The latest on Steve Gough [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : The latest on Steve Gough

Pages : 1 [2]

Trailscout

12-23-2003, 06:42 PM

Stu,

I would like to quote you literally and must include an opening remark or two by Mike, but with one substitution. I would like to substitute the word "Black" every time you use the word nude and see how it reads:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stu2630:
[QB] ...I think Blacks should be confined to certain times and places.

Mike said,"He hasn't been charged with anything directly related to being Black, simply put there is no law against a Black person being seen in public THEREFORE they had to find another law that would work which means that even if they did find one",

Stu said, "Yes. That's one way in which laws are made and developed here in the UK. There are many examples of it apart from Blacks roaming loose in public. That is also true to some extent in the US I believe - ask your lawyer if here is such a thing as 'precedent'".

Mike said,"I dont see any offense that he could possibly do if a Black man is just walking through small towns and he was mostly out in the countryside away from the large mass of people"

Stu said,"I can see how that would cause offence. It would certainly cause me offence, and my wife, and many other people I know. The police, the prosecution service and the courts obviously agree that a Black being seen in public is "likely" to cause "alarm or distress" and that's why he was convicted".

Mike said,"I think its been proven by many on here that your majority supports Black people, but most are just afraid to admit it because society has always told them it was wrong and they just go with the flow."

Stu said, "I have never seen any such proof - quite the opposite".

Mike replied,"I dont see what is objectionable about Blacks being seen in public."

Stu's answer, "There is a standard of colour that relates to "within normal expectations and without the propensity to shock". Skin colour that falls outside those parameters is, by definition, offensive. Blacks roaming about in public is neither withing "normal expectations" and certainly does have "propensity to shock". Consequently it is disorderly".
..They do cause offence to me and others I know so yes, I do want Blacks to be effectively banned outside of screened-off ghetto places.

MikeJB

12-23-2003, 06:47 PM

Mike

Mike
-------------------------------------------------
" just say your an ignoramus basically because just because youve probably memorized all the laws and know the legal system doesnt mean anything really"

It means I understand the foundation and intricacies of our legal system.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but nudity isnt against the foundations or intricacies of your legal system. Thats why Mr Gough was prosecuted under different charges that have little relation to simple nudity and more to unsavory behavior and simple nudity has been known for a long time to not fall under that context although people try to say it does.
------------------------------------------------
"because your policies *as far as nudity are concerned* are bogus",

I don't have 'policies' about nudity. I have opinions - and they are genuine opinions. The fact that they don't coincide with your opinions doesn't mean they are 'bogus'.
------------------------------------------------

Ok, maybe bogus wasnt the right word, I juse use that word for something that I think is wrong, different or just looney. Im sure being a law professional and if you do get into the court system youll probably use those opinions or policies to try and ban nudity. Besides me and alot of other people strongly beleive that your policies are wrong and most people have facts to back them up, I just basically go on how I feel about everything and the few facts that I do know.

------------------------------------------------
"a teacher wouldnt necessarily say that what he/she says is necessarily right or absoulute",

If we are discussing English law, it doesn't seem unreasonable that a full-time university teacher of English law should be given some credibility on the subject - especially when the other party to the dialogue is a 19 year old with no knowledge or education in that subject. If we are discussing the rights and wrongs of public nudity from a moral standpoint then, of course, we are equals.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah ok maybe they teach stuff differently over there and since your class is way more advanced and on a different subject then maybe I was wrong about what I said. Im just saying what I think based on what experience ive had, im not saying its right necesarily. I do think that public nudity is right and even from a moral standpoint it should be legal. There is nothing morally wrong about the human body, these morals and deceny ideas werent automatically placed on our society, they were created by man and man isnt always correct when they make up policies. I feel ashamed that someone would say I lack morals or im indecent if im naked, the nudity itself doesnt make me feel that way but the opinons of others do because they are insulting of what I really am. I think if we dont want nudity then we gotta get rid of all this sex stuff in our society and not focus on the body so much and on the person inside. I just think that public nudity would help that, not at first because being nude in itself isnt gonna solve all the problems but its a step in the right direction. At least all the sexual and provocative ads and products of the sex crazed industries such as the porn and fashion industries would just dissapear. Because why would you wanna pay lots of money to see some girl who isnt even really looking like her true self but heavily modified and usually in provocative positions when you can walk down the streets and see NORMAL wholesome people's bodies for free. Maybe people would start spending money and their time on more productive things than picking over clothes for 3 hours or watching porn 24/7.

