Town mulls funding for enforcement of nudity ban

[Davin]

Residents in Westmore will be asked next week whether to approve $25,000 to enforce a nudity ban.
I think that is kind of crazy to spend $25K to ban nudity

http://www.fox44.net/Global/story.asp?S=9902296&nav=menu660_1

[Nude in the North]

"." But some people say they should be able to use the beach without seeing naked people."

I'm sure "Some People" would rather it stayed C/O also. How come their wishes are never considered.

[nimrod]

The story said that if the anti-nudity ordinance was proposed again then they would need the money to enforce it. Seems to me that they are trying to recieve money for a law that does not and may not exsist.

[Pete Knight]

Looks to me like the council are trying to justify NOT enacting the ban on the grounds of cost, a good enough reason to leave things as they are, especially in these times of hardship.


Pete Knight

[otto]

Looks to me like the council are trying to justify NOT enacting the ban ...


Or just giving the message, "Put up or shut up." Good either way!

[simonsebs]

Town Votes Down Nudity Ban Funding (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29497699/)

This may be the only good thing to come out of this economic crisis.;)

[Pete Knight]

Town Votes Down Nudity Ban Funding (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29497699/)

This may be the only good thing to come out of this economic crisis.;)
Looks like common sense prevailed over the time (And money.) wasting prudes, who are invariably in a minority any way, and this time we have proof. Those that don't get all worked up about nudity have voted not to waste money, meanwhile the vociferous minority will no doubt try shouting louder.

Pete Knight

[Nude in the North]

Unfortunatly the Prudes get to try again every year untill they finally get their way. And the Nudes will then lose their rights to keep what was theirs all along.

Let's hope the 55 people that voted were the only ones that could.

[Stu2630]

The article says:

For decades a section of the lake has been clothing optional.

So it's just a "section"? The rest of it is not clothing optional? People can avoid the nudity by using the rest of the lake? Sounds fair. In that case, I would be on the side of the majority and would vote against the nudity ban.

This is precisely the kind of issue about which I would side with the nudists, yet I get accused all the time of being "anti".

Stu

[tiger79]

So it's just a "section"? The rest of it is not clothing optional? People can avoid the nudity by using the rest of the lake? Sounds fair. In that case, I would be on the side of the majority and would vote against the nudity ban.

This is precisely the kind of issue about which I would side with the nudists, yet I get accused all the time of being "anti".

StuThat's a logical response.

[Pete Knight]

That's a logical response.
But he'll happily report nudity nearly 200 miles away that he was unlikely to witness, does that appear logical?

Pete Knight

[Ren]

I've only been briefly to the lake and I drove around it and have no clue where the nude beach might be. It really is a sizable lake and there should be space for everyone. Kudos for a generally conservative area of the state (as VT goes) for taking a progressive stance.

[Stu2630]

But he'll happily report nudity nearly 200 miles away that he was unlikely to witness, does that appear logical?

Pete fails to realise that there is a world of difference between nudists retaining a place designated for their use, and a bunch of irresponsible "activists" stripping naked in a major London park on a weekend summer's afternoon in order to test the reactions of the authorities.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Pete fails to realise that there is a world of difference between nudists retaining a place designated for their use, and a bunch of irresponsible "activists" stripping naked in a major London park on a weekend summer's afternoon in order to test the reactions of the authorities.

Stu

Stu fails to see the point that Pete has made and that point is simply that Stu has taken it upon himself to report to the authorities what he considers to be inappropriate nudity anywhere through the UK. It is not Stu's place to do so. This is just a clear example of someone who is totally consumed by 'antiness'. A most reasonable response would be to let those who live in London take care of what occurs in London and refrain from promoting unwanted outside interference.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Stu fails to see the point...

Hey, Sans, why the "third person" responses? You can address your remarks about me to me, just as I am addressing this to you. :)

Stu has taken it upon himself to report to the authorities what he considers to be inappropriate nudity anywhere through the UK. It is not Stu's place to do so.

Of course it's my place. I don't want to see this kind of behaviour becoming accepted in the capital city in my own country.

And remember that I didn't actually make a complaint - I simply asked whether the parks police were aware of the activity and if they would approve of it. Clearly, they wouldn't.

I know that someone on here arranges nude hikes in England, but that group are not "activists" and they show consideration for textile walkers by covering up when they approach. I know when and where they meet up, but I wouldn't dream of reporting them to the police! In fact, I applaud them for their responsible and considerate attitudes.

