The Naked Rambler

Ginjafro

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

Stephen Gough - "The Naked Rambler" has been freed from a Scottish Jail after spending six of the last 10 years there. Refusing to wear clothes was, it seems, deemed so outrageous and such a threat to society he apparently spent much of the time in solitary confinement in a high security Perth jail.

Personally I wouldn't want to wander round (or cycle) in the buff but I cannot really see the harm in what he was doing. I even think he is a bit odd but certainly not a threat or danger to society, children or little old ladies. I am actually really quite shocked and disturbed that we as a so called civilised society think it was okay to continuously lock up this man for so long. Real criminals, killers, robbers, bankers etc more often than not spend less time locked up.

Discuss.....

estampida

policing in Scotland is questionable at the moment, I saw they picked him up as he left prison last time and arrested before he hit the street, apparently it was a pre-arrest for complaints that would come.....

ever complained to the police... did they arrest the other party.... though not..... does the chief of police dislike nudity.... member of the free church..... and so on

have you seen the film : You've been trumped..... Grampian police behaving at their best

If they were to legalise drugs in this country, they could remove the large population of drug / crime offenders
from prisons permanently, giving plenty of room for people to complete the full sentence, and plenty of space for all the rapists and murders

Imagine being sentenced to 7 years and serving 7 years


also off the point if you see a police chase show, the car runs past a dozen motorists, they hit the estate and bail

that is at least 12 people who's lives were at risk, 12 counts of dangerous driving on video, how will the defence lawyer get around that, not just a suspended sentence.....

Ginjafro

estampida said:

policing in Scotland is questionable at the moment, I saw they picked him up as he left prison last time and arrested before he hit the street, apparently it was a pre-arrest for complaints that would come.....

Quite, and you made lots of other good points.

daviesee

It was not one prison sentence, it is accumulative.
The sentences keep increasing as he insists on reoffending. His choice.
He is not a danger to society but he is breaking the law.
I am thankful that there is such a law. Do you really want to see him and his ilk wandering around freely?

ronny123

daviesee wrote:

It was not one prison sentence, it is accumulative.
The sentences keep increasing as he insists on reoffending. His choice.
He is not a danger to society but he is breaking the law.
I am thankful that there is such a law. Do you really want to see him and his ilk wandering around freely?

What is it about his choice and his 'ilk' you are afraid of?

daviesee

ronny123 wrote:

daviesee wrote:

It was not one prison sentence, it is accumulative.
The sentences keep increasing as he insists on reoffending. His choice.
He is not a danger to society but he is breaking the law.
I am thankful that there is such a law. Do you really want to see him and his ilk wandering around freely?

What is it about his choice and his 'ilk' you are afraid of?

I don't want to see old wrinkles (naturists-his ilk) walking around naked. It is not fear, just not pleasant to look at.

pipipi

'not pleasant to look at' is a rather flimsy basis for arresting someone.

You would have to build a prison just outside my local Asdavif we are going to take that as a standard.


I don't like the idea of it. I don't want to see it. I would look the other way if he walked down my road. But I wouldn't arrest him.

daviesee

A Policeman has to arrest him as it is against the law. Simple as that.

Scots Law Crimes of Indecency

Certain laws are in place in Scotland to protect the welfare of children under the age of puberty. In Scotland and in the legal sense, puberty is at the age of 12 for girls and 14 for the age of males.
Definition: "A crime at common law for any person to indulge in indecent practises towards children under the age of puberty, whether they are consenting or not". Examples of this could include indecently exposing private parts of a female or male to young children, improper handling of the private parts of children, inducing children to handle the private parts of others and taking indecent photographs of children.
Statute offences
Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence to show any lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour towards a girl who is between the age of 12 and 16. If the female is under the age of 12, it would revert to the common law offence.
Public Indecency
Indecent conduct could be constituted as being criminal in some circumstances, e.g. indecent exposure, sexual intercourse in public view. Public could include almost anywhere, including the person's own home if it could be seen through an open window by a person outside. Determination of indecency will depend on the time and place. For example, certain sex theatre shows are not illegal as they are advertised as such and should therefore not be offensive to the public if in enclosed viewing. So long as the public as aware of the content of the show, it would not be regarded as public indecency.

izza

If you let him wander around like that then you have to let everyone who chooses to wander around (inc. perverts) like that.

Imagine if then a person either brushes his genitalia or gets aroused by standing next to your kids in public - he'll claim it was just an accident and go around doing the same all day long.

For good reasons, you have to draw the line somewhere and the Scottish law did that. This man may not be a pervert and just be a bit eccentric, but if he doesn't like and can't abide by the laws of that country then he should move to a country where he can abide and respect the laws. The choice is his alone.

Monkeypump

daviesee wrote:

A Policeman has to arrest him as it is against the law. Simple as that.

