The UK's naked rambler hits the news again

[Karla]

Found this on another (non-naturist) forum. It was surprising how many pro-naturists there were. But the thread quickly went down hill, the usual stuff about skin cancer, the risk of being seen by young children etc.


Cover up or face life in jail, naked rambler is warned

Cover up or face life in jail, naked rambler is warned

By Jonathan Brown

Tuesday, 12 January 2010

Naked rambler Stephen Gough has been warned he faces spending the rest of his life in prison if he continues to refuse to wear clothes in public.

The former Royal Marine, a veteran of two “boots-only” hikes from Land’s End to John O’Groats, has spent most of the last four years in solitary confinement in Scottish jails after stripping off on a flight to Edinburgh. Since then he has declined to wear prison uniform or to appear clothed in court resulting in further custodial sentences for contempt.

This week he was found guilty of causing a breach of the peace following his arrest as he left Perth prison in December where he had just finished serving a 12-month sentence for the same offence. On that and a previous occasion police have been waiting to re-arrest him at the prison gates.

Sheriff Lindsay Foulis told the 50-year-old father of two that it did not require "crystal ball gazing" to realise that the same scenario would be repeated if he continued to decline the offer to return to his home in Eastleigh, Hampshire in return for wearing clothes.

Ordering psychological and psychiatric reports she said: "When the day comes for you to be released, you will be apprehended and the same process gone through again.” But Mr Gough, who is now representing himself after parting company with his lawyer last year, said he accepted he could "potentially" remain in jail forever and added: "This is about individual freedom." It is estimated that the latest round of imprisonment has cost the tax payer in excess of £200,000 – a figure which looks set to keep mounting.

Mr Gough completed his first naked ramble across Britain in 2003 during which he was arrested 15 times and spent 140 nights in jail, mainly in Scotland where the authorities hold a dimmer view of public nudity than in England and Wales. He finished his second hike with his then girlfriend Melanie Roberts three years later.

But it was while returning to Edinburgh to appeal against contempt of court convictions in Scotland that he undressed on board an early morning flight from Bournemouth airport. Supporters have been urging him to appeal against his convictions for breach of the peace, citing rulings made in cases involving anti-nuclear protesters at Faslane. They say his behaviour does not constitute a “serious disturbance to the community” though some have grown dismayed at his refusal to co-operate.

He scuppered a deal to drive him naked from prison to Yorkshire under police escort by getting out of the car, it was claimed. Journalist and supporter Bob Janes said: “This seems like it will carry on and on. Both sides are too intransigent but the law is bigger than he is. He has still got a fairly loyal band of supporters but a lot of people think he has gone too far. I am a naturist myself but I am not doing jail time for it.”

[Danee]

I am all about free expression in most areas and certainly believe in the our rights as naturists, to free beaches and simple nudity as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others, not being condemned or punished.  However, this is stupid in my opinion.  He is a father and is neglecting that part of his life and he should, in my opinion, search out a place where he can be nude at all times -- and there are such areas in the world -- and move there. 

He is not recognizing the rights of the textile world yet, wants them to give in and give him the right to be nude everywhere, at all times, and all places.  Thats not right.

-D

[Dan]

He is not recognizing the rights of the textile world yet, wants them to give in and give him the right to be nude everywhere, at all times, and all places.  Thats not right.

Rights? What right do they have no to be offended? This is silly. They are not respecting his rights.

However, the sacrifice he is making is huge and the payoff most likely isn't. But that's a call he have to make.

[genxnaturist]

Danee
You have good point about neglect of his family.  I though am unsure of age of his kids. If they are grown up then I dont see major problem there.  From artical it didnt give indication that he is now married.  But if he has young kids then for sure its problem.
But then agian this is problem for many activists of any cause.  Sadly what they do often gets away from family affairs.  Is it exactly right, not always, but if it results in more freedoms and betterment of humanity, then if you go by idea of utilitarinism, greatest good for greatest amount of people, then sadly your family gets neglected.

Now, playing devils advicate.  You said he isnt following rights of textie world.  Realize that for most of human history humans werent textile or only wore cloths for protection.  it also could be said that textile world is neglecting his freedom.   

Now as far as what he is doing, well, he needs to use common sense and not be silly.  Like if your nude on public land, that might be one thing, but if your nude on private property, then owners have right to say what they allow and dont.  Example being on plane, clearly airliner had right to remove him.  Now him walking on public property, thats different issues.  I also think he needs to pick his battles.  Also in the end, what we want is greater acceptance of world to allow people to be nude.  To do such you need favorable support of such.  What he is doing can easily backfire.

MIchael

[Dan]

Now as far as what he is doing, well, he needs to use common sense and not be silly.  Like if your nude on public land, that might be one thing, but if your nude on private property, then owners have right to say what they allow and dont.  Example being on plane, clearly airliner had right to remove him.