Stu

[Pete Knight]

Stu fails to see the point that Pete has made and that point is simply that Stu has taken it upon himself to report to the authorities what he considers to be inappropriate nudity anywhere through the UK. It is not Stu's place to do so. This is just a clear example of someone who is totally consumed by 'antiness'. A most reasonable response would be to let those who live in London take care of what occurs in London and refrain from promoting unwanted outside interference.
Also as I've pointed out before, Stu phoned the parks police to warn them prior tot the event, I was in the park that day and had trouble finding the group, who were not in any way trying to draw attention to themselves, so describing them as activists is a pathetic attempt to make it appear as though they were there to cause trouble.

Also bear in mind that there is no by-law prohibiting nudity, yet the police still made the guys dress, because of the long distance complaint, from someone who couldn't possibly have been offended by their nudity.

Stu
The self appointed moral guardian, operating to standards that the majority of British citizens would object to.

There's a doll exhibition held at Alexandra Palace in London every year, does Stu phone the Metropolitan Police to complain about that, I know dolls cause him offence so I would support his efforts to rid the capital of this menace.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

There's a doll exhibition held at Alexandra Palace in London every year, does Stu phone the Metropolitan Police to complain about that, I know dolls cause him offence so I would support his efforts to rid the capital of this menace.

Pete Knight


Good question! Stu.....given your offence to dolls, are you fair and do you report doll exhibitions to the authorities in the same manner that you report what you consider to be inappropriate nudity?

[Pete Knight]

Good question! Stu.....given your offence to dolls, are you fair and do you report doll exhibitions to the authorities in the same manner that you report what you consider to be inappropriate nudity?

What about all those offensive doll displays in toy shop windows, and as for Toys'R'Us, downright disgusting.

It may appear as if I'm ridiculing someones phobia, but I merely wish to illustrate that our protagonist holds unreasonable phobic tendencies and claims one to be just that, whilst claiming that his phobia for the naked human form isn't, and tries to convince us that his attempts to stop any displays of nudity are justified.

Anyway, I'll go look at another thread as this is yet another one that has been spoiled.

Pete Knight

[MoonShadow]

Yes, he keeps whirring away.

[Stu2630]

Pete says:

Stu phoned the parks police to warn them prior tot the event,That's not true. I did not phone the police or anyone else. I had been told that the police probably areadly knew about the planned event and wouldn't have minded in any case. So I sent them an email to ask if they were aware. I made no objection to it - I simply asked a question.

I was in the park that day and had trouble finding the group, who were not in any way trying to draw attention to themselves, so describing them as activists is a pathetic attempt to make it appear as though they were there to cause trouble.They could have found a nice quiet spot in a remote country spot, but no. These people travelled hundreds of miles to the very heart of our capital city and to the most popular public park in that city on a summer's afternoon on a weekend. They were there to exhibit themselves. The police, who received a number of complaints, foiled them. Good!

The self appointed moral guardian, operating to standards that the majority of British citizens would object to.I asked the police a question - you got the answer.

There's a doll exhibition held at Alexandra Palace in London every year, does Stu phone the Metropolitan Police to complain about that, I know dolls cause him offence so I would support his efforts to rid the capital of this menace.Dolls do not cause me "offence", I have a slight residual fear of them. A fear of dolls affects about four people in a million. Being offended by gratuitous public nudity and exhibitionism offends a heck of a lot more people than that!

Stu

[Sanslines]

They could have found a nice quiet spot in a remote country spot, but no. These people travelled hundreds of miles to the very heart of our capital city and to the most popular public park in that city on a summer's afternoon on a weekend. They were there to exhibit themselves. The police, who received a number of complaints, foiled them. Good!

Stu

Here we go with Stu's 'antiness' showing through again! Stu was not present in the park that day. Pete was. Pete knows where the gruop was holding their activities and he has indicated that it was in a very isolated part of the park. No doubt, if it was not for Stu, the authorities would not have gone into the park to seek the group out. Stu had no reason to meddle in an event that was over 200 miles away and certanly out of his sight.

