Steve Gough's UK nude trek

[Bob S.]

The BBC news did a report on Steve Gough's continuing nude trek from Southern England to Northern Scotland, an 847 mile walk. In the article, he reported about a mostly "friendly" reception by passers-by, but did at one point get assaulted by another man so bad that he required medical assistance.

He also commented on the police actions, but he stated in reference to his five arrests,"...as I'm aware, nothing has ever come of it and in one town they actually let me go after they arrested me."

Read more at the URL below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3064233.stm

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

The BBC news did a report on Steve Gough's continuing nude trek from Southern England to Northern Scotland, an 847 mile walk. In the article, he reported about a mostly "friendly" reception by passers-by, but did at one point get assaulted by another man so bad that he required medical assistance.

He also commented on the police actions, but he stated in reference to his five arrests,"...as I'm aware, nothing has ever come of it and in one town they actually let me go after they arrested me."

Read more at the URL below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3064233.stm

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

Every time that I comment positively on the progress that Steve Gough is making in gaining acceptance for public nudity, I get a number of comments that (a) he doesn't regard himself as a nudist (so what?) and (b) he is hurting the cause of nudism by being so aggressive.

I would invite people to read the BBC news article mentioned in the post above. The article presents Steve's quest in a positive way and provides very valuable publicity for the cause of the right to be nude in public.

Also, if Steve makes it to the end of his 847-mile route, he will have established that it is possible to be nude in public anywhere in the U.K. (at least if you are hiking). This will be a great gain for nudists, thanks to Steve.

Gary

Hi everyone. Just to let you know that I'm recovering well after my knee operation and am regaining mobility and strength in the joint well ahead of schedule.

Regarding Steve Gough - He is 1. on bail for offences arising out of his naked walk (following his second arrest in Cornwall) and 2. already convicted of "insulting behaviour" after doing this in his home town of Eastleigh, Hampshire. I have little doubt that he will accrue more charges and, hopefully, convictions before he finishes his walk. He may even find himself remanded in custody at a prison long before then. Much of his route so far has been along rural footpaths etc. Before too long he'll find himself entering larger conurbations and the police will be expected to take robust action. If they don't, I'll be writing to the respective Chief Constables.

Stu

[Falcon46]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Hi everyone. Just to let you know that I'm recovering well after my knee operation and am regaining mobility and strength in the joint well ahead of schedule.

Regarding Steve Gough - He is 1. on bail for offences arising out of his naked walk (following his second arrest in Cornwall) and 2. already convicted of "insulting behaviour" after doing this in his home town of Eastleigh, Hampshire. I have little doubt that he will accrue more charges and, hopefully, convictions before he finishes his walk. He may even find himself remanded in custody at a prison long before then. Much of his route so far has been along rural footpaths etc. Before too long he'll find himself entering larger conurbations and the police will be expected to take robust action. If they don't, I'll be writing to the respective Chief Constables.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hello Stu, Glad to hear you're back & on the mend. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Now onward to the issues at hand....

I'm wondering if Steve's walk is affecting you personally and directly, that you would take a stanse to formally complain to the Chief Constables? You may be right that he is likely to accrue more charges, but I, and probably most everyone else around here hopes he makes the complete journey. If he is able to complete it, I feel it will be VERY interesting to review the entire walk and see just exactly what real harm came from it. (I suspect none whatsoever)

I admire his courage to continue his statement (which is what this walk seems to be) regardless of the legal obstacles. And I remain confounded by your intolerance of something that is so seemingly harmless and victimless once the phobias (irrational fears) are removed. I have a hard time supporting the notion that we should be governed by irrational fears. That simply is not life... IMHO /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Get well soon /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers!

[luvnaturism]

Stu ? welcome back. I'm glad your knee is making good healing progress.

"Conurbations"? That's a word I haven't come across before. Can you help me understand it? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Gary Naturist]

Stu -- It is beyond me why you feel that it is necessary to lodge a complaint about something that does not affect you in the slightest.

Gary

[Trailscout]

Maybe Stu senses that this solitary hiker could be soon joined by others and then throngs of nude hikers will walk the trails and lanes of England. In time, we can hope for naked picknickers in every park in London, people of all ages bathing nude in the fountains just like they do in Berlin, and every spit of sandy beach will filled with laughing carefree nude bathers. People will walk nude by Stu's house on their way to a game of tennis or cricket. Perhaps Stu's own children and Mrs. Stu will hear the call, peel off their clothes and join throngs of nude children playing football in the streets. Would the royal family help lead the way back to the bare necessities? (Just a crown and a smile). Would a naked Tony Blair debate before an equally naked House of Commons? How long can Stu continue to be a bashful Mister Bean if all of Britain is going starkers, frolicking in the summer sun?

Steve Gough is a pioneer and hero of the British people and we pray that his shocking walk will become an everyday event for millions on balmy summer days.

[Bob S.]

Gary, the fact that he is so vocal about not being a naturist helps us out. It makes it so that we can cheer for him while saying that he does not represent naturism.

stu, what exactly is "insulting behaviour" and who did he insult? And after reading the story, how can you explain the reported warm reception that the majority of people have given to Mr. Gough? This doesn't seem to concur with your belief that the majority of people in the UK are negative toward nudity and do not want to see it.

Oh, and congrats on the recovery and physical therapy. I hope your recovery continues at this pace. Now if we could only get that pesky non-nudist attitude exorcized from you as quickly. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Bob S.

Steve Gough and his supporters are asking for people to support him in a host of ways including financially. What about those of us who don't want to see him succeed? Is it wrong for us to notify the law enforcement agencies so that they are aware and can take whatever action they feel is appropriate under the law? I wouldn't have too much of a problem with him if this was just a one off - a stunt - not to be repeated. But that's the precise opposite of his intentions. He wants to change the environment in which I live from one in which nudity is not tolerated to one in which it is. Well I have a say in my own environment, and I happen NOT to want it changing in that way. I consider it harmful to me to change my environment in a way that I don't want, just as a person who scrawls grafitti or throws down litter makes my environment less pleasant.

Bob, the term "insulting behaviour" is an old legal term first used in 1936 by a law aimed at combating the activities of Nazi supporters here in the UK before the war. It literally means behaviour which people find offensive or shocking. Mr Gough certainly has upset some people on his walk. One individual felt so disgusted that he beat him senseless! (Wasn't me, honestly!) I don't condone that but it does show that he is upsetting people by what he is doing.

If Steve Gough wants to make a point, he could do so in a host of ways that were both lawful and inoffensive. What right has he got to enforce his views on the naked human body on the rest of us who don't want to see it? Even if our hostility to it is "irrational", then that's our business and nobody has elected him to cure us all of our "irrational phobia".

Sorry if this posting is not upto my usual standard of eloquence, but I'm in some real pain at the moment with this darned knee!!!

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

Stu: It seems to me to be overkill to attempt to stop a particular activity throughout a whole country just because you don't want that activity happening in front of your own home.

I am shocked that a law instituted to control the actions of Nazi supporters would be used to deal with someone who is simply nude in public. Ridiculous beyond belief.

Gary

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mr Gough certainly has upset some people on his walk. One individual felt so disgusted that he beat him senseless! Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IMHO, the law should punish the attacker much more severely than it does Mr. Gough, whose actions are/were victimless. Can you apprise us of how his (the assaulter's) case was (or will be) resolved? I cannot believe the law would consider such violence to be justifiable.

I hope you're getting relief from the pain.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Falcon46:
I admire his courage to continue his statement (which is what this walk seems to be) regardless of the legal obstacles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, such a "statement" would be constitutionally protected speech here in the States. Any takers?

Gary

"It seems to me to be overkill to attempt to stop a particular activity throughout a whole country just because you don't want that activity happening in front of your own home."

But that's exactly the issue, Gary. Mr Gough isn't just walking around his own town. He is trying to make a statement to the effect that he can go wherever he likes naked. The worst case scenario for me would be that others would follow his lead and one day I will see nudity in MY town or in MY local park.

"I am shocked that a law instituted to control the actions of Nazi supporters would be used to deal with someone who is simply nude in public. Ridiculous beyond belief."

I didn't say that. I was explaining to Bob the LEGAL meaning of "insulting behaviour" - the term was first used in the Public Order Act 1936. The term was used again when the law was updated in the Public Order Act 1986, section 5 of which refers again to "insulting behaviour", and the courts have held that the old definition still applies.

missouriboy

"IMHO, the law should punish the attacker much more severely than it does Mr. Gough,"

I entirely agree

"whose actions are/were victimless."

No. We know that some people complained about him, so they must have been offended and were, consequently, victims.

"Can you apprise us of how his (the assaulter's) case was (or will be) resolved?"

Sorry, I've no idea if the assailant was actually caught, or if he was whether or not Mr Gough was willing to press charges. Had he been convicted of an assault of this nature, the assailant could expect a term of imprisonment.

"I cannot believe the law would consider such violence to be justifiable."

The law would NEVER consider violence like this to be justifiable. Nor would I.

Stu

[Falcon46]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Steve Gough and his supporters are asking for people to support him in a host of ways including financially. What about those of us who don't want to see him succeed? Is it wrong for us to notify the law enforcement agencies so that they are aware and can take whatever action they feel is appropriate under the law? I wouldn't have too much of a problem with him if this was just a one off - a stunt - not to be repeated. But that's the precise opposite of his intentions. He wants to change the environment in which I live from one in which nudity is not tolerated to one in which it is. Well I have a say in my own environment, and I happen NOT to want it changing in that way. I consider it harmful to me to change my environment in a way that I don't want, just as a person who scrawls grafitti or throws down litter makes my environment less pleasant.

Sorry if this posting is not upto my usual standard of eloquence, but I'm in some real pain at the moment with this darned knee!!!

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hello again Stu,
It would seem while your pain may have made you less "eloquent" in your opinion, you actually presented a very valid argument, one in which I'm at a loss to combat!!! ACK!!!! LOL /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

(but you know I HAVE to try... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
While I still disagree with you in principle about Steve's goal, I do respect your stance about changing YOUR environment. Nudists don't have any more rights to affect YOUR environment, any more than you have the right to affect OURS (fair enough?). All we are seeking is some level of COMMON GROUND (literally), and that I feel is at the heart of his walk, which is why I'm in complete support. Even you must be able to admit that the whole issue is excessively one-sided against, and not necessarily with complete merit? (or is this where we agree to disagree again /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

(Load up on the pain meds before you answer this so I can see at least a semi-"advocate" response from you /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif *just kidding Stu, I really do hope you start feeling better soon* )

Cheers!

Falcon

"Nudists don't have any more rights to affect YOUR environment, any more than you have the right to affect OURS (fair enough?)."

Absolutely. Just imagine if I organised five coachloads of my textile friends to flood a newly established naturist beach with non-naturists. And I did this every day throughout the summer. Some of those who are new to naturism might feel less comfortable on this beach and stop coming. Over time fewer and fewer naturists use the beach until eventually there is no-one over the age of four naked there any more. That way I would have contrived to change YOUR environment without YOU having a say in it and that would be wholly wrong.

"All we are seeking is some level of COMMON GROUND (literally), and that I feel is at the heart of his walk, which is why I'm in complete support."

I am puzzled why so many naturists are so intent upon sharing their naturism with the rest of us. Falcon, if you are ever in my neighbourhood you would be most welcome to visit me. I'll gladly welcome you into my home and introduce you to my family. The same applies to almost everybody here and in that respect I am happy to share ground with you. We can discuss naturism for as long as you like, but what I don't want you to do is to get naked in my presence. Steve Gough isn't sharing his pleasure of nudity with others who are willing for him to do that. He is in their face, inflicting it on them whether they like it or not, and many don't.

"Even you must be able to admit that the whole issue is excessively one-sided against, and not necessarily with complete merit? (or is this where we agree to disagree again )"

Sorry, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In my opinion the press have been overly positive about Steve Gough's escapade because they have failed to give voice to those who oppose him. The law enforcement agencies have been disappointingly coy and incompetent in failing to deal with him as they ought.

"(Load up on the pain meds before you answer this so I can see at least a semi-"advocate" response from you *just kidding Stu, I really do hope you start feeling better soon* )"

Thanks for that. I have recently taken some strong codeine tablets and they have taken away most of the pain, but they have left me feeling high /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif and a little dozy /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif .

Stu

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"IMHO, the law should punish the attacker much more severely than it does Mr. Gough,"

I entirely agree

"whose actions are/were victimless."

No. We know that some people complained about him, so they must have been offended and were, consequently, victims.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, what I was saying here was my opinion. It galls me that the law allows someone to just say "I'm offended," and cause someone else to be sanctioned. Why? Because there is no way prove or disprove such a claim, therefore there is no defense! When I say "victimless" I mean the offendee /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif suffers no quantifiable harm or loss.

For example: on another thread there is extensive discussion about body piercings. Those things utterly disgust me and I don't want to see anyone around me with studs and rings dangling about. But do I have recourse in the law? Of course not! Now, if a body-piercer can get "in your face" without sanction, why can't I, or Mr. Gough, or anyone else display his natural God-given body the same way?

This is all just my opinion, of course, but the lament is the futility of attempting to legislate morals, especially when differing cultures preclude any universal definition of them. And to be fair to all, legal definitions need to be pretty much universal.

[Gary Naturist]

Regarding offensive behavior. The more enlightened laws require that the behavior be considered offensive by the community at large, not just by an individual, even if that person is the compainant.

This makes all sorts of sense. Anyone can say that they are offended by anything (witness Stu), but that doesn't mean that the person offended should necessarily be able to control the behavior or appearance of the other.

And another thing. When a nude male is seen front on at any distance, it's impossible to make out much detail with respect to the genitals. How can the sight of a fuzzy blur be considered offensive, justifying remedial action?

Perhaps it's not the specifics of the genitals at all -- it's the realization that the person is nude. How can the thought that a person is nude be considered offensive, justifying remedial action?

Gary

[Falcon46]

Stu,
I think you missed my point in that the naturist community isn't fairly represented with "legal" places to go. I strongly suspect that there are lot more naturist/nudists out there than what this website, or make that all the nudists websites combined know about. I was a backyard nudist long before the Internet, much less just this site. But I only recently discovered anything about nudists’ sites like this one.

I see Steve's walk much in the same light as others before him sought to point out the unfairness of societies belief that their "cause" was harmful. Recent history is filled with others that have marched as a protest, in order to bring about a level of change. Civil Rights & Gay Rights are just two that spring to mind readily, but I’m sure you can think of many more. The organizers of these movements knew that it wasn't simply about changing the laws, but a change in attitude among the population was necessary in order to see their dreams fulfilled. And by your own admission, since the media is showing this in an "overly positive" light, it would seem Steve's trek is on course. It would also seem that the general public at large isn't overly concerned, which would tend to support what I've told you in past posts in other topics. For now, it's a novelty with the public, and once the novelty wears off, the public may see that it's hardly a big deal. If it continues to get violent, then I'm sure the authorities will step in, but the fact that they haven't may also indicate that they aren't getting a huge number of complaints. But if it leads to even one more nude beach being allowed to open in the UK, then it's a small victory toward being allowed yet one more place to go, possibly a place that is much closer for other wannabe nudists that just had a barrier removed.

Stu, I don't think most nudists want to be in your face as you call it, inflicting it on you whether you like it or not. I know I would not be comfortable being around someone that I knew was offended, whether it was about my being nude or anything else I was doing. That is just common courtesy and I don't think nudists are largely inconsiderate, if anything from my experience, just the opposite is true when compared to other demographic groups. But getting back to my point, any lobbying effort starts at the extreme side of the issue, asking for the world, but settling for a small, yet fair piece. You'll find this to be true in any bartering, anywhere in the world. Steve isn't out there with a shotgun telling the world to look at him or else. He isn't sneaking around corners and shrubs and then suddenly jumping out at unsuspecting people that might be offended. I'm under the impression that his route is fairly well known, and for MOST of the people that do see him, they do so of their own choosing. For those that don't want to see, well… like I've said, he's not forcing them look. And for the guy that attacked Steve, I see him as having significantly less moral character (and I'm glad you clarified it wasn’t you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) At least what Steve is doing is peaceful in it's own right.

"In my opinion the press have been overly positive about Steve Gough's escapade because they have failed to give voice to those who oppose him."

Stu, is it remotely possible that the press hasn't had an extreme amount of success in finding anyone that can rationally explain the opposition's view? I'm sure they can find people that can simply say "I think it's disgusting" or "I don't think it's proper", but can they explain why they think that? Or are they just responding to what they perceive as the popular view, without approaching it with an open mind or even a hint of factual information?

The bottom line here Stu is that I doubt seriously that Steve would be making this trek if nudists had more places to exercise their God-given freedom to be as God made them instead of how society or governments dictate them to be. Nudists are becoming tired and even sometimes angry that they have to hide even in their own backyards. It's very frustrating… and you can bet Steve won't be the last of his kind.

As you can see Stu, I could go on for pages/hours…(again /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but I better cut it off here before I get my second wind! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif And thank you for the warm invitation to visit. I don't know that I'll ever get in your neighborhood, but the sentiment is appreciated. Of course I can't speak for the rest of the group that you offered the same invitation towards... (pssst… I heard that they all are secretly planning on taking you up on your offer sometime in the near future, but don't let on I was the one that told you, okay? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Cheers!

[Naturist Mark]

Hi Stu,

I understand that you don't object to nudism being practiced in well defined places where no-one else would have to be exposed to it unwillingly (ghettos). You do object to public nudity of the sort Steve Gough practices. You find it offensive. You support legal prosecution of people who offend in this way.

Why?

Is there a British right to not be offended?

Specifically, why should offensive behavior that is harmless be prohibited? Especially if it lacks lewd intent, is not violent, and causes no harm.

Except for a person suffering from severe mental illness, the mere sight of a nude person can cause no harm. What is the justification for making public nudity illegal? Does the 'reasonable person' rule give way to the 'person with severe mental illness' rule when considering the consequences of mere nudity?

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Actually stu, my question about "insulting behaviour was partly rhetorical. But thanks for the British history lesson. It does go to show that once a law is passed, politicians have a hard time repealing it.

OK stu, Steve has had some people who have not been happy with his march and one who actually beat him up just for being naked (who needs the help there?) but in the past, you have stated that the vast majority of Britains are opposed to public nudity and yet, we have no evidence of this on his walk.

How much can we consider "offense" a crime? When a majority of society sees it as such? How does one measure that? Through polls? No. Not good enough according to you. Through statistical sampling? Oops, same as polls. Can you provide an accurate way to find out how many people consider something as offensive? If not, then a lot of victimless crimes are going to remain crimes just because the government says so and very few people who are supporters of such laws are willing to speak out.

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
In my opinion the press have been overly positive about Steve Gough's escapade because they have failed to give voice to those who oppose him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu (or can I call you Brutus?) Has it not occurred to you that the reason the press have failed to give voice to those who oppose him is because there's not that many of them. The silent majority remain silent because they don't really care one way or the other.

Perhaps the law enforcement agencies are beginning to recognize this which might account for their being "disappointingly coy and incompetent in failing to deal with him as they ought."

Rik

A lot of points here.

Firstly, Bob S and Gary - we have had the discussion before about whether or not what you call "quantifiable harm" is caused by inflicting nudity upon people who don't want it. Here in the UK there are many offences that can be committed in which the harm is non-physical - examples include obscene or racist grafitti, using obscene language, having sex in public, slaughtering sheep or cattle in the street etc. These are things that people don't want to have to see and the law recognises that. What is and is not "offensive" will always be a subjective question. The test our courts use when such questions arise is the subjective "reasonableness" test, i.e. what would an ordinary person with typical values and sensibilities regard as offensive. I believe most people here regard nakedness in public as offensive and our courts usually reflect this.

You clearly consider that, because the human body is a natural thing, no such offence or distaste for seeing it is warranted. But sex is natural and we don't want to see that openly performed. The same can be said for urinating or defecating, or giving birth, or the decay of dead human flesh. The fact that something is natural doesn't mean it should be displayed publicly.

Falcon, I think you are making a grave mistake in associating Mr Gough's activities with naturism or the availability of clothing optional venues. Firstly I agree with you, and have said many times, that there are woefully few naturist resorts and this should be rectified. But Mr Gough himself is keen to distance himself from naturism. He DOESN'T WANT there to be more naturist venues - in fact, he doesn't want there to be ANY!

He is a man with time to spare to launch a personal crusade against what he regards as the sensibilities of the rest of us - he is throwing down a gauntlet to the authorities to do something about it. In pursuit of his personal ideology, he is prepared to upset, shock and annoy people, divert the resources of the police and courts and gain attention.

He might just finish his walk without being convicted - in which case he will be seen, and portrayed in the press, as an eccentric nutcase and allowed his "little victory" in the expectation that will be the end of it. On the other hand, he may start to irritate people; the press may stop seeing him as an easy way to fill a column and take against him. If this happens then some of the hostility he attracts will permeate into the public perception of naturism, and that will do nothing for your cause.

Having said that, I am optimistic that, in spite of his lengthy walk, because 99.999% of the British public will not encounter this man, it will be no big deal as you say. He'll then go home to Eastleigh, repeat his former behaviour, get arrested again, and eventually be locked up with little publicity (as happened before).

Mark - in a way we British do consider that we have the right not to be offended when in public places. The reason is that such places are paid for from taxation, are there for us all to use and enjoy without the danger of being shocked or disgusted or for us to experience behaviour that makes the place less pleasant to be in. As I have explained above, nudity is just one type of behaviour that people don't want to have to put up with in public places. Do you allow prostitutes to walk around your shopping malls topless and propositioning passing men? If not why not? What harm do they do? They are only appealing to the natural instincts of their propsective clients.

Bob's last point about us not seeing evidence of hostility can be explained in several ways. Firstly, if you look at his route - he is using mostly cross-country footpaths. If he does come across other ramblers or locals the chances are that there will be nothing they can do about it directly. He may very well have experienced hostility from such people, but how could we know about that? We don't know how many calls to the police have been made by such people, how many rebukes or how much abuse he has had. We don't know how many elderly people or mothers with young children have been shocked by him. That's not reported anywhere and, even when he returns and reports, we have no way of validating his own accounts. A poll can tell us something about public attitudes to nudity as we have discussed before, but it would have to ask the right questions. A recent NOP poll showed that 83% of the public thinks there should be more clothing optional beaches - but does mean that they envisage themselves using such a facility? Or does it just mean that they agree with us that naturists aren't getting their fair share?

Rik, firstly he has been arrested a total of five times and charged twice, and beaten up once, and he's barely a third of the way through his walk. Besides, the law enforcement agencies in my (heavily populated) area often take 24 hours to respond to a burglary. A farmer in a field in Somerset phoning the police to say he has just briefly seen a naked rambler heading along a footpath is hardly going to result in blue lights and sirens. Even if a police car turned out Mr Gough would be miles away by the time they got there.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The fact that something is natural doesn't mean it should be displayed publicly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it doesn't mean it should be illegal
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But Mr Gough himself is keen to distance himself from naturism. He DOESN'T WANT there to be more naturist venues - in fact, he doesn't want there to be ANY! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you're confusing him with Vincent Bethell.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In pursuit of his personal ideology, he is prepared to upset, shock and annoy people, divert the resources of the police and courts and gain attention. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A standard and often effective means of campaigning for what one believes to be right. The law enforcement agencies often commission the use shocking images to discourage people from drinking and driving.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
... I am optimistic that, in spite of his lengthy walk, because 99.999% of the British public will not encounter this man, it will be no big deal as you say. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But surely a handsome proportion of the 99.999% will want to phone the police to complain on behalf of those unfortunate souls who do (or might) encounter him. Wasn't that your strategy viz-a-viz the Hyde Park picnic?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Rik, firstly he has been arrested a total of five times and charged twice, and beaten up once... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well of the police won't act perhaps you could organise some vigilantes to beat him up every other day. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Rik

"No, you're confusing him with Vincent Bethell."

I'm not, Rik. I've seen quotes from Mr Gough in which he is very dissmissive of naturists. Like Mr Bethel, he insisted that he is NOT a naturist himself.

"A standard and often effective means of campaigning for what one believes to be right."

OK. Doesn't that also apply to terrorist philosophy? Or perhaps a communist could become a bank robber because he believes it to be right to re-distribute wealth. That also smacks of ends justifying means.

"The law enforcement agencies often commission the use shocking images to discourage people from drinking and driving."

They do - and I have yet to meet anyone who objects to this. If the authorities thought the images were so offensive that people might REALLY suffer shock, they would tone them down. The authorities are mandated by and accountable to elected representatives. Who voted for Mr Gough? To whom is he accountable?

"But surely a handsome proportion of the 99.999% will want to phone the police to complain on behalf of those unfortunate souls who do (or might) encounter him. Wasn't that your strategy viz-a-viz the Hyde Park picnic?"

Firstly, we can not know how many people phoned the police. Secondly, many people who would have been offended would not have been able to immediately contact the police. Thirdly, some genuinely shocked and offended people may have been reticent to call the police for other reasons, e.g. they think the police are too busy, or they couldn't get there in time. My strategy with regard to the Hyde Park picnic was to prevent it from taking place. And what happened? There is a world of difference between an informed and legally qualified person giving notice of a static and unauthorised demonstration in a major London park some weeks hence, and a farmer on a footpath phoning his nearest police station 25 miles away to say that he has just passed a nude rambler.

"Well of the police won't act perhaps you could organise some vigilantes to beat him up every other day."

No, Rik. Organising vigilantes and violence is criminal and without moral justification. There are laws in this country that I utterly deplore, but I abide by them. If I decide that I want to change them, as I have, then I know the channels to use to voice my opinions. Mr Gough's way of trying to change laws - laws that I believe most people generally approve of - is to break them.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"A standard and often effective means of campaigning for what one believes to be right."

OK. Doesn't that also apply to terrorist philosophy? Or perhaps a communist could become a bank robber because he believes it to be right to re-distribute wealth. That also smacks of ends justifying means. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not at all. You are conflating non-violent civil disobedience of the sort practiced by Ghandi and King with terrorism. Don't do that.

-Mark

I see stu is stuck on his favorite topic again.... and still doesn't get it. I'm outta here.

[Bob S.]

Mothers can legally breastfeed their infants in public. That is, I believe a law in the whole of Europe, US, Canada, and most other societies. Breastfeeding can require the mother to expose her breast and in some places, mothers held feed-ins to get this right. That is called civil disobedience, which is what Steve Gough is doing right now. This has been a very successful in the past in overturning laws or changing society.

Just so you know, you have no right to not be offended. When the thing that you are offended by is legal, you have little recourse. If you were taking a walk and came across a woman breastfeeding her baby, and were able to see her breast, as offensive as the naked breast is for you, the police would not do anything to the woman.

If you dont know how many people have complained about Steve, then that means that you have no clue whether he has had mostly positive or negative responses, and the only thing we have to go by is the article which described positive reactions, save for the assault. Again I ask you how many have neutral or positive reactions to public nudity? If you can't answer me that, then please stop suggesting that the majority of people are against it. And if only .01% of the population sees him naked, then what is the problem?

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
There is a world of difference between an informed and legally qualified person giving notice of a static and unauthorised demonstration in a major London park some weeks hence, and a farmer on a footpath phoning his nearest police station 25 miles away to say that he has just passed a nude rambler. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL, LOL, LOL. You do talk some self-important, supercilious, pompous b*llocks at times. (No offence intended!)

Cindiann, wait for me!

Rik

[Dunsunnin]

The problem is that S. Gough is trying to dispute laws that, as we are all aware, are in place to safeguard the community as a whole.
He will be an idiot if he thinks that his current protest will have any effect on the law at all, and I see his actions as being purely selfish...in fact, undermining any efforts already made to further the acceptance of nudity on a wider scale.
But as Mr. Gough is not, as he says, a naturist,
this is hardly his concern. I don't even know why he's being discussed in this forum at such length.
I do believe, like him, that we should not have to be dictated to in wearing clothing, but unfortunately, to be socially mature, that's the way it is.
I have many non-naturist friends who would be both very embarrased, and most likely offended, if I suddenly forced my nudity on them, whether they approved of it or not, simply because I thought I had a right to.

I believe in evolution, not revolution.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dunsunnin:
The problem is that S. Gough is trying to dispute laws that, as we are all aware, are in place to safeguard the community as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not at all aware that laws prohibiting mere nudity (as opposed to lewd behavior) have anything to do with safeguarding the community as a whole.

My view is that these laws are institutionalized body shame, a pathological mental illness.

-Mark

Bye Cyndianne, Bye Rik. If you don't want to take part further in this thread then that's your choice.

Bob,

I don't know where you get your information that mothers have a legal right to breastfeed their infants in public in the whole of Europe. Take my word for it that no such right exists in the UK. In many, if not most, public places a nursing mother would be encouraged to find a little privacy for what she was doing. I also believe that breast feeding is different to walking about naked. Firstly, a woman feeding a baby usually has no choice at the particular time (i.e. the baby needs feeding and she does not use or possess another means of feeding it). Secondly, breastfeeding women are normally as discreet as they can be to protect their own modesty and to save the embarrassment of others (an alien concept to Mr Gough). Thirdly, there is now almost universal acceptance that breastmilk has massive health advantages for the infant, and, as such, breastfeeding is an activity that society is trying very hard to promote.

"This has been a very successful in the past in overturning laws or changing society."

I have NEVER heard of a case of a mother being prosecuted for breastfeeding in public. There have certainly been complaints made about it (including a public area of a courtroom that I know very well) and, where this has happened, the woman has co-operated and moved to another and more private place. Oddly enough, the person making the request for her to move was a female police officer!

"Again I ask you how many have neutral or positive reactions to public nudity? If you can't answer me that, then please stop suggesting that the majority of people are against it."

Bob, I can't play the numbers game because I don't know and you don't know (a) how many people have seen this man, or (b) whether their reactions were positive or negative. Because there is no published research that accurately demonstrates the extent of the public's hostility to nudity in public, I am forced to view things from my own perspective and the views of others with whom I discuss this. I have discussed this widely with family, friends and colleagues (so much so that they're beginning to suspect my motives!) and the only people I know who believe that nudity in public places is OK are those I correspond with on here.

