming to be distressed, therefore we bang him up.
> 
> How many people have actually found it distressing, as demonstrated by testifying that that's the case in a court where he was being prosecuted? because it seems to me that much of this is about the state getting offended on supposed behalf of notional individuals rather than actual offence being caused to children, previous victims of assault or anyone else.



There have been countless complaints about him.

Have you read this thread?


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Those are the laws he was charged under, aren't they? I mean, he wasn't arrested quietly rambling at all, since that implies he was in the countryside. He was arrested because he refused help to not flash a school playground.
> 
> That's why there's an argument, really. His refusal to let cops drive him past a school, so he'd still be naked but not visible to the playground, is very different to him innocently wandering around minding his own business.
> 
> ...



Firstly, I accept and sympathise with your feelings that you wouldn't want to encounter him, or anyone acting in a similar manner. I'm not seeking to dismiss or diminish those feelings in any way, but I'm not convinced that those feelings should be allowed to simply trump or override all other considerations.

Your assertion that he was arrested "because he refused help to not flash a school playground" suggests that you regard simply walked naked past somewhere is equivalent to flashing, and I don't agree that it is. Had he not simply walked straight past, had he stopped and attempted to attract the attention of children or had children noticed and been upset, then there would be some genuine legal course to proceed in prosecuting him, but prosecuting him for something he hadn't yet done, on the basis that it *might* have caused harm *had he done it*, does not seem like a great way to proceed.

I was under the impression, BTW, that he was arrested on this occasion for breaking an ASBO prohibiting him from walking naked in particular places (apologies if I've got this bit wrong) and that sort of extra-judicial way of controlling behaviour does not seem like something we should be accepting without comment or concern.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> I think *all* people should be listened to, and I think it's far from clear how we weigh up the interests of one "side" against the other in a reasonable way.
> 
> But one thing I'm certain of is that it's not enough for those seeking to prevent Gough from acting in this way to simply raise an objection or say they are offended or others might be offended, for the state to intervene in this way they (and you, in the context of this thread) actually need to be able to demonstrate that he has caused significant harm to actual people judged in a court to be reasonable.


But I'm not saying gough can absolutely never be publicly nude. I'm saying he should consider others when doing so which he demonstratably isn't. If you throw a party do you consider your neighbours when making your plans? Or do you just blast music all through the night and if anyone objects that's their problem? 

State involvement is a separate issue as I don't think anyone other than spymaster has argued in favour of his incarceration.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> There have been countless complaints about him.
> 
> Have you read this thread?



Yes, I have, though I can't remember all the details, so my question may already have been answered.

To be absolutely clear, I'm not asking how many complaints there have been, I'm asking how many of those complaints have actually been properly tested in court and found to be reasonable complaints which support a charge of indecent exposure, threatening behaviour, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace or any other crime which would justify locking him up.


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But I'm not saying gough can absolutely never be publicly nude. I'm saying he should consider others when doing so which he demonstratably isn't. If you throw a party do you consider your neighbours when making your plans? Or do you just blast music all through the night and if anyone objects that's their problem?
> 
> State involvement is a separate issue as I don't think anyone other than spymaster has argued in favour of his incarceration.



I agree that he, along with everyone else, should consider others and moderate his behaviour accordingly to some extent; what that extent should be is not necessarily clear cut or obvious though.

Unfortunately, you can't simply present this as an abstract issue seperate from the actions of the state, this man has had ASBOs issued against him, has been arrested and has been imprisoned a number of times. That's a large part of the reason we're discussing it here, and at such length.

And finally, to look at your specific example, I would certainly consider my neighbours when considering whether or not to have a party with loud music through the night, but I would be rather upset that my rights were being infringed if the police were to turn up on the afternoon before the party, confiscate my sound system and stick me in prison in order to prevent me from causing a noise nuisance on the basis of nothing more than the word of my neighbours that they would be offended were I to commit such an act in the future.


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> I agree that he, along with everyone else, should consider others and moderate his behaviour accordingly to some extent; what that extent should be is not necessarily clear cut or obvious though.
> 
> Unfortunately, you can't simply present this as an abstract issue seperate from the actions of the state, this man has had ASBOs issued against him, has been arrested and has been imprisoned a number of times. That's a large part of the reason we're discussing it here, and at such length.
> 
> And finally, to look at your specific example, I would certainly consider my neighbours when considering whether or not to have a party with loud music through the night, but I would be rather upset that my rights were being infringed if the police were to turn up on the afternoon before the party, confiscate my sound system and stick me in prison in order to prevent me from causing a noise nuisance on the basis of nothing more than the word of my neighbours that they would be offended were I to commit such an act in the future.


The state argument may be central to this but I've been specifically arguing against the idea that because a few posters have decided gough's behaviour shouldn't cause offence, those who do object are incorrect and he should have the right to parade nude wherever and whenever he pleases.

I suspect we'd agree on state interference over this so I'm not going to discuss it just for the sake of it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Greebo, the sweetie thing just isn't annoying, because everyone knows it's what you use to try to annoy people. You need a new tactic.



She doesn't call people "sweetie" to annoy them. She does it to indicate contempt.

HTH HAND!


----------



## andysays (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The state argument may be central to this but I've been specifically arguing against the idea that because a few posters have decided gough's behaviour shouldn't cause offence, those who do object are incorrect and he should have the right to parade nude wherever and whenever he pleases.
> 
> I suspect we'd agree on state interference over this so I'm not going to discuss it just for the sake of it.



I'm not sure it's about whether his behaviour should or shouldn't cause offence, or whether those who are offended are objectively right or wrong - I think it's clear that some would be offended and others would not. Those who are offended are perfectly entitled to be offended, and are perfectly entitled to express that, including seeking to persuade Gough or anyone else to change his behaviour.

