Surprising. Right. They don’t call them twitchers for nothing.

he wasn’t ‘hanging around’ a kids playground though was he.
he was walking past one,
and not even that close.
now, for the people claiming that it is stupid, giving up your liberty to defend what you see is right, i ask you to consider our military personnel who are willing to give their lives for what WE think is right.
freedom is not free

And if you don’t throw in your buck o’five, who will?

Seems like he was given three perfectly reasonable and understandable options to avoid what could have been a potentially nasty situation (some people could have mistaken the intentions of a man walking naked near a children’s play area ?)

The police seemed to see that it could have been something that may have caused a problem and offered him a few alternatives, one of which was a lift past the area so he could carry on without potential issues.

He chose not to accept these, frankly perfectly reasonable, offers.

Seems a bit strange to me.

Yeah, personal freedom and all that.

But there does need to be a bit of common sense thrown in to the mix too sometimes surely !!

Yep when asked and given a reasonable alternative he refused. I also assume he was informed of the consequences.

Almost like a recent debate on the clearouts in here….

There is standing up for your rights, making a point and then there is being a prick about it.

There is standing up for your rights, making a point and then there is being a prick about it.

Avoiding making a fuss and backing down immediately is the best way to be heard.

I’m sure we’d still be having this exact thread if every time someone asked him to put some clothes on, he’d said “Oh terribly sorry. Of course I will”

Yep when asked and given a reasonable alternative he refused. I also assume he was informed of the consequences.

It’s the Critical Mass argument all over again, isn’t it.

Avoiding making a fuss and backing down immediately is the best way to be heard.

Surely he would be reaching a reasonable compromise, rather than backing down ?

Then he could have carried on making whatever his point is, as I’m fairly sure that getting locked up for most of the last 6 years hasn’t exactly made this point very effectively.

And what exactly is the point he is trying to make ? I’m genuinely not sure.

He seems to get described as an “activist” but I’m not really sure what his cause is.

I’m fairly sure that getting locked up for most of the last 6 years hasn’t exactly made this point very effectively.

I think it has. We’re talking about it right now.

And what exactly is the point he is trying to make ? I’m genuinely not sure.

Read his quote earlier. Or his website. Basically he believes there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being naked, that people are good and that having an in-built fear that we’re not good, our own bodies should offend us and that we have to watch ourselves in case we let some kind of demon out is a pretty unhealthy way to be.

So he challenges that perception and the laws that uphold it.

Ultimately: the dude wants to be naked. The only harm he has ever caused is making a mockery of the law.

I’m fairly sure that getting locked up for most of the last 6 years hasn’t exactly made this point very effectively.

I think it has. We’re talking about it right now.

But you have just communicated his cause to me better than the notoriety he has gained from his time in prison has.

I’ve read a fair bit about him recently, but honestly didn’t know what his cause was, simply that he was labelled an “activist”

So maybe, if he put some effort into staying out of prison, and communicating his message a bit better, he would get his message heard a bit more effectively ?

But you have just communicated his cause to me better than the notoriety he has gained from his time in prison has.

And I know what his cause is because…?

I’ve read a fair bit about him recently

Presumably not including The Guardian interview with him I posted earlier that outlined it pretty clearly. Or his website.

Interesting that society chooses to lock up a guy with no clothes who is identifiable and clearly not carrying bombs or weapons but allows people completely covered from head to foot in baggy atire with just a slit for their eyes into school playygrounds and anyone who objects will get arrested for racism.

So the questuon is, is he impressive flaccid?

A shower or a grower?

Interesting that society chooses to lock up a guy with no clothes who is identifiable and clearly not carrying bombs or weapons but allows people completely covered from head to foot in baggy atire with just a slit for their eyes into school playygrounds and anyone who objects will get arrested for racism.

That would be because making the unqualified connection between traditional Muslim dress and terrorism is racist, or at the very least xenophobic.

A church mouse?

No it wouldn’t, it’s you that’s made the unqualified connection that I was careful to avoid, Zokes. I did not use the words “Muslim” or “terrorism” but you did. I made an obsevation that you interpreted as xenophobic but certainly wasn’t intended as such.

No it wouldn’t, it’s you that’s made the unqualified connection that I was careful to avoid, Zokes. I did not use the words “Muslim” or “terrorism” but you did. I made an obsevation that you interpreted as xenophobic but certainly wasn’t intended as such.

You described the clothing in question as:

baggy atire with just a slit for their eyes

The only clothing I am aware of that would normally be found in school playgrounds and that fits this description is traditional Muslim dress. You implied that the wearer might be choosing to hide weapons / bombs underneath said clothing by drawing the connection that the naked rambler clearly can’t hide these items.