"And if only .01% of the population sees him naked, then what is the problem?"

My question is "what next?". Fortunately most people in the UK are totally unaware of Mr Gough's activity, so I don't want to make this into a storm in a teacup. He hasn't yet done me any harm so let him finish his walk. What I don't want, however, is for people to see this as a green light to strip off naked in the parks that I use, or the streets or other places of public resort.

Dunsunnin - I couldn't have put it better myself! This was the reaction I would have expected from most naturists who I believe to be conscious of and sensitive towards the feelings of us textiles. I agree that Mr Gough will do the public perception of naturism no good at all, and could even do it some damage.

naturistmark1

"I'm not at all aware that laws prohibiting mere nudity (as opposed to lewd behavior) have anything to do with safeguarding the community as a whole."

Mark - to many if not most non-naturists mere public nudity is of itself lewd. Please explain to me why a naked man standing outside a primary school combing his hair is HARMLESS but a naked man standing outside a primary school masturbating is HARMFUL. What "harm" is caused by the latter that is not done by the former? If nudity is natural, then so is masturbation.

"My view is that these laws are institutionalized body shame, a pathological mental illness."

No-one expects anyone to have "body shame". It's just that most of us (some naturists and the uninhibited excepted) feel that there are times and places where it is appropriate for us to expose the intimate parts of our bodies to other people, and other times and places where we refrain from doing that.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

A large part of this discussion has been framed by the legal requirement to be dressed, but nudists must also contend with unwritten code of conduct, the mores of the society where nudity or partial nudity occurs.

There is a point at which overwhelming public acceptance of a certain behavior constitutes de-facto law. If it reaches the point that 90 percent of those who frequent a public park or beach are nude, and no one complains about it for weeks on end and local officials urge police not to tie up the courts with petty citations for "immodest attire", it hardly matters whether there is or isn't a law regarding nudity.

Nudists are very concerned about obtaining or retaining the good will of non-nudists in their surroundings. We tend to be consensus builders, joining local chambers of commerce, gently reminding local merchants that much of their patronage is from nudist tourists in that area. This goes a long way toward preventing being arrested on trumped-up charges to appease the moralists who oppose us.

But I hope you realize that the process of obtaining nude designation for a beach might not work entirely to your liking. In areas where lenient police and local officials allow, we visit a section of beach en masse in the nude with enough regularity that it becomes regarded as traditionally nude in use. Only then can we appeal to authorities for official designation.
We would have great difficulty petitioning for nude status if there were no prior history of nude use on that beach even if it were without legal sanction.

The best strategy for us is to engage in unsanctioned nude recreation where opposition is minimal and not where hostility is great. Our unsanctioned nudity in such favorable environments then works to create a "critical mass" where legal protection can then be sought with reasonable expectation of success.

We have a lot of public sentiment to change before we could visit city parks with equal impugnity as we do beaches, but the casual nudity in Berlin parks does inspire us and give us hope that public acceptance of urban nude recreation can eventually shift that way in the UK and USA as well.

So you see when the time comes that we are nude in your neighborhood parks, most Britons will not care a whit. There will not be great masses of offended people.

Was our friend premature to walk nude to John O'Groats? The jury is not out. One violent opponent and an arrest or two by a few small town policemen with too much time on their hands do not tell me what the public at large thinks. I hope his nude walk will help. I can't imagine a more pleasant way to see the English countryside on a summer's day.

[Dunsunnin]

Welcome to our local park.

Over here you see we have a few dozen naturists - don't mind them...they're quite harmless.
Oh, those?
Yes there are a few perverts. See how that woman is dragging her kids away from them? Not a bad idea because one of them has started to play with himself.
And see the way that couple are going at it? And the voyeurs behind the kiddies' swings?
Yes, it's a fun place for everyone it seems.
No, the police can't be here all the time, not now that people are allowed to expose themselves to dear old ladies in the high street.
One had to be treated for shock - a 90 year old - obviously not used to all this naked flesh around. Bless.

Errrrrr....hello?

[Trailscout]

Dunsunnin,

You seem to have leaped to a few unwarranted conclusions.

If nudity were banned everywhere, would perverts no longer stalk children because none were nude?
If nudity were nearly universal in parks, would perverts increase in number or fervor? I say no to either scenario.

Have you never seen clothed couples indulge their passions in public? I have. The police know the lover's lanes and routinely chase frisky youngsters away when their passions get the better of them.

Why do you think that simple nudity cannot legally be distinguished from flashing by dirty old men in raincoats?

Have nudist parents lost their tongues so that they cannot call for help if they see impropriety at a nudist function? I think not.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mark - to many if not most non-naturists mere public nudity is of itself lewd. Please explain to me why a naked man standing outside a primary school combing his hair is HARMLESS but a naked man standing outside a primary school masturbating is HARMFUL. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Counter question: Why would a naked man standing outside a primary school combing his hair be any more HARMFUL than a clothed man doing the same. Their behavior is the same. In either case I would wonder WHY they were loitering outside a school.

Similarly a clothed man masturbating outside the same school would be every bit the menace a naked man doing the same would be. It is the same behavior, same lewd (or worse) intent.

We part on the automatic equation of nudity with lewdness. That is the whole point of social nudism (as opposed to swinging etc.) We don't consider mere nudity to be lewd absent lewd intent or behavior. Clothed people are just as capable of lewd behavior, perhaps more so (they seem to have very dirty minds that delight in jumping to conclusions).

So what if a whole lot of people consider mere nudity to be lewd in and of itself. They are wrong. Their numbers don't make them right. A widely held prejudice is not moral justification for discriminatory laws.

-Mark

[Bob S.]

Hey stu, you got back-up (and by the way, it's cyndiann--without an 'e').

Hey, I am wrong. I assumed that mothers over there across the pond had the same rights as our mothers. Whoa, we're ahead of you on that one? And that feed-in, that was somewhere here in the US.

Civil disobedience is what Mr. Gough is practicing. He is violating a law that he feels is wrong and doing so peacefully. Let your opponents be the aggressors.

I was concentrating on the numbers game because nobody, not you nor I, knows how many people are for, against, or neutral to public nudity. Now that we have both stated this, please do not suggest how society feels about the subject. You may use your own numbers that you have gained by polling your friends, but that may be only .00001% of the population.

As for your hypothetical (again using children) /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sex and nudity are different. Usually those who are simply naked, not concentrating on their genitalia, are going to be harmless to others. Those who use their nudity as something sexual, have a much higher rate of being harmful. It is like comparing streakers and flashers. Streakers are generally the harmless ones, whereas flashers can become dangerous.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

OK, part two. I didn't want to get accused of reverting to my former self with the twenty-page theses.

Dunsunnin, I very much doubt that Mr. Gough believes that he will single-handedly effect change in the laws this one time. This is mainly a publicity stunt IMHO to bring light to the issue of public nudity. And the only way this can be tied to naturism is if it is in the media outlets over there. Mr. Gough has distanced himself from naturism and if teh BBC inquires to officail naturist orgs, all they have to say is that he does not represent naturism.

As for your local park, at first I thought you were talking about a non-nudist park. All of those things can happen at any park, nude or clothed. And just for your info, a voyeur would not be behind the kiddie swings. A voteur is someone who gets off by watching others have intercourse. Pedos would be vehind the swings, of course, they could be anywhere there are kids around, especially in places where parents aren't being especially vigilant.

Were you being serious that "people are allowed to expose themselves to dear old ladies in the high street."? I hadn't heard of that. Now FYI, I am arguing in principle for public nudity. I wouldn't have the nerve to do what Steve is doing.

Bob S.


Bob S.

[Dunsunnin]

Whatever.
Arguing the toss over whether nudity should have no restrictions is one of the oldest naturist arguments in the book, and as far as I'm concerned is of the 25th century.
I feel reasonably safe on that, and hope not to be around then anyway.
Meanwhile poor old Steve is plodding on.

Both Mark and Bob S are missing the point I am making about nudity and sex. I am not associating the two activities, even though they often occur together - i.e. a lot of people like to be nude when they have sex - that's not the issue. What sex and nudity have in common is the fact that, in the public's mind, the two things should only occur is appropriate places. Sex most often occurs in homes with only the two participants present - and I don't think most people want to see it performed openly in public places. Nudity also occurs most often in people's homes (although there are other places it happens such as naturist venues, saunas etc) - but again I don't think most people want to see it in public places. And THAT is the crucial bit.

If you could convince me that the majority of people really don't mind if they see nudity in public places then I would accept that times have moved on and I have to get used to it. But, if it could be shown by a fair and reliable poll that a majority of people prefer not to have to encounter nudity when using public streets, footpaths, parks or other public venues, would you then abandon your support for Mr Gough's behaviour?

This is not an issue about discrimination against a minority. Naturists choose to be naked among other, usually likeminded people. In spite of that the vast majority of naturists spend most of their lives being clothed - including when they are in private places. So, by requiring them to keep on one small garment when in certain places to avoid causing offence is hardly onerous or oppressive.

As far as Bob's example of the difference between streakers and flashers, perhaps you could precisely explain the difference in the HARM done by the latter that is not done by the former? I have noticed that, of late, the disruption value of streakers at sporting events (which is virtually the only place we see them) has begun to outweigh the humour aspect and, consequently, streakers are perceived as nuisances and the practice is becoming far less common. The tolerance that existed for streakers depended upon the fact that they were visible only momentarily. Were they to try to hang around in that unclothed state they would be quickly labelled as exhibitionists and would be derided accordingly.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

I don't understand why we should put on clothes simply because you say so.

If so, then there is also nothing to stop you from taking offense at women who do not wear burkas, the charming Afghan garb that covers even the face, so that not one square inch of feminine humanity can be observed? If causing offense were the criterion, then you could angrily march into your local courthouse and demand that every woman in your town cover her lewd face immediately and of course the judge would have no choice but to grant your request and publickly flog all women who dared not immediately comply with your demand.

[Bob S.]

stu, you asked how a masturbating man was more harmful than a man grooming himself, providing both were naked. Mark made a good point in turning your question into a clothed man doing both things. And I made the point that sexually-based offenses are worse than simple public nudity offenses, stating that public maturbation is more likely to lead to more violent crimes whereas simple nudity is less likely to lead to mor violent crimes. That is how naked masturbater is more harmful than naked comber.

For the strekers, my view is that they are considered as a kind of voyeuristic entertainment especially at sporting events. It is like an intermission event, a game of cat and mouse where the authorities chased the streaker around until they finally caught him. I agree that the "commercialization" of streaking may doom it. It needs to just go back to its roots.

Now, even if it was found out that 70% of the population was against public nudity, it would still not change my view of what Mr. Gough is doing. He is trying to change public opinion, challenge the public perception, and prove that he can do it. He may also be trying to change the laws in the UK. All of those things are positive reasons to go for it. If you knew of a popular law that you felt was wrong, wouldn't you do everything in your power to try to overturn it, especially if the law just went against everything you knew to be true? You may even be tempted to break such a law out of civil disobedience.

And now for a little thought that has snuck into my mind. Society's laws always seem to be about a step behind society's thinking. They have to as society has to want a law before there is enough support for it to be passed. That is how it is going to be with public nudity. We won't get the law until there is enough people who are willing to speak up for it. Or unless we fight the laws, which usually means that we must have those who are willing to break them.

Bob S.

Trailscout

"I don't understand why we should put on clothes simply because you say so."

It's not because I say so, it's because most people prefer not to encounter nudity when using public places.

As far as Islamic dress is concerned, this is a matter for Islamic societies. Natural justice would dictate that the laws of a society reflect the wishes of the majority. If the majority find it offensive for a woman to be visible in public without being covered in a certain way, then it is not for me to condemn them for it.

Bob S.

The claim that "public maturbation is more likely to lead to more violent crimes whereas simple nudity is less likely to lead to mor violent crimes" cannot be substantiated. Many paedophiles are quite satisfied with exhibiting themselves to children without resorting to touching them. Similarly, there are paedophiles who would happily expose themselves to children on the pretext of being naturists. They would be delighted at the thought that Steve Gough has set an example they could follow - laughing at parents and police saying "You can't touch me! It's my RIGHT to be naked". I do fear that really will happen, and suddenly naturism will appear to the general public to be far less benign than you and I know it to be.

As for streaking going back to its roots is concerned, I just think that those who do it are just disruptive attention seekers and should grow up. They very POINT of doing it is to shock people - it has nothing to do either with naturism or even the ill-conceived campaign of Messrs Bethel and Gough.

"If you knew of a popular law that you felt was wrong, wouldn't you do everything in your power to try to overturn it, especially if the law just went against everything you knew to be true?"

Yes. And I have done. I have taken part in campaigns, lobbied Members of Parliament, including government ministers, and protested.

"You may even be tempted to break such a law out of civil disobedience."

No. The law is made by elected representatives of the people - we have no right to break it merely because we disagree with it. If we lived in a dictatorship then the law makers have no legitimacy so you have every right to disrespect the law. But that isn't the case here, nor where you are. When seeking change in a democratic society you must either already have, or alternatively win, the support of the majority of the population first.

As I said before, no-one is arguing that naturists shouldn't campaign, or seek to persuade the wider public of their case - whether that be to create more places for naturists or more tolerance of nudity in public. But FORCING people to confront this, as Mr Gough is doing, is hardly going to win friends for the naturist cause. I have an acquaintance who does not believe there should be statutory speed limits on roads. At first I thought he was crazy, but he can actually make out a reasonably convincing case for this backed up with research. If you were him, how would you seek to change the laws and abolish speed limits? Because he feels this way, and is a superb and safe driver himself, does he have the moral right to flout the law merely because he disagrees with it?

Stu

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If you could convince me that the majority of people really don't mind if they see nudity in public places then I would accept that times have moved on and I have to get used to it. But, if it could be shown by a fair and reliable poll that a majority of people prefer not to have to encounter nudity when using public streets, footpaths, parks or other public venues, would you then abandon your support for Mr Gough's behaviour? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good question. But since the majority of people have already been conditioned to believe that nudity ARBITRARILY equals sex, they would interpret the poll as asking if they prefer not to encounter SEX when using public streets...

The majority of people would have to first be disabused of the "nudity=sex" notion before such a poll is possible. Does Mr. Gough's campaign effectively address this problem, do you think?

[averagejoe]

Alright, I just gotta comment on this:

stu2630:

As far as Islamic dress is concerned, this is a matter for Islamic societies. Natural justice would dictate that the laws of a society reflect the wishes of the majority. If the majority find it offensive for a woman to be visible in public without being covered in a certain way, then it is not for me to condemn them for it. .
...

So I suppose that stoning a woman for having sex outside of marriage is fine then? Can we educate women, or would some find that offensive? Do not confuse the opinions of some leaders for the will of their people.

stu2630:

No. The law is made by elected representatives of the people - we have no right to break it merely because we disagree with it. If we lived in a dictatorship then the law makers have no legitimacy so you have every right to disrespect the law. But that isn't the case here, nor where you are. When seeking change in a democratic society you must either already have, or alternatively win, the support of the majority of the population first.

Ya know, Hitler was elected. And I would never argue that the likes of Martin Luther King and Ghandi were wrong to break laws merely because they opposed them. When you recognize that a law is wrong, you must work to overturn it however you can. Democracies differ in that we provide for a peaceful and orderly way to change such laws. Sometimes it requires civil disobedience to point out the follies of such laws, even if we offend some people along the way. Often we must force people to confront their own beleiefs in order to change them, such as segregated schools and restaurants.

This is more about the US-- I originally posted it in another thread, but it applies here:

Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
... The nudist, however, is FORCED to wear clothes against his will whenever he or she goes out in public for fear of "offending" someone and infringing on their "right" not to be offended.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does this mean that textiles should use the government to try and protect themselves from those that offend them? Do Jewish survivors of concentration camps have the right to block a parade down their street by neo-nazis? Does a black couple have the right to try and shut down a white supremacist church? The answer is no. The right to free speech and free practice of religion is explicitly laid out in the Constitution, but not the right to live your life free from offense.

Just remember this... there is no right to live your life free from being offended. Nowhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence does it give us the right to live our lives free from offense. Indeed, I would argue that by living in a pluralistic, democratic, free speech society, you ARE going to be offended almost every day in some way or another.

I am so tired of hearing about how offensive simple nudity is to some people, how shocked they are to see a naked body (or painting or statue) in public. Get over it... I know you see a naked body at least twice a day, and since when does your sense of propriety trump my Pursuit of Happiness as expressed in the Declaration of Independence or my right to free speech or practice of religion as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

We are so quick to run and pass laws mandating some particular brand of morality that we forget how to fight for those beliefs ourselves. The civil rights movement did not begin with a federal law. It began with a boycott of a bus system. It meant hardship and sacrafice for those that organized it, but it led to the change they wanted without needing an act of congress.

Missouriboy

" the majority of people have already been conditioned to believe that nudity ARBITRARILY equals sex, they would interpret the poll as asking if they prefer not to encounter SEX when using public streets..."

I don't think that's the case. I haven't visited a naturist venue nor met someone I knew to be a naturist. But even before my first visit to this board I never equated naturism with sex. Most people have seen programmes about naturism on TV or read about it in newspapers and know that naturism is generally a non-sexual activity. The majority of the population is capable of understanding that permitting people to sunbathe naked in parks, or even roam the streets naked, does not confer upon them the right to have sex in public.

Do you REALLY think that people are going to see Mr Gough hiking wearing just a hat and boots and will say to themselves: "Gosh! There's a naked man and guess what - he's not having sex! And I always thought that nudity was a sexual thing." No. They'll see him and feel shocked, disgusted, embarrassed or offended, or else they'll think "What a nutter!" None of these outcomes will affect the way people perceive the sight of the naked body.

My neice is a midwife but trained originally as a nurse in an STD clinic. She has seen mens' for years on a daily basis, and up very close. Nevertheless she tells a story that when she was on holiday on the island of Menorca on a beach adjoining her hotel she encountered a naked man who had strayed too far off the nearby naturist beach. She says that, whilst he was merely walking by, she was shocked and upset by it and complained to a member of staff at the hotel who contacted the civil. It turned out that the man had been warned previously after other complaints and this time was arrested.

I really believe that many naturists are so used to and comfortable with the sight of the naked body that they fail to appreciate the effect it has on the rest of us.

Stu

Joe

I have never suggested that an elected government has the moral authority to do whatever it likes. No government, for example, has the right to "ethnically cleanse" part of its population. But giving one person a right sometimes means denying another person their right - as with my example of the acquaintance who disagrees with speed limits. His right to drive as he sees fit is interfered with for the benefit of all of us, and he accepts that. What is the alternative? Anarchy.

I was rebuked here some time ago for comparing the actions of people such as Mr Gough to those of terrorists. Terrorists hold strong beliefs, and are prepared to break the law to further their cause. So what is our moral case that they should be eliminated if they are acting out of conscience? The answer is that we live in a democracy and legislate according to the wishes of the majority. In any democracy in which minorities have the right of free speech (and I mean speech, not to just do as they like) there is rarely any justification in breaking the law.

Here in the UK we most certainly DO have the right to use public places without being offended. What is deemed to be offensive is determined by the prevailing values and sensibilities of the majority. Our laws to prevent offence being caused includes those aimed at keeping down the level of prostitution and kerb-crawlering, obscene language, litter and grafitti, open indulgence in sexual acts and, yes, nudity. We don't have a Bill of Rights, but we are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention would not interfere if a government legislated to protect its citizens from being offended. Quite the contrary. I consider it to be my RIGHT to be able to use public places without suffering shock or offence.

"Does this mean that textiles should use the government to try and protect themselves from those that offend them?"

It means PRECISELY that.

"Do Jewish survivors of concentration camps have the right to block a parade down their street by neo-nazis?"

This is where we are different. The law here would, to a large extent, protect the Jews from the neo-nazis by preventing their march in sensitive areas. If the nazis statements or behaviour was offensive to the Jews they could be arrested. But the Jews themselves would have no right to block the roads. If you want to expound serious anti-Jewish sentiments then you are free to do so, but not in public places. Exactly the same as being nude /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"I know you see a naked body at least twice a day, and since when does your sense of propriety trump my Pursuit of Happiness as expressed in the Declaration of Independence or my right to free speech or practice of religion as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?"

My pursuit of happiness means that I can walk about my town without being shocked or offended.

No-one is advocating preventing naturists from practising naturism - far from it. Like the rules of the road - if you use the roads you obey the traffic laws, even if you don't agree with them. If you use public places then you behave in such a way that most people find acceptable. Most people DON'T find nudity in public to be acceptable. Simple.

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,
Does the will of the simple majority rule the day on matters such as public nudity?

We have a situation where 100 people might be happily bathing nude on a secluded beach. Then one prude comes along and whines and complains to the local police. Suddenly the whim of one newly arrived complainer sets the dress code for the entire beach that day. Not fair!

[bertirolioliolo potatolioliololiolo]

Serious question this - does anyone else think that Stu was sent by kindly aliens to this forum so us stupid people could feel more intelligent ? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Bob S.]

My claim about public masturbators can be substatiated. Look at the arrest records of those who are convicted of rape and other sexual assaults and you will see that a number of them have been previously arrested for indecent exposure for masturbating in public. Flashers are more prone to further violent sexual acts than the general public as they use the act in further fantasies, which they will play in theri heads until they are ready to act upon them. This is documented fact stu.

And there is a difference between flashing and being naked. We are in no way advocating legalizing flashing, which is a sex crime. It is all in the intent, which is how we think laws should be written, "with the intent to arouse, shock, or harass." If the intent is not there, where is the crime?

stu, assume there were a law that read that only those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah were allowed to pray, and that all prayers had to be in his name. All other religion's prayers, ceremonies, and houses of worship were outlawed. Being a non-Christian, you would be personally affected by that law. Would you stop praying? Would you abanon your own religion? Would you not participate in your religion's rites? Or would you break the law? And in your related quetsion, most women whose culture makes them wear burkas or similar coverings are very suppressed. Most cannot vote, ala Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia and are limited in elected positions. So the rule may exist, but most of the society may be against it.

And in trying to abolish speed limit laws, again there are many outlets one can follow. You can speak to your local representatives, get a group together, do some lobbying, and if those went nowhere, speed and try to fight it at trial. Fighting a law by going to trial is a legitimate way to garner change.

And stu, the difference between a terrorist and a Steve Gough or Vincent Bethel is that terrorists use fear and violence to make their point. They break one law to bring attention to another. Our naked advocates are breaking the very laws that they want changed, and doing so peacefully.

And stu, as I have to do occasionally on this board, there is a difference between nudity and nudism. Nudity is the state of undress; nudism is the advocation of living life sans clothes. People seeing the naked body are not going to think about this person being a naturist. They are going to link nudity and sex, or see the person as potentially violent. We are trying to get these reactions apart from society. And yes, society is generally gymnophobic (especially the US) while wanting to come as close to it as possible. That is another point of these walks, to counter the society's reaction to seeing nudity.

Bob S.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I was rebuked here some time ago for comparing the actions of people such as Mr Gough to those of terrorists. Terrorists hold strong beliefs, and are prepared to break the law to further their cause. So what is our moral case that they should be eliminated if they are acting out of conscience? The answer is that we live in a democracy and legislate according to the wishes of the majority. In any democracy in which minorities have the right of free speech (and I mean speech, not to just do as they like) there is rarely any justification in breaking the law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I continue to admire you for standing up for your beliefs and being articulate without judging us. But in this case, I don't see things quite as you do.

Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, certain elements of the IRA, and others seek or have sought to impose their will on others by force and violence. Seeing themselves as fighting for the continued survival of their cause and their own lives, they have broken even the laws of their own countries. But Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and others going back to Jesus of Nazareth himself, though they have broken laws, have done violence to no person or property. Unlike the terrorists, they do not want everyone to be like them or dead. They want everyone to be free.

What does Mr Gough, who has done bodily harm to no one, have in common with al Qaeda, whose operatives have killed thousands all over the world?

[Frank R]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] Joe

The answer is that we live in a democracy and legislate according to the wishes of the majority . In any democracy in which minorities have the right of free speech (and I mean speech, not to just do as they like) there is rarely any justification in breaking the law...What is deemed to be offensive is determined by the prevailing values and sensibilities of the majority... We don't have a Bill of Rights, but we are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Convention would not interfere if a government legislated to protect its citizens from being offended...

What about those of us who not believe in the "Devine Right of Majorities" any more than we believe in the Devine Right of Kings? This nation was established to prevent the tyranny of the majority. We believe that governments derive there just powers from individuals, not groups. I cannot grant the government the power to do anything that I do not have the God given right to do myself. Our entire Bill of Rights can be summed up in the words "The majority, acting through their elected officials, shall not...." We then give a long list (freedom of speech, right to bear arms, to be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects...) and then we add "anything else we forgot to list they can't do either". We have told our government that it can only do certain things, not that it just can't do some things. Granted, our republic has already greatly decayed and is fast becoming a democracy but we haven't lost all the freedoms of a republic yet.

[Rik]

Steve Gough is now in Scotland. He was interviewed by BBC Radio Scotland this morning. You can hear the interview here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/radioscotland/console/index.shtml?listen=/scotland/radioscotland/media/gary/tue&popup=yes)

Rik

[Bob S.]

Steve has beaten one court case. He was arrested and "charged with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace" on June 17 but the case was dropped because the prosecutor from the Truro Magistrates Court area claimed that he "had not committed a criminal offence."

More of the story is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/3022784.stm

Bob S.

Hi everyone! I've been away on holiday, then came back and had an operation and I'm still in some pain. Anyway, according to one (reliable) Scottish newspaper report, Steve Gough has just been remanded to Inverness Prison for seven days. This might just be the end of his little escapade because Scottish sherrifs are notoriously tough on people who they think are repeatedly flouting the law. In other words - if he does get out next week he'll probably be told he'll be locked up the moment he exposes his private parts - and next time it will be until his proper trial date scheduled for December. If he gets out then the temperature in northern Scotland will be minus something most days and the winds are ferocious and freezing. To continue his walk then would not be an option. We'll just have to wait and see.

Stu

[Rik]

It's certainly pleasing to note that Steve Gough has now completed some 750 miles of his Land's End to John O'Groats walk. Nudity aside, this is a magnificant achievement. It would be a great shame if he was unable to complete the remaining 100 miles but I don't think Steve is a quitter and I'm sure he will find some way of finishing the walk but even if he doesn't he must surely already hold the world record for naked walking.

News of his walk has been reported all over the world and the press reaction has been, on the whole, positive. Even the BBC Radio "Thought for the Day" programme had some good things to say about Steve. See the transcript at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20030809.html . It makes good reading.

So it seems like Steve is achieving a great deal in getting his message across. Of course there will always be those who deride the efforts of others who seek to challenge society's values even when they are unable to say exactly why such values should be upheld but I guess that, in the case of public nudity, they are thankfully shrinking in numbers.

Steve Gough's website can be found at http://www.nakedwalk.alivewww.co.uk/index.html

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

I think the harsh treatment Mr. Gough is now receiving will result in his ultimate success. It will only increase the public spotlight on his campaign and will negatively impact public opinion on official prudishness.

A few people have been mildly offended by his ramblings, but absolutely no one has been harmed in anyway except Mr. Gough himself in the criminal attack by hooligan youths (have the police apprehended them yet? Or are they too busy pursuing Gough's victimless non-crimes?)

The public will easily be able to deduce which is the real threat to public order -harmless nudity or illogical law inforcement.

-Mark

I have followed the press reports quite closely. Some have quite clearly considered him to be a "nutcase", and none that I have seen regard his as a worthwhile cause. Rather the less hostile correspondents imply a kindly attitude towards someone who feels compelled to do something bizarre on the basis of a personal conviction. In other words, it's his individualism that is recognised; we British have always been tolerant of eccentrics. There is no evidence of any positive publicity for his "cause" at all. As far as I am aware, no national newspaper or other limb of the media has suggested that his cause should be supported, or that public nudity should be regarded as legitimate or lawful.

In spite of that he has attracted complaints, been arrested a dozen times, spent many nights banged up in police cells, and has the dubious pleasure of facing a number of court appearances across the country. I suspect that his behaviour will have caused the reputation of organised naturism more than a little damage. - which I sincerely lament. But then he couldn't give a fig about that because, as he says, he isn't a naturist.

Stu

[Bob S.]

He walked about 700 miles (what is that in kilometers? And why have none of the reports been in metric? Isn't the UK using the metric system?) naked. Please tell me what harm he has caused? Simply upsetting a few people? I could do that clothed.

What would be interesting is if this could be an annual event, with him gathering more and more people together to do the naked walk. He was not going to alter society with just one walk. It is going to take a lot more. More debate, more proactive behaviour, more passive resistence actions. It is going to take making the law look ridiculous before things change.

I wish Steve Gough well. And I also wish you, stu, well. Welcome back and stay doped up. It may not get your knee fully healed, but who cares, it feels too good! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

[Soleil Nu]

I think we have here the perfect example of a debate that could go on and on (and probably will) until hell freezes over. The divergence of opinion here has little to do with the subject at hand anymore. This thread is no longer about Steve Gough's goals, but his methods. Stu does not believe in civil disobedience as a legitimate way to promote social and legal change. Many of you seem to think otherwise. And it is very unlikely that any of you will change his/her point of view within his/her lifetime. These are two schools of thought. History shows that both methods have worked in the past, and both have also failed.

If the issue were the abolishement of slavery, I think almost everyone would agree on the goal. But still, we would get two groups: one advocating the use of civil disobedience to get the job done, the other prefering to change the law through the legislative process.

With that said, please continue on. This was only my humble opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Isn't the UK using the metric system? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The UK measurment system is in disarray. Road measurement is in miles, many footpath measuremnts are in kilometers. We buy our petrol in litres but car manufacturers state petrol consumption in miles per hour. We officialy use degrees Celsius but many people express high temperatures in Farenheit. It is illegal to sell produce in anything but kilograms but supermarket price signs invariably show the price per pound. Beer in pubs however is legally, and only, sold in pints (except if it's bottled). Carpet is sold by the width in metres and by the lenth in feet. If you buy milk in a supermarket it comes in litres but if you have it delivered to your doorstep (an ancient British custom!) it comes in pint bottles. Many schoolchildren don't understand inches and many older people don't understand centimetres.