But, whether you like it or not, whether you wish to acknowledge or engage in it or not, this discussion goes way beyond that and into the area of state intervention including, it appears to me, the actions of the state *to pre-empt him acting in the future in ways which might cause offence to unspecified people*. Whatever I think of Gough's behaviour, and his apparent lack of concern for the sensibilities of others, it's the actions of the state in this I find most concerning.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> to me though, that's a side point to the one i've already made about public behavior and trust



Unfortunately even with regard to acceptable public behaviour, there are a significant minority of people who've bought into the notion that their own individual needs or whims are of primary importance, and conforming to things like public norms or legality is of secondary importance.
Not a surprising attitude, IMO, given thirty-plus years of the inculcation of neoliberal values, and the taking-root for 25 years prior to that in the minds of some that "freedom" meant the freedom to express yourself without regard to how your behaviour affects others.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> In terms of persuasion, almost nothing in online "debates" is rhetoric.  It's almost entirely baiting, witch hunts, intra-group value reinforcement and fragile claims to moral or intellectual superiority.  In varying proportions.



You've just defined rhetoric as actually used, my friend.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

Greebo said:


> BTW Citizen66  seeing as I've been a victim of male sexual violence, you can stop dismissing my opinion that *one naked man who is merely walking in public,* who isn't flashing, wanking, making suggestive comments, groping, rubbing against others, or stalking anyone *is far less distressing than any of the street harassment from clothed humans who consider themselves to be men.*



the example i gave beforehand was of a situation that i could easily find harassing or intimidating, perhaps more so than some street harassment, but would be almost  impossible to define as harassment because it would involve someone just standing there. context and location can be as important as behavior, and while i personally think there would be no real distress _to me_ from being near Gough walking along a quiet street, the idea that someone can have an absolute right to nudity in crowded/enclosed spaces, including the possibility of people who can enjoy being in that borderline place between knowing their actions are intimidating and actual actionable harassment, scares the crap out of me.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not a surprising attitude, IMO, given thirty-plus years of the inculcation of neoliberal values, and the taking-root for 25 years prior to that in the minds of some that "freedom" meant the freedom to express yourself without regard to how your behaviour affects others.


 
Kind of glossing over the other important idea there - that if people are going to enjoy a decent degree of freedom they need to be able to tolerate others expressing their freedom too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

coley said:


> But typing in a response in tiny letters,forcing us with poor eyesight to squint isn't  My headache is on your conscience



so, not the 6 bottles of 1698 you put away before bed-time?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've just defined rhetoric as actually used, my friend.


 
Well, it's close to the second definition in the dictionary that I looked at.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

8ball said:


> Kind of glossing over the other important idea there - that if people are going to enjoy a decent degree of freedom they need to be able to tolerate others expressing their freedom too.



Glossed over because we're probably both well-aware that "freedom" rarely generates more "freedom". it generally only generates an equal amount of restriction. 
I used to use Blair's 10 years as Prime Minister as an exemplar of this, where any piece of even vaguely civil rights or human rights legislation was "balanced" by exclusions from the legislation.
We're also both well-aware that *public* tolerance can in some cases be very easily shattered by media rhetoric, so public sentiment can be turned on a sixpence with just a little fictitious "reportage".


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Glossed over because we're probably both well-aware that "freedom" rarely generates more "freedom".


 
A good tactic is to just change the meaning of the words.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately even with regard to acceptable public behaviour, there are a significant minority of people who've bought into the notion that their own individual needs or whims are of primary importance, and conforming to things like public norms or legality is of secondary importance.
> Not a surprising attitude, IMO, given thirty-plus years of the inculcation of neoliberal values, and the taking-root for 25 years prior to that in the minds of some that "freedom" meant the freedom to express yourself without regard to how your behaviour affects others.



yes.

a lot of the argument i've been making is that there's too many people like this, and too few who would intervene even in case of really obvious distress, for me to feel happy giving them another right, that they can then wave in my face, that i can't aviod.discussion, more places where it is ok to be naked, yes. lets work that out. but i don't think that our society is ready to give an absolute right to public nudity. not yet at any rate. not until ti's a society rather than competing people who know their rights


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you speak for all victims of sexual violence then?



She hasn't claimed to, and the point she made at the end of her post is normative - in terms of social offence, most people would be a hell of a lot less offended by some numpty strolling around in the nude in public, than by someone sexually stimulating themselves in public.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Don't pretend that you know me.



You sound like an emo.


----------



## coley (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> so, not the 6 bottles of 1698 you put away before bed-time?


Jeez no, two of them is me limit!




Got to leave room for the wine n whisky


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

scifisam said:


> Ok, for the record, here's a victim of male sexual violence who would feel very uncomfortable if a stranger walked up to me naked (except at a naked beach or whatever, before any funny person decides to nitpick). Closer to the event I definitely would have been scared by it and I'd say most people would then, even if they're fine long term.



Which is an elegant illustration of how we (people in general, that is) tend to project the opinions and conclusions we draw from personal experience as being normative. As a male child victim of male sexual violence, I was never scared by nudity or the idea of nudity. What frightened me was confined spaces and even the idea of confined spaces - the idea of being trapped - and at the time, I'd have projected *that* (if, as a 9-yr old, I'd been _au fait_ with concepts such as projection) as being what most victims would have felt. 



> But I guess I'm just making that up to try to win an argument, it's not my genuine feeling at all.



Hmm, passive-aggressive pre-emption. Nice!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> How many have to find it distressing to make it unacceptable?



That's a fool's (or a politician's) argument. You're appealing to an as-yet unidentified possibly-existing group (of unknown numbers) of people who *might* find something distressing to give force to your argument.  No-one should legislate on the basis of amorphous possibilities, just of quantified facts.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

andysays said:


> Your assertion that he was arrested "because he refused help to not flash a school playground" suggests that you regard simply walked naked past somewhere is equivalent to flashing, and I don't agree that it is.



Flashing is a sexual behaviour predicated on gaining sexual stimulation from self-exposure. Unless Gough is walking round with the raging horn, then he's either *not* sexually stimulated (and hence not engaging in flashing), or has such good self-control of his physical urges that he's inhuman.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately even with regard to acceptable public behaviour, there are a significant minority of people who've bought into the notion that their own individual needs or whims are of primary importance, and conforming to things like public norms or legality is of secondary importance.
> Not a surprising attitude, IMO, given thirty-plus years of the inculcation of neoliberal values, and the taking-root for 25 years prior to that in the minds of some that "freedom" meant the freedom to express yourself without regard to how your behaviour affects others.