[Running Bear]

...Being offended by gratuitous public nudity and exhibitionism offends a heck of a lot more people than that!
Stu
It does not. With my experience this is just not the case. The majority of people smile and have no interest in nudity. Very few people (naturists) live it and also very few people are offended by it. The biggest majoirity are totally uninterested.
I am debating on a sexuality thread and the conclusion reached is that the majority of well balanced women (sample is naturist) see a male erection as amusing and not threatening. The threat comes from what you do with it, the intent. The conclusion was also reached that rape is not a sexual attack but a controlling attack. The days of a lady hoisting up her skirts and running away from an erection screaming are long gone. They are more likely to ask a flasher if it comes in man size :-). A group of three female children witnessed a male erection (the family was naturist) and the father heard his charges giggling "that that man had a stffy". They were not offended so the father took no action perceiving that he had educated his charges (one was his daughter) competently. I myself on the London WNBR was videoed by a very small young girl whose parents were helping her to hold the camera and I gave a smile, a wave and probably a dangle. On the same ride I saw some Japanese school girls also videoing us. Can you imagine the story? Look mummy I went to England to see the queen and naked cyclists; great! Their teacher was watching on but took no action.
I do think the public is being accustomed to nudity everywhere on TV, theatre and in public and it is a tidal wave that I am happy to add to.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Pete knows where the gruop was holding their activities and he has indicated that it was in a very isolated part of the park.

On a weekend summer's afternoon, there is no such thing as a "very isolated part" of Hyde Park! :laugh:

No doubt, if it was not for Stu, the authorities would not have gone into the park to seek the group out.

The police said they had received "a number of complaints". I made no complaint, simply an enquiry about a week beforehand.

Running Bear

It does not. With my experience this is just not the case. The majority of people smile and have no interest in nudity. Very few people (naturists) live it and also very few people are offended by it

Just because people aren't rushing about screaming doesn't mean they are not offended by it or that they consider it acceptable. I can tell you that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK find the sight of public nudity to be outrageous and shocking; and there are more than 3-million Muslims in the UK (probably more than the total number of nudists!). I know it upsets many Muslims because I have been told that by no less than the Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. Most Muslims would feel inhibited to make a complaint about it, though.

I myself on the London WNBR was videoed by a very small young girl whose parents were helping her to hold the camera and I gave a smile, a wave and probably a dangle. On the same ride I saw some Japanese school girls also videoing us

Some children, and some cultures, are brought to to see adult members of their families naked, and they will be fine with it. But many aren't. The thing is, when you are exposing your naked body, you don't know who you are going to encounter and how they are going to feel about it.

And don't be surprised if, when there is a change of government in the UK next year, as is very likely, the Naked Bike Rides in the UK get stopped. And remember who told you that. ;)

Stu

[Sanslines]

On a weekend summer's afternoon, there is no such thing as a "very isolated part" of Hyde Park! :laugh:

Now how on earth would you know the conditions under which this event was taking place??? Pete was there....You were NOT!


The police said they had received "a number of complaints". I made no complaint, simply an enquiry about a week beforehand.

You tipped off the police with your so called 'innocent' little 'enquiry'. Let's stop insulting people's intelligence here with such games. Time to come clean and fess up and admit that your intention was to interfere with an event that you had no business interfering with.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Now how on earth would you know the conditions under which this event was taking place??? Pete was there....You were NOT!I know Hyde Park. When I worked in London, I used to go in there most days to eat my lunch! Besides, there were complaints from members of the public AND press photographs in the London Evening Standard showing Steve Gough being approached by police officers and you can see there were other members of the public around.

And that still doesn't explain why they chose a world famous park in central London instead of a nice, deserted beach or forest or piece of moorland for their "picnic". As I said, I have never, and would never, tip off the police about the Somerset hikers, because they show consideration to textiles. Gough and his friends actually want textiles to see them. That is pretty close to exhibitionism. In fact, Steve Gough's close compatriots admit they enjoy exhibitionism, including the sexual aspect of it!

These characters shouldn't be allowed to use public parks for that kind of thing!

You tipped off the police with your so called 'innocent' little 'enquiry'. Let's stop insulting people's intelligence here with such games. I'm happy for you to regard it as "tipping off" the police (but not me "phoning the police to complain", because I didn't!). But if, as Pete claims, there is no law against nudity, why did the police act, and why did the activists get dressed?

Time to come clean and fess up and admit that your intention was to interfere with an event that you had no business interfering withMy country. The capital city of my country which I visit periodically. I didn't want this sort of behaviour to become accepted. I'd do it again in the same circumstances.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



I know Hyde Park. When I worked in London, I used to go in there most days to eat my lunch! Besides, there were complaints from members of the public AND press photographs in the London Evening Standard showing Steve Gough being approached by police officers and you can see there were other members of the public around.