I was in a shop recently to buy some cooked meat. There were a few people in front of me who also wanted meat. The first asked to " a quarter" (of a pound), the second for 6 slices, the third for a pounds worth (in money) and I asked for 200 grams.

Aren't you glad you asked? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As far as I am aware, no national newspaper or other limb of the media has suggested that his cause should be supported, or that public nudity should be regarded as legitimate or lawful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You clearly failed to read the transcript of the BBC's Thought for the Day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20030809.html).

Rik

Yes I have, Rik. Thought for the Day isn't "a limb of the media", it's a personal point of view given by an individual on a religious, moral or philosophical topic, usually by someone associated with a particular religious or humanist sect. It is not a leading article, nor an editorial viewpoint or a media organisation. It's just the opinion of a single person.

If I were minded to, I could contact the programme editor of "The Today Programme" on Radio 4 and ask to do the same, as an acquaintance of mine did a couple of years ago. Needless to say that my "Thought for the Day" would be very different from that of Christina Rees.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Thought for the Day isn't "a limb of the media" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>BBC Radio 4 which broadcasts the programme is a leading (and probably the most intellectual) broadcasting station in the UK.

Rik

Yes, but "Thought for the Day" is open to anyone who wishes to express a personal opinion on a religious or moral topic. There is nothing to stop you, me or Steve Gough delivering a monologue in that slot. It doesn't reflect the views of the programme presenters, the editors nor the BBC, so it isn't an "arm of the media". Now if you told me that The Times editorial comment advocated public support for what Mr Gough was doing then I'd have to think again. But that hasn't happened, has it? I don't think he's received any such endorsement from the other broadsheets or even the tackiest of the tabloids.

Stu

Bob, thanks for your well-wishes. I manage to get about five hours a day of being lucid and pain free - the rest of the time I'm not fit for anything.

"What would be interesting is if this could be an annual event, with him gathering more and more people together to do the naked walk. He was not going to alter society with just one walk. It is going to take a lot more. More debate, more proactive behaviour, more passive resistence actions. It is going to take making the law look ridiculous before things change."

To achieve this he would need serious public support. Steve Gough is treading a fine line between sympathy and admiration for individualism and courage in the face of adversity (something we British very much admire) on the one hand and being perceived as an irritating, offensive publicity-seeker on the other. At the moment he's being tolerated by some and not by others (that's why he's in jail). The point may well come whereby a consensus is reached that he is a nuisance and the public and media take against him. I genuinely don't want that to happen because if it does they'll bury him. He'll be censured and ridiculed in the press, held up as an object of contempt, and then subjected to a vicious legal process. He doesn't deserve that. What he does deserve is what he's getting now - frequent arrests, nights in bleak police cells, short spells in prison, and the inconvenience and expense associated with months of having to travel the length of the country to appear at different courts even if the charges are eventually dropped. In spite of the inefficiencies of the system, there seems to be a sort of natural justice at work here that I find quite heartening.

Stu

Extract from today's edition of "The Scotsman". Enjoy:

"THANK God someone is finally clamping down on daft women such as Gemma- Anne Gunning and the so-called naked rambler, Steve Gough.

Their compulsion to get their kit off is no more than impure rampant exhibitionism.Why they should think the rest of us want to be subjected to a full frontal of their droopy or dangly bits and bobs is beyond me.

They, after all, are not the ones who have to look at them.

Me, I wouldn't only sling them in jail, I'd have them permanently sewn into a sack until they learned to both grow up and cover up."

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
- the rest of the time I'm not fit for anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Presumably this is when you let your fingers meander over your keyboard. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
... the transcript of the BBC's Thought for the Day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20030809.html).

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Way to go, BBC columnist! That's as fine an argument for nudity as I've seen anywhere, even in nudist publications.

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
[QUOTE]Way to go, BBC columnist! That's as fine an argument for nudity as I've seen anywhere, even in nudist publications. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oops! I should have read a few more posts before I shot off my lip; I would have discovered that Christina Rees wasn't a columnist but a regular person who may or may not be a paid columnist. She sounds like she might be a nudist/naturist herself.

Jochanaan - she's not a BBC columnist - she's a member of the public having her two minutes of fame. Anyone who wishes to do a monologue can apply to the BBC provided they can show a religious or moral theme. The emphasis is on getting as wide a range of speakers offering different perspectives as possible. This morning "Thought for the Day" was a Buddhist monk speaker talking about the values instilled in education. Tomorrow it could be a Baptist talking about divorce, a Bahai discussing the perils of cocaine abuse or a Jedi Knight telling us why we should love Peruvian aardvarks.

Should the day ever arrive when a BBC correspondent expresses open support for a man walking the streets of England stark naked, then that will be the day I leave these shores for a saner destination!

Stu

[Jochanaan]

Glad to see you're back, Stu! But I'm sorry to hear of your physical difficulties, and I pray they get alleviated soon.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
What he does deserve is what he's getting now - frequent arrests, nights in bleak police cells, short spells in prison, and the inconvenience and expense associated with months of having to travel the length of the country to appear at different courts even if the charges are eventually dropped. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's assume that he was on a crusade to change some law or application thereof that much of society recognized as unjust; perhaps the British police were systematically arresting obese people for appearing outside ghettos to which they had been confined. (Please, this is hypothetical.) Would he deserve the "frequent arrests, nights in bleak police cells," and the rest? Or would he deserve public support for fighting for justice and equal rights?

Mr Gough, and many of us, feel that British and United States' society's standards regarding nudity are both inconsistent and oppressive. Simply because the majority of society doesn't feel that way doesn't make them right and us wrong. After all, a few centuries ago the majority of US society saw nothing wrong with kidnapping Africans from their native soil and forcing them to labor for our benefit under penalty of imprisonment, torture, and death. It took civil disobedience and a bloody war to change that mindset. That may be a poor analogy, as more people worldwide are against public nudity than ever were for slavery; but the principle holds.

Only longstanding prejudice keeps many people of good will from supporting Mr Gough. I pray that that will change.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Jochanaan - she's not a BBC columnist - she's a member of the public having her two minutes of fame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just because you speak with a tone of self-righteousness it doesn't mean you're right.

Christina Rees is in fact a writer and broadcaster, a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and chair of the Women And The Church (WATCH) group - a national organisation which campaigns for the appointment of women to church posts. She even has a number of books to her name which are available from all good bookshops and amazon.com (no, I'm not her agent /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

OK, she is a "member of the public" as well but I doubt very much she needs another two minutes of fame.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Should the day ever arrive when a BBC correspondent expresses open support for a man walking the streets of England stark naked, then that will be the day I leave these shores for a saner destination! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Christina Ress has broadcast on the BBC many times and could therefore be considered a BBC correspondent.

I should get your plane ticket if I were you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

Jochanaan

"Glad to see you're back, Stu! But I'm sorry to hear of your physical difficulties, and I pray they get alleviated soon."

Many thanks! I'll be back on form when I can dispense with these damned morphine tablets. Good for the pain but bad for the brain!

I do have a problem with your analogies. Firstly obese people are rarely fat through choice. Most of the ones I know are desperate to shed the pounds for health as well as aesthetic reasons. Of course they should not be subjected to police arrest for this health problem. But people who are nude in public are that way voluntarily. They could put right that situation instantaneously by the simple act of putting on a garment.

"Simply because the majority of society doesn't feel that way doesn't make them right and us wrong."

It's not a question of right and wrong because there is no right and wrong. It's a simple question of making the public places that we all enjoy and have to use and have to pay for as "user-friendly" as possible. This means imposing rules. Of course you can't please all the people, so you have to formulate rules that would achieve this but that most people would find reasonable. Rules such as no spitting, no shouting obscene words, no displaying obscene posters and no nudity. If you want to do these things then there are places where you can do them - such as in your own home.

Your slavery analogy is an interesting one, but that doesn't really hold for me either. A slave is disenfranchised and therefore is entitled to hold no allegiance to the law or institutions of the society in which he lives. He can't vote and he has no other means of making his voice heard. For the slave there is no moral obstacle in him breaking (some of) the laws in order to highlight the injustice of his plight. But Mr Gough isn't in that position. He can use lawful means such as forming association with likeminded people, canvassing support, campaigning and lobbying.

Rik

"Christina Rees is in fact a writer and broadcaster, a member of the General Synod of the Church of England and chair of the Women And The Church (WATCH) group - a national organisation which campaigns for the appointment of women to church posts. She even has a number of books to her name which are available from all good bookshops and amazon.com (no, I'm not her agent ).

"OK, she is a "member of the public" as well but I doubt very much she needs another two minutes of fame."

But on Thought for the Day she wasn't speaking on behalf the General Synod, nor even the WATCH group. And she certainly wasn't speaking for the BBC!

"Christina Ress has broadcast on the BBC many times and could therefore be considered a BBC correspondent."

My dictionary defines a "correspondent" as:

"One EMPLOYED by the print or broadcast media to supply news stories or articles: a foreign correspondent."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correspondent

As she isn't employed by the BBC or the print or broadcast media, she isn't a correspondent by that definition.

"I should get your plane ticket if I were you."

I really don't think that'll be necessary quite just yet.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But on Thought for the Day she wasn't speaking on behalf the General Synod, nor even the WATCH group. And she certainly wasn't speaking for the BBC! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really do talk some pompous nonsense at times.

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But on Thought for the Day she wasn't speaking on behalf the General Synod, nor even the WATCH group. And she certainly wasn't speaking for the BBC! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really do talk some pompous nonsense at times.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Come on then Rik, explain yourself. Precisely WHAT about that factual statement qualifies it to be "pompous nonsense"?

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
But on Thought for the Day she wasn't speaking on behalf the General Synod, nor even the WATCH group. And she certainly wasn't speaking for the BBC! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You really do talk some pompous nonsense at times.

Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect, Rik, that was uncalled for.

It's an interesting debate here, especially the sides Stu and I have found ourselves on! He, who professes to believe in "no right and wrong" but merely "user-friendliness", comes down on the side of controlling behavior, while I, who believe firmly in the concept of right and wrong, find myself advocating individual liberty re nudity! (Please, Stu, I take no offense.)

I'm not sure how much we can agree on, since we believe so differently, but I can agree that, for the most part, we should strive to avoid offense. But many others have tried to work within the system with no real success. So I wish Mr Gough well. Maybe even his jail time will draw sympathy for him, as so often happens.

[Bob S.]

Hey stu, savor that morphine for as long as you can! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif (Hey, there is no "high on morphine" smiley /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif )

Do we know how many others have actually complained about seeing him? It only takes one complaint to bring him in. He is, after all, doing something that is not quite legal in the UK. But remember that just because a law is popular does not mean it is good. I'm sure the Texas sodomy law was popular but it was struck down as unconstitutional. I'm sure the anti-nudism law in Arkansas is popular, but it spits on our Constitution. In fact, I would think that it is one of the most unconstitutional laws in our country.

And let me try to ask the question that Rik was alluding to in his rude comment. Did Ms. Ress make the statement that she was speaking only on her own behalf? Did she make any comments that this was her opinion and did not reflect that of General Synod or The Watch? If not, one cannot assume whom she was speaking for. Only if she specified would we know exactly whom she was speaking for. Has she spoken out on behalf of her groups before using this outlet?

And Rik, no I am not sorry that I asked about your weights and measurements system over there. I still don't understand it, but I guess it's one of those you-have-to-be-there kind of situations.

Bob S.

"Hey stu, savor that morphine for as long as you can!"

Believe me, Bob, I'd throw the stuff away in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the pain. And to think that some people actually take this stuff for FUN!!

"Do we know how many others have actually complained about seeing him? It only takes one complaint to bring him in. He is, after all, doing something that is not quite legal in the UK."

There is no way on knowing how many people complained, Bob. Like the US, we have different and entirely independent police forces throughout the country, each with its own system for logging complaints. Bear in mind that if he was seen naked on a footpath there would be no point in the offended person trying to find a police station in the next village five miles away. The chances of finding a policeman would be very slim, and no cop would hare off into the hills on the off chance of spotting a nude hiker (who, for all he knew, was probably decently dressed by then!) He seems to have done most of his walk away from main roads and towns. Had he done otherwise I doubt he would have got beyond southern England.

"I would think that it is one of the most unconstitutional laws in our country."

We don't have a written constitution here in the UK. He certainly couldn't look to European Human Rights laws to protect him because naturists aren't included in the groups protected against discrimination and none of the other articles would have any bearing on this.

"Did Ms. Ress make the statement that she was speaking only on her own behalf? Did she make any comments that this was her opinion and did not reflect that of General Synod or The Watch? If not, one cannot assume whom she was speaking for. Only if she specified would we know exactly whom she was speaking for. Has she spoken out on behalf of her groups before using this outlet?"

Bob, I can tell you absolutely 100% that she was not speaking for the General Synod. If she had been that would be front page news here and I can just see the headlines in our tabloid press (!!!). It would be like Mr Gough getting an endorsement from the Pope in a Catholic country, and there would have been a national uproar about it! The WATCH organisation has a very specific purpose and would not, as a group, have any interest in what Mr Gough was doing or trying to achieve. It would be like the National Rifle Association making a public statement condemning the hygeine standards of American cheese manufacturers.

"Thought for the Day" isn't supposed to be a commentary, nor provide an outlet for an organisation or instition's spokesman. It's supposed to be a short and personal reflection on a moral or religious (usually religious) theme intended to give listeners food for thought. If this lady WAS speaking for the General Synod or even the WATCH group when she made these comments, this slot would not be the right avenue to air such views. It would have been a news item, e.g. "General Synod Supports Right To Public Nudity"; she would have been nominated as spokesman for the organisation, and have been interviewed by a reporter. Take it from me - the views she expressed were entirely personal to her.

Stu

[Bob S.]

You know, there shoud be a correlary to the public nudity law that specifies the number of PSMoK (people per square mile or kilometer) that is needed to make an arrest for being naked in public. Like less than 500 PSMoK and an arrest is not necessary.

"We don't have a written constitution here in the UK. He certainly couldn't look to European Human Rights laws to protect him because naturists aren't included in the groups protected against discrimination and none of the other articles would have any bearing on this."

I was referring to whether laws are good, even if they are popular. Should we keep bad laws on the books just because more than 50% of the population supports them?

The Pope has said that nudity is not indecent.

justBob

Bob,

"You know, there shoud be a correlary to the public nudity law that specifies the number of PSMoK (people per square mile or kilometer) that is needed to make an arrest for being naked in public. Like less than 500 PSMoK and an arrest is not necessary."

I can't see your reasoning here, Bob. To cause offence to one person enjoying a public place is one person too many. OTOH a particular community of more than 500 per square mile might have no objections. Let's keep it simple. Nudity should be confined to private places and naturist venues, and warn or arrest (dependin upon the circumstances) those who do it elsewhere.

"I was referring to whether laws are good, even if they are popular. Should we keep bad laws on the books just because more than 50% of the population supports them?"

The problem is, Bob, who decided whether they are laws are good or bad? I trust the majority to make that decision because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about!

"The Pope has said that nudity is not indecent."

Would you like to contextualise that please, Bob? I'm sure he didn't just get up one day and, whilst eating his Holy breakfast asserted that nudity was not indecent. There would be some background and context to that statement. I bet he would think it pretty indecent if a group of nuns had an audience with him and arrived in the buff! (That reminds me of a film I walked out of a long time ago!)

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, it is not illegal to cause someone else offense, no matter how much you want it. And you could do or say things that cause others offense. There could be some people who are offended that you are out walking your dog. Others may be offended that your daughter is just running around the streets without parental supervision.

We all must compromise to live in this world together. So far, it has been the naturists that have done all of the compromising.

"The problem is, Bob, who decided whether they are laws are good or bad? I trust the majority to make that decision because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about!"

In the early part of our country's existence, there was a compromise (Connecticut Compromise(?)) that was made because the southern states were counting the slaves in population, but not as property. The North were against that saying that they should be counted as property, not as population. As a compromise, it was determined that the slaves counted as 2/3 of a person for both property and population. Great law, huh? It was popular, especially in the southern states, to own people and force them to work for pittance, if anything.

Our Civil War was in part over slavery, but not whether to make it illegal. We were fighting over whether to let in new states as slave states or free states. The political powers could shift in either direction with the outcome.

So, was this popular law good or bad? I could give more examples of bad laws that were accepted by a majority of a society.

As for his Holiness, I am not sure the exact context that acted as the impetus for making this proclamation, but this is what he said:

Sexual modesty cannot in any simple way be identified with the use of clothing, nor
shamelessness with the absence of clothing and total or partial nakedness. There are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest.. .Nakedness, as such, is not to be equated with physical shamelessness. Immodesty is present only when nakedness plays a negative role with regards to the value of the person... The human body is not in itself shameful, nor for the same reason are sensual reactions,and human sensuality in general.
Shamelessness (just like shame and modesty) is a function of the interior of the person."
-Pope John Paul II

Bob S.

All these months and I see stu is still making his one point, the only point he's ever had. The only point he will ever have.

Seems kinda boring....


I know I am bored and I only read a few posts.

Bye! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bob,

"stu, it is not illegal to cause someone else offense, no matter how much you want it."

Here in the UK is can be - especially if it's done in a public place. The main example is under the Public Order Act 1986 which creates a criminal offence for someone to behave in a way intended OR likely to cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. That's the offence that IMO should be used against public nudity, and when it has been it was successful.

"And you could do or say things that cause others offense. There could be some people who are offended that you are out walking your dog. Others may be offended that your daughter is just running around the streets without parental supervision."

Certainly any behaviour can be offensive. In determining whether a certain behaviour is offensive of not, our courts look at is what the ordinary man or woman in the street who is likely to encounter such behaviour would consider offensive, or might give rise to harassment, alarm or distress. Most elderly people and parents would be alarmed to say the least is they saw a man walking about naked!

"We all must compromise to live in this world together. So far, it has been the naturists that have done all of the compromising."

That's not altogether fair. It's not as though there wer no facilities at all for naturists - there are. There just aren't enough of them. But where is the compromise in Steve Gough's or Vincent Bethell's attitude? They are DEMANDING the right to be naked anywhere and any time they choose.

"..I could give more examples of bad laws that were accepted by a majority of a society."

I'm the first to accept that even a majority can make bad decisions. But there are some fundamental differences between your slavery analogy and the right to be nude debate. Firstly, in our society everyone is equal. No matter who or what you are you can legally vote, have an interview with your Member of Parliament, form a pressure group, mount a public campaign or take to the streets to protest. Naturists have these rights, but the slaves you refer to did not. To me, a law passed by a government in which everyone has a vote and a voice have the highest order of legitimacy and should be adhered to by all except in the most extreme circumstances. Secondly, where people live together in a society there must be government and laws. As this is the case there must be a mechanism to facilitate such rule, and I really can't think of any system that is fairer than majority rule. Can you point to any society on earth, past or present, whose governmental system worked by some means other than majority rule, that you would prefer to ours?

As for The Pope, his speech was clearly about sexuality and modesty. He said that are circumstances in which nakedness is not immodest. I agree. But that is light years from saying that we should all accept each other's nakedness whenever and wherever ir occurs.

cyndiann

"Seems kinda boring....

I know I am bored and I only read a few posts."

You poor dear! But you said you would be ignoring my posts. So why are you bothering to read them? And then why are you bothering to say how bored you are? Why don't you go and read something you find more interesting?

Stu

[Bob S.]

"Most elderly people and parents would be alarmed to say the least is they saw a man walking about naked!"

I know I have asked this question before. Heck, we have had this conversation before, but ain't it fun to tick off others who are bored of it? But why do they feel that way? It has been ingrained into them from an early age. There is no real reason for that law. And I think most people are most shocked that someone is breaking the law when they see someone naked. In context, nudity would not afffect them so much.

Steve and VIncent may be "DEMANDING the right to be naked anywhere and any time they choose" but you are demanding the right to be clothed anywhere and anytime you choose, and moreover, you are demanding that we do the same. No exceptions outside of the few nudist venues. You also said, "To cause offence to one person enjoying a public place is one person too many." Now that is uncompromising even when I said that exceptions should be made in rural areas where the population is sparse and one should not expect to come accross too many others.

"I'm the first to accept that even a majority can make bad decisions." Yes. They can! We believe that some of the laws regarding public nudity are wrong. We believe that society has it wrong about how nudity is perceived. And yes, I would much rather live in a majority-rules society. And that's also what I like about this democratic society that I live in where the court system can deem any law, no matter how popular it is, as unconstitutional or unnecessary.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
All these months and I see stu is still making his one point, the only point he's ever had. The only point he will ever have.

Seems kinda boring....


I know I am bored and I only read a few posts.

Bye! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, after all of these months, have you changed your opinion about public nudity in any significant way?

Gary

"There is no real reason for that law. And I think most people are most shocked that someone is breaking the law when they see someone naked."

Bob - it's down to how we perceive public places. Virtually every public place on earth has rules determined by a government that reflects the norms, mores and feelings of the populace. In Singapore you're not allowed to chew gum in public. I believe that in Germany you're not allowed to wear clothing that bears a swastika. Here in the UK you're not allowed to loiter in the streets for the purpose of prostitution. These rules (or laws) are designed to make public places as accessible and welcoming for as many people as possible. Now those who make these rules have to judge what most people would and would not consider to be acceptable, and formulate the rules accordingly. I wouldn't have it any other way.

"In context, nudity would not afffect them so much."

Certainly. When I go to the public gym or public swimming pool I pass by other men taking showers and they are generally naked. That's nudity in context and doesn't affect me.

"Steve and VIncent may be "DEMANDING the right to be naked anywhere and any time they choose" but you are demanding the right to be clothed anywhere and anytime you choose, and moreover, you are demanding that we do the same."

Firstly you have to accept that majority preferences usually outweigh minority preferences. Our council recently polled us regarding what sort of memorial would be built outside the town hall. I voted but didn't get my way. The majority did - and rightly so. The simple facts are that the 1. vast majority of people aren't nudists, 2. very many nudists have no wish to see naturist activities escape beyond the realms of naturist beaches and private homes, and 3. virtually ALL naturists wear clothes much of the time and 4. if there are any people who find the sight of clothed people offensive or alarming, that number is absolutely miniscule. Conversely, the number of people who find the sight of public nakedness offensive is very significant indeed - I believe it to be a sizeable majority of the entire population!

"You also said, "To cause offence to one person enjoying a public place is one person too many." Now that is uncompromising even when I said that exceptions should be made in rural areas where the population is sparse and one should not expect to come accross too many others."

It's down to a combination of consideration and compromise - and I really would compromise. If I were hiking in a remote area and stumbled across a naked sunbather who was unaware of my presence then I wouldn't go rushing to off to find a policeman. I accept that the person in question probably didn't expect to encounter another human being and had been considerate enough to take themselves off to this remote spot for that very reason. Assuming this is not a designated naturist venue I would then expect the naked person to just cover themselves up with a towel or something until I had passed. If there were as many naturist venues as there should be then there would be no need for this to happen, but I know there aren't. So I compromise.

"And that's also what I like about this democratic society that I live in where the court system can deem any law, no matter how popular it is, as unconstitutional or unnecessary."

So the decision is taken by an unelected judge rather than an elected (and therefore accountable) politician? And judges can be every bit as stupid as politicians. I'm not condemning that system - it has advantages over ours - but it has disadvantages too. There is no perfect system on the planet as far as I know.

Gary

"Stu, after all of these months, have you changed your opinion about public nudity in any significant way?"

Not public nudity, no. To me that's plain wrong. But I have learned more about naturism and how naturists think, and, believe it or not, I have had to re-think some of my own attitudes towards the naked human body. I'm glad I came here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, I wasn't arguing the law when I said, "There is no real reason for that law. And I think most people are most shocked that someone is breaking the law when they see someone naked." Read it again. I was saying that people are more "offended" when they see that someone is violating a law than by seeing someone naked. It can affect someone a lot if they are witness to someone who has just stolen some merchandise from a store even if they were not a part of it. Or if someone sees another light up a joint (marijuana), that can affect them as well knowing that it is illegal.

And virtually every married person knows what their own gender looks like as well as the opposite gender, there is no big surprise. In fact, I would assume that most of the world knows what the naked body, both male and female, looks like. That means that it is not the shock of seeing the naked body, but rather of seeing it out of context, and illegally so, that takes up most of the offense. I'm not sure that we, as humans, can even be offended upon seeing the naked body. There's a scientific question to be answered by Desmond Morris.

Your statements:
1 "{The} vast majority of people aren't nuidsts" True. But of course, most people do not label themselves as nudists. Now a lot more are skinny-dippers, nude tanners, nude vacationers, etc. And even more are sympathetic, but who just aren't interested in it.

2. very many? OK, so a good lot are content with keeping it confined to beaches and resorts. But others want more places that I don't think those naturists would object to. The vast majority are already happy and would more than likely welcome more places.

3. Society has laws that most people want to uphold. Saying that we wear clothes most of the time is like saying most of us don't rob others. We really don't have a choice unless we are trying to make a statement.

4. I would agree with you that the number of people who find the sight of the clothed body offensive is unbelievably misiscule. But as I wrote above, I also believe it is the same for the naked body. You know, I think I will postualte this elsewhere.

Now why should someone who is out in an area with no one else around or expected have to don clothes for the short period of time that it would take for another person to walk past? I have heard from many hikers on this forum and Netnude who have suggested that those who are hiking are not so concerned about the state of dress of fellow hikers. If they are naked, they just accept it. Same thing here, if someone has gone out of his way to get out of the general view of most others, why should he have to cover himself just because someone else passes?

Judges aren't perfect; heck politicians put them into office. That's why we have a multi-step process with appeals courts on both the state and federal court system. The upper courts check on the lower courts.

And there would be a perfect system of government if only everyone would assent to it. Give me total control of everything. Make me the King of Earth. I'll name that position Chancellor and I will have total rule. That would be so sweet!

Bob S.

Bob said:

"I would agree with you that the number of people who find the sight of the clothed body offensive is unbelievably misiscule. But as I wrote above, I also believe it is the same for the naked body. You know, I think I will postualte this elsewhere"

I don't think so, Bob. A lot of people have been complaining about Mr Gough's behaviour, and it seems that the courts think they have good reason. As a consequence it looks as though his walk is at an end. See:

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13346191_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-NAKED%2DRAMBLER%2DBACK%2DIN%2DSLAMMER-name_page.html (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13346191_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-NAKED%2DRAMBLER%2DBACK%2DIN%2DSLAMMER-name_page.html)

I'm not gloating to see this character incarcerated, but I do confess to being pleased that the message is out loud and clear. If you are naked in public you'll fall foul of the law. And if you persist then eventually the courts will get tough. The attitude of the press towards him has been, for the most part, that he is a harmless eccentric or 'nut', and we British have long admired individuality. But the patience of the public and courts eventually wears thin and then you're toast (mixing my metaphors, sorry).

I for one hope that a cooling off period will make him see sense, and he'll reconcile with his wife who has barred him from seeing his children because of this, and his mother, who has publicly begged him to stop all this nonsense. Then he should work with you guys, the genuine naturists. He should put his energy and undeniable courage towards a reasonable aim such as campaigning for more venues and decent facilities for naturists around the world. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
A lot of people have been complaining about Mr Gough's behaviour <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Can you put a number on that? I make it about 3 so far. (OK, 4 including you!)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not gloating to see this character incarcerated... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Err... wasn't you who said elsewhere:

"Wooooppppeeee! Wanna know why I'm happy? See today's Daily Record ( www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13346191_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-NAKED%2DRAMBLER%2DBACK%2DIN%2DSLAMMER-name_page.html (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/content_objectid=13346191_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-NAKED%2DRAMBLER%2DBACK%2DIN%2DSLAMMER-name_page.html) )

Maybe "Wooooppppeeee!" was just a typing error.

Rik

A lot of people have been complaining about Mr Gough's behaviour

"Can you put a number on that? I make it about 3 so far. (OK, 4 including you!)"

No I can't. I would bet it runs into dozens, possibly hundreds!

"I'm not gloating to see this character incarcerated... Err... wasn't you who said elsewhere: "Wooooppppeeee! Wanna know why I'm happy?"

Me? Did I say that? You sure you're not confusing me with some other character?

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I would bet it runs into dozens, possibly hundreds! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Dozens!?? Wow! My calculator returns an error when I try to work out what percentage of 65 million that is.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Me? Did I say that? You sure you're not confusing me with some other character? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess I must be confusing you with some other character who also said gloatingly (in response to someone expressing sorrow that Steve Gough's walk had been interupted again) "Well I'm euphoric!... If he carries on in the northern Scottish winter his balls will drop off!"

Rik

[Soleil Nu]

Hey, I just have to side with Stu on this one (gee, that's a first !). I have to agree with him when he says that probably most people are offended by viewing nudity in a public setting. Whether they are offended by the actual nude body or what it represents (breaking the law, going against social standard, etc) doesn't matter. What matters is that these people are genuinely offended. Even if this is not a natural but a conditionned response, this doesn't make it less painfull for them. And the last thing we need is to make ennemies by antagonising them on purpose.

Although a majority of people are offended by the sight of public nudity, a majority of people are also in favor of setting aside more spaces reserved for nude recreation, and we must capitalize on that. Nudity intolerance is a learned behavior, and only one thing will get rid of it: education. We must set aside more c/o spaces, and leave these spaces open even for non-nudists. And believe me, if we make it, they will come. Human beings are curious by nature. They must see for themselves what nudists really are; they must see that we are not all weirdos, perverts, sex maniacs, swingers and paedophiles. And we will not accomplish this by hiding behind 20 foot high privacy fences. We must be open, accessible and welcoming, and yes, even if this attracts gawkers and perverts. They are a minority, and we can always single them out and kick their asses on an individual basis. And I believe we will even be able to count on the help of non-nudists for this.

But there's ONE thing we can do RIGHT NOW, and that is to fight for the DECRIMINALIZATION of simple nudity. To think that no longer making being nude in public a criminal act will lead to seing people running around naked everywhere all the time is simply ludicrus. Toplessness has been decriminalized in Ontario and New York State for years now, and I dare you to find any topless woman in these places in normal circomstances, even in parks and on beaches.