I agree with most of this. I don't think Gough's 'right' to protest is a freedom that trumps very much. He has to take the consequences of exclusion as a result. 

But imprisonment is another matter. Then we really need to be clear if his behaviour has damaged, has seriously infringed, in which case the context and behaviour when nude is all.

Gough doesn't seem likely to stop. But unless he makes his behaviour unquestionably personal towards groups or individuals maybe he's just an irritant to be ignored until he comes to his senses rather than imprisoned. I don't think that sets a precedent that erodes communal resolve.


----------



## coley (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I agree with most of this. I don't think Gough's 'right' to protest is a freedom that trumps very much. He has to take the consequences of exclusion as a result.
> 
> But imprisonment is another matter. Then we really need to be clear if his behaviour has damaged, has seriously infringed, in which case the context and behaviour when nude is all.
> 
> Gough doesn't seem likely to stop. But unless he makes his behaviour unquestionably personal towards groups or individuals maybe he's just an irritant to be ignored until he comes to his senses rather than imprisoned. I don't think that sets a precedent that erodes communal resolve.


Certainly no case for jail but what's the alternative?


----------



## Citizen66 (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, passive-aggressive pre-emption. Nice!!!



I took it as a targeted barb at OU who was claiming that I didn't actually give a fig for victims of sexual violence and was just using them as a means to win an argument.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

toggle said:


> yes.
> 
> a lot of the argument i've been making is that there's too many people like this, and too few who would intervene even in case of really obvious distress, for me to feel happy giving them another right, that they can then wave in my face, that i can't aviod.discussion, more places where it is ok to be naked, yes. lets work that out. but i don't think that our society is ready to give an absolute right to public nudity. not yet at any rate. not until ti's a society rather than competing people who know their rights



Absolutely, and even in the case of a community consensus on acceptable public nudity, I concur that an absolute right to be naked anywhere wouldn't be helpful, and in many cases wouldn't be hygienic (public transport and places selling fresh produce spring to mind).
As far as the giving (and in some case, perhaps, taking) of distress goes, the debate here (due to the nature and subject of the thread, obviously!) centres around male nudity. I'm wondering if the assumption by some (including the political classes and the state) is that it is *male* nudity that is especially offensive, on the basis that male genitals are "in your face" in a way that female genitals aren't. I think there's probably something to the various psychoanalytic tropes about "the penetrative member", too, which might make male genitals distressing to some victims of male sexual assault.


----------



## Mr Moose (Oct 31, 2014)

coley said:


> Certainly no case for jail but what's the alternative?



I don't know. He's a pain in the arse who can be refused entry to virtually everywhere. It's not unreasonable to exclude him from many places/services.

Maybe he's been offered talking therapies, maybe not. I can't really fathom why he should wish to live like this. Maybe someone could.

There isn't a good answer to everything though. Maybe someone will get through to him one day or the isolation of his life will get to him.

A three pipe problem.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 31, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I agree with most of this. I don't think Gough's 'right' to protest is a freedom that trumps very much. He has to take the consequences of exclusion as a result.



Absolutely! Freedom isn't just about Gough's "freedom to go nude", it's also about the right of disparate others (I refuse to say "the public", because that makes it seem like a Gough vs Everyone thing) to have "freedom from" Gough's nudity. 



> But imprisonment is another matter. Then we really need to be clear if his behaviour has damaged, has seriously infringed, in which case the context and behaviour when nude is all.



Yes. We shouldn't (as the media and govt have attempted to do) deal with his *potential* to engage in distressing behaviour(s), only with actual instances that have occurred.



> Gough doesn't seem likely to stop. But unless he makes his behaviour unquestionably personal towards groups or individuals maybe he's just an irritant to be ignored until he comes to his senses rather than imprisoned. I don't think that sets a precedent that erodes communal resolve.



What strikes me is that although Gough has been psychiatrically-assessed, and has been found to have no pathology "fueling" his passion for nudity, the courts haven't explored whether they've in fact created a martyrdom complex in Gough, and whether they're feeding it every time they take the hard line instead of the sensible one.


----------



## toggle (Oct 31, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Absolutely, and even in the case of a community consensus on acceptable public nudity, I concur that an absolute right to be naked anywhere wouldn't be helpful, and in many cases wouldn't be hygienic (public transport and places selling fresh produce spring to mind).
> As far as the giving (and in some case, perhaps, taking) of distress goes, the debate here (due to the nature and subject of the thread, obviously!) centres around male nudity. I'm wondering if the assumption by some (including the political classes and the state) is that it is *male* nudity that is especially offensive, on the basis that male genitals are "in your face" in a way that female genitals aren't. I think there's probably something to the various psychoanalytic tropes about "the penetrative member", too, which might make male genitals distressing to some victims of male sexual assault.



there's also the behavior of the person the genitals are attached to. it's far more unusual for female genitals to be used to assault others. and ti's far more common for men to act poorly in public spaces in an intimidatory manner towards women than the other way round. part of my concerns are about the use of nudity to increace the perception of ownership of space (and power over those in it). female nudity is more likely to lead to the woman being abused than abusing imo. so ti's not necessarily about the shape of our genitals, but about the shape of our society

to me, male nudity is a space where i feel i have sufficient guarantee that it's not going ot be used to intimidate or harass isn't something i find threatening.


----------



## Celyn (Nov 1, 2014)

Just for amusement:

Naked men could cause a heap of trouble ...


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 1, 2014)

Already bindun.


----------



## coley (Nov 1, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> I don't know. He's a pain in the arse who can be refused entry to virtually everywhere. It's not unreasonable to exclude him from many places/services.
> 
> Maybe he's been offered talking therapies, maybe not. I can't really fathom why he should wish to live like this. Maybe someone could.
> 
> ...