------------------------------------------------
"I havent really seen any reason to think that nudity is in anyway immoral or indecent in and of itself."
------------------------------------------------
I never said it was. It's just that I think nudity should be confined to certain times and places.
------------------------------------------------

Why if its not indecent and yourer contradicting yourself because you say that seeing the human body would be gross and shocking and destestible to you but yet you think nudity in and of itself is ok, so I mean either it is good and clean and wholesome or it isnt. I mean if its not immoral or indecent then people shouldnt feel the way they do about it and need to change their damaging views of it.
-------------------------------------------------
"You bash me as much as I bash you so its not really fair that you put all the blame on me, because its your fault too."

It's not about bashing or blaming, Mike! It's about discussing and debating.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but you treat it like im right and youre wrong and that what I say about nudity isnt somewhat true.

-------------------------------------------------
"He hasnt been charged with anything directly related to nudity, simply put there is no law against simple public nudity THEREFORE they had to find another law that would work which means that even if they did find one",

Yes. That's one way in which laws are made and developed here in the UK. There are many examples of it apart from public nudity. That is also true to some extent in the US I believe - ask your lawyer if here is such a thing as 'precedent'.
-------------------------------------------------

Oh ok. I was just under the judgement that most legal officials, especially ones here dont think simple nudity even in public is offensive, but yes the police can arrest you on another charge, even if youre not doing anything, but most of the police who do this are newbies and unskilled in the intricacies of law for the most part, The older police usually ignore your nakedness, warn you, or at most usually give a ticket. Im just saying its legal here, but it doesnt mean ur 100% safe from getting arrested.

-------------------------------------------------
"I dont see any offense that he could possibly do if he is just walking naked through small towns and he was mostly out in the countryside away from the large mass of people"

I can see how that would cause offence. It would certainly cause me offence, and my wife, and many other people I know. The police, the prosecution service and the courts obviously agree that being naked is "likely" to cause "alarm or distress" and that's why he was convicted.
-------------------------------------------------

I thought he was arrested on some sort of "Public Offense" law and not the likely to cause alarm or distress law? Also I still think they did it more for their own benefit since the law is so vague, itd be easy to do that even though technically he shouldnt be charged with that. Courts do it here all the time, our laws are vague sometimes and alot of courts let out dangerous individuals who should be in prison but dont find the vague law they were convicted on to be sufficient. I dont know if its any different over there, but I bet that everyone in that court wasnt a good honest person who would never do anything wrong, even professionals are greedy sometimes and if they feel they have the power they take advantage of it and go after people they dont like or people who they know they can win a case on because the person has little money or wouldnt be able to back up the facts that well, I mean thats all im saying, you dont just want to automatically assume that every choice the magistrate makes is correct or in the best interest of the people.

------------------------------------------------
"I think its been proven by many on here that your majority supports nudity but most are just afraid to admit it because society has always told them it was wrong and they just go with the flow."

I have never seen any such proof - quite the opposite.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah maybe in public or around their friends/family because like I said even if nudity is without a doubt good, some people think it isnt and alot of times it isnt good to reveal your nudist lifestyle outside around people who may not like you and can use it to their advantage. Like I think Cyna... whatever her name is said that some families break completely apart just because they hear that their grown up son or daughter is a nudist, even if theyre doing it privately and even if its none of the families business. So I mean alot of people support society because of simple fear.

-------------------------------------------------
"...just because they dont like the guy and want to see him convicted weither he did something wrong or not".