Change takes time and patience; being right is irrelevant. We probably won't see the fruit of our labor in our lifetime. But, maybe, if we persevere and live long enough, we will have the joy of seeing our children grow without clothes compulsiveness and body shame. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

stu, reread what I said. I said the great majority of people are not offended by the human body. They may be offended by his behaviour because it is not of the social norm or legally acceptible. They are not offended by his naked body.

And again, I ask the question of why public nudity is a criminal offense? What I see is a vicious circle: society is only offended by public nudity because more people don't do it, and more people don't do it because it is against the law. and it is against the law because society is against it. Break one part of that circle and the whole thing collapses. Make it legal and it will become more accepted because more people will take to being naked (yes, I know that you do not want that).

And the least that you should accept is extremely rural areas should get a break.

Bob S.

Bob

"..society is only offended by public nudity because more people don't do it, and more people don't do it because it is against the law. and it is against the law because society is against it. Break one part of that circle and the whole thing collapses. Make it legal and it will become more accepted because more people will take to being naked (yes, I know that you do not want that)."

It's not what I want and I don't think it's what most people want. You could say that about a lot of things. If public nudity becomes acceptable and commonplace then this is, in effect, a change in our cultural norms and environment. But Bob, this shouldn't come about as a result of an interested minority forcing it upon, making us accept it. If it is to happen, and I don't want it to, then it should be the result of a conscious and informed decision by the public. But I have seen no evidence that the public want this. Mr Gough has been tolerated, but now he's been locked up for a couple of months and the public and the media aren't clamouring for his release! In fact he barely gets a mention beyond the local Scottish press. He's old news; a boring irritant. If there were ANY real desire by the public at large to have public nudity made legal then I don't doubt for a moment that our Parliament would legislate in that direction. But, again, I see no evidence of this. In fact, any recent attempts to encourage people to be less inhibited of the naked body have fallen flat and had to be abandoned (e.g. the Center Parcs sauna fiasco where they banned swimwear after 7pm and, guess what, nobody used the facilities!!)

"And the least that you should accept is extremely rural areas should get a break."

Why shouldn't rural people, and those enjoying the countryside for recreation, enjoy the same protection from offence as city dwellers?

Stu

[Bob S.]

The public isn't interested in changing the laws to make public nudity not a punishable offense because, as I said elsewhere, it is a security blanket law. The law does not make anyone safer and people want it just because it has always been there.

Society's attitude or the laws will change by a combination of public activism, debate, and behind the scenes working with politicians and other groups. Right now, Mr. Gough and Mr. Bethell are seen as lone nakeders. They can be easily put off into the weirdo grouping. But if more people start petitioning for the right to be naked, if not necessarily being naked, then there will be the need to debate the issue.

Minorities do not have many ways to make their statements get heard. Sometimes, it takes activism and civil disobedience to make waves.

We want more beaches and parts of public parks. And actually, rural areas have traditionally been seen as more acceptable places for nude tanning and skinny-dipping than closer to the urban areas. There would be lots more places available in rural areas than in urban areas.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
The public isn't interested in changing the laws to make public nudity not a punishable offense because, as I said elsewhere, it is a security blanket law. The law does not make anyone safer and people want it just because it has always been there.

Society's attitude or the laws will change by a combination of public activism, debate, and behind the scenes working with politicians and other groups. Right now, Mr. Gough and Mr. Bethell are seen as lone nakeders. They can be easily put off into the weirdo grouping. But if more people start petitioning for the right to be naked, if not necessarily being naked, then there will be the need to debate the issue.

Minorities do not have many ways to make their statements get heard. Sometimes, it takes activism and civil disobedience to make waves.

We want more beaches and parts of public parks. And actually, rural areas have traditionally been seen as more acceptable places for nude tanning and skinny-dipping than closer to the urban areas. There would be lots more places available in rural areas than in urban areas.

Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree with what you say, except that I want the right to be nude anywhere, subject to controls via social pressure and owners of private property exercising their rights.

I think that the reason that Vince Bethell was acquitted more than once in a jury trial was that people evaluated the situation as follows:
1. A naked man on the street doing no harm to anyone else. After thinking about it for a bit -- no big deal.
2. The authorities reacting in a rather severe way by arresting Vince, putting him in jail and charging him with a non-trivial offense. After thinking about it for a bit -- overreaction to Vince's actions.

In other words, they were saying: maybe a bit odd, and I wouldn't do it, but I don't really care if he wants to be nude in public.

Gary

Bob,

"The public isn't interested in changing the laws to make public nudity not a punishable offense because, as I said elsewhere, it is a security blanket law"

You could well be right. Nevertheless the fact remains that people do want things to stay as they are. And public places have to operate based upon a consensus of what behaviours (or states) are and are not permitted.

"Society's attitude or the laws will change by a combination of public activism, debate, and behind the scenes working with politicians and other groups. Right now, Mr. Gough and Mr. Bethell are seen as lone nakeders. They can be easily put off into the weirdo grouping."

I don't know if you have ever heard or read Mr Bethell's views on matters beyond public nudity, Bob, but I have. I'm afraid that he comes across to many people as barking mad! As far as he is concerned all politicians, judges, police etc are corrupt and their insistance upon wearing clothing, especially uniforms, are sexual perversions. He sees the requirement to wear clothes as "racist". Mr Gough, on the other hand, can easily be portrayed as, to quote a Scottish Procurator Fiscal (like a district attorney), "self-indulgant and obsessive". He had the opportunity to expound his views on a popular BBC radio programme but insisted that he walk through the BBC building naked. Consequently he didn't get to be interviewed. You will need much better ambassadors for your cause than these if you are to make any progress.

"But if more people start petitioning for the right to be naked, if not necessarily being naked, then there will be the need to debate the issue."

Now you're frightening me!!! If you show reasonableness, consideration and respect for the law you'll have a far greater chance of gaining attention and credibility and thus influencing people. Imagine naturists demonstrating peacefully AND CLOTHED in London, New York, Paris, Berlin etc, and then, when interviewed by the media, their spokesmen saying they would prefer to be naked but thet knew other people might be uncomfortable with that. Just THINK of the respect and admiration that would achieve!

"Sometimes, it takes activism and civil disobedience to make waves."

If those minorities are in a democratic system where they have channels of communication to the authorities, and yet they choose to become militant, and there is no pre-existing groundswell of support from the wider population, then they are doomed to failure. The masses and the media will label them as extremists of fruitcakes and the authorities will crush them. You see, Bob, but some of the most vociferous supporters of what Mr Gough is doing here in the UK are anarchist groups, communists, pacifists and others fringe elements. Now people are entitled to express their views, but a loony-label is a big turn-off if you're looking for public sympathy and support for a cause.

"We want more beaches and parts of public parks."

And you should have them.

"And actually, rural areas have traditionally been seen as more acceptable places for nude tanning and skinny-dipping than closer to the urban areas. There would be lots more places available in rural areas than in urban areas."

Here in the UK we are a relatively small country with a 60,000,000 population, and we don't get a lot of fine weather. Most of our quiet beauty spots that are not on private land become busy with tourists the moment the sun appears. The very last thing that the average family wants or expects to see when out for a walk in the Peaks of Derbyshire, the Dales of Yorkshire or the moors in Devon is nudily. In fact, that would be an incitement for a lot of trouble here (as Mr Gough discovered in Cornwall). There are very few places over here that you could safely skinny-dip without upsetting someone!

Gary Naturist

"... except that I want the right to be nude anywhere, subject to controls via social pressure and owners of private property exercising their rights."

I just don't think you're going to get that, Gary.

The reason Mr Bethell was acquitted was that he had been charged with an extremely serious offence, carrying a possibility of life imprisonment. That was madness, and the jury were right to acquit him. Mr Gough, on the other hand, was charged in his home town with the appropriate public order offence and, a few weeks before commencing his walk, was convicted and fined.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Gary, we got to start somewhere. I am just starting small and work my way up from there.

stu, go back to my viscious circle. We can't be naked in public because the law says so. The law says so because society isn't used to it. Society isn't used to it because we aren't naked in public. If temporarily offending someone is the only offense that occurs when someone breaks the law, then that is extreme, especially if they are offended by seeing someone breaking the law.

As Rik has pointed out before, there is absolutely no reason that can be given to keep the law other than people just are uncomfortable with seeing naked bodies. And comfort is not something that can be legalized or not. Nudity is something that becomes secondary to most people after they get used to it. That is a fact!

And stu, I am fully aware of Mr. Bethell's views. I am a member of his Stop Segregation yahoo group. Here is what is on that website:

"THE FREEDOM TO BE YOURSELF"

"Vincent Bethell started The Freedom To Be Yourself because he wanted to enhance humanity, and he says, "I'm attempting to make the world a more human place. I have never been, and I will never be a natur-ist or nud-ist. This issue is about ALL HUMANS: every race and every body, the entire human race."

"Body visibility in public often results in discrimination, and such discrimination
towards visible human skin is highly irrational and must be stopped. Skin visibility in public is not offensive, disgusting, shameful or a reason for hatred. It's about celebrating the beauty of our human racial identity, our humanity, our self-awareness. It's about being human in opposition to dehumanisation. All humans - Every Body!

"The natural visual identity of humans is a genetic, unintentional and inherited visual
appearance due to the fact that we belong to the human race. Our visual appearance should not cause fear, shame, disgust, hate or persecution. This issue is a HUMANITARIAN ISSUE and the inhuman prejudice and persecution towards human skin should be described as 'same race racism', which in this case means racist hatred towards The Human Race (racial hatred towards the genetic visual identity of yourself and other humans)."

While I agree with all of his statements, I will not go as far as he does.

stu, there are times when it is necessary to protest nude and times to protest clothed. And we seem to be a minority who is not seen as important, looked upon as the fringe, joked relentlessly in the media, confused with adult entertainment, etc. The message gets lost a lot. One of the problems is that (and correct me if I am wrong) his supporters really haven't been too outspoken to try to get the message that nudity is harmless out to the public.

The next time this happens, there needs to be more who would be willing to do the walk and more people willing to put out the message. And yes stu, I do believe there will be a next time. The penis, vagina, buttocks, and female breast can only have as much power as another person can give them. For nudists, they wield no power.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

Bob S. said:

As Rik has pointed out before, there is absolutely no reason that can be given to keep the law other than people just are uncomfortable with seeing naked bodies. And comfort is not something that can be legalized or not. Nudity is something that becomes secondary to most people after they get used to it. That is a fact!

Very well expressed. Now if we can just get the politicians and the courts to pay attention to these arguments.

Gary

Gary,

"As Rik has pointed out before, there is absolutely no reason that can be given to keep the law other than people just are uncomfortable with seeing naked bodies."

But that's a good enough reason on its own, Gary. People SHOULD be comfortable with what they might encounter in public places, and the environment has to be managed to facilitate that. This management means instituting and enforcing laws.

"Nudity is something that becomes secondary to most people after they get used to it. That is a fact!"

It may or may not be a fact. But why should people be forced to get used to something they don't want to get used to? The only reason I can see is a preference of a very small minority who want to be nude in public.

Stu

[Soleil Nu]

My opinion is a little more nuanced on this. After all, "disturbing the peace" is a very real issue in some circumstances and municipalities already have ordinances to prevent someone from partying too loundly late at night, mowing his lawn at impossible hours on a sunday morning or letting his dog bark all night. These ordinances are justified because, let's face it, there are a lot of *******s in this world. In fact, municipalities are allowed to pass any ordinances that do not conflict with a higher code of law.

However, to have anti-nudity laws included in the criminal code is ludicrous. Even if someone leaves his house for an entire week-end during which his security system malfunctions and drives is entire neighbourood crasy, he will receive a fine but will not be treated as a criminal and end up in jail. Yet, in some places, the simple act of nude sunbathing in your own backyard, minding your own business, can get you arrested, handcuffed, trown in the back of a police car in front of your entire neighbourood and trown in jail. Now I fail to see how this can even be remotely called serving justice or keeping the peace.

Soleil Nu,

I agree wholeheartedly with the gist of your point. Here in the UK, however, we only have the criminal law and the civil law. ALL fines imposed are for breaches of the criminal law - even outstaying a parking meter by five minutes. We don't have any other system. Perhaps we should.

Where nude sunbathing within public view attracts a complaint the matter can usually be remedied by a polite request from a police officer to either cover up or move out of view. There should not normally be any need for arrests, handcuffs and the like. Persisting in causing offence or refusing to co-operate is, of course, an entirely different matter. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, comfort cannot be illegal or legal. And as for something causing offense, behaviours, actions, and messages can be offensive. Nudity is not an action. It is a state of dress. Walking is not offensive. Neither is tanning oneself. Doing those things naked is not offensive unless the person actually intended offense (message). I will repeat this: people are offended because of the illegality of it. They may be uncomfortable by the nudity, but that is only because they are not used to it.

I wonder how many people actually saw Steve Gough during his walk who had no problems with him?

In this country, there are people complaining about the growing number of pro-homosexual shows on TV and the pro-homosexual attitudes that are being "forced" upon them. They were even upset when the anti-sodomy laws were overturned. And to think that all of this over people who just want to have the right to be themselves. But others are "offended" at seeing two men kissing. They are "offended" at two men living together who are gay. They are "offended" by laws or rules that make their lifestyle seem more acceptible.

That's the struggle that is the most comparable to ours. We are only asking that laws change to make it more acceptible for us to be ourselves. We want the decriminalization of public nudity. We are not saying that when that happens, we are all going to take to the streets in a naked jubilant celebration. In fact, most of us would probably still be clothed when out in public. Laws may say one thing, but social ettiquette is another. We are the people whom you praise as being courteous, yet you don't trust us to behave ourselves without these laws. Nothing much would change and nudists would more than likely find somewhere to gather together, which is also what you want.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

Sigh. As of August 28, Steve is in jail in Inverness, Scotland and may be held there until trial on October 3. He had been arrested a couple of days previous and freed on bail on condition that he not break the law while free. By continuing his nude walk, I guess that he was presumed to be guilty of breaking the law (without a trial).

That's 12 arrests in all. Looks like he won't be able to complete his walk this year because it may be too cold there after October 3.

As far as I'm concerned, all of this is mindless enforcement of a silly law. Where is the Minister of Silly Walks when we need him?

By continuing to arrest Steve, the police think that their persistence will pay off. However, from what I know of Steve, he'll out-persist them all.

It would be nice to think that out of this will come a court decision that says that being nude in public is not indecent, lewd, disorderly, offensive, a nuisance or threatening and is, therefore, not illegal.

Gary

Bob,

"And as for something causing offense, behaviours, actions, and messages can be offensive. Nudity is not an action."

We've been down this road a couple of times, Bob, and I'm sure we're never going to agree. Owing to my profession, my definition of behaviour is a legal one, and I use it in that context when I post here. Legally speaking, a behaviour consists of doing something or refraining from doing something. So, if I know I have contracted a "notifiable disease" (e.g. ebola) I am obliged to report that fact so that I can be isolated and hospitalised. If I fail to do that, then I could be prosecuted at a later stage. But being infected is just a state of being, isn't it? Yes, by your definition it is, yet my FAILURE to act makes me both antisocial and criminal. The same applies to just "being" naked in public. You know that you are required to cover certain parts of your anatomy whilst you are in public and if you don't then you are both morally and legally culpable.

"Doing those things naked is not offensive unless the person actually intended offense (message)."

That's like saying that calling a black person a "N1GGER" is not offensive unless you INTENDED to cause offence. That's not a reasonable proposition, Bob. Certainly you might consider the intention of the person causing the offence, and their actions may have been entirely innocuous - e.g. being naked on a beach in the mistaken belief that it was a naturist beach. Courts usually apply the objective test in cases like this - i.e. what would the reasonable man foresee as the likely consequences of his actions.

"I will repeat this: people are offended because of the illegality of it."

That's probably a part of the story but it's far from the whole. Imagine a non-naturist family planning a holiday and the travel agent says that most places are booked up, but there is one place left - the problem is that it overlooks a popular naturist beach. Now some families wouldn't have a problem with that. For others it would be a BIG problem and they would never contemplate going there. The reason they wouldn't go isn't anything to do with it being illegal - because plainly it isn't! No. There's something else going on.

"They may be uncomfortable by the nudity, but that is only because they are not used to it."

OK. You may be right. But who says that they WANT to get used to it? And who commissioned Mr Gough to force them to get used to it?

"I wonder how many people actually saw Steve Gough during his walk who had no problems with him?"

I wonder the same, but we can never know. Certainly the number of times he was arrested gives us no reliable measure of that.

You gave an example of the attitude towards homosexuality. For me, what people do consensually in their own homes is their business. How people choose to live is also their business, as is what they watch on TV. Before turning my TV on I read the listings, and if I think something might offend me then I don't turn it on. But I can't avoid going into public places. And I'm certainly not going to stop taking my youngest daughter to my local park.

"We want the decriminalization of public nudity.... We are not saying that when that happens, we are all going to take to the streets in a naked jubilant celebration. In fact, most of us would probably still be clothed when out in public."

Hold on. If we gave people the right to take their clothes off whenever and wherever they wished, would this satisfy them? Could they bank the right without needing to use it, so that (provided they knew they could take their clothes off if the desire seized them) they would be happy to be covered up? Naturists don't have some physical or psychological condition which prevents them from wearing clothes.

"We are the people whom you praise as being courteous, yet you don't trust us to behave ourselves without these laws."

Bob, I would trust most of the people here. But I wouldn't trust Messrs Bethell and Gough, nor their supporters. Nor would I trust certain members of the underbelly of our society not to exploit any new right. If you give people a right you can't expect them not to use it.

"Nothing much would change and nudists would more than likely find somewhere to gather together, which is also what you want."

So why seek to change the law? It's not rights or new laws you need, it's more and better venues. The new indecent exposure offence under the new Sexual Offences Act over here has been brought in after a Parliamentary Committee considered the activities of Mr Bethell. If you read the submissions and report it's pretty clear that the government had in mind clipping the wings of Mr Bethell after his acquittal by creating a clearer law. The new offence takes away any sexual (or lewd) motive. Bob, this is NOT good news for naturists! My first reaction was that it would not have any effect but on closer inspection of the new section and the report that gave birth to it, I'm no longer so sure.

I think you would be better served if ALL naturists abandoned Bethell, Gough and Co and their insane "RIGHT TO BE YOURSELF" and "STOP SEGREGATION" campaigns and worked instead to secure public support for more naturist venues and facilities.

Stu

Gary,

"I guess that he was presumed to be guilty of breaking the law (without a trial)."

The courts believe he was breaking the law and would continue to do so. What other choice did they have?

"..it may be too cold there after October 3."

The temperature will probably be down to single figures and the biting north wind will start to blow, so I guess you're right.

"As far as I'm concerned, all of this is mindless enforcement of a silly law."

Some of us support this law, Gary.

"However, from what I know of Steve, he'll out-persist them all."

The police arrest Mr Gough and go to their nice, cosy homes and wait for their pay cheques to drop through the letter boxes. The same applies to the prosecutor and the sheriff. Mr Gough, meanwhile, is getting locked in the cells at the police station, then sent to a very bleak prison, kept in solitary confinement etc etc. Sorry, but my money is on Mr Gough getting fed up first!

"It would be nice to think that out of this will come a court decision that says that being nude in public is not indecent, lewd, disorderly, offensive, a nuisance or threatening and is, therefore, not illegal."

Look at what I said to Bob S about the new offence of indecent exposure. This law is clearly a strengthening measure, not a relaxation. I just hope it is used sparingly and judiciously.

Stu

[chrishrvy]

I am new to this site but already I can see how Stu dominates the dialogue. Although i stand by his right to free speech I wonder if his dominance actual helps the debate. It might be better for him to be ignored a little rather than so many pandering to his ego?

My understanding at present is that Steve Gough has written from jail encouraging all interested others to continue with their own peaceful protest to be themselves.

At present a rally / protest walk is planned for this Saturday in central London details available. In being nude my primary intention is not to offend just to'Be' if anyone is offended then they may like to examine what thats all about...fears...anxieties....therapy may be usefull?

[chrishrvy]

more information with regards to how you can suport steve is available at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopsegregation/?yguid=158637048

letters of support can also be sent to steve by sending them to: Steve Gough prisoner 81590, H>M.Prison Porterfield Inverness Scotland U.K.IV2 3HH

...and Stu have some humanity don't send him grief.....please.

chrishrvy

People are, of course, free to ignore me if they wish. But I'm often the only counterpoint in any discussion and some people here, I think, and hope, find that useful.

"...and Stu have some humanity don't send him grief.....please."

Do me a favour! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif What do you take me for? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif He's got enough trouble on his plate as it is.

I'd let Mr Gough out of prison tomorrow - provided he promised either to abandon his walk or finish it with his pants on.

Stu

[Bob S.]

stu, we've been down this road so many times, they've had to repave it.

And your analogy is not even comparable. You are talking about a public safety issue (the ebola) whereas I am talking about a comfort issue (nudity). No one has ever been harmed by looking at a naked person whereas many people have been harmed by an infectious disease.

Calling out racial epithets, there can be really no question as to intent. But this is the biggest problem with this law. Because of what other people might think, we are not allowed to be naked. That is one of the reasons for the law; to keep bad thoughts out of other's minds.

"For others it {a hotel room overlooking a nude beach} would be a BIG problem and they would never contemplate going there."

Again, I revert to my viscious circle. Social attitudes have been shaped by the law. Parents teach their children to keep thier kit on in order to 1, stay within the law, and 2, to keep with what society has taught. This attitude has been broken by many people who have seen the fallacy of it. When they realized that the law was the only reason why they couldn't be naked. When they realized that society had absolutely no reason for keeping its clothes on other than tradition, comfort, and the law. That society could give no reason why others could not go naked other than they did not want them to and the law.

"You gave an example of the attitude towards homosexuality"

That about the sensitivities of the majority who are uncomfortable at seeing two men kissing, as it is here in the US? Do those two men have to hide from public view just to show affection?

"So why seek to change the law?"

You answered your own question. Because we cannot trust the government not to rescind on their promises not to bother us unless we have it in writing (IOW a law).
And the hardcore supporters of Mr. Bethell and Mr. Gough are few in number. They would be the ones who would be glad to do whatever they wanted whilst naked, but only if they were in your neighborhood would you have any real chance to see them. And there will always be those who want to exploit the law in their own favor, but they are also usually the ones who would break a law to get what they want as well.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

Below is a message from Vince Bethel re Steve Gough that he posted to the Yahoo group stopsegregation.

Gary


I just got a letter from Steve this morning, and despite being in prison he's feeling very positive and he says:

"...they've tried all sorts of ways to get me to change my mind, but I feel right in what I'm doing, so I'm sticking to my decision to stay naked."

I hope that Steve's actions and mine http://geocities.com/stopsegregation/pastprotest will inspire you to carve out your own path in gaining The Freedom To Be Yourself.

The public nakedness movement is growing all the time, and as more people become involved the goal of "freedom" becomes an easier goal. Make a difference this Saturday and lets make freedom easier for everybody.

Steve ends his letter by saying, "Be a magnet that first attracts and then propels others to be independently motivated."

Steve has generated a very large amount of publicity, and I hope his actions will inspire people to boldly step out with courage. I'm looking forward to see what happens on Saturday, it could be a very amazing and exciting time for the public nakedness movement. It all depends on you and whether or not you are ready to make a difference!

Be human, be strong... Be Yourself!

The Freedom To Be Yourself
BEING HUMAN FOR EVERY BODY


Vincent

[Rik]

The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) have dropped some of the charges against Steve Gough for lack of evidence. See this article on the BBC web site.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_news/england/cornwall/3081712.stm

He remains in prison in Scotland for breach of bail conditions.

Rik

[NUDKIWI]

Stu.Go on take your clothes off,i know you want to it's oh sooo obvious.Come on dont be shy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yours naturally KIWI

[Naturist Mark]

Stu may not want to go shopping on Saturday:

***? PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THIS WIDELY TO ALL MEDIA CONTACTS? ***

London Protest 'Free Steve Gough' - the UK's 'Naked Rambler'

You may have heard about Steve Gough the 'Naked Rambler', who has
been hiking nude from Lands End to John O'Groats since June 16th. A
range of media reports appears here http://nakedrambler.com

Despite being arrested several times en-route in England and Wales,
our police have not detained him more than a few hours and many
charges have been dropped due to 'lack of evidence' - no one's
complained!

However, Steve is now in prison in Inverness - on remand until Oct
3rd! He's already been detained once for seven days. Now he's been
locked up since last Thursday Aug 28th!

Why? What 'crime' has he committed? None!

The Scottish police and Sherrif's courts are simply fed up with him
being arrested and appearing repeatedly on charges of 'Breach of the
Peace'! Despite the fact that that is NOT a 'crime' which carries a
prison sentence!

Because Steve is refusing to wear clothes in prison - he is
protesting against the ABUSE of his Human Rights - he is being kept
in isolation in the Segregation Unit. This means that he has no
access to visitors, telephone, exercise, etc. Just four walls and a
bed - after walking over 700 miles to almost universal praise from
people around the world. Nudity - our natural state - of course, is
NOT a 'criminal offence' nor an affront to most people and yet his
liberty is being denied.

Inspired by the nude photoshoot in Selfridges where 600 people got
naked for Spencer Tunick and 'art', the Freedom to be Yourself
campaign group is planning a 'Naked Celebration' in support of Steve
to bring to the public's attention the injustice of imprisoning
someone in the United Kingdom for their beliefs.

It is hoped upwards of 100 people from all across the country, will
get naked inside SELFRIDGES on Saturday 6th Sept at PRECISELY
2:28pm. They will then walk out of the store, onto Oxford Street and
make their way, to a nearby rallying point where after a photo
opportunity and interviews with the media will dress and disperse

Just in case you think I'm kidding read the Southampton Echo here:
http://www.thisishampshire.net/hampshire/southampton/news/SOTON_NEWS_NEWS7.html
(the full text appears appended below; please bear in
mind, their link expires after a period but you should find the
article and more if you do a search on their website - they've been
following Steve from the start!)

People who took part in the Selfridges and Saatchi gallery 'art'
events found them a deeply moving experience - it is hope similar
numbers will be motivated to put themselves in touch with their
humanity and help to stop the persecution and suffering Steve is
enduring!

It will also SHOW to this Government - a government that wants
to 'outlaw' public 'non-sexual' nudity under Clause 68 'Exposure' of
the proposed 'Sexual Offences Bill' - that people don't have a
problem with nudity, and don't need this Government criminalising
our bodies! The UK is not as 'free' as we'd like to think it is, and
with this Government were losing more freedoms all the time!

Many who have commented in the media (for a BBC News article and
readers comments see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3130817.stm ), that Steve should
be left alone and allowed to get on with his walk.

Please do NOT tell the police! It is likely they already know and
UNLIKELY they will take any action to stop this peaceful walk.

By law police *MUST* give a warning to get dressed - to "stop your
disorderly conduct" - BEFORE anyone can be arrested under Section 5
of the Public Order Act 1986, for "behaviour likely to cause
harassment, alarm or distress".

'Breach of the Peace' cannot be used in cases of simple nudity;
there must be a threat of violence to people or property. The letter
(see http://geocities.com/stopsegregation/breachofpeace ) from
the Metropolitan police solicitor refers.

400 of the original 'posers' for Spencer Tunick have been invited!
And maybe more will get to hear about it!

The plan is to arrive anytime before 2:30pm individually, in couples
or threes - no more - so it will be impossible to say who is to take
part. People could be anywhere in store and will strip precisely at
2:28pm before leaving the shop, feeling proud, confident and elated.
Just think how 'elated' Steve will feel in his cell when he hears
about this!

We expect people to make a day out of it and combine it with a visit
to some of the sights of London - something to tell their grandchildren!

Of course, nudity is NOT compulsory to join in this celebration of
being human - being together as part of the human race in supporting
Steve and making a stand against discrimination and persecution of
those that choose NOT to be ashamed of their bodies. We expect
others, families too, to just turn up at 2:30pm OUTSIDE Selfridges
and follow the 'human race'! People can get naked as they walk if
they like!? We all know kids don't have 'hangups' about nudity - not
until they learn them from adults!

After people leave the shop we will walk a mile or two to a grassed
area where we can chat, relax, just chill-out and get dressed when
we're ready to leave. Others might stay nude and go on to a park or
a pub or wherever. It's their right to do what they want. The
Freedom to be Yourself!

Shoppers, and people on the street will look in amazement - they'll
be mesmerised - not shocked - not offended - when all of a sudden
they find themselves amongst two or three hundred of their fellow
shoppers naked - they might even join in.

Join us to highlight the injustice and persecution of people who
want to exercise there fundamental human right to choose when to
wear clothes!

Clothes are a right - NOT an obligation!

We're all born naked - and fundamentally the same. Many believe we
are created in the image of God. People can belief what they like,
but should remember, we all have a 'physical self', which many deny
and abuse to their cost. The human body is not inherently offensive
or disgusting. We don't have 'private' parts - just beautiful bodies
to admire and behold. It's simply natural - it's what we are -
that's all Steve wanted to get across in his walk for The Freedom to
Be Yourself. Not to offend, not to be persecuted, but to free people
from themselves and the indoctrination of body-shame.

Steve's website is at www.nakedwalk.alivewww.co.uk (http://www.nakedwalk.alivewww.co.uk)

If you want to know more about The Freedom To Be Yourself go to

THE HUMAN RACE: EVERY BODY! STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopsegregation/

Remember, Steve is being confined in a SEGREGATION unit for being
human!

Please circulate these details widely and expect a good turnout, TV
coverage and maybe even a media frenzy! Just think, the whole world
is watching what WE do to support Steve - we must NOT let him down!

Steve is doing his walk for EVERYBODY. Now it's OUR chance to walk a
mile or two for STEVE.

There's nothing that the police or anybody can do to stop this
EXPRESSION of FREEDOM! Selfridges won't want to! It's good publicity
for them. And police won't be able to. What are they going to do?
Question everybody that enters the store that morning?