One way ticket to Maspalomas


----------



## Celyn (Nov 2, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Already bindun.


 Sorry.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 2, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> ...What strikes me is that although Gough has been psychiatrically-assessed, and has been found to have no pathology "fueling" his passion for nudity, the courts haven't explored whether they've in fact created a martyrdom complex in Gough, and whether they're feeding it every time they take the hard line instead of the sensible one.



it could well be, but from recall of the beginings of this the courts/police taking a hard line (fnarr) wasn't an issue, and infact Gough wasn't really a fundy about the whole thing.

he got quite a bit of exposure (geddit???!!!) in the climbing/hillwalking press in the late 90's/early naughties (oh come on, this is like shooting fish in a barrel), and while he was strident on the issue, he was also happy to understand that meeting a naked hill walker on the Cape Wrath Trail was very different to standing next to a bloke with his cock out while queueing for an ice cream ten minutes after the end of the school day in Maryhill. he would happily say that in bad weather he'd put clothes on, because iirc his words, he liked being naked, not hypothermic.

i vaguely recall he had more problems with the Scottish legal system than in England and Wales, but even in the interviews he gave in the 90's it was obvious that Police forces on both sides of the border would try pretty hard to find a way where he could walk in his natural glory while those who didn't fancy seeing the last turkey in the shop wouldn't have to. he'd be offered lifts, advice on routes etc.. and even when it all went wrong and he'd end up in court, the majority of magistrates seemed to choose the lightest possible book to throw at him.

i met him once - he was neked rambling and we were at Otterburn. i'd read about him, knew who he was (and knew he was ex-RM), so i ambled over, we had a nice chat and a cup of tea (with him making jokes about not spilling it..), i game him some ratpack food and he continued on his way. he wasn't a nutter then, just a bit ecentric but with a point, while understanding that other people had points as well.

while i don't doubt that the friction with the legal system has rubbed off a bit of his reasonableness (word?), i wonder if the family stuff has had more of an impact.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 2, 2014)

Is he still wandering round with his bits out then?  Not heard much about him for ages.  I couldn't care less if he wants to walk around stark bollock naked - more fool him with our climate though.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

joustmaster said:


> if i'm in charge of someones kids in my own home, then i would follow their instructions.




hold on a fucking minute...if you were baby sitting youd decline to get your cock out in front of kids providing  their parents specifically instructed you not to beforehand .


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I'd add that being shocked or offended by something shouldn't automatically lead us to demand that the offending practice is banned or suppressed. Sometimes it's worth critically reflecting upon our reactions and asking whether they are justified, and encouraging others to do the same. From what I can tell this guy has never expressed any desire to harm or upset others. For whatever reason, he regards being permanently naked as deeply important to his sense of self. Would it not behoove us as a society to try to at be tolerant to his idiosyncratic quirk? Would we not be the better for that?



no..the world does not revolve round this serial  fuckwit


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

;;;;;;;;


joustmaster said:


> what do you think will happen to a child if it glances at a passing lady garden or a willy? will they be mentally messed up for the rest of their lives?
> should they be blind folded in changing rooms?
> 
> 
> the reason people don't wank in public is not due to social niceties, its because its a sexual act that you shouldn't involve non willing parties in.



not in Sweden it not . Now thanks to the fucking liberals you can wank in front of kids providing you dont point your cock directly at them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...egal-masturbate-public-directed-specific.html

thats were your particular line of liberal logic leads to...a blank cheque for sex cases and nonces to run amok


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> ;;;;;;;;
> 
> 
> not in Sweden it not . Now thanks to the fucking liberals you can wank in front of kids providing you dont point your cock directly at them
> ...



It's just not Reich.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> This thread needs Casually Red back.



it plainly does...some of this guff is just outrageous.

this twit and his  cheerleaders need to understand there actually is such a thing as we..and we dont regard this type of exhibitionism as acceptable. and if they wish to co exist peacefully with the human community they should stop being a bunch of elitist pricks with such sense of self entitlement they reckon they an inflict unwanted exhibitionism on the rest of us . While scoffing with mock disbelief at how anyone could be remotely alarmed or offended ...an insult to our intelligence too . and pronouncing such objections  worthy only of their individualist and elitist neo liberal contempt

this is also about a serious lack of repect or empathy toward others by these self entitled individualists who dont believe we even have a right to complain much less protect ourselves and our kids from flashers and god knows what. Because this also concerns legal precedent and not just one weirdo who wont wear trousers

massive elephant in the room here too . although society tends to politely indulge nudists and their guff about their lifestyle being normal and non sexual, deep down we all know theyre a bunch of weirdoes and sex cases who get their jollies from running about in the buff . Which is fine and dandy and harmless providing they persue their particular bent in the appropriate setting were it causes neither alarm nor offence.


----------



## joustmaster (Nov 8, 2014)

well thank god you turned up and posted. 
its obviously made a huge impact on the thread, and everyone will now have to rethink their entire lives.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> <snip>
> massive elephant in the room here too . although society tends to politely indulge nudists and their guff about their lifestyle being normal and non sexual, *deep down we all know theyre a bunch of weirdoes and sex cases who get their jollies from running about in the buff* . Which is fine and dandy and harmless providing they persue their particular bent in the appropriate setting were it causes neither alarm nor offence.



I think you're projecting your own views and pretending that everyone shares them.  Which they don't.  Thank god.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 8, 2014)

There's life in the old dog yet.


----------



## Greebo (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> <snip>massive elephant in the room here too . although society tends to politely indulge nudists and their guff about their lifestyle being normal and non sexual, deep down we all know theyre a bunch of weirdoes and sex cases who get their jollies from running about in the buff . Which is fine and dandy and harmless providing they persue their particular bent in the appropriate setting were it causes neither alarm nor offence.


Momentarily taking this thread off ignore (it was generating more heat than light) to say one thing.

I grew up within a few miles of one of the few so-called nudist colonies in this country.  It was down a very secluded country lane, and everyone knew it was there, but most people steered clear of the place.  They were invariably polite and civil to "textiles" including the telephone repairmen.