It has nothing to do with whether they liked him or not.
------------------------------------------------

Courts over here and judges opinions and feelings about their suspect can tip the balance between weither they are found guilty or innocent. Sometimes it has to do more with how they feel about the subject, even if the law is clear that what they are doing isnt illegal but the jury finds some sort of loophole offense and the judge just goes along with it. Im just saying that there are bad apples even in our legal system.

-------------------------------------------------
"I dont think they wanted to admit that what he was doing wasnt wrong".

They thought it WAS wrong. And I agree with them.
-------------------------------------------------

Like I said, with alot of people there is a certain fear factor of revealing nudity to their family/friends and sometimes they'll even go as far as lying to keep themselves good people in their parents eyes. I fully support nudity but around my dad I act like im opposed to it or neutral because he would blow his top if he knew I was even into this. So theres a good example right there. When I move out I will reveal it to them and if they decide to disown me in their family well then thats the risk ill take because ill be on my own and my nudity will be my own business and if they cant accept it then thats their loss. They like to use their "christian" morals to say how nudity is wrong and practically say that gods gonna burn ya in hell if he sees ya nude. I dont really beleive that and you certainly dont so we got something in common, I mean im a christian and youre an atheist but im just that way because my parents practically made me be that way and I had no choice till I got older although my parents use little tricks to basically say "you gotta be a christian" but make it sound like its up for debate. I dont think ill ever be an Athiest, but I certainly do question alot of christian beleifs and dont think they should be relevant in the law system here, even though people try to make it that way and use their morals and values as reasons to ban or accept a law. So basically there is just a fear factor in most people in society, although in alot of cases it might not be entirely true but ive seen it alot. Maybe its different over there, except maybe where you live stu.

------------------------------------------------
"The fact that they DONT have a specific law means that they dont find it questionable or they just dont want to bother with something so trivial"

Here statutory law is made by Parliament. This is a very long, difficult and expensive process. They don't tend to make new laws unless it's absolutely necessary and if existing laws are satisfactory they tend to leave them alone. Public order laws have been and are being used for the most part effectively against public nudity.
------------------------------------------------

Okay, maybe they cant have an official law that says that nudity is legal or illegal in public word for word but you think they could at least make the whole nudity issue law wise more simplistic so people can better understand it and so there is no confusion and people are actually found to be breaking the law and then the courts dont have to go fiddling through law books to find soemthing to try this guy on.

-------------------------------------------------
Do you REALLY believe our Parliamentarians don't see anything wrong in public nudity??? I know quite a few British MPs and I can tell you they would find it more than just "questionable"!
------------------------------------------------

Yeah well maybe your military is different. Most of our troops are OK with nudity and in fact are required to be nude at some times, its not really an option, I mean I havent looked up their policies lately but for a long time this was accepted and true. Yes, I do beleive that your parlament supports or at least tolerates nudity, its obvious that they dont say its legal or its illegal and im pretty sure they accept simple nudity as being legal but as I said from over here, that doesnt mean youre safe from the cops but I just really think that they do support nudity even though the people on that particular trial didnt and I cant imagine that youd say just because they didnt beleive it was legal that the whole country or parlament doesnt. Im sure that some areas are more comfortable with nudity than others, im just saying as whole I dont think its a big deal in your country. I mean over here you can be legal under the state law for being nude but other municipal codes prohibit it and weither its legal or not, you can get caught by the police, although because the state law supports it, usually people get written off really fast and most dont even go downtown for it. If they do the judge usually lets em go after the trial and either says what they did wasnt wrong, gives them a warning or makes them pay a fine in the worst cases, it just depends on the judge and how they view the legal system, because yes it can be complicated and vague at times, but im just talking from an overall standpoint that nudity IS legal but you just gotta be careful in public when and where you do it. Thats why alot of Europeans come over here and spend time nude at resorts, I heard this one beach had alot of europeans that supported nudity but most of the prudish americans there frowned at it but didnt do anything because it was ok to be nude/topless there, even though the local law didnt really support it, the police did nothing until someone actually commited a crime or someone complained and then usually they still did nothing to the person.

-------------------------------------------------
"I just think its stupid when you have so much rape and murder out there that the courts waste so much time on a trivial subject when they should be focused on catching the real criminals who threaten our society."