We are not planning ANY sort of confrontation with police and will
comply with their polite lawful requests and will not to obstruct
the pavement. We will leave the shop quietly, casually and follow
the other bare bodies.

Of course, we've nothing against Selfridges and think that the
association with their 'art' installation make this an ideal place
to start.

Remember to tell all your friends and colleagues - please email this
to everyone you know! Let's make this day, a day to remember - Sat
6th September - Steve's Day!

Richard Collins, spokesperson for 'The Freedom to be Yourself'!

THE HUMAN RACE: EVERY BODY! STRENGTH IN NUMBERS!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopsegregation/

Text of the Southampton Echo article published yesterday:

This is Southampton: The Southern Daily Echo online... Published:
Wednesday 03 September 2003

We'll get our kits off for Gough by Duncan Eaton

SUPPORTERS of The Naked Rambler are planning to stage a Free Steve
Gough nude protest stroll through central London.

The Freedom to Be Yourself Campaign is hoping that Saturday's
demonstration in the capital will step up pressure to free the 44-
year-old Eastleigh father-of-two who is in a Scottish jail where he
is waiting for his trial set for October 3.

The naked rights campaigner's controversial Land's End to John
O'Groats walk came to another abrupt halt last week when he was
arrested on the Black Isle after being reported by a woman passer-
by - less than 24 hours after being released from custody in
Inverness.

Wearing a prison-issue pink quilted blanket around his waist, he
appeared before Dingwall Sheriff Court where he denied a charge of
conducting himself in a disorderly manner and breaking the peace by
walking naked in the presence of the public at Muirton, near Tore on
August 27.

He was also accused of breaking three bail orders.

News of the Free Steve Gough nude protest in London's Oxford Street
area has been released on the website which has been following the
footsteps of The Naked Rambler. It has attracted worldwide interest.

The Freedom to be Yourself campaign hope that supporters will turn
out in force to take part in the Free Steve Gough protest which is
being described as a clothes-optional/naked stroll through London.

A spokesman said: "The plan is to get our message across to the
media, to show solidarity and help get Steve released.

"We need clothed people as well. I think a mixed group sends a
unified message - everybody supporting the Freedom to be Yourself
and Steve."

"The weather forecast for the end of the week is a high of 25C so
it's just perfect."

Supporters have indicated that they will comply with any requests to
cover up if they are stopped during the protest walk. The spokesman
added: "The idea is to get Steve freed - not get more people locked
up!"

Steve has been arrested about a dozen times since he set out on his
847-mile naked ramble in mid June.

His trek is against what he sees as an antiquated attitude towards
nakedness.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
? Copyright 2003 Newsquest Media Group - A Gannett Company

Steve can be contacted in prison at the address below:

Stephen Gough Remand Prisoner 81590 HM Prison Porterfield Inverness
IV2 3HH

[johny]

Best wishes for saturday participants...

I am thousands of miles afar so simply cannot be there, but I shall be with You in my thoughts. Keep in spirit!

Mark, the police are undoubtedly aware of it, as are certain other organisations that are committed to protecting and re-establishing traditional family values.

It might be an eventful day.

Stu

[Bob S.]

Yeah stu, the police are undoubtedly aware of it now. We know your history /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I would like you to read this article written by three youths (between the ages of 9 and 11) who interviewed Steve Gough during a Sunday morning during one of his rare clad times, which was on Aug. 10th. Incidentally, at least one was a girl, and one was a boy, the other one was a Jamie, which could be either.

The kids asked some pointed questions and Mr. Gough was very polite to them and answered their questions honestly. At the end of the interview, he went back to the place where he ended his walk the night before and disrobed, allowing the kids to take his picture by the sign proving he was in Carlops.

http://www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/5549/Carlops_children_meet_Naked_Rambler.html

Family values can exist without clothes. And from what I've seen, nudists are the most ardent supporters of family values. Nudist families have less of a problem with teenage pregnancy and possibly illegal drugs. Not because of the nudity per se, but because of the closeness that the lifestyle provides.

Traditional family calues are what the nudist lifestyle promotes.

Bob S.

[Nude in the North]

I'm glad to hear that there are other organisations committed to "Family Values".
I hope they all come out to support Mr. Gough and his efforts to release people from their misconceived notions that the human body is something to be ashamed of.

Just think how much happier people would be if they could live without shame and ridicule for the way they look.

Steve

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0WgDPAmodV2zDc8S2tcchGnMDst6uVYdpnJnkBsRR1*aGgTXch HUOrMi1w2UFEDOf5V5G07JR2slwfDsIjdEPhRN*rhoWJqZolZG KwJol98yZcUHROiBZlxvaSDljsMswODICKn!4UGc/Westminster%207.jpg?dc=4675437709628845667

[Gary Naturist]

When Steve was in jail (or is it gaol in the U.K.?), I wrote him a letter of support. I received the reply yesterday, and here it is.

Notes: His reference to nudists is in response to my comment of something like "I know that you don't like nudists but ..." Also, I have shown a couple of possible corrections in square brackets.

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your letter. No, I haven't got anything against "nudists" and in fact I was asked to open a naturist beach on my way up the coast, but unfortunately didn't make it (got arrested).

I thought about it and decided that how could I refuse when one of my early experiences (positive) was visiting a segregated beach and having such a nice time; it got my thought processes going from then on.

However, it's [segregated beaches?] not total freedom but a taste -- a stepping stone to the real thing -- and until that day can we humans be really satisfied?

I want to be spontaneous and respond to myself as it happens and the more I experience, the more alive and trusting in myself I feel. Anything that inhibits that natural spontaneity then, I'm against, unless it harms others.

I'm not for or against nakedness -- I'm for the freedom for us to be ourselves, because in no other environment can we experience who we are and can be.

Well, that's what I think anyway! Where has everyone gone? I'm sure I was being listened to a few moments ago! (British humour!)

Well, it just shows how much we can have an effect on the world if we all stand up for what we believe in. It's just a matter of time before the world sits up and is affected.

What with the media and the Internet, news gets around fast, apparently. My last release from custody was even shown on New Zealand local news (I have two brothers living there).

All that's needed is a few dedicated follows [followers?] (of fashion) and a bit of imagination. Our only limit is how big we dare to dream.

Dream on Gary.

Regards Steve

[Gary Naturist]

Anyone know what's up with Steve? He got out of jail. Has he resumed his nude trek?

Gary

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
Anyone know what's up with Steve? He got out of jail. Has he resumed his nude trek? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Gary, he's still in gaol and has a court appearance scheduled for 26 September.

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

From the Glaswgow Daily Record today

BUM-RAP RAMBLER GOES FREE Oct 4 2003

.. but he's arrested again two hours later

Record Reporter

THE Naked Rambler was convicted of breach of the peace yesterday, then allowed to go free.

But in an amazing display of bare-faced defiance, Steve Gough refused to get dressed to leave Dingwall Sheriff Court and walked out naked.

A member of the press gave the naked 44-year-old a lift to the spot where he had been arrested, a few miles from Dingwall, Rossshire, to resume his hike.

But he had only walked two miles before he was arrested again and was back behind bars just two hours after his release.

Police said that he would appear at Dingwall Sheriff Court on Monday.

Gough, of Eastleigh, Hampshire, was foundguilty of breach of the peace near Tore, Ross-shire, on August 27.

During his trial, witness Kathleen MacDonald, 52, of Tore, told the court she was alone at home when she saw Gough.

She said: ``I felt discon-certed as I was alone. There was no way I would be able to get help.

``There are plenty of places people can go if they want to be naked. I don't think walking about, frightening other people is right.''


Stee-phen! Stee-phen! Stee-phen!

Gary

[Rocket]

I was just reading about him on www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com) this guy is a loon..nothing more..

He's got nothing to show for his life...pretty sad. web page (http://http//www.cnn.com)

Rocket,

That is merely your opinion as most everything in life is. We all have opinions and can express them, but NO ONE has the right to say "I am right, and you are wrong" on anything that cannot be proven. You have your opinion on this, with which I disagree. That doesn't make either of us wrong or right. It's just the way we see it, and the way we believe. He is trying to awaken people's awareness that there is NOTHING inherently wrong with the nude human body. He doesn't attack anyone--although he was attacked by some idiot who wanted to show how tough he was. I would like to know how many complaints he got in comparison to the number of people who saw him nude. I'm sure it would be quite small.

As described in my dictionary, an opinion is "A belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what SEEMS to be true, valid, or probable to one's own mind." (capitals mine for emphasis)

Despite being arrested numerous times, I still see nothing with his wanting to cause people to realize that nudity is normal--body shame is NOT!

[Rocket]

What is this guy...40+ years old? Only thing he's acheived (or trying to acheive) is a nude trek?

On CNN it said the court didn't bother fining him..because he has NOTHING.

He's a loser...and most people will view him as a nutcase. Really, I feel sorry for him...and he will do nothing to advance "nude rights". He'll be written off as a loon.

Rather than doing this..he should get an education and a job.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
What is this guy...40+ years old? Only thing he's acheived (or trying to acheive) is a nude trek? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He's actually walked 750 miles. Don't you consider that an achievement?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>On CNN it said the court didn't bother fining him..because he has NOTHING. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He has his pride, his self-esteem, his integrity. Does that count for nothing?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He's a loser...and most people will view him as a nutcase. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>On what basis, or by what evidence, do you know how most people will view him? If you make such a derogatory statement about someone at least back up what you say either with evidence or reasoned argument.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Really, I feel sorry for him...and he will do nothing to advance "nude rights". He'll be written off as a loon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, why do you say that? What do you know about the impact he has had on the British public?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Rather than doing this..he should get an education and a job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you think he has no education? And why should he get a job? If you think that having a job is the only measure of a person's success in life then you must be a very shallow person indeed.

Rik /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Rocket]

Explain this...

How is this guy supporting himself on his nude trek?

He's 44...and has NOTHING..I sure hope when I get to 44 I have something.

You can bet, with the notriety this loser has acheived, he won't be hired by any quality employer..

He should get a job if he isn't SELF-SUPPORTING..and since he has virtually no assets..he is expecting others to get/have jobs to provide for him that does say something about him. I would say he has no pride, for only someone with no pride would expect or even think it is a right to be supported by others.

This guy seems to think, it should be fine to be nude anywhere. In restaurants, the mall, neighborhood walk...anywhere...and wants to force others to accept it/or at least tolerate it.

People simply DON'T WANT that, but this guy can't respect that..he wants to force it anyway.

BTW..wanting material things, and living a life comfortable isn't shallow..nothing wrong with enjoying better things.

People who achieve things, and really make a positive impact on society aren't wasting their time making a nude trek and expecting handouts to achieve it. This guy is a disgrace to naturalists everywhere and we should do all we can to distance ourselves from this deadbeat.

[Soleil Nu]

Oh dear God... kill me please...

Rocket, do you actualy know ANYTHING about Steve Gough ? Or are you just assuming EVERYTHING ?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Mr. Gough methods either. I've never believed in the "cram it down their throats" method of promoting social change. But at least I try to base my opinions of people on more than one article from one reporter.

And by what authority do you claim to speak in the name of EVERYBODY ? How do you KNOW that "people simply DON'T WANT that" ?

And for Christ's sake, it's NATURISTS, not NATURALISTS ! Naturalism is a branch of natural sciences, like biology or geology, and it has NOTHING to do with nudism or naturism ! Maybe YOU should get an education... Or maybe you already have... In that case, I'm sorry, I just ASSUMED that you were illiterate, because of this ONE display of total ignorance from your part. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Rocket]

Pls don't use Christ's name in that context..

I think it's pretty clear what the UK people want..this guy has been thrown in jail more than once..he's been seen by a phychiatrist..

He's already demonstrated he has no respect for the law there..already shown he thinks he shouldn't work..and should be supported by others.

What's he contributing to society? Nothing..instead..he's taking from society...

At 44 with no visible assets..that makes a statement how he's lived his life..

OK..I don't know if he has an education or not..but judging by his success in life..I would have to say not..or he's squandered it..and that says something as well..

And..let's not forget he's determined, against public will, that nudism should be fine EVERYWHERE and all those who don't agree should just accept it....

That means people can be nude at McDonalds if they want..that person greeting you at the gas station doesn't have to have clothes..at the movie theatre..in Church..everywhere...

People DON'T WANT that..

Nudism is fine at a resort..or beach..or private swim..but people have a right to not be subjected to it against their will. This guy doesn't recognize that..or even respect that..

He simply could care less..

He's nothing but a non-achieving loser..deadbeat....and this attention he's received on CNN wouldn't be achieved any other way..

[Bob S.]

Ok Rocket, don't hold back your opinions.

Please refrain from calling him a loser. We do not call people names on this, or any respecting web site forum like this, especially when the person in quetsion cannot even defend himself.

Here is a part of the rules (which you will find at the bottom of the main forum page):
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law.

I would consider calling someone a loser to be defamatory and hateful.

Now as for what he has accomplished, he has a child at home. Creating that child is worth something. He had a life before this trek and he did accomplish as much as a 40-year-old person could accomplish.

The trek was an accomplishment in itself. He has put out the word and might have encouraged more people to join his side. He has performed the ultimate act, he has bcome like a martyr for his cause.

Get a better attitude, Rocket. And what does it say about you if you are discussing a "loser" as you put it?

Now, Soliel Nu, from now on, instead of saying "for Christ's sake," say "for Bob's sake." It has a nice ring to it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bob S.

[Nude\'n\'happy]

Have you checked out the new photos of freedom posted this month? There is a photo showing some of Steve Gough's supporters marching naked in a city carrying signs protesting his arrest.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
What is this guy...40+ years old? Only thing he's acheived (or trying to acheive) is a nude trek?

On CNN it said the court didn't bother fining him..because he has NOTHING.

He's a loser...and most people will view him as a nutcase. Really, I feel sorry for him...and he will do nothing to advance "nude rights". He'll be written off as a loon.

Rather than doing this..he should get an education and a job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket: In a short message, you have dismissed Steve as being an underachiever, destitute, loser, loon, uneducated and unemployed. You present facts without evidence, disguise opinions as facts, and inappropriately suggest how a complete stranger should live his life.

Steve is engaged in the time-honored tradition of civil disobedience to win the freedom "to be himself", as he puts it. He wants "freedom of body".

It's my opinion that, by means of this 876 mile trek, Steve is doing more for nudists' rights than the vast majority of nudists will ever do in their lifetimes.

Gary

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
He's 44...and has NOTHING..I sure hope when I get to 44 I have something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He has worldwide recognition. Do You?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can bet, with the notriety this loser has acheived, he won't be hired by any quality employer.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd take on that bet. How much?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He should get a job if he isn't SELF-SUPPORTING..and since he has virtually no assets..he is expecting others to get/have jobs to provide for him that does say something about him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The world is full of examples of people who have achieved great things by using other people's money - except usually it's called 'sponsorship'. But I think you'll find that the sums of money which Steve Gough has used during his 750 mile walk are tiny by comparison. He has done this walk alone, without a support team following in a truck, without corporate sponsorship and has relied only on the goodwill of people who recognise that he is doing something courageous.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This guy seems to think, it should be fine to be nude anywhere. In restaurants, the mall, neighborhood walk...anywhere...and wants to force others to accept it/or at least tolerate it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again you show your ignorance of the facts. What 'this guy seems to think' is that nudity in itself is not offensive (even you must agree with that) and therefore people cannot be harmed by seeing nakedness whatever the environment in which it occurs. Even the woman whose complaint resulted in his recent arrest only claimed to be 'intimidated' and 'disconcerted' rather than offended which implies she felt threatened. But as no-one, not even the judge, has suggested that his naked body is an actual threat to anyone then the sense of intimidation comes only from the unusualness of the situation. The woman herself said that had he been clothed then she would have taken no notice.
So should we really legislate against 'unusual situations'? Steve Gough's aim is to make such situations more normal and therefore less intimidating - surely that's a good thing. Surely it's better to live in a society which doesn't feel intimidated by things which can do it no harm.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>BTW..wanting material things, and living a life comfortable isn't shallow..nothing wrong with enjoying better things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You assume that material things make your life better. Hmm! You may be more comfortable but does that make you a better person?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
People who achieve things, and really make a positive impact on society aren't wasting their time making a nude trek and expecting handouts to achieve it. This guy is a disgrace to naturalists everywhere and we should do all we can to distance ourselves from this deadbeat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I don't know about 'naturalists' but there is no evidence that naturists everywhere agree with you. Sure there's some vocal people who think this guy is so unworthy of attention that they spend hours discussing him but from my experience there are many naturists who feel that whilst they wouldn't have the nerve to do what Steve Gough has done they admire the fact that he's done it and has opened a debate on the issue of public nudity. I certainly see no evidence whatsoever that his actions have harmed the naturist cause.

Steve Gough is a radical. Radicalism by definition attracts oppostion (if it didn't it would be radicalism) and history is littered with evidence that radicalism is often the catalyst for mainstream social change. If you disagree with what he's doing or the way he's doing it then that's fine but it does nothing for your argument to resort to name calling and personal abuse.

Rik

[David77]

I think that the statement that "he has nothing" may mean the same in the UK, as it does here in the USA, which is - he does not have the cash or bank account to warrent issuing a large fine. This would not mean that he does not own a lovely home or farm, as this is exempt from court consideration many times. (Also property and tools that would enable him to earn a living for his family would also be exempt). You are not required to sell your "family mansion", whether it ever so humble, or not humble but have a high appraised value, to satisfy a fine. The court would not put your family out on the street to satisfy a fine!

So, you really do own something when you are considered as "having nothing" for a large fine - "homestead property rich, but rather cash poor"? I am going out on a limb here as I am not a lawyer nor know the law and court practices well, so maybe a lawyer, preferably from the UK could discuss this principal.

[Rik]

David

I believe that in Steve Gough's case he truly has little in the way of material possessions or cash. That does not make him a bad person but is perhaps an indication of the way he has chosen to live his life.

Given his current itinerant way of life he cannot even claim unemployment benefit from the state as it would be conditional upon him being available for work which he has not been since he started his walk.

Therefore, as I stated before, he is reliant on the goodwill of people who freely support him so if there is to be any criticism of his lifelstyle it should be directed at those who offer that support and not SG himself.

Those who criticise Steve Gough's chosen lifestyle should be thankful that they live in a society which allows us all to make such choices.

Rik

[Rocket]

Simply put..this guy is violating the law. That's wrong.

[Soleil Nu]

My apologies to all on this board for my poor choice of language which, I admit, may have offended some people. /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Simply put..this guy is violating the law. That's wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe, but that doesn't make him a deadbeat or uneducated or unemployable.

In fact (and remember we're talking about the UK here) part of the issue is the contention that he is not breaking the law because in the UK, as with most of Europe, there is no law which specifically prohibits nudity. So he is being charged with public order offences which are very much open to interpretation by the police and the courts and this has been demonstrated in the recent past where Steve Gough was acquitted of several charges in the south of England because of lack of evidence. No-one doubts that he was naked in a public place (he was arrested for it!) but there was no evidence that he was violating any laws.

His present predicament is because he's been arrested in Scotland where the laws are broadly similar to England but the slight differences appear to have the effect of a significant difference in interpretation.

Don't forget he has walked the length of the UK and although he's been arrested 11 or 12 times it is only in Scotland, just 80 miles short of his goal, that he's actually been found guilty of anything - although of course some of the charges in England remain to be answered and he may well appeal against the Scottish decision.

So leaving aside the issue of whether it's right or wrong to break the law, the issue is not that clear cut in Steve Gough's case because the law is not clear cut.

Hope this helps to clarify.

Rik

[NudeAl]

My, my aren't we all getting just a bit worked up over this?

I think we can all agree that he is an eccentric fellow. Like most eccentic's he lives his life by his own standards, which are certainly not the same as most of us. I do not know if anything will come of his demonstration but I suspect he has now had his 15 minutes of fame and will begin to fade away.

Whether he has done good or ill for the cause of naturism only time will tell but I suspect the impact will be minimal.

[Soleil Nu]

Rocket,

I (impolitely, I must confess) asked you to elaborate on why you are so sure that "people don't want that", and by what authority you appoint yourself spokeperson for everybody. Yet all you are able to do is repeat your "people don't want that" crap without adding any argument or new information.

You say Mr. Gough has been seen by a psychiatrist. I know lots of people that have been seen by a psychiatrst also, and who could be considered very successfull people, even by your standards (i.e. rich). Members of my family on my mothers side have a history of bipolar personality disorder and some of them had to receive medical help at some point in their life. In their case, this is a hereditary condition. They all live perfectly happy and normal lives, and none of them are "loosers" or "deadbeats".

To me, it just looks like you have simply "decided" that Mr. Gough is what you say he is, and that you interpret every piece of information about him to confirm your opinion about him. In my book, you sound like a "black or white, with nothing in between" person with which any kind of debate or discussion is impossible.

But, of course, I don't realy know you, so I COULD be wrong.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you are right, and that people REALY DON'T WANT that.

You're a female Rocket, are you not ? Like most women in the western countries, you have the right to an education, to have a job, to own and drive a car. You have the right to vote. You have the same rights than men have. And like most wowen in the western world, you take all this for granted. But do you realize that not so long ago, at the beginning of the last century, women didn't have ANY of this ? Why ? Because people SIMPLY DIDN'T WANT Them to ! Women were considered too emotionnal to vote or drive a car, and not inteligent enough to get an education and be something more than a simple slave and baby factory for their husbands. And who changed that ? It was people who had a vision, who believed in their minds and in their hearts that this was WRONG, even though most everyone, even most women, were perfectly happy with things the way they were. It was people who decided to educate people and fight for equal rights, and yes, even broke the law at some point to acheive their goals.

Are you black Rocket ? Or maybe you have black friends ? Do you know WHY you have black friends, which you can look in the eyes like brothers and sisters, and not like an inferior form of life ? Do you know WHY black people can use the same buses, the same public pools, eat at the same restaurants and go to the same schools as white people ? Do I have to remind you that not so long ago people DIDN'T WANT black people to be anything else but slaves ? Do I have to remind you how many laws had to be broken and how many people had to die so that blacks could now take their rightful place in society and be considered equals with all other human races ?

If breaking the law is simply wrong, as you put it, then if I were you, I would thank all the CRIMINALS because of whom you can now enjoy all the freedoms that you now take for granted.

[aunaturelone]

Unless you are of the opinion that government is God, then law is not the final arbiter of right and wrong. That arbiter is always one's conscience. Allowing the government to make that decision for you changes nothing. Ratifying the decision of someone else is the same as making the same decision yourself (only lazier).

Defending evil actions because they were legal is what we expect from Nazis.

[Rocket]

Stu,

Thanks for the URL on what the loser is doing..

I'm not surprised that his wife (or ex-wife) would ban him from seeing his kids...I'm sure his kids will be very embarrassed by him.

This guy is obviously just a nutcase who has never achieved anything in his life. He's doing this for attention..and nothing more. I think he should go to jail.

Someone criticized me for saying what I think, and remarked that his "notriety" is worth something. I am going to University to improve myself and have a rewarding career. That is worth something.

Another commented that his being a father is an achievement. That's no achievement. Most people have the biology to reproduce. I think that's about all this guy is good for: he's unemployed, destitute, and not much of a father and husband as well.

As I said, WHAT A COMPLETE LOSER!

And I am not the only one thinking it either!!!!

[Rocket]

Soleil Nue,

To compare this guy's nude walk to that of the descrimination on the black population at a later time is an insult to blacks everwhere...

This guy wants, in plain simple terms, the right to be nude EVERYWHERE.

Pls tell me, how is denying him that comparable to burning a cross on one's lawn; how is it comparable to a lynching; how is it comparable to segragation on a bus?

Regarding womens rights...again what has that to do with him being nude? How is it being unfair to ask him to be clothed. As well, the battle for women's rights was never a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada either.

Now, this guy has compromised his relationship with his children (and I suspect it was compromised before) because of this absurd walk. He's been in jail..and yet...he still persists. That also says something about him.

So...now..what have we got?

Well...he's a 44yr old unemployed, destitute vagabond. He's a non-acheiver. He's a poor husband, and father. He has no respect for the law. That's what we've learned by his actions. That's what makes him a loser. Why would any sincere naturalist want to be aligned with this?

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Why would any sincere naturalist want to be aligned with this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's the second time you've made that mistake despite your error being pointed out to you twice. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

I took the time to look up the loon's website. He says it's to increase awarness of the human body. He's in jail right now..

Tell me...there was a thread on here on nude hiking..and people admitted to bringing things along lest they encounter clothed hikers. Fair enough. So...why is this ok with him to not be clothed at all?

Just curious..are you helping to financially support this guy?

I strongly suspect what he's been given in handouts is the most money he's earned in his lifetime.

Rocket,

Let Mr Gough continue his escapade. The longer he spends in prison the more likely it will be that others will be deterred from following his foolish example. As he keeps up this preposterous behaviour, and the more the public's irritation will ferment into contempt for him. The national media are already losing interest in him and sooner or later he will cease to warrant even a couple of lines in the local papers. He'll be regarded as just another boring old eccentric (or, as you so eloquently put it, "loon").

I just hope that what he's doing doesn't tarnish the public's perception of genuine naturism too much before that happens!

Stu

[Rik]

Rocket

You really need to stop using abusive language or you will quickly discover that no-one here, not even Stu, will take you seriously.

If you had researched properly you would discover that Steve Gough does in fact carry clothing with him. What do you suppose he carries in that rucksack of his? He always wears clothing when entering shops or other places where he feels that people are likely to have a problem with his nudity. But you also have to realise that the whole point of his campaign is to demonstrate that there is nothing fundamentally offensive or harmful about the human body and his way of doing this is to prove it rather than just talk about it. Sure there's some people who feel threatened, but the number of people who have complained to the police compared to the number of people who haven't is vast. How many people do you suppose have encountered him during a 750 mile walk? How many have felt aggrieved enough to complain?

On what basis do you suspect that money donated to him during his walk is the most he's ever earned? What do you know about his previous life? And more importantly why is this relevant to this discussion? If you make accusations like this then at least be able back up what you say or provide a reasoned argument.

You need to understand that no-one here has a problem with those who hold opposing views. Without opposing views there would be little debate but if the debate is to be meaningful then I urge you to eliminate your use of abuse and use rational argument to put your point across.

It would also help you to be taken more seriously if you check your dictionary and understand the diffrence between naturist and naturalist.

Steve Gough with rucksack:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/10/04/naked04.jpeg

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The national media are already losing interest in him and sooner or later he will cease to warrant even a couple of lines in the local papers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh? Just do a search on Google news and you will see that far from losing interest there was a news articled filed just five hours ago - in Australia where it's already tomorrow!

Rik

A loon in my dictionary is either a bird by one definition or a "clumsy, stupid person". If, Rocket, you're calling Steve the latter, how do you KNOW that he's clumsy and stupid. I would guess that he's not TOO clumsy since he's walked 750 miles and probably hasn't fallen down too many times. Maybe you think he's stupid because he's not afraid to exercise his God-given right to question and protest against unreasonable laws--in this case laws saying nudity is offensive.

You continue to repeat yourself over and over and don't reply to anything anyone has said about the fact that it's just YOUR opinion which isn't based upon any FACTS. You persist in calling the man a loon and saying he has NOTHING--meaning he has no money. According to this you believe that people who don't have a lot of money in the bank have NOTHING. I'm far from being rish where money is concerned. I do have SOME money in the bank but not much. I have two daughters and four grandkids. I have a home as I'm sure Steve does. His wife left him so that makes him a loser. I divorced my first "wife" because she was an adulteress who told me she wouldn't change. My second "wife" divorced me because I'm not perfect like she was, and I have my faults--she didn't have any. I'm being facetious. Does being twice-divorced make me a loser? Some would say yes, but it's just an opinion. Opinions are like butt holes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

I have a nice car to drive that's paid for, and while I do have a steady retirement check coming in every month, I DON'T have a lot of money in the bank. I just barely make it from one month to the next. If I'm reading you right, I am a loser because I don't have a big bank account. Only people with a lot of money are winners right? You're a very shallow person if you base being a winner or loser on how much money one has. There are a lot of wealthy losers in the world. People who care only about themselves, their money and their fame.

[Bob S.]

Rocket, you are not debating, you are simply stating what you believe and refusing to budge in your immature name-calling. At least stu has intelligent arguments in defending his position.

Tell me, are you a nudist? If not, what is your reson for being here? So far, in the two topics that I have you participate in, you have fallen on the side of textile-friendly, the other one being the one about the guy who took his clothes off at a party where his friends were in attendance after the host, a friend of his as well, allowed him to.

So far, your only reasonable argument in this thread has been "Simply put..this guy is violating the law. That's wrong." That's a good argument, albeit flawed. He believes that, since there is no law on the books specifically denying him the right to go naked, then he should have that right.

The Texas sodomy laws were overturned because two men were caught in their home, having sex. They were in violation of the law and knew it. In Canada, a man was acquitted of being naked in public because he was wearing socks and shoes. The whole American nudist movement has been punctuated by arrests and acqittals. Nude beaches are not just made overnight. They start out with a group of people who go to the beach and violate the laws and go skinny-dipping. Only after many, many years are they even unofficial nude beaches. And usually after decades, the unofficial nude beaches are made into official nude beaches.

And all that over a group of lawbreakers who wanted to get an all-over tan and swim naked. Were they wrong to break the law?

Bob S.

[Soleil Nu]

My gosh Rocket, are you actualy reading ANYTHING we are saying ? As Rik mentionned, we've pointed out your mistake twice already and yet you seem to ignore us completely. Are you totaly clueless or are you just doing it to piss us off ?

Once again, I'll try to be as clear as possible: it's NATURIST !! Not NATURALIST.

So I insult blacks everywhere ? I suppose I insult women too ? Climb down your soapbox Rocket. Your false sense of rightousness is not fooling anyone, and it's certainly not intimidating me.

But despite all of this, I will be a nice boy and give you once again the benefit of the doubt. So you say that I can't compare campaining for clothes freedom with women's lib or the freeing of slaves ? So be it. Once again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that you are right.

Ok, let's compare oranges with oranges.

