Naked rambler is cleared of nude exit from prison

[simonsebs]

Naked rambler is cleared of nude exit from prison (http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3852811.Naked_rambler_is_cleared_of_nude_exit_from _prison_/)

This guy certainly sticks to his beliefs. We should all be so dedicated.

[Pete Knight]

The authorities seem so determined to break him, and he is more determined not to be broken, so this will go on and on and on. One thing is quite clear, the police have bent the law to subdue a citizen, they used 'Breach of the Peace' when no peace had been breached, there was no one there to be upset or offended.

The longer this goes on the less chance there is of Steve ever seeing the light of day again, the Scottish authorities don't want to lose face on this one, but they look more and more stupid as the case rumbles on.

And all this for doing something that isn't illegal.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

He's obviously "doing something illegal" because he has been convicted many times and those convictions have been upheld on appeal.

He is a public nuisance and persistent offender. If he wants to go home, all he has to do is put his pants on. While ever he refuses, the authorities have no choice but to keep locking him up.

If people walk around the streets of Britain naked, they know that there is every prospect that they will get attested and possibly convicted of some offence. Until Mr Gough learns some sense, let him rot in prison.

He is always at pains to say he is not a nudist and the nudist movement would be well advised to keep this character firmly at arm's length and disassociate themselves with his disgraceful and antisocial behaviour.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Contrary to any reports from those who wish nudists harm, it is NOT illeagal to be naked in the UK, the police in their warped minds get round the problem by telling Mr Gough to get dressed, failure to obey this command results in arrest for 'Breach of the Peace' a catch all law for where there is none.

The continued stupidity of the Scottish authorities in persecuting Mr Gough, and wasting taxpayers money, is beyond belief, there are real criminals out there getting away with it, and laughing in the faces of the police.

Steve Gough is happy enough, he served as a Royal Marine and is able to cope with prison accomodation, he gets a free meal and a free bed in a warm cell, what are the Scottish taxpayers getting for their money?

Pete Knight

[David77]

Mr Gough could endlessly announce rational, clear statements affirming his principles of the sanctity of the nude form, while he has his obligatory clothes on. In my opinion, this would be better than remaining in prison for years in martyrdom. As it is said, "he has only one life to live" and it is better to spend his life in freedom and happiness.

However, there is a possibility that Mr. Gough may be like some people with a certain personality characteristic where he likes to be taken care of, living in his numerous sheltered environments (jail).

[Pete Knight]

Mr Gough could endlessly repeat rational, clear statements affirming his principles of the sanctity of the nude form, while he has his obligitory clothes on. In my opinion, this would be better than remaining in prison for years in martyrdom. As it is said, "he has only one life to live" and it is better to spend his life in freedom and happiness.

However, there is a possibility that Mr. Gough may be like some people with a certain personality characteristic where he likes to be taken care of, living in his numerous sheltered environments (jail).
Nah! He's just pig headed, nice enough guy though, he has a strong character, I found him easy to get along with.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

What is and is not "illegal" is not etched on tablets of stone by the Lord Almighty - it is a matter of interpretation by the courts. In Scotland, the sheriffs' courts have determined that nudity which gives rise to complaints of offence constitutes a breach of the peace, and the High Court concurred with that. In England, magistrates have agreed that nudity can cause harassment, alarm or distress and therefore can be the "insulting behaviour", an offence contrary to section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. The Crown Court in Southampton has confirmed such convictions (against Steve Gough).

Like it or lump it, here in the UK getting nude is de facto illegal if the police can show it causes offence.

David77

There may be something in what you say. He was in the armed forces for many years where he was "looked after" and now he is getting a similar level of care while in prison. Perhaps he has become institutionalised to such an extent that he can't cope any longer in the outside world. It happens.

He may also have become addicted to the notion of his own 'celebrity' and be deluding himself that there are masses of people out there regarding him as some nudist Mandela. Unfortunately for him, he is largely a forgotten man in the UK these days. He would do better to call time on this nonsense, put his pants on and get on with his life.

Stu

[simonsebs]

Naked Rambler gets a trial date (http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk/perthshire-news/local-news-perthshire/2009/06/23/naked-trek-trial-date-73103-23945372/)

Here's an update to the story.

[maxnude]

The flow of this thread sounds like Steven Gough was cleared to exit prison naked in december 2008.

What's missing is the sequence of events from release in 2008 to current 2009.

This BBC article fills in the blanks up to Post #8 for a hearing and court date July 2009

Re:

More jail time for naked rambler

Gough has spent most of the past two-and-a-half years behind bars.

A man known as the naked rambler has been jailed for 12 months after being convicted of a breach of the peace.