And you know how local papers have a field day over scandal or salacious "human interest"?  In over 20 years of hearing about rapists, kidnappers, indecent assault, muggers, and murderers in the area, and reading one report of a scoutmaster getting prosecuted for what would now be grooming and indecent assault on boys, there were no such offences done by the naturists (aka nudists).  Not even the slightest rumour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 8, 2014)

Greebo said:


> Momentarily taking this thread off ignore (it was generating more heat than light) to say one thing.
> 
> I grew up within a few miles of one of the few so-called nudist colonies in this country.  It was down a very secluded country lane, and everyone knew it was there, but most people steered clear of the place.  They were invariably polite and civil to "textiles" including the telephone repairmen.
> 
> And you know how local papers have a field day over scandal or salacious "human interest"?  In over 20 years of hearing about rapists, kidnappers, indecent assault, muggers, and murderers in the area, and reading one report of a scoutmaster getting prosecuted for what would now be grooming and indecent assault on boys, there were no such offences done by the naturists (aka nudists).  Not even the slightest rumour.



Pah, you and your inconvenient facts!!!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> ;;;;;;;;
> 
> 
> not in Sweden it not . Now thanks to the fucking liberals you can wank in front of kids providing you dont point your cock directly at them
> ...



It's the thin end of the wedge, Red. The thin end of the wedge.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's the thin end of the wedge, Red. The thin end of the wedge.




like that Christmas tree dildo thingy when they were defending wotsisname...poo the pants .


----------



## toggle (Nov 8, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> ;;;;;;;;
> 
> 
> not in Sweden it not . Now thanks to the fucking liberals you can wank in front of kids providing you dont point your cock directly at them
> ...



what that says is that under the current law, his act was not deemed illegal. that tells me that the current laws are worded to allow his act. nothing about whether the society or lawmakers deem his behavior acceptable


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It's the thin end of the wedge, Red. The thin end of the wedge.



Except it's the pair of you that are.

Such a lot of macho politics on this thread. Left and right arguing the case for the innate unquestionable superiority of the norm and the need for prison to enforce.

Queasy arguments on behalf of women and children abound. Perverts and wiberals everywhere. The solution, proper blokes ready to give the nonces a good shoeing.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2014)

Shut up you tart.


----------



## Mr Moose (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Shut up you tart.



Isn't there a plane to Sweden you could be on? You've been publicly masturbating on here for a week now and it sounds like you'd be better tolerated there.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Isn't there a plane to Sweden you could be on? You've been publicly masturbating on here for a week now and it sounds like you'd be better tolerated there.



Wahey, nice one!

Factually incorrect but _seriously_ _witty_ nonetheless.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Shut up you tart.


----------



## Casually Red (Nov 8, 2014)

beardy cunt


----------



## Wilf (Nov 10, 2014)

Must admit, I'd have thought the return of Casually Red to this thread would have been more, ahem, _incendiary_. 

Urban, Standards Slipping, part 94.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

Mr Moose said:


> Except it's the pair of you that are.
> 
> Such a lot of macho politics on this thread. Left and right arguing the case for the innate unquestionable superiority of the norm and the need for prison to enforce.
> 
> Queasy arguments on behalf of women and children abound. Perverts and wiberals everywhere. The solution, proper blokes ready to give the nonces a good shoeing.


I've never argued in favour of him being locked up. It's entirely his own selfish doing that he is inside though.

I've argued against ultra individualist libertarian positions, because they get right up my nose, frankly.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 9, 2015)

It continues:

Naked Rambler: The UK's oddest legal stand-off
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19625542


> Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has spent more than six years in Scottish prisons for refusing to put his clothes on. The authorities have made it clear they do not want him there but the rambler is sticking to his principles. The result is possibly the UK's oddest legal stand-off.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It continues:
> 
> Naked Rambler: The UK's oddest legal stand-off
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19625542



that's from 2012


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It continues:
> 
> Naked Rambler: The UK's oddest legal stand-off
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19625542


It continues - in an article from 2012.


----------



## fractionMan (Jun 9, 2015)

The latest news is that they gave him another two and a half years last october 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-29528084


----------



## Sirena (Jun 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> It continues:
> 
> Naked Rambler: The UK's oddest legal stand-off
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19625542


It's one of those situations where I reserve the right not to have an opinion.  

Nakedness is not strictly illegal and he should have the right to be free to choose.  And that's a big principle to uphold.  But he also should be respectful of other people he meets and not impose his principles on them.

So, you take your side.  And, because it doesn't directly affect me, I choose not to....


----------



## two sheds (Jun 9, 2015)

They could at least let him out for the bike rides. 

Poor sod .


----------



## weltweit (Jun 9, 2015)

fractionMan said:


> that's from 2012





joustmaster said:


> It continues - in an article from 2012.



Oh bum .. bloody twitter


----------



## twentythreedom (Jun 9, 2015)

From today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-33063397



> A man known as the naked rambler made legal history after appearing nude via prison video link at the Court of Appeal.
> 
> Stephen Gough lost an appeal against a conviction for the breach of an Asbo.
> 
> He appeared from Winchester Prison where he is serving a two-and-a-half-year sentence for breaching the order banning him from being naked in public.



Posted on BBC news website today, not sure exactly when it refers to though


----------



## kebabking (Jun 9, 2015)

Sirena said:


> ...But he also should be respectful of other people he meets and not impose his principles on them....



he imposed them on me once, and a less impressive countenance you could not imagine. i see his point (fnnaaaarrr!), but to piss away his life, marriage, kids, liberty etc.. for the difference between 90% of what he wanted (and that few people had a problem with), and something that just wasn't going to happen is just idiotic, myopic lunacy.

he'd have acheived far more by countryside nakedness and urban consideration for others, at which point he'd have normalised nakedity and had society asking what the problem with nakedness actually is. by sticking to this foolish, self-defeating path he's taken the issue from one with traction to one for wibbling cranks. well done.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 10, 2015)

kebabking said:


> he imposed them on me once, and a less impressive countenance you could not imagine. i see his point (fnnaaaarrr!), but to piss away his life, marriage, kids, liberty etc.. for the difference between 90% of what he wanted (and that few people had a problem with), and something that just wasn't going to happen is just idiotic, myopic lunacy.
> 
> he'd have acheived far more by countryside nakedness and urban consideration for others, at which point he'd have normalised nakedity and had society asking what the problem with nakedness actually is. by sticking to this foolish, self-defeating path he's taken the issue from one with traction to one for wibbling cranks. well done.