And that still doesn't explain why they chose a world famous park in central London instead of a nice, deserted beach or forest or piece of moorland for their "picnic". As I said, I have never, and would never, tip off the police about the Somerset hikers, because they show consideration to textiles. Gough and his friends actually want textiles to see them. That is pretty close to exhibitionism.

Nice try! ;)

Well golly gee whiz Stu! Based upon your criteria, I know Hyde Park too (and it is a BIG park with plenty of space to accomodate everyone - nudists too!) I have walked hyde Park many times and even had my lunch in the park too - not far from the broadcast antenna arena.

Does this 'knowing' Hyde Park mean that I know the exact location and conditions ie how many people were around the nudists on that particular day? Of course not! So don't be daft and make such ludicrous statements please!

As for explaining why they chose Hyde Park, what is there to explain. It is very obvious. Hyde Park is a public, taxpayer supported park and should be for everyone - including taxpaying nudists who were out of sight in a remote part of the park.

I'm happy for you to regard it as "tipping off" the police (but not me "phoning the police to complain", because I didn't!). But if, as Pete claims, there is no law against nudity, why did the police act, and why did the activists get dressed?

Well golly gee whiz Stu redux too! Knowing up front that you have worked in some capacity related to law enforcement, a sensible person could conclude that there are many indirect ways for you to 'tip off' the authorities and then turn around and claim innocence. Why are you stuck on the issue of using a phone to contact authorities when you know that there are many other ways to do so. Nice try but your claims of innocent just won't wash here. You are guilty as charged. You had no business notifying the authorities concerning an event over 200 miles away. Your claims of 'innocently enquiring' are bogus as you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to stop an event that you strongly objected to.


My country. The capital city of my country which I visit periodically. I didn't want this sort of behaviour to become accepted. I'd do it again in the same circumstances.
Stu

Of course you would and that it is the point. You will stop at nothing to prevent a nudist event that you object to from occuring and yet you claim to be a 'friend' of nudists. Such hogwash! Tell me another story Uncle Freddy!

[Yasehtor]

Nice to see 75% of those voting supporting continued use of the beach by naturists.

[Pete Knight]

Just to blow another of Stu's fallacies apart, the day of the 'Picnic in the Park' there were not huge crowds in the park, and the guys were sat in an area of grass left to grow wild, unlike the vast majority of the park where is is close cut. So the guys were sat, in long grass, the height of which hid them from me, who was looking for them. They were also within sight of the park administration building, which also houses the Parks Police station.

Why did Stu feel the need to complain about art depicting the female breast and Mons Pubis in Liverpool, when he lives many miles away on the other side of the country, and was therefore unlikely to see said art, which was by Yoko Ono has it happens.

The man is quite sad and pathetic.

Pete Knight

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Well golly gee whiz Stu! Based upon your criteria, I know Hyde Park too (and it is a BIG park with plenty of space to accomodate everyone - nudists too!)

It is a big park. I would have no objection to there being a screened and signposted section of tyhe park in which clothing optional activities were permitted. Steve Gough and his pals don't want that. They enjoy exhibiting themselves to textiles: they have admitted as much. That's why they chose Hyde Park.

Does this 'knowing' Hyde Park mean that I know the exact location and conditions ie how many people were around the nudists on that particular day? Of course not!

I know Hyde Park well enough to know that on a warm Saturday afternoon, there are no remote or isolated spots. The photographs showed that they chose an open area, not some quiet spot in the bushes.

there are many indirect ways for you to 'tip off' the authorities and then turn around and claim innocence. Nice try but your claims of innocent just won't wash here. You are guilty as charged.

It's not a matter of innocence or guilt. I have told you numerous times what I did and why. I have never denied that one of my motives was to put a stop to Mr Gough and his pals. I don't consider that I did anything wrong.

You had no business notifying the authorities concerning an event over 200 miles away.

First, I lived 150 miles away. Then it was 200 miles away. Now you say it's over 200 miles away. I live approximately 170 miles from Hyde Park (by road).

Secondly, why have I no business sending an email to the police? I am free to send emails to whom I please: what they choose to do about it is their business. Gough's meeting was published on a public website. I am perfectly entitled to ask the police inspector whether or not he was aware of that plan and if it had been authorised.

you knew exactly what you were doing and that was to stop an event that you strongly objected to.

Yup. For the umpteenth time - I KNOW THAT! I'M NOT DISPUTING IT AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN.

