😆
Slight tangent, but in regard to Pigface's point, there are plenty of ingrained prejudices about men being 'dangerous' near children: [url= http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-incidents/nurse-humiliated-by-qantas-policy-20120813-243t4.html ]Nurse 'humiliated' by Qantas policy[/url]
And a lot more people need to learn some tolerance.
Ok.
I suppose a comparable example would be if I were to walk through the city centre, insulting everyone. Sure, it's not logical to prosecute someone because they called someone else a naughty word, but it's behaviour that will cause a reaction - that's why it's covered by Breach of the Peace.
The reason I think he needs help is that most people, even if they did wander about in the buff, would probably understand that some people might not like this, and would moderate their actions a bit - as the police gave him several chances to do.
Prison seems to be the wrong place for him. However, he does need to have some sort of mental health assessment, not because of the nudity but because of his unwillingness to compromise or work around the requests of the authorities (who don't care about the nudity, just prefer its not in certain places).
You'd think that by now he'd have got the fairly simple message thoughnobody wants to see your cock
After kayaking a bit too close to shore past a beach where naturism is tolerated the other week I came to the sad conclusion that the section of the population that someone might want to see naked and the section of the population that want to walk around with it all on display rarely intersect. Eye bleech was definately the order of the day.
You're attitude to having grown men hanging around at kids play areas with their cocks out!
Except he wasn't "hanging around" a playground was he? There just happened to be one on his route.
There has never been any suggestion that this bloke has done anything dodgy, lewd or sexual. He's just someone that prefers not to wear clothes.
Fair play to him I say and I really can't see any good reason to lock him up for it.
(and yes I do have kids, thanks)
atlaz - he does need to have some sort of mental health assessment, not because of the nudity but because of his unwillingness to compromise or work around the requests of the authorities
Yeah, and that Rosa Parks should have just got another bus.
At what age are children supposed to be protected from non sexual nudity? Is it ok up to a certain age and then not for a few years and then all ok again?
I only ask because plenty of people seem to choose to bring their children of either sex into the gym changing rooms with them.
LOL @ Rosa Parks
Yeah, and that Rosa Parks should have just got another bus.
Brilliant, overcooking the analogy a bit but brilliant all the same.
I only ask because plenty of people seem to choose to bring their children of either sex into the gym changing rooms with them.
Exactly.
My 2.5yo daughter sees me and the missus naked pretty much every day and I'd have absolutely no problem with her seeing anybody else naked in a non-sexual context. I'm quite happy to take her into the gents if I have to for instance.
We really are ridiculously uptight in this country sometimes.
[i]Yeah, and that Rosa Parks should have just got another bus.[/i]
Oooh good one...
This thread is very interesting, mainly because of the way it exposes those people who think that nudity = threat to children, and that the appropriate response to said nudity is imprisonment.
Perhaps all trail centres should have segregated changing rooms, and we should be forced to use them on pain of imprisonment?
overcooking the analogy a bit
Conceded. Racial equality vs. wandering about with your holiday money dangling in the breeze. Not quite the same!
people who think that nudity = threat to children, and that the appropriate response to said nudity is imprisonment.
I don't think that's it, really. It's about understanding that some behaviour, whatever it may be, will cause a reaction in others that will "breach the peace". Is that reaction reasonable? No, not really.
wow, a high percentage of STW are offended by nudity then, totally contrary to the level of willy waving i see here daily. 🙂
cant understand it at all myself, if you dont wanna see it, dont look, its not like he is stood outside your living room window trying to shock you.
how many people do i upset and offend when i change clothes in a car park after a days riding?
Typical Booties, always liking to be Nekid... 😉
And there's duckman with the ad hominem again because someone disagrees with his pov.How's about you challenge the argument for a change, rather than the poster?
Check you!
Look; I realise that you take not only yourself but everything on the internet [b]very[/b] seriously,and I am really pleased,as I am sure Mr Gough is, that you have taken up his cause...but like the vast majority of the population up here I don't care that he wanders about naked,other than think it is daft this has cost court time and money for something so stupid,on both his and the laws part...and THAT is my point of view.And you don't actually(as usual,)have an argument I give a toss about.TBH I think they should let TJ back just for you to have somebody to play with.
He goes around without clothes in Scotland, gets 5 months inside. Given that winter is close I'd imagine he wanted 6 months.
He gets arrested as soon as he steps through the Judas gate, so it will continue. He was released the last time to walk back to England as he had cost us £500,000.
This thread is very interesting, mainly because of the way it exposes those people who think that nudity = threat to children, and that the appropriate response to said nudity is imprisonment.