That says it for me perfectly.  Same time, he's trapped in his mindset, his mental health, the path he's chosen. I'm more critical of police and courts, the hundreds of thousands they've wasted.  By now they could have come up with some practical mechanism for ignoring him.  Don't know what that would be, but every time somebody complains about him, just bring him in, release him in the morning, whatever. He's a daft stubborn bastard, but their pig headedness (pun very much intended) is fucking horrible.  Not even sure they are being vindictive, just a bureaucratic stubbornness and unwillingness to be creative.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 10, 2015)

Wilf said:


> ..He's a daft stubborn bastard, but their pig headedness (pun very much intended) is fucking horrible.  Not even sure they are being vindictive, just a bureaucratic stubbornness and unwillingness to be creative.



thing is, they used to do that (certainly in England, i think they were a bit more po faced north of the border..). someone would complain to the local filth about his ginger nuts on some rural path, they'd pick him up, he'd spend the night (or an hour..) in the cells and get a good breakfast, then he'd be offered a lift out to some lonely spot where he could continue his ramblings. initially he'd go along with it, but soon enough he'd refuse the lift and the helpful advice about where he could, and where he probably shouldn't, go _tackle out_, and he went through a phase of being arrested, released and then immediately rearrested because he'd refuse to either wear clothes while walking out of the police station/court, or refuse the offer a lift.

can i think of better uses for almost non-existant rural policing? of course, and neither do i like the fact that this bloke has been in prison for 8 years just because he likes the wind round his balls. however, i don't see what the actual alternative is when he simply will not compromise on anything and neither will people who don't want to see his wizened organ walking down the street.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 10, 2015)

As much as anything, it's about the _rambling_.  If he just did this in his home town it would probably get resolved. Either the locals would get used to his nudiness or he get smacked on a regular basis, banned from shops, have kids throwing stones at him - or maybe just permanent derision.  None of that would be pretty (and I'd prefer it if people could just accept his oddity), but it would probably resolve it.  Might at least be better than this insane cat and mouse act with the cops.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 10, 2015)

I think there is something wrong mentally with the man. At the very least an overdose of stubbornness and bloody mindedness. To continue flouting the law, with absolutely no compromise, even if it is an ass, with the result that he is continuously imprisoned is nothing short of extremely unusual.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 1, 2015)

Now this in my opinion is how you naked ramble. He is seemingly respectful. One person said he didn't respond to her challenges once but I'm assuming that she came storming up to him ranting and rather than get into a confrontation just wanted to get out of there.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6568799/Naked-dog-walker-ruff-les-locals-feathers.html

The Sun angle does the usual 'won't someone thnk of the chldren!!!'

http://metro.co.uk/2015/08/01/polit...322041/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Glad to see the Metro didn't.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-naked-dog-walker-5470606

Hmm look how naked female dog walkers are reported. Spot the differences?


----------



## weltweit (Apr 11, 2016)

Naked rambler will get dressed to take his mother for walks


----------



## kebabking (Apr 11, 2016)

weltweit said:


> Naked rambler will get dressed to take his mother for walks



whats sad is that had he been as pragmatic 15 years ago public nudity would be a much more mainstream idea and this bloke wouldn't have spent time in prison, and perhaps his family would not have disintegrated.

twat.


----------



## LDC (Apr 11, 2016)

Years ago I was involved in organising a political gathering and we were contacted beforehand by someone to  ask if it was OK if they attended naked (same arguments, nakedness is a natural state, not sexual, etc. etc.).

After a bit of discussion (and some very English squirming and discomfort at the idea of all that naked flesh in public) we wrote back and politely explained why it wasn't going to be OK for some sensible reasons (kids present, survivors of sexual attacks, etc.).

Well, the bloke turned up. And slightly fucked up the non-sexual side of his arguments by proceeding to wear a pair of trousers with the crotch area cut out of them, and no underpants... until he was kicked out anyway.


----------



## Sea Star (Jun 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, she's a fucking idiot.



aww, we did get off to a rocky start didn't we


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> aww, we did get off to a rocky start didn't we


----------



## Wilf (Jun 28, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Years ago I was involved in organising a political gathering and we were contacted beforehand by someone to  ask if it was OK if they attended naked (same arguments, nakedness is a natural state, not sexual, etc. etc.).
> 
> After a bit of discussion (and some very English squirming and discomfort at the idea of all that naked flesh in public) we wrote back and politely explained why it wasn't going to be OK for some sensible reasons (kids present, survivors of sexual attacks, etc.).
> 
> Well, the bloke turned up. And slightly fucked up the non-sexual side of his arguments by proceeding to wear a pair of trousers with the crotch area cut out of them, and no underpants... until he was kicked out anyway.


Ed Balls?


----------



## Mr Moose (Jun 28, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> aww, we did get off to a rocky start didn't we



We all did


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 28, 2017)

.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 28, 2017)

There seem to be more and more of these swine popping up everywhere . 

Concern over naked rambler on mountain


Successful businessman revealed as the Ochils naked rambler

It's turning into an epidemic . I was thinking for a minute maybe the DUP could get Theresa May to set up a special task force to stamp it out . But then I remembered Sammy Wilson .


----------



## A380 (Jun 28, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> There seem to be more and more of these swine popping up everywhere .
> 
> Concern over naked rambler on mountain
> 
> ...