As you might already know, these days in Iran, women must keep their heads, arms and legs covered at all times outside of their homes. It is actualy ILLEGAL not to comply, and any offender can be arrested, fined substential amounts of money, and even thrown in jail.

There is currently a growing movement in Iran. People, mostly among the youger generation, are starting to organize small get-togethers, parties, things like that, where the girls are allowed to dress any way they like. Of course, these gatherings are held in complete secrecy, because if the islamic police were to get wind of this, all participants, both male and female, would face serious consequences, and for good reasons: these people are actualy fighting for the right for women to walk bare headed and to wear shorts and t's in 35+ degrees temperatures ! I mean, how sick is that !

Now by any possible definition, what these people are doing is illegal, and they are definitely breaking the law.

Do you think these youngsters are criminals, Rocket ? Do you believe that what they are doing is wrong ?

And before you ask me how I know this, I have an Iranian co-worker, living in exile, who keeps in touch regularly with his family back in his home country.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
..this guy has been thrown in jail more than once..he's been seen by a phychiatrist.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The court ordered a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. Gough. They determined he was sane and was released.

-Mark

[Rocket]

Soleil Nu,

Iran is a Muslim country..they have their ways. Incidently, I have a Muslim friend, as she wears the customary veil, and she is here in the West.

Rather than getting into a debate about things that aren't related...why not this think of this?

Put yourself in the 3rd person..

You are a unemployed, 44 year old male. You were married once, but now you are divorced, but you do have 2 kids. You have a low net worth..

Now...what are you going to do?

Get a job..and try to make a contribution to society?

Or.......

Set off on a walk with no clothes....and no money to support yourself. You know you will have to depend on others because you will be unable to provide for yourself. You know that, by doing so, you won't qualify for unemployment..you will be effectively off the market. You know your actions will attract negative attention. Your ex-wife won't allow you to see your kids. Your unemployment will mean you won't be able to provide for your kids.

This guy choose the latter...and does so freely. I would say..to those that disagree with me..well..take a hike (nude)...across country.

Inspite of this "support" I don't see anyone joining him...

And..I still find it odd that Nude in Winnipeg would want to be at a party nude..when everyone else was dressed (I wouldn't)...but that's another topic..

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Iran is a Muslim country..they have their ways.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, and their ways include the subornination of women, public whippings, and thought police. Saying it is 'their way' is just the sort of fake political correctness that tyrants like the Chinese cynically use to excuse the oppression of their people.

Rocket's muslim friend is the other side of the coin, she lives in a country where she is free to choose to wear a veil, or not. Here she has a choice, in Iran she would not. Some nudists would also like to have a choice here in the land of the free.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Inspite of this "support" I don't see anyone joining him...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You weren't looking. Steve has often been joined by others on portions of his walks, both clothed and nude. All summer long there had been an epidemic of stories in the British press about 'nude ramblers'. And there have been nude protests in support of Mr. Gough.

[Rocket]

8 people out of how many in that town?

BTW...we don't have state-sponsered whippings here in the USA, Canada, or the UK for nudists..

[Bob S.]

"Iran is a Muslim country..they have their ways."

And they define showing anything that should be hidden under the veil as nudity. Our culture simply defines nudity differently. It wasn't always like that. Back in the Victorian times, (and I'm sure the same may go for the Amish) nudity was defined as showing the bare legs. It was so bad back then that all furniture and piano legs had to be covered up.

"Get a job..and try to make a contribution to society?"

He is making a statement. He is making a contribution to his society. It may not be one you agree with, but he is making a comtribution nonetheless. He is an activist. And according to you, he basically just got out of jail free. The judge gave him no fine.

And even though we may both disagree with you and support his cause, it doesn't mean that we want to follow him in his barefootprints.

Now I am going to ask you again, are you a nudist? You are already sounding a lot like a troll. If you are a non-nudist, then I would ask you what you are doing here. I will congratulate you on your first post on this topic without calling him any names. Now just keep it up.

Bob S.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
8 people out of how many in that town? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>8 people willing to risk arrest in the center of London in an act of peaceful civil disobedience. Asserting their human right to break an unjust law (or in this case the unjust enforcement of a non-existent law). In fact in this case no-one was arrested, no laws were broken since the UK has no laws prohibing nudity. The protestors complied with police requests to cover up in the interest of 'public order' after making their point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> BTW...we don't have state-sponsered whippings here in the USA, Canada, or the UK for nudists.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't recall anyone saying that we do.

What we do have are antiquated and unjust laws prohibiting harmless peaceful activities. And a legal environment where people are often charged with ambiguous and usually bogus 'disorderly conduct' or similar charges- (almost always pleaded out or dismissed) used to harass people even in the absence of real law-breaking. That is morally not all that far removed from public flogging by Iran's religious police.

I just want to make a point about the press and Mr Gough - there have been a few articles supporting what he's doing. There have been as many articles criticizing him. But lately he's become an irrelevance over here - a rather silly irritation.

Now he's back in prison and what is he achieving? He has long since used up any public sympathy and barely achieves a line in the papers any more let alne a mention on the TV news. Basically he has become a rather pathetic character. The last time he was in court he broke down crying. If he had any real friends who were looking out for his interests, they would persuade him to throw in the towel now - at least for this year. The weather in northern Scotland will soon be below freezing, the police and courts are going to nail him every time he exposes an inch of bare buttock and he has long ceased getting any real public attention. All he is doing is causing himself more and more misery and damaging the public imagige of naturism.

By the way, just one point about the English law's attitude to nudity. The way English law is worded is very often general rather than specific. No specific swearwords are mentioned in statute, but there are certain words that people understand to be obscene, and consequently the law will share that view. With regard to unacceptable pornography, there is no clear wording of what is and is not permissible - the wording just says "tending to deprave and corrupt". The police and courts are left to decide how to interpret that by current standards. Similarly, there is no specific law that forbids public nudity, yet everybody in the legal establishment, the government and the police knows that being naked in public normally attracts arrest. Those vile protestors in London ought to have been arrested, but the police in the very centre of London deal with a range of weird and wonderful protests on a daily basis and are extremely tolerant (far too tolerant in my view). The fact that they got dressed when told to do so shows that they knew their behaviour was really contrary to law. Had it been otherwise they could have refused to get dressed and there would have been nothing the police could have done about it. There is nothing they would have liked more!

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I just want to make a point about the press and Mr Gough - there have been a few articles supporting what he's doing. There have been as many articles criticizing him. But lately he's become an irrelevance over here - a rather silly irritation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, this is simply not true. Sky News filed an article at http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-12811924,00.html . It was timed at 7.09 Monday 6th October - that's just two hours ago. Do a Google news search for "Stephen Gough" and you will find a number of articles filed during the last few days.

Naturally the press went a bit quiet when he as remanded as there's nothing particularly newsworthy about a man sitting in a gaol cell whether he's committed no crime or the most heinous murder.

Of the many articles some(not many) have been critical and some(not many) have been supportive but most have simply been neutral by reporting the facts. There was an article in the Guardian on Saturday reporting the latest events which made no judgement either way but was interesting because in its opening paragraph it referred to Steve Gough as "The naked rambler" (not 'a' naked rambler} as if everyone knew who it was talking about. It waited until it's second paragraph to name him. He even got a brief, and light-hearted mention recently on the Noel Edmonds show on BBC Radio 2 and his 'activities' were also one of the discussion items on the Jeremy Vine show (a daily radio show which mixes music with debates on political and societal issues). So I think you're being completely misleading to suggest that the news media have lost interest. To be frank though I wish they would for the less newsworthy the issue of public nudity is the more it demonstrates public acceptance.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Now he's back in prison and what is he achieving? ...If he had any real friends who were looking out for his interests, they would persuade him to throw in the towel now - at least for this year. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is a really good question and I think it's probably true that many of his supporters now feel that may be he should give up for surely another bout in prison can do no good to either him or his campaign. But what I see in him is a man of principle who feels so strongly that he is prepared to sacrifice his liberty for his beliefs. The fact that some, or maybe many, take the view that it's a principle not worth fighting for does not lessen his own strength of feeling and should not be used as a weapon to force him to abandon his own integrity. I doubt there's many people who would take the risks that Steve Gough has taken even for much more 'important' principles.

My personal view is that, for someone who set out to walk the length of the country to demonstrate that the sight of nudity is not the alarming and distressing thing which some would have you believe, who nobody believes was intent on offending anyone (even if, as the judge suggested, that was the effect - at least on one person) his achievements have been considerable.

The physical achievement alone is quite worthy of praise but beyond that he has, in his own small way, encouraged people to debate the issue (look at the amount of debate on this discussion board alone - and this is primarily an American board), he has achieved recognition worldwide athough it's perhaps telling that most of the articles written about him outside the UK have been in the US and Australia with somewhat fewer mentions in the press of mainland Europe where public nudity is not nearly as remarkable. But I guess also he has achieved a sense of personal satisfaction that he has been prepared to risk so much for his principles. History is littered with examples of people who have done just that and sometimes (but obviously not always) they go on to achieve greater things as a result. Should we really deny people the right to sacrifice themsleves for what they believe in?

It saddens me that there are some people who, because they don't like what he stands for, seem only to be able to deal with it by making derogatory (and possibly libellous) references to his state of mind.

It also surprises me that someone who has been referred to as an "silly irritant" and an "irrelevance" continues to be the subject of so much debate. I don't know about you but I don't waste my time on irrelevances - there's so many more important things to do.

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I just want to make a point about the press and Mr Gough - there have been a few articles supporting what he's doing. There have been as many articles criticizing him. But lately he's become an irrelevance over here - a rather silly irritation.

Now he's back in prison and what is he achieving? He has long since used up any public sympathy and barely achieves a line in the papers any more let alne a mention on the TV news. Basically he has become a rather pathetic character. The last time he was in court he broke down crying.


Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mention that Steve has "used up any public sympathy". How do you know? Is it because "he barely achieves a line in the papers any more"? That's not a very good indicator of public sympathy.

Papers tend to publish stories that are negative or sensational. What has happened here is that the public, in the minds of the newspaper publishers, has become desensitized to Steve's nude trek. It's now not enough of an issue for them to pursue.

That's the way it should be with public nudity -- not enough of an issue to pursue. Unfortunately, the police and the legal system haven't realized it yet.

I would be crying too if I had suffered the abuse that he has, all because I believed that there is nothing wrong with being nude when out hiking. I admire Steve for his tenacity, and don't begrudge him some tears.

Stu, we have shown you much more empathy and respect than you are affording Steve. Your lack of charity is, at best, disappointing.

Gary

[Rocket]

BobS,

I've been to nude beaches and a couple nude swims. I also think there is a time and place for everything..

I agree with Stu..perhaps I used strong language, but I get upset when I see someone neglecting their children, and refusing to abide by the law. I also think people should work, and try to make contributions to society. What's wrong with that?

I read the account of him breaking down...he's got approx 150 pounds to his name..he's unemployed..he's estranged from his kids...

To me....it's extremely doubtful this guy is going to achieve anything..most are just going to view him as a nutcase (sorry for the word).....

[Trailscout]

A time and place for everything? I have seen television footage of Amazonian and New Guinea tribes where nudity is total: all people all the time wearing nothing ever! Maybe the time for nudity is all the time and the place is whereever your feet carry you!

Cultures can change and often should. British and American culture needs to quit stressing out about nudity and allow it in an increased number of places. Sometimes culture needs a push in the right direction. Germany was forcibly de-Nazified following WWII. We need a Marshall plan for ridding the U.K. and the USA of body shame. It is not an innocuous thing. People have died from it.

Any flaws in Steve Gough's character do not automatically cast all nudists in a bad light.
I have no idea what the state of his relation is with his ex-wife and children. What you call neglect may not be that at all. It remains to be seen if his tears are a sign of instability or merely a broken heart from all the vitriol hurled at him. But really, one man's flaws are not at issue. His public life, his nude trek across Britain is.

Many men and women take time out of their careers for spiritual journeys, often in the form of lengthy hikes. Here the Appalachian Trail affords a place for such a journey and many people return to society profoundly changed for the better after months in the wilderness. The ultimate benefit to society could far outweigh a few months of lost productivity in some factory.

Not everyone in Britain needs to be producing some material good. Mr. Gough may have done far more to improve British society by his hike than
he would have selling shoes or baking pies.

I hope that he will write magazine articles, do television interviews, maybe write a book. His thoughts may be the very thing Britain needs to hear right now in this age of uncertainty.

Rik,

"No, this is simply not true. Sky News filed an article .... at 7.09 Monday 6th October - that's just two hours ago. Do a Google news search for "Stephen Gough" and you will find a number of articles filed during the last few days."

Rik, he wasn't mentioned on live television on BBC, ITV, Chennels 4 or 5, CNN, Fox News or Sky News (not that I saw). Certainly he does get a mention on websites - but then so did Sophie the flatulent goldfish!

"Of the many articles some(not many) have been critical and some(not many) have been supportive but most have simply been neutral by reporting the facts."

Agreed. That's also what I said.

"So I think you're being completely misleading to suggest that the news media have lost interest."

Last time Mr Gough got arrested it wasn't even reported on most TV or radio news stations. It warranted a couple of lines somewhere around the bottom of page 18 of The Times. He's in court again today - yet where is the media interest? I bet 99.999% of people don't know he's in court. In fact, I'd bet at least 90% of the UK population have never even heard of him or about his escapades. I've mentioned it to several people and nobody I spoke to had heard about him. Why don't you do a straw poll with your neighbours, Rik, and see if they have ever heard of Steve Gough (the naked rambler, not the cricketer)? I bet the vast majority haven't!

"To be frank though I wish they would for the less newsworthy the issue of public nudity is the more it demonstrates public acceptance."

So you think the press and the public just think it's "acceptable" for a man to walk the streets of Britain naked do you, Rik?

"The fact that some, or maybe many, take the view that it's a principle not worth fighting for does not lessen his own strength of feeling and should not be used as a weapon to force him to abandon his own integrity."

Any good general knows when to advance, and also when to retreat. Mr Gough is rapidly losing this particular battle and he's now paying a heavy price (sorry about mixing my metaphors). Strategically speaking, if he had any sense he'd abandon this attempt now and take stock. If he doesn't he'll end up hurting a lot of people, but mainly himself.

"to demonstrate that the sight of nudity is not the alarming and distressing thing which some would have you believe, who nobody believes was intent on offending anyone (even if, as the judge suggested, that was the effect - at least on one person)"

All he has proved is that the sight of nudity IS alarming and distressing to people!!! That's why he got locked up.

"The physical achievement alone is quite worthy of praise..."

Not particularly. Had he run the route, or done it carrying an anvil, or walked it backwards (e.g. for charity) then it would have been some feate. But countless others have walked that route. If you don't have other committments (e.g. like a job and a family to support!!) then you can ramble to your heart's content.

"but beyond that he has, in his own small way, encouraged people to debate the issue (look at the amount of debate on this discussion board alone - and this is primarily an American board),"

Yes but this is a naturist board. The Times started a discussion board about it months ago and they got about five contributions! Nobody is interested. Public nudity isn't an issue - it's just a form of unacceptable behaviour.

"Should we really deny people the right to sacrifice themsleves for what they believe in?"

Mr Gough might very well be "stuck" in his situation. He's told everyone what he's doing - he's become a bit of a folk hero among the minute number of adherents of the "Stop Segregation" movement. There is no doubt that he hates being in prison (he broke down and cried in court), and so he finds himself between the devil and the deep blue sea - either being locked up in the segregation wing of a particularly bleak Scottish prison or let down your "fans". For pity's sake, tell the poor fellow to let this one go. Tell him to try again another year if he must, but do whatever it takes to end his present ordeal now.

"It also surprises me that someone who has been referred to as an "silly irritant" and an "irrelevance" continues to be the subject of so much debate. I don't know about you but I don't waste my time on irrelevances - there's so many more important things to do."

He is rapidly becoming a "silly irritant" and an "irrelevance" to the British media and public. But this is a naturist board and so matters such as this are bound to be discussed.

Gary Naturist

"You mention that Steve has "used up any public sympathy". How do you know? Is it because "he barely achieves a line in the papers any more"? That's not a very good indicator of public sympathy."

It's because very few people have heard of him, Gary. The tiny number of sympathisers he had in the media have now gone silent with regards to his case. Mr Gough's activities were part of our annual "midsummer madness" stories, but now it's autumn.

"..the public, in the minds of the newspaper publishers, has become desensitized to Steve's nude trek. It's now not enough of an issue for them to pursue."

You are absolutely right. People couldn't care less that Mr Gough is languishing in his bleak prison cell. They are desensitized to what is happening to HIM, but they are certainly not desensitized to public nudity.

"That's the way it should be with public nudity -- not enough of an issue to pursue. Unfortunately, the police and the legal system haven't realized it yet."

No matter how much you try, you can't escape the simple fact that people are complaining about him. That's the catalyst for him being arrested. If they weren't bothered about him they wouldn't call the police - but they are and they do! So the police and the legal system are (rightly) responding to public concerns.

"Stu, we have shown you much more empathy and respect than you are affording Steve. Your lack of charity is, at best, disappointing."

Gary - I will rejoice if Mr Gough comes out of prison. There are plenty far more worthy people to be where he is than him. I hoped that when he was convicted and released on Friday last that would have been an end to his activities for this year. I sincerely hoped that he would return to his home town and begin the task of rebuilding his life and re-establishing his relationships with his family. He chose not to do that. Instead he alarmed yet another innocent member of the public. I'm really don't want to seem uncharitable but it's hard to feel sympathy for someone who is so intent on destroying their own life whilst hurting others - their own loved ones and total strangers - on the way.

Rocket

"I get upset when I see someone neglecting their children, and refusing to abide by the law. I also think people should work, and try to make contributions to society. What's wrong with that?"

You do make a valid point. There are things that I would rather be doing than getting up at 6am every morning and going off to work to support my family. But the money has to come from somewhere.

"To me....it's extremely doubtful this guy is going to achieve anything..most are just going to view him as a nutcase (sorry for the word)....."

He's a former paratrooper with a good physique - and he must be pretty fit to do all that hiking! There can be little doubt that he could get a job if he wished and started paying his way in the world. Now when a potential employer asks him what he has been doing for the last few months, any truthful answer he gives will make him more or less unemployable. So what's he going to live on? Me and people like me who are paying our taxes - and his too!

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Rik, he wasn't mentioned on live television on BBC, ITV, Chennels 4 or 5, CNN, Fox News or Sky News (not that I saw). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Er, I was responding to your point "I just want to make a point about the press and Mr Gough". The 'press' not TV. Can't you even remember what you wrote or are you going to tell me that the Stu definition of 'press' includes television?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All he has proved is that the sight of nudity IS alarming and distressing to people!!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure you meant to say "alarming and distressting to ONE person" the good Kathleen MacDonald (51) who was actually 'disconcerted' rather than alarmed and distressed.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"The physical achievement alone is quite worthy of praise..."

Not particularly. Had he run the route, or done it carrying an anvil, or walked it backwards (e.g. for charity) then it would have been some feate. But countless others have walked that route. If you don't have other committments (e.g. like a job and a family to support!!) then you can ramble to your heart's content. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well he may be known as the Naked Rambler but in fact he was covering 20 miles a day which is actually more like serious hiking than rambling. You shouldn't allow your distaste for nudity to cloud your judgement of Steve's Gough physical achievement - it does nothing to support your argument.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes but this is a naturist board. The Times started a discussion board about it months ago and they got about five contributions! Nobody is interested. Public nudity isn't an issue - it's just a form of unacceptable behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So we agree that public nudity isn't an issue although surely if it's unacceptable behaviour that disconcerts all who witness it then it is an issue. It's very confusing isn't it?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Mr Gough might very well be "stuck" in his situation. He's told everyone what he's doing - he's become a bit of a folk hero among the minute number of adherents of the "Stop Segregation" movement. There is no doubt that he hates being in prison (he broke down and cried in court), and so he finds himself between the devil and the deep blue sea - either being locked up in the segregation wing of a particularly bleak Scottish prison or let down your "fans". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well that's you spin on the situation but I don't really buy it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He is rapidly becoming a "silly irritant" and an "irrelevance" to the British media and public. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why would he be an 'irritant' to the British media. If he's newsworthy they'll report, if he's not they won't. Irritablity doesn't come into it.

Rik

[Rocket]

I was just reading www.cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com) apparently Mr Gough is going to be in jail till his trial next month /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu does like writing looooooong essays doesn't he? I read none of it and just scroll past it--except for reading small portions that others quote. Also, why is Steve called a "rambler"? The definition of ramble is, "to move, especially to walk, about idly, without any special goal."

He has a goal--to walk a specific amount of miles from and to a specific area nude. So that doesn't make him a "rambler". He is a man on a mission.

Also, if Steve is no more than a "silly irritant" to people, then why not leave him alone, ignore him, and let him finish his walk? Had they done that and given him no press or news, he might have gotten discouraged and given up a long time ago, thinking he wasn't accomplishing anything.

[Soleil Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
Stu does like writing looooooong essays doesn't he? I read none of it and just scroll past it--except for reading small portions that others quote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't know what you're missing Jon-Marc ! I read each and every word he writes. I may disagree with him on many things, even be hard on him sometimes (well... most times...), but he's someone we can have an actual debate with.

[Rocket]

Solneil Nue,

I like what Stu says as well. He sees the BIG PICTURE.

If you think the time is coming that people can run around nude everywhere...like what this guy doing the walk wants..is coming..it's not..

You asked me how I know the UK people don't want it. He's in jail...

He's shown a contempt for court...and while I don't know the UK legal system..here in North America..doing so results in time behind bars..

Myself, I am very happy with the status quo we have right now..nude beaches..nude swims..

I am not interested in anything more..if there are those who don't have that..I would have no problem lending support so they do..

I won't be voting for nudity everywhere though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Soleil Nu]

Rocket, I marvel at the way you butcher my name /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Iran is a Muslim country..they have their ways. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You haven't answered my question.
So, do you think what they are doing is wrong or not ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I have a Muslim friend, as she wears the customary veil, and she is here in the West. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And she is free to to so or not, as naturistmark1 pointed out. She would not have this freedom in her own country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Rather than getting into a debate about things that aren't related... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So the laws about the dress code in Iran and the laws about the dress code in the western world aren't related ? geezz... I would never have guessed !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
BTW...we don't have state-sponsered whippings here in the USA, Canada, or the UK for nudists.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not. Here, we arrest them, throw them in jail, pin a criminal record on them and put their names on sex offenders lists so they can no longer find a decent place to live and hold a decent job for the rest of their lives. We are much more civilized !

Now regarding Steve Gough (and I DO thank you for bringing me back on topic),

Let's make one thing clear: I do not condone what Mr. Gough is doing. This is simply not my way of doing things. But I DO understand how some people are ready to sacrifice everything for what they believe in. However, your personal attacks on his character are not only mean and totally uncalled for, they are irrelevant to this thread and have no place on this board, IMO. We are discussing the man's ACTIONS, not the man himself. How could we, none of us actualy know the guy !

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I like what Stu says as well. He sees the BIG PICTURE. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No Rocket. Stu doesn't see the big picture, and neither do I. We only see things from our own personal viewpoint, and through the filter of our own personal experiences. Only through debate and trying to understand each person's point of view can we hope to eventualy see something even remotely resembling the big picture. I know this, and I suspect Stu knows this as well, or else he wouldn't be here debating with us.

[Rocket]

SoNeil Nu,

Pls give me one example of someone being arrested in Canada for going to a clothing option beach or swim?

Do you have any examples of people going to a nudist club and being arrested?

Why this guy in the UK deserves what he gets is because he is willfully defying the court. He's won himself a month's free lodging in jail..and more to come..

Towards Iran....no..of course I don't agree..but I just don't see the same parallel between these circumstances and the one's you speak of.

If you want it to be..and it seems you and others here do..that you can be nude as easy as you wear sandles in public..it isn't going to happen.

We're fine with the status quo..beaches..swims..clubs (which I've never been)..

There's resorts...as well..

This is a mute argument..because it's not going to happen. I don't want it..and the majority of the public don't either..

BTW..I don't think I qualify in the same category of "nudist" as others here. I actually enjoy wearing clothes and shopping for them!!!

And I have no interest in having a get-to-gether..and being nude while everyone else is clothed!!! I usually wear clothes at home!!!

Some people have absolutely NO desire to understand anyone else's side of anything. They express their viewpoint and act as though their's is the only one that could possibly be right.

Some people don't debate--they argue, call people names who disagree with them, and slander their character. I once had a Catholic friend; I'm Baptist. We had a friendly debate concerning our differences in beliefs. We didn't argue or call each other names, and we remained friends. That's what debating is.

There's nothing wrong with believing you're right. I believe I'm right in what I believe, but I recognize the fact that I'm NOT all-knowing and don't have all the answers to ANYTHING.

Mature people debate in a friendly manner. Immature people argue and try to put others down.

[Bob S.]

Rocket, I'm glad to see you are finally debating instead of name-calling. At least now there is something to argue.

"but I get upset when I see someone neglecting their children, and refusing to abide by the law. I also think people should work, and try to make contributions to society. What's wrong with that?"

There's nothing wrong with that. I would like to know how he discussed this with his wife and what her beliefs on nudity are. That could have played a larger role in this adventure. If she had been for his trek, there wouldn't have been any family problems. Maybe she was supportive of him until she realized that he was actually serious.

"To me....it's extremely doubtful this guy is going to achieve anything..most are just going to view him as a nutcase (sorry for the word)....."

Oh, don't count him out yet. I think he can build on this. He is infamous now in the UK. He could easily use this notoriety to do speeches. Maybe he will give up when the weather gets too cold. He has already achieved a lot. He walked throughout all of England, winning at least one court battle down there and been interviewed by some children in an article that was published in a major UK paper. Thise are achievements.

And remember, even Jesus was disliked by many who probably also thought of him as a "nutcase." (and no, I am not comparing Steve to Jesus, just the public's attitude's toward them).

"I like what Stu says as well. He sees the BIG PICTURE."

Rocket, we all can see the big picture. It's just that some of us see different images.

"but then so did Sophie the flatulent goldfish!"

stu, that I have got to hear about!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bob S.

Bob,

"Oh, don't count him out yet. I think he can build on this. He is infamous now in the UK."

In reality, Bob, hardly anybody out of his home town has even heard of him here in the UK. He occasionally makes a couple of lines on page 18 of the national papers - you know - somewhere near the flatulent goldfish. I've mentioned his case to a number of colleagues and friends and I've so far found one and only one person who has heard of him. I even mentioned it to the editor of my local newspaper, and she hadn't heard of him or his escapade!!!!

"He has already achieved a lot. He walked throughout all of England, winning at least one court battle down there and been interviewed by some children in an article that was published in a major UK paper. Thise are achievements."

What "court battle"? The police here have been using a law going back at least to 1361 which is primarily concerned with taking disorderly people off the streets. The vast majority of cases of "breach of the peace" arrests are purely preventative - they lock the offender up for a few hours to "cool off" - and there is no court case. The legal definition of this much used yet rather anachronistic law has changed significantly quite recently, and the police would have been unaware of that fact. So the simple solution is to let him go. Had he been charged with a suitable criminal offence (and breach of the peace in English law is NOT a criminal offence) then he would in all probability have been convicted.


"stu, that I have got to hear about!!"

It's a story about a goldfish in the twon of Barnsley that (allegedly) comes up for air periodically and later expels it through it's rear orifice. I have no idea whether this story is true but it did capture my interest momentarily!

Stu

[Bob S.]

You do talk with some odd people, stu. Why not canvass your neighbors, if they aren't already tired of your constant hypothetical questions already. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Let's get some more Ukers here. Rik, Max? Do you feel he is somewhat well known? Enough to call him infamous?

"What "court battle"?"

Well, I am not going to read through this discourse to find that report. Maybe I'll go to his yahoo group and report back later, unless someone else wants to do the fingerwork.

"I have no idea whether this story is true but it did capture my interest momentarily!"

Hey, farting fish are funny /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
Let's get some more Ukers here. Rik, Max? Do you feel he is somewhat well known? Enough to call him infamous? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Trouble is Bob that whatever I say Stu diasgrees or put's some spin on it to support his own argument, or simply claims that he knows better. For example he's currently saying that the media have lost interest. Then when I point out examples of where the media has not lost interest it turns out that Sti's interpretation of media is peak time viewing on the main BBC television news channel (ok that's a bit of an exageration to support my argument but you get the picture /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ).

My take is that Steve is not particularly well known, why should he be he's only a naked rambler not a mass murderer or a pop idol but what he has been doing is different enough from the norm for the news media to pick up on it. The news media also picks up on the activities of our politicians but the average Brit would have difficulty in naming any but the most famous politicians. Ask who the Minister for Education is, for example, and you're as likely as not to be met with a blank stare.

So I'm not sure the issue of whether or not he's well known supports one side of the argument or the other but if you ask me if Steve Gough's activity is reported then yes it is - in all news media to varying degree (do a Google news search)- but I certainly don't get the impression that he's become an "irritant" nor do I get the impression that most naturists or non-naturists are irritated by him although of course a small number are - that's to be expected.

I do get a sense that of those that know about Steve Gough, his current incarceration is an outrage. Sure it could be argued that he's the architect of his own misfortune but I feel it's more to do with his challenging the magistrature (if that's the right word) than challenging the legality of public nudity. It's a wielding of power by individuals in authority rather than the wielding of power to protect the population.

If anything I sense that people will now start comparing him with Vincent Bethell who was also gaoled for a long period and then acquitted and Stu can argue till he's blue in the face (if he's not already) that Vincent was accused of the wrong crime but that's irrelevant to the media and the general public - the bottom line is he was acquitted of any crime related to being nude in public. There is also some sense that Vincent Bethell is an anarchist whereas Steve Gough is a mild mannered person just trying to make a point - he's not climbing lamp-posts or shouting slogans: he's just walking in his natural environment. So he's more likely to get sympathetic treatment than VB.

From a purely technical point of view his legal battle is in Scotland rather than England so there's more unknown factors involved and it's much harder to predict the outcome. Perhaps he should have walked the length of England from Land's End to Berwick on Tweed (on the Scottish border) but it doesn't have quite the same impact as Land's End to John O'Groats.