At no point did I say he deserved a prison sentence for what he did, nor do i think that [/i]he[i] was actually a threat to children. But, he was given 3 choices by the police and refused them all.
I don't know the guy, I don't know his previous history but anyone that seemingly wants to wander around naked in the vacinity of kids, to me, shouldn't be allowed near them.
In the home, in the swimming pool/gym changing rooms, on a french beach are all acceptable places for general nakedness. A kids playground is not.
Similarly i would also ask people swearing at a kids playground to refrain, but if took them into a busy pub i would kind of expect it. Although i would hope that people would see kids and act accordingly.
[i]I don't know the guy, I don't know his previous history but anyone that seemingly wants to wander around naked in the vacinity of kids, to me, shouldn't be allowed near them.[/i]
Really?
He doesn't [b]want to wander around naked in the vacinity of kids[/b]
He just wants wander around naked. Big, big difference, yet one which seems to get the old paedo radar all of a quiver..
he didnt want to sit on one side of the see-saw and wait for a playmate.
from what you say, if he was passing a swimming pool full of kids in France, it would be ok? Is it the garlic or the gauloises that promotes liberty?
Dont take your kids to a beach in France is my advice
anyone that seemingly wants to wander around naked in the vacinity of kids, to me, shouldn't be allowed near them.
Yeah except as I said, he doesn't want to [i]"wander around naked in the vicinity of kids"[/i]
He just wants to wander around naked.
(Edit: crikey beat me to this exact point)
He's been doing it for years, walked the length of Britain multiple times and caused no actual harm to anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough
http://www.nakedwalk.org/
Yeah, and that Rosa Parks should have just got another bus.
Two thumbs up for that. Awesome analogy! Could also have considered some sort of comment about people being forced into cattle cars in the 2nd world war for equal impact or to double up.
Couldn't care about the nudity, I just find a man who is unable to moderate his behaviour despite several prison sentences and requests from the police has something not quite right with him. It's not a human rights issue. Reading the wikipedia post, it seems like half of his problems are about not complying with basic instructions (please wear clothes to court, please wear clothes on a plane).
I think I have solution to this problem.
Body paint.
He gets to walk around nekkid, yet appears to be clothed to the casual observer.
I have some questions about this.
For a start - how does he support himself ? (I mean earn money) Does he live off the land ? If you wander about all the time you can't really work or claim benefits AFAIK.
And surely he must put some clothes on or find indoor residence in winter, I mean, surely ??
I just find a man who is unable to moderate his behaviour despite several prison sentences and requests from the police has something not quite right with him.
He strongly believes in personal freedom and is happy to stand up for that belief even if it means going to jail?
Yea, what a weirdo.
[quote=hels ]I have some questions about this.
For a start - how does he support himself ? (I mean earn money) Does he live off the land ? If you wander about all the time you can't really work or claim benefits AFAIK.
And surely he must put some clothes on or find indoor residence in winter, I mean, surely ??
I don't think he wanders around naked all the time - only when he is trying to make a point..
.. so - he managed to wear clothes long enough to get on a plane at Southampton.Gough was arrested again on 19 May 2006 at Edinburgh airport after removing his clothes during a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh
Hels - "And surely he must put some clothes on or find indoor residence in winter, I mean, surely ??"
I refer you to my earlier post, winter is comming and he gets 5 months. Are prisons in Scotland cold? 🙂
edit-trying to do two things at once while eating a chocolate hobnob.
I think he's tapped into a rich vein in British society; the one where people are desperate to be offended. Only he has taken it farther than anyone thought he would by doing the same relatively inoffensive thing over and over again. Doing it again doesn't make it anymore offensive than the first time, but the response of the po-faced; 'He's got a penis! won't anyone think of the children!' means that the response of the state has to become ever more draconian, or a large loss of face will occur.
He should have been ignored from the start, but the paedo-finder Generals have made him a cause celebre.
He strongly believes in personal freedom and is happy to stand up for that belief even if it means going to jail?Yea, what a weirdo.
But as Druidh points out, he clearly does wear clothes sometimes so it's not like he's not aware that it's not always suitable to be naked.
And surely he must put some clothes on or find indoor residence in winter, I mean, surely ??
From [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison ]The Guardian article[/url], whilst on his 2006 LEJoG with his girlfriend Melanie Roberts (also naked):
"Gough and Roberts reached John O'Groats in February 2006. Once again, he'd finished his journey in the coldest months of the year. "Pretty cold but manageable," he says defiantly, insisting temperature is an issue only "when you stop, as that's when you start seizing up. The trick is to keep going." Local journalists reported Gough and Roberts walking stoically through "lashing rain".The two would sleep fully clothed in their sleeping bags, Roberts says. "When there's snow on the ground, it's hard to get out of your sleeping bag, let alone your clothes, to do a 22-mile walk."