Stephen Gough, 49, was brought into the dock at Glasgow Sheriff Court on Wednesday June 23rd, 2009 wearing no clothes or shoes.

He was arrested at the same court last month [June 17-19th, 2009 after attempting to leave the building naked after walking nude through the Fair City’s Edinburgh Road late last week following an acquittal for breach of the peace.

The former marine, from Eastleigh in Hampshire, has twice walked naked from Land's End to John O'Groats.

During his appearance June 23rd, 2009 Gough told the court that if members of the public were offended by his nakedness then the problem was with them and not with him.

Gough’s agent William Somerville grew exasperated at Gough’s lack of co-operation and washed his hands of the case an intermediate diet was set for July 2 and a trial on July 16th, 2009.

He has spent most of the past two-and-a-half years in prison at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of more than £200,000.
_________

Re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7790299.stm

[zharth]

Mr Gough could endlessly announce rational, clear statements affirming his principles of the sanctity of the nude form, while he has his obligatory clothes on.

Mr. Gough could endlessly announce rational, clear statements affirming his principles of the sanctity of the nude form, while he has his obligatory clothes on, but it would mean absolutely nothing until he actually takes his clothes off. We can talk about it till the judgement day, but philosophy only goes so far. Sooner or later, you have to put your principles in action. I'll admit I don't know much about this Mr. Gough, other than what's been in the news, but regardless of whether it seems like he has much "sense", what I see is a man standing up for a principle, to the bitter end, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. And that's damn admirable.

[Stu2630]

what I see is a man standing up for a principle, to the bitter end, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says

And long may he continue - so that we don't have to put up with the antics of this exhibitionist idiot.

Good old Bonnie Scotland! :D

Stu

[Running Bear]

And long may he continue - so that we don't have to put up with the antics of this exhibitionist idiot.
Good old Bonnie Scotland! :D
Stu
I will accept your definition of exhibitionist, Every time I go out my door I comb my hair so people will think I am smart. We are all exhibitionists of a sort. I do not understand the idiot part. How can a man committed to an idea that nudity is not abnormal be an idiot? I recently took part in a naked protest in London (slightly against my naturist ethics) and the shock value of a nude protest was ineffective. Everybody walked by, some smiled but most people were uninterested. Nudity is becoming normalised.

I was using my nakedness as a weapon but I was firing blanks. Nudity is normalised.

[Stu2630]

Running Bear

As you can see from this article, the man is becoming a nuisance:

http://www.perthshireadvertiser.co.uk/perthshire-news/local-news-perthshire/2009/06/23/naked-trek-trial-date-73103-23945372/

NOTORIOUS exhibitionist Stephen Gough was forced to go undercover at Perth Sheriff Court... Gough’s agent William Somerville grew exasperated at Gough’s lack of co-operation and washed his hands of the case
I do not understand the idiot part. How can a man committed to an idea that nudity is not abnormal be an idiot?He is continually getting himself arrested and incarcerated, and it's no longer newsworthy in most of the media. He has no strategy, he is a forgotten man - achieving nothing. He has become regarded as a nuisance and a figure of scorn. Sooner or later either the system will break him, or else he will become completely institutionalised and isolated from reality and will no longer be able to function in normal society. He is not someone who will make a good role model for nudists.

I recently took part in a naked protest in London (slightly against my naturist ethics) and the shock value of a nude protest was ineffective. Everybody walked by, some smiled but most people were uninterested. Nudity is becoming normalised.You were lucky not to have been arrested. The Metropolitan Police is in complete disarray at the moment and people are getting away with things which at one time would have resulted in immediate arrest. The mayor, Boris Johnson, is aware of this and is considering urging the MPA to follow a policy of zero tolerance. I accept that some leeway is given to protest, but try going shopping on Oxford Street one summer's day and see how "uninterested" people, especially the police will be in your nudity. Or try it next Saturday in Taunton or Yeovil. If you tried that in my town, you would need the police to recuse you! Nudity is not becoming normalised, thankfully.

Stu

[Running Bear]

Running Bear
...
You were lucky not to have been arrested. The Metropolitan Police is in complete disarray at the moment and people are getting away with things which at one time would have resulted in immediate arrest. The mayor, Boris Johnson, is aware of this and is considering urging the MPA to follow a policy of zero tolerance. I accept that some leeway is given to protest, but try going shopping on Oxford Street one summer's day and see how "uninterested" people, especially the police will be in your nudity. Or try it next Saturday in Taunton or Yeovil. If you tried that in my town, you would need the police to recuse you! Nudity is not becoming normalised, thankfully.