Anyway that's my view. I could write a complete pack of lies or I could write what I genuinely feel so it's your decision what to believe. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

Originally posted by Jon-Marc: Some people have absolutely NO desire to understand anyone else's side of anything. They express their viewpoint and act as though their's is the only one that could possibly be right.

And, some of these folks believe that their views should be imposed on everyone else.

Gary

Bob,

A few points on what Rik said.

The news of Mr Gough is being reported spasmodically. He certainly doesn't feature on the main news mostly, whereas a tiger in a New York apartment does. When his name is mentioned in the national papers, which doesn't occur very often, he merits about 40 words. This morning I gave a lecture to 113 law students and began by asking them a series of questions on current affairs that could affect the law - present or future. I asked who knew who Steve Gough was. A couple told me he was a sportsman. I asked who had heard of the "naked rambler" - about a dozen raised their hands. So that means that nearly 90% of law students, who are expected to keep themselves appraised of current affairs issues, have never heard of him, and 0% knew his name.

The "ittitant" bit is true in my perception. The few people who do know who he is usually refer to him by expressions such as "idiot", and show little interest in the issues.

"I do get a sense that of those that know about Steve Gough, his current incarceration is an outrage."

I have discussed this issue with many people - and not a single one have thought his detention was "an outrage". Yes, after I explained what he was doing a few did say that they thought it seemed harmless enough - but most seemed to think that he is, as Rik says, "the architect of his own misfortune".

"If anything I sense that people will now start comparing him with Vincent Bethell"

The number of people who could tell you who Vincent Bethell is is minute! He is well and truly forgotten!

"who was also gaoled for a long period and then acquitted and Stu can argue till he's blue in the face (if he's not already) that Vincent was accused of the wrong crime but that's irrelevant"

It is irrelevant now. A few years ago a person was acquitted of murder in Belfast and, as soon as she stepped out of the courtroom, she admitted the crime to reporters. Juries get things wrong and you can't draw any conclusions from one jury's decision based on one set of facts on one particular day. The trial judge warned Mr Bethell of that before he left the court. Like Mr Gough, Mr Bethell spent many months incarcerated for his troubles and has been pretty inactive since, so it had the desired effect.

"So he's more likely to get sympathetic treatment than VB".

We'll just have to agree to differ on that one. I don't see any major campaign in the media calling for Mr Gough to be freed.

Stu

[Rik]

So there you go Bob, you pays your money and you takes your choice! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

"This morning I gave a lecture to 113 law students and began by asking them a series of questions on current affairs that could affect the law - present or future. I asked who knew who Steve Gough was. A couple told me he was a sportsman. I asked who had heard of the "naked rambler" - about a dozen raised their hands. So that means that nearly 90% of law students, who are expected to keep themselves appraised of current affairs issues, have never heard of him, and 0% knew his name."

I think that's great! It means walking around nude isn't news worthy enough to stick in someone's mind as being unusual or even "shocking"! If it were truly so alarming to people as stu claims then it would be the center of every news cast. I guess those law students consider public nudity to be unremarkable enough not to be noticed. To them it just isn't news.

[Rocket]

I am hoping that the loon sees the error in his ways during his incareration. When he comes up for trial..simply pleads guilty and asks for a conditional discharge. The judge grants it....and he tries to put his life back together (ie: get a job; support his kids).

The fact that he's incarcerated says something. Normally, and I am no expert on UK law, for something like this, the person is just charged and left on his own recognicance (sp?). The fact he's behind bars makes it clear the law of the land doesn't want someone walking around naked, and expecting handouts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
The fact he's behind bars makes it clear the law of the land doesn't want someone walking around naked, and expecting handouts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not quite. It means that the particular magistrate who heard the case doesn't want someone walking around naked. We've seen already that other magistrates take a different view.

Neither the magistrate nor the 'law of the land' makes any connection between 'walking around naked' and 'expecting handouts'.

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

Since June he's already been in jail for a month if the media reports I read are accurate. That says something..

[Trailscout]

Rocket,
Why do you keep trying to sidetrack the issue with whether Gough is working every day?

You ignored my previous post, so here it is in part once again:

"Many men and women take time out of their careers for spiritual journeys, often in the form of lengthy hikes. Here the Appalachian Trail affords a place for such a journey and many people return to society profoundly changed for the better after months in the wilderness. The ultimate benefit to society could far outweigh a few months of lost productivity in some factory.

Not everyone in Britain needs to be producing some material good. Mr. Gough may have done far more to improve British society by his hike than
he would have selling shoes or baking pies.

I hope that he will write magazine articles, do television interviews, maybe write a book. His thoughts may be the very thing Britain needs to hear right now in this age of uncertainty".

You don't seem to understand a major premise of Western law: a judge or a member of parliament can't simply decide that he doesn't like nudity and simply declare it illegal by fiat. That went out with the signing of the Magna Carta.
Laws must be constitutional. Otherwise Tony Blair could arbitrarily declare that all Britons must go to church on Sunday and everyone would have to comply.

There is no law forbidding simple nudity in either the USA or in the UK. Mr. Gough was falsely arrested.

Cyndiann,

"..walking around nude isn't news worthy enough to stick in someone's mind as being unusual or even "shocking"! If it were truly so alarming to people as stu claims then it would be the center of every news cast."

Hardly. Our papers are filled daily with stories of weirdos and oddballs doing stupid things, especially in the summer months. If the press thought what he was doing was "unremarkable" they would be clamouring for his release. But they're not!

"I guess those law students consider public nudity to be unremarkable enough not to be noticed. To them it just isn't news."

That's not logical. It isn't news because most of them didn't know he was doing it!

Rocket

"The fact he's behind bars makes it clear the law of the land doesn't want someone walking around naked...."

Exactly! The law doesn't and, in my view, the people don't either.

Rik

"Not quite. It means that the particular magistrate who heard the case doesn't want someone walking around naked. We've seen already that other magistrates take a different view."

Not quite, Rik. This time he's been dealt with under Scottish law, not English law, and what constitutes a breach of the peace north of the border is quite different. Also, bear in mind that he has already been convicted in Southampton of a Public Order Act offence for being naked in public, and I rather think he's on bail to another English court right now.

"Neither the magistrate nor the 'law of the land' makes any connection between 'walking around naked' and 'expecting handouts'."

True, but it does tell us something about his priorities in life and his total lack of responsibility. At the moment he's taking from society (i.e. the rest of us who work and pay our taxes) whilst being a nuisance and an irritant to it. It is noticeable that he didn't think to ensure that his family's and his own needs were properly catered for in advance before starting this venture. Rocket has made a valid point here and we shouldn't overlook it.

Stu

[Rocket]

TrailScout,

If this guy had any responsibility, he would have at least saved for his journey, and not made himself dependant on others. Perhaps, others, out of the kindness of their hearts, help support this guy, but I think he's got a real nerve to expect it.

I really don't have a problem with people embarking on different things, at their own leisure and expense..but to do it on the backs of others is not right.

Towards TV interviews..all I can say is I hope not. I strongly suspect most people view this guy as a loon and aren't interested in hearing what he has to say. At least I hope that's the case.

[Bob S.]

Thanks Rik. And stu, the reason why I asked for opinions from other Britons was because I already knew your views.

Now, as Rik pointed out, many people probably wouldn't know who your Misister of Education was, but they would know what he does. I am sure the same would go for Steve Gough. Not many people would know his name, but they would know who you were talking about if you mentioned, "The naked rambler" or something to that effect.

Now I asked that because I wanted to know how lucrative of a post-rambling careet he could have. I am sure that he could do some talking at some nudist gatherings. He could sell his story as a book or a movie. He could still make money. Rocket mentioned that he is probably unemployable and this was the point I was getting at.

And by the way stu, the fact that a group of law students didn't know who he was can eitehr prove what cyndiann said or it could mean that they are too busy studying to become lawyers.

"Perhaps, others, out of the kindness of their hearts, help support this guy, but I think he's got a real nerve to expect it."

Rocket, you have only read articles about him. He knows whether he expected handouts or not. Please do not speak for him anymore.

Bob S.

There are a lot of celebrities whose names mean nothing to me when I hear them. I see faces of celebrities and have no idea what their names are. It's not surprising that not everyone knows who Steve is. I have no idea how his last name is pronouced. If some one asked me if I had heard of him, I would probably say no unless they said, "He's the guy in England who was arrested for walking naked outdoors", or something like that.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
I really don't have a problem with people embarking on different things, at their own leisure and expense..but to do it on the backs of others is not right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So people like Ellen MacArthur who sailed around the world single-handedly in 2000 on the back of her sponsors Kingfisher (a large UK retailer) was not right? Or Fyona Cambell who's round-the-world walk was paid for by Campbell's Soups was not right?

Well I suppose you're entitled to your view.

Rik

Rik,

"So people like Ellen MacArthur who sailed around the world single-handedly in 2000 on the back of her sponsors Kingfisher (a large UK retailer) was not right? Or Fyona Cambell who's round-the-world walk was paid for by Campbell's Soups was not right?"

My tax money didn't pay for Ellen MacArthur or Fyona Campbell. Unfortunately rather a lot of it has been spent on Mr Gough. Kingfisher and Campbell's Soups can spend their money on whatever they like - but the British public didn't give their consent to their money being wasted on Mr Gough's irresponsibility.

Stu

[Rocket]

Stu,

Well said..and my thoughts exactly..

Rik,

Why do you continually try to defend this deadbeat (sorry)?

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
My tax money didn't pay for Ellen MacArthur or Fyona Campbell. Unfortunately rather a lot of it has been spent on Mr Gough. Kingfisher and Campbell's Soups can spend their money on whatever they like - but the British public didn't give their consent to their money being wasted on Mr Gough's irresponsibility. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If, as you assert, it is entirely right for Steve Gough to be locked up then you must realise that this will cost money and because you support the laws and the legal system and have exercised your democratic rights which enable the budgets for such things to be allocated then you and the public have given their consent to this waste of money.

As you consider it so wasteful I trust you will be doing everything in your power to demand Steve's Gough immediate release.

However, Rocket's post to which I was responding said "The fact he's behind bars makes it clear the law of the land doesn't want someone walking around naked, and expecting handouts. " I don't think that public money being spent to lock him up amounts to his "expecting handouts".

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Rik, Why do you continually try to defend this deadbeat (sorry)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Because I weigh up all the arguments for and against public nudity and to date the arguments in favour outweigh the arguments against.

The biggest issue for me is that I simply cannot understand why people might be offended by the sight of a small area of the human body and therefore challenge the notion that most people are actually offended. The fact that most people don't practise public nudity does not necessarily mean that they are offended by it.

People like you often claim that people (usually other people) are offended by nudity but when you try to find out exactly what it is about nudity which is so offensive you can never get a straight answer. I've asked this of Stu many times and he claims it's simply not possible to identify why people are offended and that it's enough to assume that they are.

So here's a challenge for you Rocket (not Stu!). Can you describe why nudity in public is so offensive (or harmful or distressing or alarming or whatever) that people have to be protected from it by locking up Steve Gough at a huge and, as we agree, unnecessary public expense?

Rik

Rik,

"If, as you assert, it is entirely right for Steve Gough to be locked up then you must realise that this will cost money and because you support the laws and the legal system and have exercised your democratic rights which enable the budgets for such things to be allocated then you and the public have given their consent to this waste of money."

Of course. Exactly the same can be said for any type of criminal. Society has to respond to the way criminals behave. It is the criminal`s behaviour that forces society into committing resources in this way.

"As you consider it so wasteful I trust you will be doing everything in your power to demand Steve's Gough immediate release".

When he stops behaving in such a way that society needs to be protected from him then I will be happy to support a call for his release.

"I don't think that public money being spent to lock him up amounts to his "expecting handouts".

I wonder who is paying for his defence lawyer. I wonder who is paying for his kids whilst he is inside. Hmm

"The fact that most people don't practise public nudity does not necessarily mean that they are offended by it."

The fact that most people avoid naturist beaches means they are offended by it. The fact that in nearly every gym, swimming pool, leisure centre etc etc in the WORLD has separate changing facilities for males and females should tell you something about the publics attitude to opposite sex nudity. Most people do not participate in naturist activities, visit naturist venues, nor even, most of the time at least, wander about their own homes naked. That should tell you something.

"I've asked this of Stu many times and he claims it's simply not possible to identify why people are offended and that it's enough to assume that they are."

Because all you do is dismiss what I say as being illogical and groundless fears and emotions and that gets us nowhere. You seem to think that the fact that because certain feelings, emotions etc can not be rationalised then they are invalid and should be disregarded. Sorry, but I am not a robot nor a Mr Spok. Feelings and even phobias should be taken account of whether or not they meet your requirements for logic.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Society has to respond to the way criminals behave. It is the criminal`s behaviour that forces society into committing resources in this way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So if you believe Steve GOugh is a criminal then why did you say "but the British public didn't give their consent to their money being wasted on Mr Gough's irresponsibility" when you've just argued that they have consented? I don't think you can say that a criminal "forces" the public to spend its money. It is the public which chooses to spend its money pursuing those it believes to be criminals - and sometimes, as in the case of Steve Gough, it's a complete waste of money.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact that most people avoid naturist beaches means they are offended by it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that most people don't go to naturist beaches does not mean that most people avoid naturist beaches. You must try to be more logical with your arguments!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"I've asked this of Stu many times and he claims it's simply not possible to identify why people are offended and that it's enough to assume that they are."

Because all you do is dismiss what I say as being illogical and groundless fears and emotions and that gets us nowhere. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure that you've ever attempted to identify why the public apparently finds nudity offensive and therefore I've not been in a position to dismiss what you say on any grounds.

However what I do dismiss is the assertion that emotional responses cannot be explored with a view to understanding the underlying causes so I thought that perhaps Rocket might be interested in helping me to get beyond "it's a cultural thing" or "it's just not nice" - preferably without going down the route of comparing it with public urination! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

It's like this:

*people don't want to see naked bodies all over the place. Next time you are out..imagine when you see people at the malls..the corner..the store..the bank..everyone NUDE..

I'm sorry..but I, along with most, would find it pretty bad.....

I live in Canada, and it's against the criminal code..

Just be happy with what you got..nude beaches..swims..clubs..things like that..

Because that is ALL you are gonna get...and represents reasonable accomodation to that vast majority of public that doesn't want it to go any further..

Rik,

"I don't think you can say that a criminal "forces" the public to spend its money."

The public have to either spend the money, put up with the crime, or bring back summary execution.

"The fact that most people don't go to naturist beaches does not mean that most people avoid naturist beaches."

Of course they do! Most people know where there are nudist beaches and most people don't choose to go to them. In other words they avoid them because nudist beaches are for nudists, and most people aren't nudists.

It's not rocket science, is it Rocket? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Trailscout]

Stu,

You have already conceded that most nude beaches are isolated. Generally the public does not have to avoid them. The family on holiday would have to go well out of their way to visit most nude beaches.

I know of several people who were pleasantly surprized when they did stumble upon a nude beach. They were thoroughly charmed by the sight of innocent children playing in the sand, lovely young couples strolling hand in hand.
I only regret that the isolation of nudists tend to perpetuate the myths about us.

[Rocket]

Stu,

You refute Rik's arguments better than I ever could.

Rik,

Regarding Mr Gough..he has continually rejected the Court's adomonishment to reject his behaviour. What I suspect, this "locking him up" is to give him time to consider his actions..and then refrain from them.

What I am hoping..is he'll take this time to reflect..and then..when he comes to trial..pleads guilty and asked for a conditional discharge on the grounds he won't do it anymore. I also think he should apologize to the Crown. The judge grants it..and he tries to put his life back together.

I see the owner's of this site have taken the liberty of posting his picture again. I think we should distance ourselves from this person. From what I've seen, he's absolutely nothing to be proud of..he's irresponsible..doesn't respect authority..doesn't work..

And that's why I have the opinion I have of him..and I strongly suspect most other people think the same. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Trailscout]

Why should Mr. Gough recant his actions? He has done nothing worse than Isaiah did for 3 years at the command of God himself. His nude march served admirably to highlight the crass interference of the UK government in the lives of their citizens.
The Irish of Ulster are still under British tyranny. One more example of why I am proud to be an American and no longer a pawn on the Crown's chessboard.

Mr. Gough has been accused of not working. Or "parasitism" as the Soviets used to say of those they persecuted.

But actually he has been hard at work:
His work has been to galvanize our attention to British repression. He deserves to be well rewarded by those of us who have already benefitted from his self-sacrifice.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Most people know where there are nudist beaches and most people don't choose to go to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With the exception of Brighton nudist beach all other UK nudist beaches are relatively remote. So even if they live close to a nudist beach, for 'most' people their nearest nudist beach would be considerably further away than their nearest beach so if they just want to go to the beach they are unlikley to avoid going to a nudist beach just to go to a beach which is nearer.

If I want to climb a mountain I'm not avoiding Ben Nevis just because I choose to climb Snowdon.

Rik

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Rik,

It's like this:

*people don't want to see naked bodies all over the place. Next time you are out..imagine when you see people at the malls..the corner..the store..the bank..everyone NUDE..

I'm sorry..but I, along with most, would find it pretty bad.....

I live in Canada, and it's against the criminal code..

Just be happy with what you got..nude beaches..swims..clubs..things like that..

Because that is ALL you are gonna get...and represents reasonable accomodation to that vast majority of public that doesn't want it to go any further.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So Rocket, which of all that descibes why people find nudity offensive?

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

To be blunt...most of the public doesn't want to see penises, testicles, vaginas, breasts, here and there..

It's just the way it is...it's against public decency..

Kinda like if two people were having sex in public..perhaps you wouldn't find it objectionable..but most of the public would.

I'm sorry if you don't understand this...

If you are wanting nudity EVERYWHERE..and it seems you do..you have A LONG way to go...because public will simply isn't with you.

If I'm not making it clear (and perhaps I am not)..contact the authorities.

Also, go to a swimming pool where bathing suits are about..ask if it's ok if you can swim without a suit..and then..ask why not..

They'll help you out /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

Rocket,

Just as I thought. You don't know why nudity is apparently offensive so you suggest I ask someone else. Trouble is, everyone I ask doesn't know either and they suggest I ask someone else.

Surely someone out there knows the answer. Hello??...Anyone there???

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

It is simply the law...and people have determined that for the public..it's the way it is..

Most people find it creates fuss..and public disorder...

I'm not a lawyer..if you disagree...talk to a lawyer..or walk around nude in public..and you'll have a judge and all the the time in the world to present your arguments.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

But Rocket I'm, not talking about the law (which in the UK is not clear cut as far as nudity is concerned - but that's another debate) I'm talking about people.

If the sight of nudity is offensive it's not the law which makes it so - the law should reflect public opinion. My assertion is that the laws used against Steve Gough (which are not anti-nudity laws) misinterpret public opinion for no-one I have ever asked can describe to me what is so offensive about nudity that people have to be locked up for it. Or perhaps what I really mean is that if no-one can demonstrate the nature of the offence then maybe the reaction of people to nudity is simply a conditioned respose rather than a genuinely held emotion.

An no, I don't want nudity everywhere. What I want is to see a shift in public opinion which makes nudity in public less remarkable than it currently is so that if I'm sunbathing in my back garden or by a river I can do so without the fear of being thought of a pervert.

If there were to be nudity by everyone everywhere then clearly that could only be achieved by consent, by everyone wanting to be nude everywhere. I'm realsitic enough to know that's most unlikely but I do believe that public opinion can be shifted in order to broaden the range of places where nudity is acceptable.

By challenging the notion of offensiveness in relation to nudity we can perhaps start to gain a little ground. If you are a naturist then surely you would welcome the opportunity to be able to skinnydip in a local river without others thinking you're being offensive.

Rik

[Rocket]

Rik,

I won't be skinny dipping in ANY river in view of others..

I am simply not interested in making "any" improvements at all...

If you want to sunbathe nude..fine..just keep it out of view of others...

Want to skinny dip in a river...again..fine..just do it out of public view....

I think enough reasonable accomadation has been made..

Nude beaches...swims..clubs...all ok...

But I won't be working to "improve" anything further..

[Jochanaan]

Greetings, Rocket! I always enjoy reading new points of view.

It sounds from your previous posts as if you prefer to maintain the status quo re nudism. (Someone once said, "I hate a Roman named Status Quo!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) That would be fine, if it were proven that the status quo was in fact healthy, moral, uplifting, and productive. But there is good evidence that the public's attitudes regarding nudity are just the opposite: oppressive, unhealthy, and even contradictory. (Why else are men allowed to go topfree in many situations that women aren't? This is especially oppressive to breastfeeding mothers.) There's also evidence that nudists, or people accustomed to nudity such as actors and art models, have healthier attitudes than most regarding their own body and sexuality. (And by healthier, I don't mean they do sex any more often or with more partners! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Some years ago, before I ever became a nudist, I was considering the morality of nude modeling. Now, a lot of people will say, "That may be fine for you, but I would never do it." But I realized even then that that was a self-contradiction. If I believe something is right, it's right for everyone, including me. So if I accepted the validity of nude modeling, I'd better be prepared to do it myself.

Don't get me wrong; I am not Steve Gough. But I sense the rightness of his walk; and if I could see how to do it myself, I might just follow in his footsteps some day. (I'd be in good company; the Old Testament prophet Isaiah went "naked and barefoot" three years to make a prophetic point. Isaiah 20:2)

If I believed in the status quo, I would never have become a nudist!

[Soleil Nu]

Rockets,

"The fact that he's incarcerated says something."

The fact that he's incarcerated says that he broke the law, period. The difference between you and I is that you automaticaly assume that the law is perfect and perfectly reflects Justice. Wake up and smell the coffee: this is the real world, not a fearytale. Justice is based on universal and long lasting principles. If the laws change all the time, how can they accurately reflect justice ?

The law doesn't serve justice, the law serves the rich and powerful, while maintaining an illusion of justice to keep the people quiet and happy. You may not like it, I certainly don't like it, but closing your eyes and refusing to see the truth is not going to make the problem go away.

"*people don't want to see naked bodies all over the place. Next time you are out..imagine when you see people at the malls..the corner..the store..the bank..everyone NUDE.."

Toplessness has been totaly legal in Ontario for years now. Do you see topless women everywhere downtown Toronto, or even in parks and on beaches ? I don't. How do you come up with those apocalyptic scenarios Rocket ?

"It's just the way it is...it's against public decency.."

But what is "public decency" Rocket ? Is it an absolute ? Is it a universal law ? And if it is, why does it vary so widely from place to place around the world ? In Micronesia, it is perfectly normal an acceptable to be topless for women. In India, it is considered rude and offensive to show your shoulders, while here in North America, tube tops are perfectly decent.

What IS public decency Rocket ?

"But I won't be working to "improve" anything further.."

Then let US do the work and stay out of our way.

[Soleil Nu]

Stu,

"Of course. Exactly the same can be said for any type of criminal."

So you consider people that are naked in public criminals ? You mean like drug dealers, armed robbers, rapists and murderers criminals ? If I were to lock you up in a room with any one of these, which one would you choose ?

I bet it would be the psychotic blood thirsty nudist. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"When he stops behaving in such a way that society needs to be protected from him then I will be happy to support a call for his release."

For crying out loud ! Society doesn't need to be "protected" from him ! He's an annoyance, not a threat ! You're comparing him to a psychotic mass murderer ! Do you actualy realize the ludicrousness of what you're saying ?

"The fact that most people avoid naturist beaches means they are offended by it."

Now that's a gratuitous affirmation if I ever heard one. People do not avoid naturist beaches, they simply don't go there, because 1) most people don't know where they are, and 2) most naturist beaches being more remote than textile beaches, people that do know where they are simply don't make the extra effort to go there if they don't intend to get naked.

One exception is the nudist section of Oka beach, which is just a short walk from the main beach. When I go there on a warm summer day I see dressed people walking up and down the nudist section from the main section all the time. It is a continuous flow of people, from morning to evening. These non-nudists are curious, maybe amused by the nudist beach, or trying to satisfy some voyeuristic tendancy, but they are certainly not offended by it ! Or else why would they walk up and down that section all the time, several times a day ?

"You seem to think that the fact that because certain feelings, emotions etc can not be rationalised then they are invalid and should be disregarded."

Now THIS is something we can agree on. I don't consider emotions and feelings as something to be discarded, quite the contrary. What non-nudists feel about nudity is very real and very distressing (I know, I've been there), and simply disregarding it only makes people feel resentment against nudists. That's why I don't believe in the forcefull approch to change the laws regarding public nudity. I beleive in educating people, offering them the possibility of witnessing for themselves the nudist lifestyle without forcing it on them. People are naturaly curious, as shown by my personal experience of the last few years on Oka beach. The nudist section is gaining popularity all the time, and even in a single day we always see more nude people at the end of the afternoon than there were in the morning. And it's not because the dressed people leave the beach before the nudists do... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I believe that only with that kind of attitude will we gain public sympathy and slowly change the way people perceive casual nudity.

[Bob S.]

"but the British public didn't give their consent to their money being wasted on Mr Gough's irresponsibility."

stu, you have claimed that the majority of Britons are for the "indecent exposure" laws. That means that they have apparently given consent to the queen to prosecute those cases. The idea that I am getting from this sentence is that the public against prosecuting people for being naked in public.

"The fact that most people avoid naturist beaches means they are offended by it."

No, it could also mean that they have no idea where the nearest nudist beach is or they live too far away from any nudist beaches. I know for me the nearest CO beach is close to 100 miles away, if not farther; and it is unofficial at that!

"The fact that in nearly every gym, swimming pool, leisure centre etc etc in the WORLD has separate changing facilities for males and females should tell you something about the publics attitude to opposite sex nudity."

No, it tells us that tradition is hard to break. And I am not sure, but I beleive there are laws for separate bathrooms. But bathrooms are a much different topic.

"Most people do not participate in naturist activities, visit naturist venues, nor even, most of the time at least, wander about their own homes naked. That should tell you something."

Maybe it says that they haven't been introduced to nudism. And if they were to be introduced to it, they may want to convert.

Bob S.

[MaxUK]

Bob, in response to this:

'Most people do not participate in naturist activities, visit naturist venues, nor even, most of the time at least, wander about their own homes naked. That should tell you something.'

you came out with this gem:

'Maybe it says that they haven't been introduced to nudism. And if they were to be introduced to it, they may want to convert.'

Are you serious here?? The vast majority of people don't need to be, as you say, 'introduced to nudism' to know wht it feels like to be nude and whether they would like to do it in public. Of course, some 'never beforers' would be interested if the opportunity came up but I'm sure you can admit that most people would just have the attitude 'Yes, I'm well aware of what naturism means, but it's not something I'd want to do'.

So, your assertion is plainly ridiculous - most people would still not want to try nudism even if they has the chance to be 'introduced to it'. Please, lets talk sensibly and we might get somewhere!!

Max

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Rik,

I won't be skinny dipping in ANY river in view of others..

I am simply not interested in making "any" improvements at all...

If you want to sunbathe nude..fine..just keep it out of view of others...

Want to skinny dip in a river...again..fine..just do it out of public view....

I think enough reasonable accomadation has been made..

Nude beaches...swims..clubs...all ok...

But I won't be working to "improve" anything further.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,

OK, so we know what you want and what you don't want so now tell us why. Why, for example, don't you want to see any improvements? How does society benefit from standing still? Or are you saying that on this one issue alone there should be no attempt to shift public opnion? If so, why? Even if you don't want to be a party to influencing public opinion why do you think others shouldn't try?

This discussion would be much more fulfilling if you'd be prepared to be a bit more self-analytical.

Rik

[Nude in the North]

Rocket,

You seem to think there are plenty of places for nudists to go already.
Can you name 3 Legal Nude beaches in the USA?

How about 2?

Actually from what I have read there is only one totally Legal Nude beach in the Whole USA. If you could tell me of another one I would be happyy to hear about it.

Do you think it's fair for a person that lives in a state that has over 10,000 lakes , to have to drive all the way to Florida to enjoy a nude beach legaly?

Is it fair that I should have to drive 6 hours just to get to the nearest "accepted" nude beach. And when I get there I run the risk of being harassed by some bible thumping "Holier than thou" morons that want to try to close it down. Or be arrested and charged with a "Sex crime" and being required to register as a "Sex offender for the rest of my life, for simply being nude.
And this nude beach is over a mile walk from the parking area. No food stands, No drinking water, No restrooms. You have to lug all your supplies down a mile long path just so you can spend a couple hours along a riverbank.

Is this what you think is FAIR?

Steve

[Rocket]

Rik,

Because...I simply don't want to see a bunch of out-of-shape bodies nude all over the place. And..to do what you suggest wouldn't be an "improvement." The vast majority of the public agrees with me..

Steve,

Black Beach in CA is one I know of..there's more..I am not in the USA so I just don't keep tabs on these things..

If it's a secluded beach...off the beaten track..then I don't have a problem with it. Is it fair?

Well...from your minority perspective..I would say no..

But..from the public prospective...YES..and majority rules in this case...

You know...millions of millions of people don't suntan in the nude..garden in the nude..swim in the nude..and they do OK. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NudeAl]

Rocket are you related to Stu?

Your idea's have gone from being a little conservative to being just about dead even with Stu's phobic veiw of nudity. What gives? Are you a nudist or a textile?

I agree with some aspects of what you have said and I realise that no matter how bad we may want to live in a world without clothes I doublt that is ever going to happen. I can accept designated nude beaches "IF" they are made more accessable to the public and advertised as such. I think nude resorts are great and hope that with increasing popularity there may be one close enough to every community that no one has to travel 12 hours or more to get to one.

Most important to me I want a safe environment for my family where there is an active pressence so the sexual predators out there are held in check. At most free beaches this is sorely lacking and if you go to one you have to depend on the others around you to deal with inappropriate behavior. This is more of a problem for women than men. I guess in a nutshell you could say all I want is fair and equal treatment under the law. I know if I go outside of a naturist resort I am taking a risk and this just shouldn't be the case. There should be enough room on a local beach or swimming hole that those of us who would rather enjoy it sans swim suit can do so with out fear. At the same time law enforcement needs to recognize that it is lewd behavior that needs to be regulated not simple nudity. Most nudist are law abiding folks who would like to see a uniform now and then to reassure them that they are in a safe environment.