Now a naked Orange parade is something I'd watch. The sashes, the bowler hats the fifes and drums , just nothing else;  I'd not begrudge them the money then.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 29, 2017)

A380 said:


> Now a naked Orange parade is something I'd watch. The sashes, the bowler hats the fifes and drums , just nothing else;  I'd not begrudge them the money then.



There was a debate in Belfast city council back in the 80s after some nudists asked permission to have nude swimming sessions in the cities pools . Unionist councillors got very heated over it . One of them announced that in 30 years of marriage he'd never seen his own wife naked. Which caused a few jaws to drop .

I think we'll be spared that particular horror .


----------



## Poi E (Jun 29, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> One of them announced that in 30 years of marriage he'd never seen his own wife naked.



But had seen plenty of others'...


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 29, 2017)

Hope this hasn't been posted before but it's an interview with the mother of his 2 children. Thought it was a good read.

Why DID the Naked Rambler choose nudity over me and our children? Wife of eccentric 'freedom fighter' in plea for him to put clothes back on | Daily Mail Online


----------



## redcogs (Jun 30, 2017)

Fascinating article, thanks for posting CR.  Gough appears to feel one particular societal constraint more than most of us do.  How sad (for all concerned, especially the children) that his enthusiasm for windmill tilting isn't directed into the struggle for social justice and economic and political equality.  His accutely individualistic stance can only end in abject failure.  i wonder how he would fare in societies with greater liberality than the UK ?  Scandi or Germany are reputedly more relaxed regarding nakedity than us relatively uptight Brits.

Funny old world innit.


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2017)

Casually Red said:


> Hope this hasn't been posted before but it's an interview with the mother of his 2 children. Thought it was a good read.
> 
> Why DID the Naked Rambler choose nudity over me and our children? Wife of eccentric 'freedom fighter' in plea for him to put clothes back on | Daily Mail Online




I lost a mouthful of coffee at this bit...



> Another time, he walked to Blockbusters naked to return a DVD.



I love the freedom of me tackle hanging loose but there's no way I'm going out in the pissing down rain with a DVD that I've only just realised needs to be back in 10 minutes or I'll have to pay a fine


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 30, 2017)

Sounds like he should have just stayed in Vancouver, he'd probably be mayor by now.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

The bloke's a nailed-on cunt. Look at what he's done to his wife and kids.

Selfish fucking wanker.


----------



## redcogs (Jun 30, 2017)

His wife is at pains in the article not to be described as a 'victim'.  i agree with her.  Gough's behaviour is his responsibility, she has dignity, and so have the children.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 30, 2017)

The cheek of it.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2017)

redcogs said:


> Fascinating article, thanks for posting CR.  Gough appears to feel one particular societal constraint more than most of us do.  How sad (for all concerned, especially the children) that his enthusiasm for windmill tilting isn't directed into the struggle for social justice and economic and political equality.  His accutely individualistic stance can only end in abject failure.  i wonder how he would fare in societies with greater liberality than the UK ?  Scandi or Germany are reputedly more relaxed regarding nakedity than us relatively uptight Brits.
> 
> Funny old world innit.


I've said similar things about him on this thread, though it's now got way beyond the point of there being an easy way out.  I don't want to go for some easy label and call him 'mentally ill', afaik he's been assessed as 'sane' whilst in prison.  But there's a point where an obsession becomes just as difficult to escape from as some form of psychological unreality. But you can still cut through all that and note that he's been an utter twat to his family.

But then... every time the police and courts keep pushing him through the process, there's less and less chance that it will ever stop.  It's not easy to think what a long term solution could be - if he wanders round in the nip he's always going to encounter kids and other people who will feel very uneasy.  However the police should be a bit more pragmatic, wherever possible just ignore the silly fucker. If they get reports of him near schools or similar, sling him in the cells for a night.  When he does it again, pass him on to the next nick. Anything really.  I'd certainly like to see the hundreds of thousands spent on him going to fire fighters or the NHS.  I object to the state's authoritarianism on this, but much worse is the _lack of creativity_.


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

redcogs said:


> Fascinating article, thanks for posting CR.  Gough appears to feel one particular societal constraint more than most of us do.  How sad (for all concerned, especially the children) that his enthusiasm for windmill tilting isn't directed into the struggle for social justice and economic and political equality.  His accutely individualistic stance can only end in abject failure.  i wonder how he would fare in societies with greater liberality than the UK ?  Scandi or Germany are reputedly more relaxed regarding nakedity than us relatively uptight Brits.
> 
> Funny old world innit.



He needs to take a big step back and realise that there is such a thing as " we " . Regardless of our own desires we have to co exist with other human beings . It's why we can't play loud music wherever and whenever we like . Stuff like that . He basically has next to no consideration for other people, including his own kids . A society has societal norms . He's basically engaging in anti social behaviour that causes discomfort and distress in others .
I agree with you it's a very sad state of affairs but at the root of it his obsession is selfish to a degree that's deeply unhealthy for all concerned . He's a prisoner of his own obsession even moreso than the criminal justice system .


----------



## Casually Red (Jun 30, 2017)

redcogs said:


> Scandi or Germany are reputedly more relaxed regarding nakedity than us relatively uptight Brits.
> 
> Funny old world innit.



I remember seeing a weird bloke who'd wandered into an all night Berlin coffee shop in his y fronts and jumper at 4 in the morning  getting chased out with a boot in his arse . By 2 irate women . Probably the most liberal and alternative friendly  city in Germany . I doubt a swinging todger would have done him any favours .


----------



## friedaweed (Jun 30, 2017)

There is a part of me that thinks we've got an unatural problem with nudity now based upon an age long sexualisation of the naked form. You can kinda understand him but he's a few thousand years too late to be making his point now. I don't mind people wanting to be in the buff. I spend as much time as I can with me threadz off.



Casually Red said:


> I remember seeing a weird bloke who'd wandered into an all night Berlin coffee shop in his y fronts and jumper at 4 in the morning  getting chased out with a boot in his arse . By 2 irate women . Probably the most liberal and alternative friendly  city in Germany . I doubt a swinging todger would have done him any favours .