That's between him and the airline company, it doesn't concern the law.

[genxnaturist]

Actualy it does deal with law. Its tort for trespassing.  Even much of environmental laws for example are based on such.  So likewise such could apply to nudity.

Mike

[Danee]

He is not recognizing the rights of the textile world yet, wants them to give in and give him the right to be nude everywhere, at all times, and all places.  Thats not right.

Rights? What right do they have no to be offended? This is silly. They are not respecting his rights.

However, the sacrifice he is making is huge and the payoff most likely isn't. But that's a call he have to make.

I see we differ greatly on this subject and our beliefs in naturism and offending.  Thats ok.  They have rights, as we want our rights respected as well.  I respect their rights.  I expect the same back for recognition of clothing optional and N usage in varying conditions and areas.  He does not have a right to offend the masses.  He does have certain rights but hes not using common sense.  Period.

Agree to disagree.

[Dan]

I see we differ greatly on this subject and our beliefs in naturism and offending.  Thats ok.  They have rights, as we want our rights respected as well.  I respect their rights.  I expect the same back for recognition of clothing optional and N usage in varying conditions and areas.  He does not have a right to offend the masses.  He does have certain rights but hes not using common sense.  Period.

We partly agree, he is certainly not using common sense. We also agree that it's generally preferable not to offend.

You probably see, correct me if I'm wrong, the right not to be offended as some kind of civic duty to find a harmonious compromise between the various members of society. I see it as a free speech issue. If I can't say things that offend, write text that offend, create art that offends or use any form of communication including clothing or the lack of in a way that offends then I have no freedom of speech. And nudity is a form of speech (see the various ads, protests, etc.)

I also believe that some level of offense is necessary. Rosa Parks' use of her free speech rights in a way that was deemed offensive at the time is a great example.

[Danee]

You probably see, correct me if I'm wrong, the right not to be offended as some kind of civic duty to find a harmonious compromise between the various members of society. I see it as a free speech issue. If I can't say things that offend, write text that offend, create art that offends or use any form of communication including clothing or the lack of in a way that offends then I have no freedom of speech. And nudity is a form of speech (see the various ads, protests, etc.)

I also believe that some level of offense is necessary.

As asked, I am corecting you where you are wrong. I do not see it as a civic duty. I see it as respect and propriety and logic.  I realize you see it as a free speech issue.  I do not agree with you.  You say, if you can't say etc. etc. and..etc.   then you have no freedom of speech.   

I totally disagree with that. This community has rules and regulations for the benefit and comfort of all for example.  Say things here which offend, and you will find yourself in hot trouble, if they contravene the rules, as I would or anyone would. 

I do not believe that some level of offense is necessary either. 

You are an interesting person, Dan. I have said that not a few times.  However, there are  some things I could not be more in disagreement with you on. And this, is one of them.

[genxnaturist]

My worries here is he might actualy do more to damage expanding freedoms of nudists.  Key is to get support of general public.  Maybe it is working, but from way it sounds its not. 

Likewise yes there are rules and standards that communities have.  Realize only up till 60s USA had segragation.  But is this compariable to that.  At first yes, but then  is go goes to far and becomes a joke. 

Key is he needs to point out why not allowing nudity is unfair, how that it doesnt harm society.  how has his actions helped in this way.

Now him doing such things as hike across country nude, I dont object to, not even being nude in his jailcell, but sillyness of having to undress as soon as he gets out of jail(what about in winter time), or in court room.

In the end you need to pick your battles.

Michael

[Dan]

As asked, I am corecting you where you are wrong. I do not see it as a civic duty. I see it as respect and propriety and logic.  I realize you see it as a free speech issue.  I do not agree with you.  You say, if you can't say etc. etc. and..etc.   then you have no freedom of speech.   

I totally disagree with that. This community has rules and regulations for the benefit and comfort of all for example.  Say things here which offend, and you will find yourself in hot trouble, if they contravene the rules, as I would or anyone would.

I agree that common courtesy is a good thing. I agree that private individuals can set the rules on their own properties. I would agree that troublemakers should be kicked from here from instance. So we don't disagree on much.

Where I don't agree is when the law intervene. I don't believe a legal right not to be offended exist. I don't believe a legal right to offend exists either. It is perfectly your legal right to boot off people who offend you from your property, real or virtual.

You say you are for defending the rights of various people who are discriminated against. One community that dared to speak no matter if people got offended or not is the LGBT community. Do you think they would have made the progress they have if instead of "We're queer, we're here." they had the message "We're queer, we're quiet."?

Any change to the status quo will offend some people because some people do not want change. I'm not saying the offense is valuable, I'm saying that in some cases, it's worth it.