Stu
Luck has nothing to do with it. The police were informed of the protest and provided a full compliment of police officers to ensure the naked protest was carried out without interference from people breaking the law. The textiles would have been breaking the law if they attempted to stop a legitimate naked protest.

I draw your attention to http://www.paganpolicegroupuk.co.uk/#/home/4534248376 from the pagan police officers uk site and specifically to an article on nudity http://www.paganpolicegroupuk.co.uk/#/home/4534248376

To summarise then, if you are out of public view in a secluded spot where the likleyhood of someone seeing you is very minimal then you have satisfied the Law that there is no intent to cause any harassment alarm or distress to anyone.May I also draw your attention to a picture from Lands end, Cornwall, England. This man has been immortalised in history in many places and I can assure you his ideas are still vibrant and he has made an impact. He has not been forgotten as any google will trace. He is newsworthy. The presence of this debate here and on nearly every naturist board I am a member of indicates that his light still shines strongly. He has done good and he has done bad for naturists but this is the balance of any action. I accept the bad in order to get the good. The truth is out there not your delusions.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2447/3754051567_3e76e8cd85.jpg

[Stu2630]

RunningBear

The police were informed of the protest and provided a full compliment of police officers to ensure the naked protest was carried out without interference from people breaking the law.I'm sure that's correct, but you can trust me when I tell you that this policy IS being reviewed by the Mayor of London and the MPA, so you may find that, in a year or two, they may start placing restrictions on the event.

I draw your attention to.... from the pagan police officers uk site and specifically to an article on nudity...

You mean where it says: Its true that you cannot go shopping to your local Safeway or walk down the High Street naked ? Or the bit that says To summarise then, if you are out of public view in a secluded spot where the likleyhood of someone seeing you is very minimal then you have satisfied the Law that there is no intent to cause any harassment alarm or distress to anyone? Yup. I can agree with those parts. The rest of it displays a breathtaking ignorance of the law by the writer - it is full of errors! For a start, he says: The basis of the statutory offence is that a male 'exposes his person ('legalese' for penis) with intent to insult a female'. That bit came under section 28 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, and was repealed six years ago in schedule 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003!

He also says: The Common Law offence of indecent exposure is somewhat different This is an indecency offence, not sexual. Wrong! Firstly, there is no such distiction in English law between an "indecency" offence, whatever that is, and a sexual offence!!! He goes on to say: This offence is of a minor nature and could be used to prosecute a 'flasher' where the necessary intent cannot be proved... Ridiculous! Section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is designed to deal with flashers. The common law offence he is referring to is actually now called OPD, or "outraging public decency". As it is a Common Law crime, and because it carries an unlimited sentence, it is regarded as a particularly serious offence and would normally result in a sentence of imprisonment.

This man has been immortalised in history in many places and I can assure you his ideas are still vibrant and he has made an impact. He has not been forgotten as any google will trace. He is newsworthy.When was the last time Mr Gough made national TV news? Once every 6-months or so he gets a mention on BBC Scotland to say he's been sentenced again, but that's about it. Even The Scotsman has lost interest in him. Go into any pub and ask people if they know who Steve Gough is. Few will know. They may have a vague recollection of the Naked Rambler from a few years ago, but that's about it: they certainly wouldn't have a clue where he is right now. In England he is forgotten and in Scotland he is gaining a reputation as a bore and a fool.

As for Google, just about every member of my family can be found somewhere, even the ones who have never made the news. If Mr Gough had made himself the centre of a widespread campaign calling for his release, supported by celebrities, political figures, civil rights groups around the world and the media, then you would have a point. But that hasn't happened, has it? He's just languishing in prison in Perth and has just received a fresh, 12-month sentence. I read a post from someone who claims to be one of his friends who says that he is becoming institutionalised to such a degree that they fear he may not be able to cope if he is released, and that he may actually be fearful of gaining his liberty.

Steve Gough is hardly an icon for nudism.

Stu

[Running Bear]

Sorry my link to the Pagan Police officers uk site was a little out of context.

I added it as an example of the diversity in society. This site is one example of how this site was created because of the need to recognise diversity. Their approach to nudity was one example of the tolerance or perhaps diversity that is needed.

There is a trend for naturists to be considered to comply with diversity regulations and to prevent discrimination.

The summary extract suggests that nudity in a naturist context is considered as normal.

Nakedness is now established in London and many other places. I doubt that the police would have the power or the inclination to stop it as they are empowered to reflect this diversity in society. Any repression of this would make a claim of discrimination hard to defend.