Scots Law Crimes of Indecency

Certain laws are in place in Scotland to protect the welfare of children under the age of puberty. In Scotland and in the legal sense, puberty is at the age of 12 for girls and 14 for the age of males.
Definition: "A crime at common law for any person to indulge in indecent practises towards children under the age of puberty, whether they are consenting or not". Examples of this could include indecently exposing private parts of a female or male to young children, improper handling of the private parts of children, inducing children to handle the private parts of others and taking indecent photographs of children.
Statute offences
Section 6 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 makes it an offence to show any lewd, indecent or libidinous behaviour towards a girl who is between the age of 12 and 16. If the female is under the age of 12, it would revert to the common law offence.
Public Indecency
Indecent conduct could be constituted as being criminal in some circumstances, e.g. indecent exposure, sexual intercourse in public view. Public could include almost anywhere, including the person's own home if it could be seen through an open window by a person outside. Determination of indecency will depend on the time and place. For example, certain sex theatre shows are not illegal as they are advertised as such and should therefore not be offensive to the public if in enclosed viewing. So long as the public as aware of the content of the show, it would not be regarded as public indecency.

Daily Mail reader, by any chance? How about you, Izza?

This guy may be the object of ridicule, but he's no sexual threat to kids or anyone else. It's a shame people are so hung up on nudity. And drawing parallels between him and real sex offenders is a little clumsy and naive.

Okay, he broke the law but it was hardly a case of common sense prevailing.

izza

Monkeypump wrote:

Daily Mail reader, by any chance? How about you, Izza?

Only their on-line gossip news. Keeps me up to date with world events!

Monkeypump wrote:

This guy may be the object of ridicule, but he's no sexual threat to kids or anyone else. It's a shame people are so hung up on nudity. And drawing parallels between him and real sex offenders is a little clumsy and naive.

Okay, he broke the law but it was hardly a case of common sense prevailing.

I don't mind this individual but my point is that if you let him do it others will manipulate the loophole in the law that it creates.

BelgianBeerGeek

This guy has been around a few years now. I remember seeing a TV programme on his attempt to walk LEJOG naked. He even persuaded a girlfriend to join him for a bit. Unsurprisingly, I don't think she stayed the course.
The interesting thing was how he was treated en-route. Some police areas weren't really that bothered. They had a chat, thought it was harmless, if a little eccentric, and let him wander on. Some were amazingly aggressive about the whole thing, arresting him every ten yards or so. Perhaps some Chief Constables have more hang-ups than others?
As I recall, he is a former marine, which would maybe explain his being supremely unconcerned about crossing Dartmoor in the rain. Also, I think he was trying to make some point. Sadly I don't recall what it was, but he didn't come across as some pervert or sex offender to me.

daviesee

Monkeypump wrote:

Daily Mail reader, by any chance? How about you, Izza?

This guy may be the object of ridicule, but he's no sexual threat to kids or anyone else. It's a shame people are so hung up on nudity. And drawing parallels between him and real sex offenders is a little clumsy and naive.

Okay, he broke the law but it was hardly a case of common sense prevailing.

I have never read the Mail.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. He crossed it. He was reprimanded. He repeated. He was punished. He repeated. His punishment was extended. Common sense would have been to stop doing it.
The law is designed to stop perverts. He may not be a pervert but he was breaking the law. If he didn't know it at the start, he does now. Why keep re-offending? I can't think of anywhere in civilised cultures where his actions are acceptable.
Do you really advocate middle aged men walking bollock naked down Oxford Street?

Monkeypump

daviesee wrote:

Do you really advocate middle aged men walking bollock naked down Oxford Street?

At the risk of oversimplifying a rather complex issue, in principle yes I do. I have no problem with nudity, and have the ability to differentiate 'nude man' from 'sex pest'.

Of course, naked bloke with erection following a child along Oxford Street and touching himself isn't something I'd advocate. But then I'd hope the authorities and justice system share my ability to spot the difference.

Gazzaputt

Monkeypump wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Do you really advocate middle aged men walking bollock naked down Oxford Street?

At the risk of oversimplifying a rather complex issue, in principle yes I do. I have no problem with nudity, and have the ability to differentiate 'nude man' from 'sex pest'.

Of course, naked bloke with erection following a child along Oxford Street and touching himself isn't something I'd advocate. But then I'd hope the authorities and justice system share my ability to spot the difference.

Well said.

Was is the hang up in this land with seeing genitalia? We're all born with it and it's really not offensive as we all require it.

daviesee

Gazzaputt wrote:

Was is the hang up in this land with seeing genitalia? We're all born with it and it's really not offensive as we all require it.

I agree that this Country has hang ups regarding sex and I am not the prude that the above may have you believe.
But (there had to be one, didn't there)
In what other lands are you free to walk the streets naked?

BillyMansell

daviesee wrote:

The law is designed to stop perverts. He may not be a pervert but he was breaking the law.