[Danee]

You really cannot let someone else have a last word, can you. You really cannot, even when that person states their opinion, you come back with a counter to it, then the person states it again and you just want to argue a point to death. 

I said, I disagree with you.  You, disagree with me. Move on.  Let it fucking go. (sorry if I offend..)

[jeep]

With every freedom comes responsibilities and consequences. The responsibility with Steven's freedom to choose to be nude is that he does not offend when he is nude ie: be responsible about where and when, the consequences are that if he does offend he will end up in prison. The choices he makes are his freedom of speech in action, the result is how society reacts to it (At present and in the UK). We may not agree with the laws at present but that is what they are and that is how they will be enforced so make your decisions accordingly or accept the consequences.

The I'm here and queer in ya face shock campaign is often quoted as a shining light on why one should push the boundaries to effect change. And that Steve is just using the same tactics so should be supported.

In the New Zealand experience of gay acceptance etc (Which was a very conservative country) it was not just that due to having the Gay lifestyle (As it was always labeled) constantly forced in the NZ populaces face and the above shock tactics forced gay freedom from the conservative NZ societys grasp. The reality here was that people who were involved in the Gay and lesbian scene openly or not worked their way into social and political positions of influence so laws etc could be changed accordingly even though the masses as a whole still disagreed with or were offended with the thought of that lifestyle in action.

Personally i find the real over the top gay antics offensive, and do not like it forced under my nose on TV etc. At the same time know people who are gay and lesbian and have a cousin who will be having a sex change op as soon as he (Soon to be she) can afford it. They know my view and i know theirs so they don't flaunt it in my face and i don't disrespect them due to their orientation and am always courteous in my interaction with them as they are with me. In other words we both accept the responsibilities involved in the freedoms we have not to offend others in exercising that freedom if we can help it. Just like i do not force others who i know or suspect would be offended by the sight of my body (Herculean as it is  -erhmm) to have to see me nude or hear about the naturist lifestyle i enjoy.

Steve would do more for the cause if he ran for council or parliament or encouraged others with similar views and aspirations to do so and was not so bull at a gate. Its the politicians in local council and central government that write or amend the laws and that's where the steves of this world either need to be or have the ear of people of the same views who are. Meanwhile the public campaign to change attitude goes on but its no good offending or alienating them by immature "I want it now" foot stamping or shock tactics as they are the ones you want to become fellow nudists not form the anti nudist lobby, but i think i have had this discussion with Dan before

[Dan]

Personally i find the real over the top gay antics offensive, and do not like it forced under my nose on TV etc.

I find denying people their culture way more offensive. Also, the remote control was invented for a reason.

[Danee]

With every freedom comes responsibilities and consequences. The responsibility with Steven's freedom to choose to be nude is that he does not offend when he is nude ie: be responsible about where and when, the consequences are that if he does offend he will end up in prison. The choices he makes are his freedom of speech in action, the result is how society reacts to it (At present and in the UK). We may not agree with the laws at present but that is what they are and that is how they will be enforced so make your decisions accordingly or accept the consequences.

The I'm here and queer in ya face shock campaign is often quoted as a shining light on why one should push the boundaries to effect change. And that Steve is just using the same tactics so should be supported.

In the New Zealand experience of gay acceptance etc (Which was a very conservative country) it was not just that due to having the Gay lifestyle (As it was always labeled) constantly forced in the NZ populaces face and the above shock tactics forced gay freedom from the conservative NZ societys grasp. The reality here was that people who were involved in the Gay and lesbian scene openly or not worked their way into social and political positions of influence so laws etc could be changed accordingly even though the masses as a whole still disagreed with or were offended with the thought of that lifestyle in action.

Personally i find the real over the top gay antics offensive, and do not like it forced under my nose on TV etc. At the same time know people who are gay and lesbian and have a cousin who will be having a sex change op as soon as he (Soon to be she) can afford it. They know my view and i know theirs so they don't flaunt it in my face and i don't disrespect them due to their orientation and am always courteous in my interaction with them as they are with me. In other words we both accept the responsibilities involved in the freedoms we have not to offend others in exercising that freedom if we can help it. Just like i do not force others who i know or suspect would be offended by the sight of my body (Herculean as it is  -erhmm) to have to see me nude or hear about the naturist lifestyle i enjoy.

Steve would do more for the cause if he ran for council or parliament or encouraged others with similar views and aspirations to do so and was not so bull at a gate. Its the politicians in local council and central government that write or amend the laws and that's where the steves of this world either need to be or have the ear of people of the same views who are. Meanwhile the public campaign to change attitude goes on but its no good offending or alienating them by immature "I want it now" foot stamping or shock tactics as they are the ones you want to become fellow nudists not form the anti nudist lobby, but i think i have had this discussion with Dan before

I agree with almost all of this, Colin.  I can't add more.