I think you missed the point on my bear protest. I was of the opinion that the public felt that nudity was normal and its shock-value was lost. In a way I am suggesting that nudity used to shock is no longer effective so perhaps naked-protests are ineffective. The fact our naked bodies were daubed in blood was more effective than the nudity aspect perhaps. Children were even taking photographs of us, with their parents consent, with the rise in mobile telephones now. The father of one actually held his daughter on his shoulders to get a better picture.

Not sure if I have posted this before but here in me on the Tate Gallery steps, London, England protesting against bears being used to make soldiers bearskin hats when an alternative is possible.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3617392222_d4157e93f4.jpg

[Stu2630]

Nakedness is now established in London and many other places.

Wishful thinking.

Certainly, they have been giving some latitude to nude protests in London, but that's about it. Try going shopping nude down Oxford Street and see how "established" it is. Try it in the centre of Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol or Southampton, and you'll be clapped in irons before you can say "underpants".

I have friends in senior posts in the Metropolitan Police and they tell me that policing in London is in a state of complete shambles since the Ian Blair affair. It will be sorted out in due course.

I doubt that the police would have the power or the inclination to stop it as they are empowered to reflect this diversity in society. Any repression of this would make a claim of discrimination hard to defend.

So how do you explain Mr Gough's continued detention? Discrimination laws in Scotland are identical to those in the rest of the UK. Such laws exist to defend the interests of specifically defined groups, specifically on the grounds of race, sex, sexual orientation and, more recently, religion. Nudists are not protected by any such laws and the police know that.

I would actually support some laws to protect nudism, e.g. to stop people being denied employment, education or public services because their employer discovered they were nudists, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Stu

[MoonShadow]

His Anti-Ness has arrived

[JoseO42]

The Scottish police should just leave him alone. Unless he does something that is either dangerous to others or he does something that is extremely inappropriate (i.e. touch himself or flaunt his private areas to children for example), they should just let him live his life. No one is getting hurt by his nude hiking and it is a waste of tax payers money to pursue this when there are greater dangers to society to deal with.

[Running Bear]

Wishful thinking.
Just as much as your statement to the contrary is; just an opinion based on my research.
So how do you explain Mr Gough's continued detention?
SG's detention was the result of contempt of court based on the idea that the judge wished to place his values of court proceedings on the case. I admit the judge does have a right to decide how people behave in his court but not when it hampers the judicial process.
...Nudists are not protected by any such laws (discimination) and the police know that.
You will find that they are. I was also actually using the word diversity which appears to be the 'in' word.

[Stu2630]

RB

SG's detention was the result of contempt of court based on the idea that the judge wished to place his values of court proceedings on the case. I admit the judge does have a right to decide how people behave in his court but not when it hampers the judicial process

He is presently imprisoned for breach of the peace, not contempt of court. So he is in prison because a judge agrees with me that there is no right to be naked in public and that people find it objectionable.

You will find that they are. I was also actually using the word diversity which appears to be the 'in' word.

Would you care to show me the legislation which lists nudists as a defined group protected against discrimination? I can show you Acts of Parliament which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation and, more recently, religion. So you show me the one which protects nudists.

I'll save you the trouble - there is no such legislation. I would be entirely within my rights to advertise a job, a flat for rent, a course in further education or anything else with a condition which says: "NUDISTS NEED NOT APPLY". I could refuse to serve people in a shop or restaurant or hotel simply because they are members of a nudist organisation or because I had heard a rumour that they occasionally visit a nudist beach. You are NOT a protected group. :)

You see, you have fallen for the popular misconception that any minority group is protected by the present preoccupation with "diversity", but that simply isn't the reality, as the case of Steve Gough amply demonstrates.

Stu

[Naturist4Ever]

I would be entirely within my rights to advertise a job, a flat for rent, a course in further education or anything else with a condition which says: "NUDISTS NEED NOT APPLY". I could refuse to serve people in a shop or restaurant or hotel simply because they are members of a nudist organisation or because I had heard a rumour that they occasionally visit a nudist beach.

Aside from that actually you can't - what about "STU SHALL NOT POST ON CFF", if only because several of your statements are utterly offensive. In fact, anyone who keeps whirring here for the last 7 years is better off seeing a doctor instead of this forum.

[Bob S.]

Stu: "He is presently imprisoned for breach of the peace, not contempt of court. So he is in prison because a judge agrees with me that there is no right to be naked in public and that people find it objectionable."

Have enough people complained to the police when he was released that would have made it worth rearresting him?

Stu: "I could refuse to serve people in a shop or restaurant or hotel simply because they are members of a nudist organisation or because I had heard a rumour that they occasionally visit a nudist beach. You are NOT a protected group."