Not really sure why you brought it up to be honest

A hoodie with the hood pulled down and a scarf pulled up over the nose leaving a slit for the eyes is popular among one minority including those picking up kids from school.

I implied nothing, my comment about not having bombs/weapons is clearly in the clause about the naked rambler not in the clause about baggy clothes and a slit for the eyes.

I’m not sure why you brought up Islam and terrorism to be honest, Zokes.

Now you’ve brought up religion though, Zokes, the naked ramber is being persecuted by a legal system that is answerable to a christian authority that has a legal system loosly based on christian values as lais out in the Bible.

Seems like he was given three perfectly reasonable and understandable options to avoid what could have been a potentially nasty situation (some people could have mistaken the intentions of a man walking naked near a children’s play area ?)

The police seemed to see that it could have been something that may have caused a problem and offered him a few alternatives, one of which was a lift past the area so he could carry on without potential issues.

It does seem a bit like victim blaming though. He wouldn’t be the one causing the problems, it would be those who choose to react aggressively, antagonistically or with any other negative emotion or physical act. Common sense is all well and good, but too often it is used a way of providing an easy way out. It’s the same logic as advising women not to walk through parks at night, when really the parks should be safe enough for women to walk through at any time without fear of being attacjed.

The problem when principled people meet practical people I suppose, although of course both of those adjectives are themselves subjective!

Zokes;As the owners of this forum keep reminding everyone, play nice or don’t play at all. As I said – criticise the argument, not the poster. Or don’t, but that’s a pretty good way to demonstrate that you’ve already lost the argument.

Two things; 1) I am so sorry that the post below offended you so much and was taken as an “attack” on you.
2) I didn’t realise that I was arguing about anything; could you remind me what it was,as I seemed to point out quite clearly I thought both Gough and the law were daft?

Fair point Binners,well made. A little bit indelicate use of the language…

Stop press; it would seem that zokes and zimbo DO want to see his cock!

Posted 19 hours ago #

Again sorry; I retract that fully; you DON’T want to see his knob;
Zimbo the jury is still out on.

As your attempts to tar the above poster as racist show,(gosh it is like the rugby thread all over again.)I would again suggest you take yourself,and arguing on the internet, a little bit seriously.

As you were;
We now have religion in the mix? I will give it till noon. 😕

I’m not sure why you brought up Islam and terrorism to be honest, Zokes.

So, perhaps you have another reason why a person, in Muslim dress or a hoody, would want to carry “bombs or weapons” into “school playygrounds”?

I guess you might also want to consider under what circumstances “racism” would come into it if the “baggy atire with just a slit for their eyes” was just a hoody and a scarf. Not normally attire you would associate with an entire race…

Now you’ve brought up religion though, Zokes, the naked ramber is being persecuted by a legal system that is answerable to a christian authority that has a legal system loosly based on christian values as lais out in the Bible.

Agreed. I think we can agree that it’s the law at fault here, and by reduction, the religious values upon which a lot of it is based.

I would again suggest you take yourself,and arguing on the internet, a little bit seriously.

Perhaps, but I’m pretty confident that’s an improvement over continually trolling and cracking offensive jokes about male rape.

Whilst not particularly giving a monkeys about nakedness or otherwise it does seem that if he wants to make a point, he could vary his tactic a touch to avoid having to compromise his time on earth quite so much. There are other avenues of challenging the system.

I presume he takes advantage of all the tolerances and convenience of society vs living alone in a forest? If so then as a herd species he has to accept the occasional compromises to remain part of the herd. Im in full support of challenging society where it represses people’s freedom and rights but I think there are smarter and maybe more effective methods..

Still, midges? Fair play.

My point was about objective and perceived danger, Zokes. The naked man is not an objective threat but can’t even walk past a playground. Someone that can’t be identified is allowed in.

You can only wear tight fitting trunks in my local swimming pool. The official reason is for hygiene. The unofficial but real reason is that some young males were hiding knives in their surf shorts to use in the regular incidents of civil unrest they provoked. Given the prudish nature of the young males concerned the insistence on close fitting trunks meant they stayed away from the pool. Peaceful swimming thanks to revealing trunks.

I really dont understand the French [ or your] obsession with the Burka.
In what objective sense are they a danger?

FWIW complete strangers [ unidentified individuals]can turn up at any school and get in [ well the gates if not the school] and they are equally “unknown” but you seem to be unconcerned by this just the Muslim ones.

What zokes says

When someone walks around in baggy clothes with their face covered you have no idead of their sex, age or corpulence. Security in modern society is based on surveillance systems that are designed to identify people using facial recognition techniques. Anyone wishing to commit a crime or be anti-social can beat all this sophisticated tehnology that benefits everybody simply by covering their face.