:?:

Your thinking is illogical. It appears that because of your own personal hang ups on nudity you would want a law imposed upon someone to whom you admit that law doesn't apply.

dylanfernley

he would have been at home in the original olympics--guess he was born in the wrong millenia

verylonglegs

Some people find overweight men in lycra offensive too, let's lock them up as well...

daviesee

BillyMansell wrote:

daviesee wrote:

The law is designed to stop perverts. He may not be a pervert but he was breaking the law.

:?:

Your thinking is illogical. It appears that because of your own personal hang ups on nudity you would want a law imposed upon someone to whom you admit that law doesn't apply.

The law applies to anyone exposing themselves in public. So it does apply to him.
Why is this so hard for some to comprehend?
I have not been giving my personal thoughts on the matter so you don't know what they are. I am simply stating that he repeatedly broke the law.
Edit:- I did say that i didn't want to see his naked body. I stand by that not on prudish reasons but simply that there is no reason for me to want to. I don't want to see Cherie Blair's face either but what can you do? The difference being that she is not breaking that law.

Ginjafro

Some interesting debate but I shall not attempt to argue any specifics mentioned. Except to say I still think 6 years for his "crimes" is incredibly excessive and says more about our society rather than Stephen Gough's agenda or motives. Thankfully, the Perth Police have now recognised that locking up this particular law breaker is counter productive and makes them look more ridiculous than how some may perceive Stephen Gough to be.

On a lighter note, I did meet Stephen Gough and a friend of his at Glastonbury Festival 10 years or so ago. They were wandering around starkers with a big placard stating "Naked Protest" and his mate had a really sunburnt bum, like a Baboon. I got the impression that nobody felt concerned that he was in any way a pervert, offensive or a threat to anyone, especially children. To be honest, even at Glasto' people I spoke to just thought he was a bit (very) odd and did not feel inspired to do the same.

dylanfernley

now then I don't want to see Cherie Blair's face either but what can you do? make a law against it !

BillyMansell

dylanfernley wrote:

now then I don't want to see Cherie Blair's face either but what can you do? make a law against it !

Well in London police did use RIPA to stop tourists taking photos, possibly to stop Cherie's image leaving the country :?:

Still, the police must have been right to stop tourists taking photos just because they could apply a subjective measure to make the law fit the 'crime' just as in the case with Stephen Gough. I'm with Voltaire on this and thank goodness some people are still willing to speak and act with free will against a judicial system that abuses the law for its own ends.

daviesee

Ginjafro wrote:

Some interesting debate but I shall not attempt to argue any specifics mentioned. Except to say I still think 6 years for his "crimes" is incredibly excessive and says more about our society rather than Stephen Gough's agenda or motives.

I would agree with you on a one off sentence but the 6 years is an accumulation for multiple re-offending, not a single sentence.
Anyway, this is going nowhere. I have explained why things have gone the way they have and some people don't like it. Neither are going to change.

BillyMansell

daviesee wrote:

Anyway, this is going nowhere. I have explained why things have gone the way they have and some people don't like it. Neither are going to change.

Run away from the discussion if you must but many others don't have such a closed mind and aren't blindly accepting of the law as being absolute. Just because someone is found guilty of crime doesn't necessarily mean they've committed a crime and thankfully we live in a world where we can question such decisions.

daviesee

BillyMansell wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Anyway, this is going nowhere. I have explained why things have gone the way they have and some people don't like it. Neither are going to change.

Run away from the discussion if you must but many others don't have such a closed mind and aren't blindly accepting of the law as being absolute. Just because someone is found guilty of crime doesn't necessarily mean they've committed a crime and thankfully we live in a world where we can question such decisions.

FFS. He was naked in public. It is against the law to be naked in public. He broke the law. He committed a crime. He was punished. End of.

BillyMansell

daviesee wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Anyway, this is going nowhere. I have explained why things have gone the way they have and some people don't like it. Neither are going to change.

Run away from the discussion if you must but many others don't have such a closed mind and aren't blindly accepting of the law as being absolute. Just because someone is found guilty of crime doesn't necessarily mean they've committed a crime and thankfully we live in a world where we can question such decisions.

FFS. He was naked in public. It is against the law to be naked in public. He broke the law. He committed a crime. He was punished. End of.

As I said, many of us don't have such a closed mind as yours and I'm disappointed that you resort to aggression to stifle discussion.

daviesee

Not aggression, exasperation.
This discussion is going nowhere......................

Ginjafro

daviesee wrote:

Not aggression, exasperation.
This discussion is going nowhere......................

A bit like Stephen Gough really.


Heading back to Jail after another Court appearance.

izza

I feel cheated.

If he had real gonads and wasn't built like Action Man, then he would have shaved the beard off and cut his hair rather than use it as quasi clothing to keep warm.

cornerblock

I think he should carry the Olympic torch into the stadium.