Of course you would and that it is the point. You will stop at nothing to prevent a nudist event that you object to from occuring and yet you claim to be a 'friend' of nudists. Such hogwash!

Gough isn't a nudist: he says he's not a nudist. So I was entitled to conclude it wasn't a nudist event. It was a combination of activism and exhibitionism. Gough's friends admit that they like exhibitionism and even the sexual aspect of it. I don't feel guilty about my role in getting this behaviour stopped.

Stu

[Stu2630]

Pete says:

Why did Stu feel the need to complain about art depicting the female breast and Mons Pubis in Liverpool, when he lives many miles away on the other side of the country, and was therefore unlikely to see said art, which was by Yoko Ono has it happens.

What does this have to do with nudism? Answer - NOTHING!

The Liverpool City Council had asked people to comment on this so-called "art". So I did! :)

Stu

[MoonShadow]

Whirrrr ----- whirrrrr----- whirrrrr -----

More anti-ness. Sigh!

[Running Bear]

Just because people aren't rushing about screaming doesn't mean they are not offended by it or that they consider it acceptable. I can tell you that the vast majority of Muslims in the UK find the sight of public nudity to be outrageous and shocking; and there are more than 3-million Muslims in the UK (probably more than the total number of nudists!). I know it upsets many Muslims because I have been told that by no less than the Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. Most Muslims would feel inhibited to make a complaint about it, though.
Muslims are a particular section of the UK and must be given consideration but not allowed to influence policies. As a UK citizen they have the right to an opinion. The idea of sharia (?) law being introduced to the UK is an example. They are required to use UK law but we are giving consideration to apply some Sharia law providing it complies with the law of our land. I would respect their sensibilities and not go nude in a mosque. I may go naked in a Jewish synagogue but I would still wear a 'teapot cosy thing' on my head because to their religion nudity is not an offence but covering the head is. That is polite. I will not accept the Jewish rule that men everywhere should cover their heads.

Some children, and some cultures, are brought to to see adult members of their families naked, and they will be fine with it. But many aren't. The thing is, when you are exposing your naked body, you don't know who you are going to encounter and how they are going to feel about it.
No many children are brought up...and few are not. My generalisation is just as valid as yours. Stu if I shake your hand I have no knowledge how you would react so do I not shake your hand in case I may offend? I will of course shake you with the hand I wipe my rear with :-). Again I am aware that I may offend some but usually not many.

And don't be surprised if, when there is a change of government in the UK next year, as is very likely, the Naked Bike Rides in the UK get stopped. And remember who told you that. ;)
This sounds like the Arabian government (?) legislating the wearing of the Hijab. I would be very surprised because we are not a police state and I doubt the government has the power or balls to do so. We will see. Since we have naturists in government it is just as likely that a law will be passed banning the wearing of clothes in public. You personally would feel as highly offended as I would with your scenario.

[Running Bear]

...As I said, I have never, and would never, tip off the police about the Somerset hikers, because they show consideration to textiles. ...
Stu
All naturists show consideration to textiles, some may ignore this ideal however. Some naturists are on the fringe and push boundaries but are still accepted as naturists. It is disrespectful to naturists to generalise in this way and disrespectful to me to claim that my group is the only one to have this philosophy.

I personally support Steve Gough as I think he exhibits the little crazy in all of us and I also support you for the same reason. My often quoted mantra is balance and tolerance.

[Sanslines]

Sanslines



It is a big park. I would have no objection to there being a screened and signposted section of tyhe park in which clothing optional activities were permitted. Steve Gough and his pals don't want that. They enjoy exhibiting themselves to textiles: they have admitted as much. That's why they chose Hyde Park.

You do not live there and are not the appointed one to determine what is appropriate in a public park that is supported by taxpayer dollars from all and therefore should be availible for all. You are obviously obsessed with Steve Gough and his followers and will follow them to the ends of the earth to harass and persecute them. Such is clearly the sign of an out of control man who has an unhealthy obsession with the unclothed - nudists or not.



I know Hyde Park well enough to know that on a warm Saturday afternoon, there are no remote or isolated spots. The photographs showed that they chose an open area, not some quiet spot in the bushes.

Pete was in the park that day and actively sought out where the group was having their gathering. Pete has reported on the conditions that existed within the park that day numerous times. In spite of his reports, you continue to ignore his first hand information and instead wish to fabricate conditions based upon your own past visits. This is 'fantasy' nonsense which comes from a man who is consuned by a phobia about nudity.