I don't see what's wrong with y-fronts and a jumper. Women have their legs on show all the time and let's not forget german men sport the best of speedos 

It's like when Gregory covered his nipples up in Gregory's girl. Whats the point  it's just two little parts of yer chest that don't serve any purpose other than to remind you that at some point nature decided you weren't worthy of bewbs 

It's just skin and bones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 30, 2017)

A380 said:


> Now a naked Orange parade is something I'd watch. The sashes, the bowler hats, the micro-penises, the fifes and drums , just nothing else;  I'd not begrudge them the money then.



CTFY


----------



## A380 (Jun 30, 2017)

ViolentPanda said:


> CTFY


Nano penis is my word of the day...


----------



## jakethesnake (Jan 9, 2018)

Just heard this on the radio and thought of this thread.


----------



## kebabking (Jun 18, 2021)

Apparently....


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jun 18, 2021)

Thank God, I am washing my hair that day.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jun 19, 2021)

cupid_stunt said:


> Thank God, I am washing my hair that day.



Which reminds; apart from the onsens, haven't been natural in public for years


----------



## NoXion (Jun 19, 2021)

Sunburn all over. No thanks.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 19, 2021)

And I thought he had been on his ramblings again ... 

Humans, the only animals that wear clothes!


----------



## A380 (Jun 19, 2021)

weltweit said:


> And I thought he had been on his ramblings again ...
> 
> Humans, the only animals that wear clothes!


----------



## Reno (Jun 19, 2021)

A380 said:


> View attachment 274244View attachment 274245


Dressed by humans.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 19, 2021)

The guy is a daft selfish cunt but I think its stupid arresting and imprisoning him for it. Dont see any harm personally tbh.

Reminds me of the old naked dude in Barcelona with the massive tattoed cock.. regularly seen in sandals strolling around.


----------



## Ax^ (Jun 19, 2021)

Stanley


----------



## kebabking (Jul 3, 2021)

The tea shops of Grasmere are getting more risqué....


----------



## rubbershoes (Jul 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> The tea shops of Grasmere are getting more risqué....




I think he wears footwear. Going to be uncomfortable without


----------



## TopCat (Jul 3, 2021)

Hope he is ok


----------



## ska invita (Jul 3, 2021)

i saw a naked man walking casually  around outside kings cross station this week


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 20, 2021)

The Naked Rambler:

Creepy boundary violator
Brought shame on family
Hated and despised by all right-thinking folk
Speedo Mick:

Charming eccentric, loved by all
Rambles in swimming trunks to "give back to the community"
Knows when to stop (i.e.wrt swimming trunks, wearing of)









						‘SpeedoMick’ turns heads in charity stomp through Donegal
					

Charity hero 'Speedo Mick' is in town on a mammoth 2,000 mile trek around the UK and Ireland. The Scouser is catching plenty of attention on the roads of Donegal, as he's only be wearing his trademark blue Everton undies! In an update to fans, he admitted that he was 'struggling' with loneliness...



					www.donegaldaily.com


----------



## Elpenor (Sep 20, 2021)

Decent rig as well, which you need to get away with speedos


----------



## A380 (Sep 20, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> Decent rig as well, which you need to get away with speedos


Or socks


----------



## Gromit (Sep 20, 2021)

Idris2002 said:


> The Naked Rambler:
> 
> Creepy boundary violator
> Brought shame on family
> ...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 20, 2021)

ska invita said:


> i saw a naked man walking casually  around outside kings cross station this week


I think I know that guy. He was asleep on a wall near a pub I was at.


----------



## klang (Sep 20, 2021)




----------



## two sheds (Sep 20, 2021)

I was idly wondering whether Shippy was that pissed and had just seen his reflection.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 21, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I was idly wondering whether Shippy was that pissed and had just seen his reflection.


Shippy is famously a charming eccentric, loved by all.


----------



## Elpenor (Oct 2, 2021)

'Speedo Mick' asked to leave Cornwall pub for being underdressed
					

Mick Cullen, who walks in swimming trunks, is told he cannot stay "dressed like this."



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Speedo Mick had a spot of bother in Cornwall, but it all ended ok.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 2, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> but it all ended ok.


Glad you added that - would otherwise have been concerned to click the link


----------



## Chemical needs (Oct 3, 2021)

Elpenor said:


> 'Speedo Mick' asked to leave Cornwall pub for being underdressed
> 
> 
> Mick Cullen, who walks in swimming trunks, is told he cannot stay "dressed like this."
> ...


Drove past him earlier, I think.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 13, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I was idly wondering whether Shippy was that pissed and had just seen his reflection.


I don't normally go to the pub naked.  
Which is great because I don't think they serve mind bleach.


If it helps I am naked as I type this.


----------



## two sheds (Oct 13, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I don't normally go to the pub naked.
> Which is great because I don't think they serve mind bleach.
> 
> 
> If it helps I am naked as I type this.



Yes apologies for that post, no slur was intended. I've been intending to alter it to read:



> If that were me I'd be idly wondering whether I was that pissed and had just seen my reflection.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Oct 13, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Yes apologies for that post, no slur was intended. I've been intending to alter it to read:


The only thing worse than being talked about negatively is not being talked about at all...


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 13, 2021)

Speedo Mick latest; he just keeps on keeping on.









						‘Power of these knickers’: Speedo Mick nears last leg of UK charity walk
					

Michael Cullen has braved storms Barra and Arwen wearing swimming trunks during 2,000-mile fundraiser




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Dec 17, 2021)

Final say of Speedo Mick's walk today 
Speedomick (@speedomick) Tweeted:
Morning everyone, well I’ve made it to my final day 🙌🏻

I’m walking from @AlderHey to @Everton & @LFC then into town, finishing at @MuseumLiverpool on the Pier Head at 3pm

Big thanks to @Carra23 for coming out to walk with me👍🏻

Keep donating everyone 🙏🏼

SpeedoMick's Giving back Tour, organized by Michael Cullen https://t.co/lbZtk4aM7e


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 17, 2021)

He keeps on keeping on (while keeping his pants on - what a guy!)


----------