They made some allowances for the weather. "We wore warm hats, thick socks, gloves and walking boots," Roberts says. "We ate lots of carbohydrates and walked fast. The closer we got to the finish, the easier it was to forget the cold and pain."
so it's not like he's not aware that it's not always suitable to be naked.
Of course he is. That's rather his point.
"One day I was walking and something happened." He had an epiphany: "I realised I was good. Being British, buried in our upbringing is that we're not good or have to watch ourselves – maybe it comes from religion, or school. I realised that at a fundamental level I'm good, we're all good, and you can trust that one part of yourself."This self-realisation led to Gough often choosing to be naked in public: if he was good, then his body was good. "The human body isn't offensive," he says. "If that's what we're saying, as human beings, then it's not rational."
...
"We can either end up living a life that others expect of us or lives based on our own truth. The difference is the difference between living a conscious life or one that is unconscious. And that's the difference between living and not living."
wonder what happened to his girlfriend? exposure?
Are prisons in Scotland cold?
Perth; the Windsor group hotel he has been in for the last 5 years is roasting hot,however it stinks of poo and cabbage.
wonder what happened to his girlfriend?
Also from Teh Grauniad article:
He returned to Roberts's native Bournemouth with court dates that meant he would have to go back to Scotland, and with a relationship that, away from the unique atmosphere of the walk, was no longer working. "She sensed the cause meant more to me than her," Gough says."It was very sad," Roberts recalls. "Steve knew he would be going to prison for a long time. We finished the relationship before he got on the plane. I worried for him, but I knew he'd suffer if he didn't follow what he feels is true and right."
As stated at the start of the thread this has been going on for years. The justice system has painted itself into a corner, he doesn't care and they cannot back down.
The "near the kids playground" is not relevant and indeed IMO shows journalistic licence trying to make the story more interesting.
This whole thing is an epic waste of time and money, our money as tax payers.
My 2.5yo daughter sees me and the missus naked pretty much every day and I'd have absolutely no problem with her seeing anybody else naked in a non-sexual context. I'm quite happy to take her into the gents if I have to for instance.
I never really understood this; that society deems it necessary to have segregated bathroom facilities but bringing opposite sex kids in is perfectly acceptable. Not that I'm overly fussed about it, but if I'm in a situation where I have to get my knob out in the presence of females then I'd probably be more comfortable with a mature audience than one comprised of curious three year olds.
I know it's an unpopular opinion, but if a parent and child of differing sex need to use the facilities, it makes more sense to me for them to use the room which matches the gender of the child (who's going to be the one using it) rather than the parent. But people don't do that, because we're all so bloody repressed and hung up about bodies that we can't actually bring ourselves to walk into the opposing bathroom. Madness.
To be honest Cougar I'd always much rather take her to the Ladies, as if nothing else it tends to have slightly less pish on the floor and toilet seats.
Given the choice I usually take her into the disabled loo.
Genuine question to Graham - if you bring your littleun into the gents changing room, do you expect the other occupants to modify their behaviour or carry on as they were? Not talking about wind milling here as you would normally save that for the comfort of your own living room (you all do that don't you 😉 ) but unselfconscious moving around with knackers in full view.
It's probably the teacher in me trained to desperately try and avoid the potential of putting myself in a position from which I could be accused but if a dad and girl combo pitch up on the bench right next to me I feel the pervometer needle flicker if I don't contort myself in the opposite direction. My anxiety in this regard increased after I watched a kid brought into the changing room by her dad stumble and face planted a bystander's groin. Dad could have laughed it off or maybe even apologised but instead looked at the poor old boy like he had just propositioned his daughter for some oral gratification.
can they not just waterboard him till he begs for mercy? Then suggest that it would be a good idea to put some kit on. we'ed soon find out how commited he was. Alternatively could they not drop him off on Mingalay with a tent, he could live happily naked there.
Genuine question to Graham - if you bring your littleun into the gents changing room, do you expect the other occupants to modify their behaviour or carry on as they were?
Nah, carry on regardless. I'd rather you/they didn't swear in front of her obviously, but naked-wise I'm honestly not bothered and she wouldn't be either.
I accept I may be more relaxed about this than some though.
face planted a bystander's groin
That, however, would cause even me to blush a little 😀
Haven't read through all of this (so this may already have been mentioned) but the law is different in Scotland which is why he keeps ending up in prison there. I don't believe that 'just being naked' in England & Wales is a criminal offence as such.
So, my question is, being as he's resident in England then why does he spend so much time being naked in Scotland?