It's not a matter of innocence or guilt. I have told you numerous times what I did and why. I have never denied that one of my motives was to put a stop to Mr Gough and his pals. I don't consider that I did anything wrong.

Of course you will never accept that you had no business becoming involved with an activity that was occuring very far away from you.



First, I lived 150 miles away. Then it was 200 miles away. Now you say it's over 200 miles away. I live approximately 170 miles from Hyde Park (by road).

I never said that you lived 150 miles away. I have driven from London to Manchester many times and the distance is approximately 200 miles. The Midlands are approximately half way more or less) between the two cities as I have visited in Birmingham numerous times. You claim to be up in Yorkshire somewhere and that is beyond Manchester. So let's stop playing mileage games here.

Secondly, why have I no business sending an email to the police? I am free to send emails to whom I please: what they choose to do about it is their business. Gough's meeting was published on a public website. I am perfectly entitled to ask the police inspector whether or not he was aware of that plan and if it had been authorised.

Plain and simple: You had no business bringing to the attention of the authorities an event that was about to occur. Your efforts made them aware of an incident that they had to investigate by law. It was the same as a complain. You claim to have this vast knowledge of the law and yet you are playing dumb right now by refusing to acknowledge that there are numerous subtle ways to inform authorities, that you had deliberately used a sublte way to do exactly that, and now you are playing daft by claiming that you 'only harmlessly emailed an innocent enquiry about an event that was to take place'. Utter rubbish!



Yup. For the umpteenth time - I KNOW THAT! I'M NOT DISPUTING IT AND I WOULD DO IT AGAIN.

Yes you would for your intentions were never to innocently enquire about an event and it is very clear that your intention was to prohibit and event from occuring and punish (what you consider to be) offenders even though those alleged offenders lived very far away from you to the point that their activities would have absolutely no effect upon you. This is just an example of how your phobia drives you to the absurd when you go after individuals who are literally on the other side of the country.



Gough isn't a nudist: he says he's not a nudist. So I was entitled to conclude it wasn't a nudist event. It was a combination of activism and exhibitionism. Gough's friends admit that they like exhibitionism and even the sexual aspect of it. I don't feel guilty about my role in getting this behaviour stopped.
Stu

It was none of your business to interfere with an event that literally happened on the other side of the country, had absolutely no effect upon you, and really had nothing to do with you. This just goes to show that you are posessed with anything to do with nudity, including and not including genuine nudism, and will stop at nothing to abuse those who have caused you absolutely no harm. Whatever Steve Gough and his group did in London should have been dealt with in London and not by someone from a long distance away who is consumed by an irrational phobia. Me thinks that the police investigated the wrong person that day!

[Sanslines]

Pete says:



What does this have to do with nudism? Answer - NOTHING!

The Liverpool City Council had asked people to comment on this so-called "art". So I did! :)

Stu

Pete,

See how Stu plays word games here. He refers to his obvious 'complaints' as 'comments'. The reason that Stu has absolutely no credibility is because he has a deomonstrated history of playing word games to intentionally mislead and misinform. Stu can never be trusted and is a giant red flag to legitimate naturists and nudists in spite of his (false) claims to the contrary. BEWARE!

[Sanslines]

Whirrrr ----- whirrrrr----- whirrrrr -----

More anti-ness. Sigh!

Sighhhhhhhhhhhh!!! lol.............lol

[Sanslines]

I would be very surprised because we are not a police state and I doubt the government has the power or balls to do so. We will see.

Addressing one item in your reply............the UK is certainly very much a police state. The UK is the most heavily watched country on this planet. Cameras are everywhere and the police are constantly watching. When my friend's dad was hit by a car, all that the police had to do to catch the villian was to review the camera footage from cameras that were strategically located up and down the road.

[Pete Knight]

First, I lived 150 miles away. Then it was 200 miles away. Now you say it's over 200 miles away. I live approximately 170 miles from Hyde Park (by road).I never said that you lived 150 miles away. I have driven from London to Manchester many times and the distance is approximately 200 miles. The Midlands are approximately half way more or less) between the two cities as I have visited in Birmingham numerous times. You claim to be up in Yorkshire somewhere and that is beyond Manchester. So let's stop playing mileage games here.
The Sheffield area, which is in South Yorkshire, and to the south east of Manchester, therefore closer to London, but that's being somewhat pedantic and a good way to divert attention from the point being made. The point was that someone nearly 200 miles away from the park should call the police, rather that allow the locals to chose how they wish to deal with the situation.