As to your rather unkind remarks about fat wrinkled naked bodies. I guess you don't have any defects? My body may not be perfect but it's the only one I got. I do try to take care to stay in shape but so what if it doesn't approach your ideal of physical perfection? If you are going to a naturist venue to check out all the beautiful bodies you are going for the wrong reasons. I suppose you would have us segregate all the good looking nudes in one area and all the fat old wrinkled ones in another?I wonder how many families that would split up?

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:

Because...I simply don't want to see a bunch of out-of-shape bodies nude all over the place. And..to do what you suggest wouldn't be an "improvement." The vast majority of the public agrees with me.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds to me like Rocket considers nudism to be about voyeurism, exhibitionism and related fetishes that need to be kept segregated from decent people.

-Mark

[Rocket]

I think some of you have misinterpreted what I have said..or I didn't communicate that well.

No..I don't think nudity is voguerism..but I do think the vast majority of the population doesn't want to have it forced on them...and some of the bodies I've seen..which they would see..are SO BAD they would be considered eyesores.

No..I am not perfect..no one is..but some of these people take imperfection to another level:

*People so heavy they litterally almost can't walk. You want to see a naked body of that around? Most don't...

Why I think the nude beaches are to be secluded is because that's what the population wants. Sorry..but the vast majority of the population doesn't want to encounter nude bathers....and to do what Steve suggests..because it's "fair"...is to allow more nudity anyway. That's not "fair" to the bulk of the population that doesn't want it.

That's why I vote status quo...secluded beaches which are known to be nude..clubs..swims...things like that...

Really, it represents an ideal compromise between the "rights" of the public..and the "rights" of the nudists /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Quote:

"Majority rules in this case."

It's the only case in which majority rules. In all other cases minorities demand what they want it and get it, or else they scream "Discrimination!"

[Rocket]

Jon Marc,

You are free to be nude..out of view of others..

No law keeps you from being nude at house..or having a get-to-gether..or going to a nude club..

What you want..is to be nude wherever..and too bad to all those who don't want it..and cry "discrimination" when you don't get your own way..

You are not being discriminated against...reasonable allowances have already been made...

I was thinking about what Steve said..about having to drive to a nude beach. If you live in a populous area..you might have to..that's the price you pay..

But...to expect to do what you want..and against public will..is not realistic or for that matter really "fair."

With all the troubles in the world....this really is a small thing.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NUDKIWI]

Rocket
You are so right public and social nudity is a "small thing" so why do people like you always turn it into the crime of the century.

Naturally KIWI /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
You are free to be nude..out of view of others..

No law keeps you from being nude at house..or having a get-to-gether..or going to a nude club..

What you want..is to be nude wherever..and too bad to all those who don't want it..and cry "discrimination" when you don't get your own way..

You are not being discriminated against...reasonable allowances have already been made...

I was thinking about what Steve said..about having to drive to a nude beach. If you live in a populous area..you might have to..that's the price you pay..

But...to expect to do what you want..and against public will..is not realistic or for that matter really "fair."

With all the troubles in the world....this really is a small thing.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,

Do you have a problem with your keyboard? I think perhaps your period key is sticking and it looks like your comma key is missing.

Rik (Just asking /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I have NEVER said I wanted to be nude in public and to heck with what others want. I'm very considerate of other people. I even put shorts on to answer the door--after I look to see who it is. I, like many others, just want others to get over their excessive body shame enough to realize that there is absolutely NOTHING indecent about the human body, and that there is absolutely NO reason for anyone being offended or embarrassed by it.

Yes, I do believe that nudists are being discriminated against. Because of other people having such a high degree of body shame, we have to be careful where we go nude.

I have no idea what you call "reasonable", but not being able to be nude in my back yard is not reasonable. No one has to look if they don't want to. Not being able to swim nude at a local beach isn't reasonable just because other people are "offended" or 'embarrassed" by natural nude bodies.

[Rocket]

Jon Marc,

Regarding your backyard...

No, you can't go nude in view of others. It is not a case, as you say, of simply not looking, because you live in a communal area. If your backyard is wooded, and can't be seen by others, then yes..go nude or do what ever you like.

BTW..I don't think nudity is the "crime of the century"..I just think it shouldn't be pushed on others. Others here, don't seem to have these concerns. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

"Are you serious here?? The vast majority of people don't need to be, as you say, 'introduced to nudism' to know wht it feels like to be nude and whether they would like to do it in public."

Max, I will let you know when I am kidding. Yes, I was serious. And I did not say that the vast majority of people "need to be" introduced to nudism. I was merely saying that people are not involved in it because they have not been introduced to it. The same way that I am not involved in Cricket because I have not been introduced to it. No intent was made in "forcing" others to see nudity.

And there is a major difference between showering naked and swimming naked. The first time I swam naked was a lot different than I would have thought. Being naked at home was a lot different than being naked outside amongst others.

"but I'm sure you can admit that most people would just have the attitude 'Yes, I'm well aware of what naturism means, but it's not something I'd want to do'."

That is if they all knew what exactly nudism was. For many, being naked around others is likely to lead to sex. Heck, the whole Rep. Foley flack where he went after the teen nudist summer camp in Florida focused on who was watching the children. This led to many discussions about whether children should be allowed into nudist parks. Because they all know that nudity and sex go together. That is why Hippie Hollow in Texas bars children, so they do not have to be subjected to the "perverse activities" going on down there.

If they were given all the info, and had a good friend who wanted to take them, they may eventually give in and go to a nudist park, beach, or just nude hot tubbing or skinny-dipping at the friend's pool. Not everyone would be willing, but a good number would probably fall to the siren call.

Rocket:

"No law keeps you from being nude at house..or having a get-to-gether..or going to a nude club.."

See Arkansas' law ("desensitizing the public" thread). There, you cannot have a get-together and nude clubs are outlawed.

And Rocket, it seems that you have a major issue toward overweight people. What makes you so upset about them? Would you want to see those same overweight women to wear two-piece bathing suits? How about the men wear small suits and go topless? Or should they just cover their whole body the entire time they are in public? You shouldn't be subject to seeing their obesity, should you? That would be offensive to some.

"If it's a secluded beach...off the beaten track..then I don't have a problem with it. Is it fair?"

Not fair if it takes too long to get to. The reason why those out-of-the-way beaches are used by nudists are usually because nudists went looking for places where they could have privacy and where they would not be harrassed by others. The harder it was to get there, they figured, the less of chance that others would see them.

But why should nudists be condemned to those hard-to-reach beaches? Why not a beach that is closer to civilization? If signs were posted suggesting that beyond that sign was the CO section of the beach, anyone who would not want to see nakedness could easily avoid it.

And also, keep in mind that even secluded beaches are patrolled and someone can get cited for indecent exposure. Also, with population growth expanding, more of those secluded beaches are being lost to developments.

Bob S.

[Rocket]

Bob,

It's a case of population expanding..and you being pushed out. There's many more people with bathing suits, than without, so you are just going to have to accept placement in the backseat. Sorry..but that's the way it is.

Curious if anyone has been charged on that AR law? Here in Canada, nudity is considered a violation of the Criminal Code, unless it's in some out of the way place. I think that's reasonable.

I have often heard the phrase, "People don't like it" in reference to nudity. Is that supposed to be a good reason to make it illegal? Many people including myself don't like the putrid stench of tabacco. Many people including myself don't like having to hear people profane God's name and use other offensive language. Perhaps those should be against the law too.

[Rocket]

John Marc,

You have a valid point with tobacco..it damages your health..

Using God's name in vain shouldn't really upset you..because it's between that person and God..

For nudity in public...here in Canada it's a Summary conviction offense. In Michigan..I don't know..but I suspect if you are out nude in public..and your neighbors complain, you'll be getting a visit from the police. It's considered a violation of public decency, and that's not going to change. If you can't accept that, well, you can always follow Gough's lead, be publically nude, and take the matter to court.

I suspect you will lose though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Soleil Nu]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Using God's name in vain shouldn't really upset you..because it's between that person and God.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It shouldn't upset him but it DOES, Rocket. Just like public nudity shouldn't upset you, but it does. If it's good enough for you to justify a law, why isn't it good enough for him ? Why the double standard Rocket ?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
It's considered a violation of public decency, and that's not going to change. If you can't accept that, well, you can always follow Gough's lead, be publically nude, and take the matter to court.

I suspect you will lose though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually Rocket, most people that have challenged nudity laws in Canada in the last few years have actually won... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rocket]

Sol Lo Nue,

Have you read the Criminal Code? It's pretty clear..without lawful excuse..

Look it up, and see for yourself..

It hasn't changed, and that means it's still part of the law. As you've mentioned that this has been challenged, and won..please provide the Court Cases so we can look them up and actually SEE what the court said.

What do you think would happen to you if you decided to shop the Mall in the nude?

There's your answer... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Regarding swearing, and being nude in public...swearing isn't a violation of the law..and being nude in public is /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW..in a previous post you said that being nude in public results in being charged as a child molestor (something like that) and other things. Infact, you compared it to slavery of blacks, and the fight for women's rights..this post of yours contradicts that.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NudeAl]

Rocket
My wife happens to be disabled, it happened about a year ago. She used to come with me to our local nude beach but since it involves a walk of almost a mile she can no longer go. So she is prevented from going through no fault of her own. There are plenty of beaches nearby but none that is clothing optional. It would be reasonable to offer a handicap access nude or clothing optional beach to these folks but since we are relegated to second rate, left over beaches far from the parking lot we can no longer go together. Is this fair? No I think not. So I guess the handicapped naturist is just S.O.L. huh? To bad, sucks to be you right?

Oh by the way did I mention my wife is over weight? She's been that way ever since we started having kids. I don't think she looks any less beautiful but she has had a real tough time dealing with small minded idiots who somehow think a persons worth or value is determined by how much they weigh or how well they fit into societies mould.

We are all very different with our own strengths and weakness's. To be little and make fun of people because they have a problem or a disfigurment or disability is just plain sick!

Rocket, Of course it offends me when I hear people using MY God's name in vain. How can I call myself a Christian and NOT be offended? If I shouldn't be offended at that, then you shouldn't be offended if you see a nude man in public.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Have you read the Criminal Code? It's pretty clear..without lawful excuse..

Look it up, and see for yourself.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, here's what a Canadian lawyer has to say about that law:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> AS A lawyer who has studied the law on nudity, I'd like to clear up a few legal misconceptions in a recent Sun editorial on unclad marchers in Toronto's Pride Parade ("Time to grow up" July 7).

The editorial correctly states that "total nudity is still against the law." However, even if all you're wearing is socks on your feet, the Supreme Court of Canada says that you are not automatically considered "nude" for purposes of the Criminal Code. You're breaking the law only if "so clad as to offend against public decency."

Since all of the marchers in the Pride Parade at least wore shoes, the courts' interpretation of "public decency" comes into play. The legal test isn't whether you would want to attend the Pride Parade and see a few flaccid phalluses filing past (or would even free willy yourself). The test is whether the average Canadian would tolerate Pride Parade-goers seeing such a sight.

When Gwen Jacob took a topless stroll through Guelph, the Ontario Court of Appeal concluded that any purported evidence of "harm" was highly speculative. The Court also noted: "No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her."

The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized that for nudity, context is everything.

What's cheered in a tavern Saturday night could cause a riot in a church Sunday morning. The law does not equate the Pride Parade with the Santa Claus Parade: these events have completely different audiences. And, as your editorial points out, no one can claim astonishment that a Pride Parade contains sights that could embarrass a prudish parent with kids in tow.

Sgt. (Peter) Harmsen threatened to cancel next year's Pride Parade, complaining, "You wouldn't be able to do those things anywhere else." Even if true, this doesn't mean it's illegal, or that police inaction here amounts to a double standard. The law requires that the circumstances be taken into account.

A court may well find that the context truly is unique. No other time and place in Canada is like the parade route during Toronto's Pride Parade. There simply isn't "anywhere else" that is a close match.

That's probably why Metro Police Deputy Chief Robert Molyneux, the ranking officer involved with the parade, apparently received a legal opinion that no laws were broken. Having studied the relevant case-law, I would concur.

Thankfully we live in a society governed by the rule of law. This means that Sgt. Harmsen's job is to enforce the law -- not to use his badge to make citizens conform to his own personal views on what is or isn't appropriate.

Peter S
Toronto
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I rather admire the Canadian Court's view of the law.

[Bob S.]

"so you are just going to have to accept placement in the backseat."

No we are not!! We have the right to fight for our rights. And I have no doubt that we will win some battles that matter.

"Curious if anyone has been charged on that AR law?"

Yes. In the legal forum, there is a case about a man who was cited for appearing in a Taco Bell wearing speedos. http://www.clothesfree.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000097

"Using God's name in vain shouldn't really upset you..because it's between that person and God.."

And seeing nudity shouldn't really upset you because you can turn your head and avert your eyes.

Bob S.

[Soleil Nu]

"Regarding swearing, and being nude in public...swearing isn't a violation of the law..and being nude in public is"

I already know that Rocket. If you read my post, you will see that I am asking you WHY this is so. WHY is there a law against public nudity and not against swearing, WHY the double standard ? If both things are equaly offensive to most people, why is there a law against one but not the other ?

"BTW..in a previous post you said that being nude in public results in being charged as a child molestor (something like that) and other things. Infact, you compared it to slavery of blacks, and the fight for women's rights..this post of yours contradicts that.."

I concede I should have been clearer on that. The sex offender list thing concerns only some states in the US. It doesn't apply to canada. I will agree that we are much better off here than our neighbours south of the border regarding nudity. There hasn't been one successful conviction in Canada under article 174 of the criminal code since 1953. But there have been numerous arrests and trials, and all the problems and waisted public money that go with that, not counting the social and psychological trauma caused to the people accused. Gwen Jacobs was accused of public indecency in 1996 because she decided to take off her top on a ludicrously hot day in Toronto. Almost every man in the street that day was shirtless, so she decided she had the right to do the same. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with her, and cleared her of all charges.

A similar case, which I lost the reference to, happened in British Columbia, with the same outcome. In Ontario, some men in the gay pride parade were arrested and later cleared because their lawyer argued that they were not technicaly nude because they were wearing shoes and socks.

The fact is that the definitions of "nudity", "public decency" and "order" are so vague and subjective that it's almost impossible to convict anyone under article 174. So why keep a useless law that nobody cares about anymore ? Just to harrass people with false arrests ? That's exactly what's happening in Ontario, when on many occasions, women at public swimming pools and, in one case during a street parade, were arrested, hancuffed in front of everyone, and trown in the back of a police car because they were topless, only to be released later when the police had to admit they could not accuse them of anything, because these women had actualy NOT broken any law. But the damage of public humiliation was done. If I were one of these women, I would sue the police for false arrest and abuse of power. That would teach them a lesson.

Have you been to the gay pride parade in Montreal Rocket ? You see buts and breasts everywhere. Yet, every year, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people show up to see the parade. Does this look to you like a population mostly offended by nudity ? I don't think so.

[Soleil Nu]

My apologies to naturistmark1 for repeating most of the points of your post, which had not appeared yet on the board when I started to write my own post.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Soleil Nu:
I already know that Rocket. If you read my post, you will see that I am asking you WHY this is so. WHY is there a law against public nudity and not against swearing, WHY the double standard ? If both things are equaly offensive to most people, why is there a law against one but not the other ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Soleil Nu,

I fear you are wasting your time. As we have seen time and time again, those who oppose the concept of public nudity are completely unable to articulate any reasons beyond "people don't like it" or "it's against the law". Ask them why, as I did in an earlier post directed at Rocket, and usually they just ignore the question or, as in the case of Stu, say it's irrelevant or impossibile to answer.

Perhaps it's consipracy: the less we are allowed to understand about the public's apparent attitude the less likely it is we'll be able to change it.

Rik

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:

... those who oppose the concept of public nudity are completely unable to articulate any reasons beyond "people don't like it" or "it's against the law".
Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Very good point, Rik. In particular, it's rare for someone to say: "Because I don't like seeing a man's penis/balls/pubic hair." Even if they did, it's not much of a reason, because at a distance of more than a few yards, it's difficult to make out any detail. Also, regarding breaking the law, there are vey few adults who have not intentionally broken the law -- e.g. by driving over the speed limit.

Putting on my amateur psychologist's hat, I think that a person who would complain to the police doesn't like to be presented with the fact that someone is nude in a situation where nudity is not "normal" and where he/she is a witness to it.

I'm guessing that the other person's nudity triggers negative responses developed in childhood, in most cases resulting from his/her parent's approach to nudity. For example, if parents avoided being seen nude in the presence of their child (especially by quickly covering up), it's quite possible that the person would react negatively later on to someone allowing him/herself to be seen nude.

It's not surprising that people can't articulate their reasons, because they are buried in their childhood.

Gary

[Rik]

Gary,

Your theory may, or may not, be right but I have a problem with nudists theorising about why non-nudists don't like nudity - a bit like turkeys theorising about Christmas.

The reason why I continue to push this point is that if non-nudists are incapable of explaining why they find nudity offensive then I am drawn to the conclusion that their apparent offence is simply an irrational response. In other words, if there's no explanation, there's no rationale for reacting the way they do.

Therefore if non-nudist reactions to the sight of nudity are irrational then I fail to understand why naturists should not seek to demonstrate this so that the non-nudist public come to recognize that nudity is not offensive.

To bring this back to the subject of the topic - Steve Gough - the woman who complained about him in court said that she felt 'threatened' by his presence(which is perhaps a step up from merely not liking nudity). She also said that had he been clothed she would not have given him a second thought. She did not describe how she felt the threat might manifest itself but I suppose we could assume that she felt she was going to be attacked, or at the very least abused in some way. Given that I have never heard of a single case of a publicly nude man attacking or abusing anyone it seems to me that the woman's response was not founded on any experience (her's or anyone else's)and therefore was irrational. In fact statistically she would be far more likely to be attacked or abused by a clothed person.

If people, like this woman, would be prepared to get beyond the knee-jerk reaction and examine more closely their own reaction to what, certainly in SG's case, is an unthreatening event then perhaps we can start to understand the issue more clearly.

Who knows, it might even prove that what we naturists have been saying for years is wrong. That's a risk we take but at least we will understand.

Rik

[NudeAl]

HEY ROCKET,
BEEN READING YOUR POSTS AND SEEMS TO ME IT'S NOTHING BUT LOTS OF HOT AIR. I JUST HOPE ONE DAY YOU DO NOT HAVE A INJURY OR GET TO BE A PLUS SIZE LADY... IN THE "REAL WORLD" EVERYBODY JUDGE'S EACH OTHER.. BUT IN A NUDE WORLD THEY DO NOT. BUT YOU SEEM TO JUDGE IN THE "REAL WORLD" AND "NUDE WORLD" BY THE WAY THIS IS NUDE AL'S WIFE.

A few points,

"If I were one of these women, I would sue the police for false arrest and abuse of power. That would teach them a lesson."

The fact that a person is acquitted of a crime - or even that a court decides no such crime was ever committed - doesn't mean that the police necessarily acted unlawfully. If that were the case then every acquitted person could sue the police and the legal system would rapidly collapse.

Saying that a person who is wearing nothing apart from shoes and socks is not nude is just utter stupidity. The law wasn't created by the legislature to prevent feet from being exposed as the court knows perfectly well. I doubt that an acquittal on such a ridiculous technicality would work here in theu UK.


Rik

"I already know that Rocket. If you read my post, you will see that I am asking you WHY this is so. WHY is there a law against public nudity and not against swearing, WHY the double standard ? If both things are equaly offensive to most people, why is there a law against one but not the other ?"

Here in the UK it is an offence to use obscene language in public in a way likely to cause offence. This is in addition to the public order offence of "threatening, abusive or disorderly words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" under our 1986 Public Order Act. It is this offence that the police should, and generally do, use to arrest both people shouting obscenities and those who are insufficiently dressed.

Rik,

"As we have seen time and time again, those who oppose the concept of public nudity are completely unable to articulate any reasons beyond "people don't like it" or "it's against the law"."

Those are the reasons. Sorry if they aren't good enough for you.

"Perhaps it's consipracy: the less we are allowed to understand about the public's apparent attitude the less likely it is we'll be able to change it.

And what makes you think that the public actually want you to change their attitudes? Or do you advocate behaving like Mr Gough and forcing people around to your way of thinking because you are one of the "enlightened" minority on this issue?

Gary

"Also, regarding breaking the law, there are vey few adults who have not intentionally broken the law -- e.g. by driving over the speed limit."

Most adults who intentionally break the law do so knowing that it's wrong. Normally they support the very law they are breaking and would be critical of others who broke the same or similar laws. Therefore law-breaking doesn't become OK merely because most of us do it sometimes - nor does that mean the law is wrong.

"It's not surprising that people can't articulate their reasons, because they are buried in their childhood."

Gary, think of something you don't like to eat and then tell me, using nothing but pure logic, why you don't like the taste. Or think of a piece of music that you find irritating and then, again using nothing but a mathematical standard of logic, explain why you find it that way. In the end you'll find it imposible to do that. Think of the face of a loved one and tell me in logical terms only why you love them. Think of a sad film or book and how it made you feel - but it's just fiction and it's illogical - you shouldn't feel that way!

Sights, sounds, smells and tastes do not merely convey information about the world in which we live, they have an effect upon the affective domain of our minds - our emotions and sensibilities. We legislate all the time about what is and is not acceptable in public NOT on the basis of logic, but upon the nature of the human condition and coloured by our cultural values. That's why we don't tolerate public sex, pornography on daytime television, the public slaughtering of animals, the open display of dead people, racist or anti-semetic posters in subways etc etc etc.

The fact that something affects us emotionally does not invalidate that experience.

Stu

[Rocket]

Sol Lo Nue,

I agree with Steve....

If you think it isn't against the law in Canada to walk around nude..all I can say is just go for it. If you look up the Criminal Code, it is stated that the Crown is to be consulted before any charges laid. Obviously, in this case, the Crown decided to forgoe charges.

Go to the mall..or just go pu your mail every day in the nude in public eye. See what happens..

I've never been to Montreal, but we do have one of those gay parades here in Vancouver. Of course I don't go..why would I? BTW...this type of conduct by the gays, unfortunately, stereotypes the type of people most think they are.

Al'sWife,

I am sorry about your injury but are we going to alter the circumstances surrounding nude beaches for this one exception?

No...it's not reasonable, and it's just not that big a hardship to wear a bathing suit. I wasn't speaking of someone in a wheelchair when I made my comments regarding obesity. THESE people are fully able to walk (or perhaps I should now say hobble) around. It's their choice to be 100-150 lbs overweight.

And yes...they are a real eyesore..

BTW...I was reading a copy of H&E Nudist Magazine and for their photographs they mostly show trim, in shape women..and men. I didn't see any obese people in it at all! This magazine promotes social nudity..

Now..why is that?

Hmmmmmm....... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Soleil Nu]

Stu,

"The fact that a person is acquitted of a crime - or even that a court decides no such crime was ever committed - doesn't mean that the police necessarily acted unlawfully. If that were the case then every acquitted person could sue the police and the legal system would rapidly collapse."

Agreed. But you must realize that when someone goes thru the judicial process and is found not guilty, he has usualy been accused of an actual offense. Now in Ontario, since 1996, a woman being topless where a man can be is NOT an offense. Now either the police were not aware of that fact, which is unacceptable, considering the way the Gwen Jacobs trial was mediatised, and therefore constitutes gross negligence, or they chose to disregard that judgement, disregard the law, which constitutes abuse of power. Now either way, this is unacceptable.

You must also realize that this is not an isolated incident. There have been many such false arrests like this one in the last 7 years in Ontario, which IMO are the result of the attitude of some chauvinistic officers that either "don't get it", or more likely "don't WANT to get it". Therefore, teaching them a lesson would be in order.

"Saying that a person who is wearing nothing apart from shoes and socks is not nude is just utter stupidity. The law wasn't created by the legislature to prevent feet from being exposed as the court knows perfectly well. I doubt that an acquittal on such a ridiculous technicality would work here in theu UK."

I agree with you again. But take note that this judgment was rendered by judges of the supreme court of Canada. And I think what they were trying to accomplish here is demonstrate to the legislature that article 174 is so poorly worded, and the definitions of "nudity", "public decency" and "order" are so subjective that the law is virtualy unenforceable. So either rephrase article 174, or get rid of it all together. Personaly, I vote for the latter. Let provinces and cities deal with public nudity cases at the civil level.

"Here in the UK it is an offence to use obscene language in public in a way likely to cause offence. This is in addition to the public order offence of "threatening, abusive or disorderly words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour" under our 1986 Public Order Act. It is this offence that the police should, and generally do, use to arrest both people shouting obscenities and those who are insufficiently dressed."

At least the legal system in the UK is coherent on this issue, which is only what I would like to see happening in Canada and mostly in some states in the US, where anti-nudity laws are so ludicrous that they amount to nothing better that dictatorship and totalitarism, in addition to being clear violations of the First Amendement.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"As we have seen time and time again, those who oppose the concept of public nudity are completely unable to articulate any reasons beyond "people don't like it" or "it's against the law"."

Those are the reasons. Sorry if they aren't good enough for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I've given up on you with this. I was hoping that Rocket might have a view but apparently not. Frankly, the reasons aren't good enough. To understand where you and your beloved silent majority are coming from I need to understand your thinking but you are denying me that.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And what makes you think that the public actually want you to change their attitudes? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What makes you think that I think that the public wants to change its attitude. No-one ever wants to change their attitude. I don't want to change mine but that doesn't seem to stop you trying to change it. But you know, if your arguments were sound then I might just start agreeing with you - against my will!!

If you believe that no-one should ever propose new ideas, or demonstrate the fallacy of other peoples attitudes then I don't think you live in the same world as I do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Or do you advocate behaving like Mr Gough and forcing people around to your way of thinking because you are one of the "enlightened" minority on this issue? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are being extremely naive if you believe that people can be forced to change their attitudes. Heck, I can't change yours despite all the common sense I talk. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:

Al'sWife,

I am sorry about your injury but are we going to alter the circumstances surrounding nude beaches for this one exception? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't we have handicapped parking for just about everything else on this planet? Stores, parks and yes even beaches! <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

No...it's not reasonable, and it's just not that big a hardship to wear a bathing suit. I wasn't speaking of someone in a wheelchair when I made my comments regarding obesity. THESE people are fully able to walk (or perhaps I should now say hobble) around. It's their choice to be 100-150 lbs overweight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Nope, it isn't their choice most of the time. And to many, including me, wearing a swimsuit (I don't ever *bathe* with clothes on, do you?) is a huge hardship. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

And yes...they are a real eyesore..
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What a horrible thing to say! Obviously you aren't a nudist. Would you say the same about a nude woman that has a double mastectomy? or missing a leg? Or who is thin enough that bones show where they shouldn't?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"As we have seen time and time again, those who oppose the concept of public nudity are completely unable to articulate any reasons beyond "people don't like it" or "it's against the law"."

Those are the reasons. Sorry if they aren't good enough for you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, I've given up on you with this. I was hoping that Rocket might have a view but apparently not. Frankly, the reasons aren't good enough. To understand where you and your beloved silent majority are coming from I need to understand your thinking but you are denying me that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>They can't tell you because they don't know either and won't have a look inside their brains to try and figure out why. If they can't even dare to look inside of themselves we will never know. You can't force healthy mental attitudes on the unhealthy.

Rik,

"To understand where you and your beloved silent majority are coming from I need to understand your thinking but you are denying me that."

You have hit the issue on the head. You are still talking about "your thinking" as though a desire not to see nudity comes from the reasoning hemisphere of the brain. It doesn't. It is a deep-seated emotional response that forms a part of our psychological make-up. It's a "feeling" not a "thinking" thing!

cyndiann

"And to many, including me, wearing a swimsuit (I don't ever *bathe* with clothes on, do you?) is a huge hardship."

Please explain to me why that is the case. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Stu

[Rocket]

Rik & Cyndiann,

Those views on nudity are good enough to be the law of the land in countries all over the world...

People who are overweight CAN do something about. If one got this way, it is thru neglect and overeating..

Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer..obesity leads to things like diabetes..heart attacks..and more..

And there's the social stigma..and a heavy price to pay. As a woman, one is looked at as asexual..

BTW...I have yet to see anyone at the swims I go who is missing one leg..or has any of the other things you mentioned. I've never seen one yet in a magazine. To my knowledge, this site has never posted one yet. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Gary, think of something you don't like to eat and then tell me, using nothing but pure logic, why you don't like the taste. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know this was directed at Gary but let me try. I don't like to eat Black Pudding (http://www.buryblackpuddings.co.uk/) which is a very popular component of the "Full English Breakfast". The first time I tried it I thought it tasted quite nice - rich and meaty - but when I discovered that it was made of blood I found myself imagining bleeding amnimals and abbatoirs everytime it appeared on my plate. As a result I found I didn't have the stomach for it and now whenever I have a "full English breakfast" I always ask them to "hold the black pudding".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Or think of a piece of music that you find irritating and then, again using nothing but a mathematical standard of logic, explain why you find it that way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I dislike a piece of music by Prokofiev entitled Peter and The Wolf. On the face of it this is a light and gentle piece of music, not obviously irritating, but for me it brings back some difficult memories of when I was in school.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Think of the face of a loved one and tell me in logical terms only why you love them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't love her because of her face, I love her because she makes me laugh, she comforts me when I need it, she cares for my children, she make me happy, she makes me feel good about myself, we share our lives.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact that something affects us emotionally does not invalidate that experience. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No-one suggests that it does but as I've demonstrated above it's perfectly possible to describe emotions in a way that other people can relate to. No doubt you'll now tell me that I've not described these emotions in mathematical terms. So what? I'm not asking you to describe your antipathy towards nuduty in mathematical tems - just in terms that other people can understand.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In the end you'll find it impossible to do that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not for me it's not.

Rik