You have to take off a motorcycle helmet before you go into a bank or public building, hoodies and covered faces have been banned in various places. Hiding your face is generally considered unacceptable and threatening.

Security in modern society is based on surveillance systems that are designed to identify people using facial recognition techniques

Is the state security system with its phenomenal face recognition system widely used in french school playgrounds?

How many threats has it caught?

continually trolling

Brilliant,coming from somebody who spent 4 pages arguing with TJ,despite everybody else using the thread begging you both to stop.:roll:
Again; I don’t really think you want to see Mr Gough’s bits;honest I was joking.

FWIW complete strangers [ unidentified individuals]can turn up at any school and get in [ well the gates if not the school]

And are then asked what their business is,surely? Schools aren’t public sites,no entry except on school business and all that?

Brilliant

Still not addressing the issue of your offensive jokes though, are we?

You do seem to be prosecuting my posts on here remarkably diligently for someone who apparently “doesn’t give a toss” about their content, nor is someone who by his own admission doesn’t take the internet very seriously 😕

Turning Edukator’s slightly xenophobic sounding statement around a little:

Assuming that someone in a Burqa (or Niqab) is some kind of terrorist is exactly the same sort of presumptuous, bigoted, intolerant and wrong-headed thinking that assumes a guy with no clothes on is some kind of sex pest.

Which kind of links nicely back to the Naked Ramblers point really.

And are then asked what their business is,surely? Schools aren’t public sites,no entry except on school business and all that?

Not sure what your point is – I assume we both agree “unknown” people turn up at schools from time to time.
I assume they would all be asked/challenged whether they were a builder, in a suit or in a Burkha

You are trolling /certainly trying to get a reaction- and I am not sure why

five years??? regardless on the morality, justification of what he is doing, that is a **** joke. really depressing.

Ok, zokes you have worn me down, I give in. Again I apologise for saying you might want to see Mr Goughs knob, and am sorry that you are offended.

Junkyard my statement was that a stranger with their features covered would be asked what their business was far quicker than a delivery driver if they turned up in a playground, as the common perception would be that they were more of a “danger” than the man in the UPS uniform carrying a box.
And….People might(and it would appear did) have viewed a naked middle-aged man walking past a park in the same light.

Ok, zokes you have worn me down, I give in. Again I apologise for saying you might want to see Mr Goughs knob, and am sorry that you are offended.

Hint:

It was this bit that was a pretty thinly veiled offensive joke:

Still,look on the bright side; no prison issue clothes will be damaged or torn if his cell mate “gets lonely” one night.

For the record, I couldn’t give a monkey’s whether you think I want to see his knob or not. Jokes about male rape on the other hand, are quite a different matter.

Common perception = prejudice?

Surely he is safer as he is pretty visible and has nothing concealed on him 😉

A serial offender, who’s refused mental health assessment.
The only option is to lock him up.

Ok zokes;Somebody else has taken issue with that,so I apologise for that,it was made with the background knowledge that he a)had been in solitary,and refused a move to the local open prison and b)wore clothes when exercising.It was still tasteless,but was made with the idea of a man who refuses clothing going to a place with a stereotye of what goes on.However you accused me of attacking the poster;which is why I assumed you were getting bent out of shape over my suggestion about you enjoying…well you now the rest.

Common perception = prejudice?

Surely he is safer as he is pretty visible and has nothing concealed on him

I would rather have the hood and scarf coming up to fight Tam in Y4 TBH. dealing with nudity in schoolgrounds is way out of my job description 😀

Aye more a Xmas do kind of thing innit 😉

last one I went to three teachers had a scrap with each other and it was in a public pub in the town we worked 😯

A serial offender, who’s refused mental health assessment.

Refused the latest mental health assessment, as he reportedly passed all the previous ones with no issues and is probably a little bit annoyed at continued attempts to portray him as a mentally unwell.

Someone not doing what the state tells them to do is not necessarily mentally unstable.

A serial offender, who’s refused mental health assessment.
The only option is to lock him up.

Why? What harm is he actually doing? How much has this whole farce cost the Scottish government?

Video has been dropped in French schools following protests but the first thing the police/gendarme do when there is a serious crime is go around every shop, filling station, bank and traffic control centre and get all the video footage, and yes it has been used to bring many criminals to justice.

I think it is quite reasonable to ask the naked rambler to wear a loin cloth and equally reasonable for people to be recognisable in public. If the argument for jailing the naked rambler is that he poses some kind of threat then making people show their faces is far more important.

As Zokes has brought terrorism into the argument then Google brings up no cases of naked suicide bombers but a number with covered faces, including the type of dress Zokes and Junkyard refer to but I have been careful to avoid naming.