I've never been to Sheffield, driven past on the M1 dozens of times though, but does this entitle me to complain about activities in Sheffield, even though they are unlikely to affect me or my lifestyle?

What we have to remember is that this is the sick man who would verbally abuse a nursing mother to the point of tears simply for caring for her child. I bet if Stu had his way all mothers would be forced by law to feed their children formula milk.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

The Sheffield area, which is in South Yorkshire, and to the south east of Manchester, therefore closer to London, but that's being somewhat pedantic and a good way to divert attention from the point being made. The point was that someone nearly 200 miles away from the park should call the police, rather that allow the locals to chose how they wish to deal with the situation.
Pete Knight


Exactly! This is Stu's way of diverting attention from the real issue at hand and attempting to generate more discourse and disagreement when there is no need for it. Who really knows where Stu lives? He could live in the Monadhliath Mountains for all we know. I assumed that he lived around York somewhere which is northeast from Manchester. If he lives in Doncaster, then he is due east of Manchester and is just as far, if not farther from London, then is Manchester. In the end who really knows (or cares) where Stu actually lives for the point is that he is meddling in affairs in places that are very far away and should not concern him. That's the point and nothing that Stu attempts to divert attention away from this fact will fool us.

[Pete Knight]

Addressing one item in your reply............the UK is certainly very much a police state. The UK is the most heavily watched country on this planet. Cameras are everywhere and the police are constantly watching. When my friend's dad was hit by a car, all that the police had to do to catch the villian was to review the camera footage from cameras that were strategically located up and down the road.
A camera state I could agree with, but the police are far short of powers that would qualify us as a police state. Police and state are independent in the UK, at the moment.

Pete Knight

[Sanslines]

A camera state I could agree with, but the police are far short of powers that would qualify us as a police state. Police and state are independent in the UK, at the moment.

Pete Knight

Could you imagine if Stu had access to these cameras? Stu would then spend his days scanning cameras throughout the nation in an attempt to identify inappropriate nudist activities and then report them to the police (through innocent email enquiries no doubt!)

[MoonShadow]

LOL --- not to mention non-nudist activities he would report. Poor guy; he just can't help himself. :D

[Stu2630]

Running Bear

Muslims are a particular section of the UK and must be given consideration but not allowed to influence policies.

Nudists are a particular section of the UK and you should be given consideration but not be allowed to influence policies. How does that grab you? I mentioned Muslims in response to the claim that only a minuscule minority of people who have severe phobias react negatively towards nudity, and yet I have just pointed to a minority that probably outnumbers nudists!

All naturists show consideration to textiles, some may ignore this ideal however.

That’s an oxymoron. I'm not sure what you meant.

Some naturists are on the fringe and push boundaries but are still accepted as naturists.

Maybe by naturists, but they don’t do you any favours. People have now tired of Steve Gough and his antics – he’s banged up for a year in a Scottish prison and nobody cares. No senior political figures are demanding his release and the press isn’t making an issue of his prolonged incarceration. The same kind of distinction could be drawn between responsible nudists and the extremist fringe activists as between the local friendly Muslim newsagent and Osama bin Laden. If you ally yourself with the extremists, you will lose public sympathy.

Sanslines

You do not live there and are not the appointed one to determine what is appropriate in a public park that is supported by taxpayer dollars from all

Yup. Including me. I see this as a national issue rather than just a local one. Hyde Park is one of the Royal Parks and I pay as much for its upkeep as any Londoner, so I have a right to have a say in how it’s regulated.

You claim to be up in Yorkshire somewhere and that is beyond Manchester.

Is it? LOL. I think you need to buy a new map.

This is just an example of how your phobia drives you to the absurd when you go after individuals who are literally on the other side of the country.

The absurd? You mean sending a two-line email asking whether they knew of this event and had they authorized it?

Pete says:

I bet if Stu had his way all mothers would be forced by law to feed their children formula milk.

No I wouldn’t. I’d just urge them to try to be a bit discreet when breastfeeding in public as it can offend some people. You see, what I am saying is reasonable – so, in your pathetic efforts to discredit me. you attribute all kinds of opinions to me that I don’t have.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Sanslines
Yup. Including me. I see this as a national issue rather than just a local one. Hyde Park is one of the Royal Parks and I pay as much for its upkeep as any Londoner, so I have a right to have a say in how it’s regulated.