Stu, if that is true, then discrimination is viably legal for any excuse in England. All one would have to do is to refuse to serve someone for anything inane such as not wearing the wrong color for the day if he didn't want to serve a customer because he was black. Or because this person's car was seen in the parking lot of a Synagogue, he can't be served.

I highly doubt the discrimination laws over there are that lenient, especially for paying customers.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

BobS

Have enough people complained to the police when he was released that would have made it worth rearresting him?

There certainly have been complaints. Whether his latest sentence is a result of complaints or not, I don't know, but if the police can show that, owing to previous complaints, he is likely to cause offence, they can arrest him and charge him with breach of the peace.

if that is true, then discrimination is viably legal for any excuse in England. All one would have to do is to refuse to serve someone for anything inane such as not wearing the wrong color for the day if he didn't want to serve a customer because he was black. Or because this person's car was seen in the parking lot of a Synagogue, he can't be served.

It doesn't work like that. If I claim discrimination, then I must specify grounds for my belief that I was discriminated against, the defined protected group to which I belong and the nature of the discrimination (i.e. direct or indirect). I have to prove that discrimination on the balance of probabilities. If someone refuses to serve me in a restaurant saying that they don't serve people wearing brown shoes, then unless I can show that the true reason I wasn't served was due to my sex, race, religion etc, I won't have a case. I would assume your laws operate on a similar principle.

Stu

[Running Bear]

...
Would you care to show me the legislation which lists nudists as a defined group protected against discrimination? I can show you Acts of Parliament which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation and, more recently, religion. So you show me the one which protects nudists. ...

Discrimination legislation gives examples of discrimination and examples when discrimination does not apply. It is a global principal and no mention of a specific group needs to be made for it to be covered. The guiding principal is that two people should not be treated differently in the same situation if they differ in one aspect. That aspect would be unfair discrimination. Fair discrimination would be like preventing a paedophile from running a scout group or the fox hunters group joining the PETA. (My examples the legislation itself does give examples but I do not have the time to quote them).

Diversity does appear to be the new trump card. The principal is the desire to see society composed of all representatives of that society not denying any faction. The idea to exclude Muslims for instance would not reflect our religious diversity. If naturist facilities are not on offer then that does not reflect the diversity of current society of which naturists are a part.

[Naturist Mark]

Would you care to show me the legislation which lists nudists as a defined group protected against discrimination? I can show you Acts of Parliament which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation and, more recently, religion. So you show me the one which protects nudists.

For legal purposes, in the United States, the Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. For very many nudists, naturism would fall within the gamut of this definition, as would Mr. Gough's beliefs in the goodness and dignity of body freedom.

What is the legal definition of religion in the UK?

[Stu2630]

RunningBear

Discrimination legislation gives examples of discrimination and examples when discrimination does not apply. It is a global principal and no mention of a specific group needs to be made for it to be covered.

This is complete and total tosh! You are seriously misinformed and I really hope you don't go around telling people this nonsense. I taught discrimination law between 1991 and 2004 and I have watched it evolve and become extended to include new defined groups such as disabled people and, more recently, people on the basis of their religion or age. Although some have suggested we should go down the route of an all-inclusive formulation, legislators have recognised the impracticality of this and it really is a non-starter.

Some employers, especially in the public sector, have embraced a concept on non-discrimination against anyone without justifiable cause and if they do not comply with their own stated policies, that could be grounds for a discriminated existing employee to take them to industrial tribunal, but that's as far as it goes. If I were an employer, there is nothing in legislation to prevent me saying that I will not recruit nudists, members of the Labour Party, non-smokers or people who blow their noses too loudly.

Naturist Mark

From memory, I don't think it is actually defined. I suspect Parliament decided to leave it open-ended as a question of fact rather than a question of law in order that courts could decide each case on its merits.

Stu

[David77]

RunningBear

Naturist Mark

From memory, I don't think it is actually defined. I suspect Parliament decided to leave it open-ended as a question of fact rather than a question of law in order that courts could decide each case on its merits.

Stu

US court states that religion consists ULTRIMATE CONCERNS and practices, and has no "supreme being test" in court.

Ultimate Concerns

"Ultimate concerns, as addressed by traditional religions, are characterized by their adherence to, and promotion of, certain "underlying theories of man's nature or his place in the Universe." Africa, 662 F.2d at 1033 (citing Founding Church of Scientology v. United States, 409 F.2d 1146, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 1969)). Such concerns might include the worship of a Supreme Being; more generally, they include attempting to situate man within existence and resolving questions having to do with such things as life and death, right and wrong, or good and evil".