Yup , so you admit that your purpose in sending some 'innocent email' to the authorities was to prevent this event from occuring.



Is it? LOL. I think you need to buy a new map.

The last time I looked, York was northeast of Manchester. You, my friend, need to invest in new reading glasses.

The absurd? You mean sending a two-line email asking whether they knew of this event and had they authorized it?

For the sole purpose of tipping off the authorities so that they could prevent this event from occuring.


No I wouldn’t. I’d just urge them to try to be a bit discreet when breastfeeding in public as it can offend some people. You see, what I am saying is reasonable – so, in your pathetic efforts to discredit me. you attribute all kinds of opinions to me that I don’t have.
Stu

Sorry Stu, we know you too well and fully know your long hsitory on this forum. Yelling across a table at some poor, hapless woman who was breastfeeding her child because you were allegedly offended by the noise that the poor lad was making can hardly be considered an 'urging'.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

so you admit that your purpose in sending some 'innocent email' to the authorities was to prevent this event from occuring.

I give up. I have told you in the clearest possible terms what I did and why I did it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and so on. Either that or I've had the world's biggest ever attack of deja vu!

The last time I looked, York was northeast of Manchester. You, my friend, need to invest in new reading glasses.

I live in Yorkshire, England's largest country. I don't live in the city of York, which is in North Yorkshire. I live South Yorkshire, just north of the border with Nottinghamshire. Now look at this map:

http://www.justuk.org/uk/images/england-map3.gif

Look where London is - now look at the (red) motorway between Sheffield and Nottingham. I live near that motorway. Still think I live the far side of Manchester?

Yelling across a table at some poor, hapless woman who was breastfeeding her child because you were allegedly offended by the noise that the poor lad was making can hardly be considered an 'urging'.

Would you like to show me where I described that incident? It's certainly not my recollection. I am willing to be relaxed about breastfeeding so long as the mother concerned behaves in a way that is reasonably discreet and covers her breasts promptly after the feeding session. If she doesn't, then I will consider her behaviour to be rude and I would feel justified in bringing that fact to her attention.

Stu

[nimrod]

This is so very tiresome, yet another thread reduced to a Stu-fest. Stop feeding his need for attention people, stop trying to defend against his words and leave him alone in the hopes that if he gets no responce he will no longer feel the need to be here and he can get his fix off of some other forum. When you stop giving an alcoholic money or booze they eventually stop asking you for it. Do not even mention him or talk about him at all because that will give him what he wants also. Any comments about him and his posts will give him the high he is so looking foward to. If there is a thread that others wish to particapate in the Stu merry-go-round, leave it to those fools who do so, and only comment on the threads original topic if you feel you must post on that thread at all. I hope that I can follow my own advice and this will be the last time I mention him. Help me, help myself by following my advice so I do not have to mention him by repeating this post. Do not even mention him if you feel that you want to respond to this post.

[Running Bear]

Nudists are a particular section of the UK and you should be given consideration but not be allowed to influence policies. How does that grab you?
Exactly where I want to be grabbed. It is often not the case however where the minority of vociferous individuals try to enforce laws that the majority do not want or at the least have no interest in. All I would like is equal rights.

That’s an oxymoron. I'm not sure what you meant.
Sorry bad grammar. Most naturists give consideration to textiles but I am aware that some ignore these 'rules' (they know them but choose to ignore them for various reasons). I am just trying to refute any idea that naturists disrespect textiles by their activities. We al try to give them respect, often not getting that respect back. But even though another naturist may choose to be disrespectful does not mean I will not give him my support. Sometimes it is justified to not show respect.
People have now tired of Steve Gough and his antics – he’s banged up for a year in a Scottish prison and nobody cares... ... If you ally yourself with the extremists, you will lose public sympathy.
I care for Steve Gough and last time I checker I was a 'people' ;-/
I ally myself with Steve Gough and Stu both extremists. An extremist serves to define parameters by pushing those defined boundaries. If nobody pokes at those boundaries society will become stale and change will stagnate. A vibrant society is a constantly changing society.

General comment.
When I referred to a police state I referred to the police determining policy with no reference to the citizens. Police having cameras implies we are an observed population not a police state. As a naturist walker I am bound to be picked up on cameras (golf courses in the UK are a risk) and the question now arises am I committing an offence if I am picked up accidentally on a surveillance camera?