If they only focused on major crime we'd be upto our armpits in litter, the walls would be covered with grafitti and the streets would be crawling with drunks. The trivial laws are just as important in a decent and wholesome society. Your former mayor of New York cleaned up his city by employing a policy of zero tolerance (i.e. for minor offences). It was extremely successful and has been copied around the world.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah well liter, grafitti and alcohol are different than nudity, most of those things are unhealthy, destructive of private property or damaging to the person involved and those around them. Theres a big gap between those things and nudity, because we have official laws banning them that almost spit out the wrods but yet we dont have such a law on nudity, just a few trivial codes that are usually thrown out by the judge if the person even gets that far.

-------------------------------------------------
"Yeah im sure the law is different over there but over here you can swear as much as you want and as long as youre not doing anything illegal the police cant do a damnthing about it because we have freedom of speech,"

We have freedom of speech here too. Butif you stand in the middle of a shopping centre and shout obscenities you WILL be arrested and possibly charged. Rightly so.
-------------------------------------------------

Well if you yell it out and intend to distrupt the crowd as being your intention then yeah you do get arrested but ive heard people say all sorts of obscenities in malls and even yell them sometimes and the security doesnt do much, except maybe warn them, then again it depends on the intricacies of the offense. Most of the time unless the person is causing damage or doing something illegal and says these words, the security just kindly asks them to either clean up thier mouths or leave and sometimes they just kick them out, most malls here have survellance so if they see the person there again they'll probably either throw em out again or arrest them, depending on the situation and the people running the mall. I mean its too complicated to say actually what they would do but thats basically the jist of it.

------------------------------------------------
"Besides people swearing is just wrong and unecesary,"

Yes, because people find it offensive. Same with being nude in public.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but its true that swear words are offensive any way you look at them, unless youre from the midwest or south, my family from there swears all the time and think its second nature to them. Some of em have gotten close to or gotten arrested for getting upset in public, but of course their actions were more than mere swearing, there was more involved so it had more to do with their actions than the actual words themselves. Anyways I cant really relate swear words to nudity. There are obvious reasons for swear words to be bad any way you look at em, but public nudity isnt so clear cut, especially depending on how you look at it. There is situations all over the spectrum dealing with nudity here, from being ignored totally to getting a jail sentence. I think it has more to do with the people involved than the law itself, unless they are doing something else illegal.

-------------------------------------------------
"although I have heard of them getting fined and getting warned by the judge."

That's all that usually happens here. I would be quite satisfied with Mr Gough getting a warning - if he heeded it - and a fine - if he would pay it.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but that is an extreme case here. Most nude people dont even get to the judge, because alot of policemen do 1 of 3 things, 1) ignore it completely or frown at it but do nothing 2) give them a warning which basically is lousy cuz you can just go to a different area and the cops would treat you differently or 3) they fine or ticket you. Ive seen or at least heard about 1 and 3 more than 2, although 1 and 2 usually happen more than 3 does, although it DOES happen sometimes.

-------------------------------------------------
"I dont see what is disorderly about being naked."

There is a standard of behaviour that relates to "within normal expectations and without the propensity to shock". Behaviour that falls outside those parameters is, by definition, disorderly. Nudity in public is neither withing "normal expectations" and certainly does have "propensity to shock". Consequently it is disorderly.
------------------------------------------------

I would have to disagree with your first statement and even say that your second one isnt always true. I mean normal expectations in society here seem to be clothed for the most part, although by law it isnt necessarily required although like I said thats kinda iffy someplaces and I just think that the general public although might be majorly against nudism as a society out in the open but in private they support it but hide that fact from the general public *fear factor* and so thus I would assume that most people are comfortable with nudity but when outside get nervous because they are used to most nude people being sexual perverts or criminals. So I think with most people nudity is just misunderstood and instead of putting someone in jail, the police oughta explain to the offendee that nudity in and of itself is not bad and the person by merely by being nude isnt doing anything wrong. Im sure most people would understand this, although I know some wouldnt and they are just hardheaded and you cant convince them no matter what you say to them, as far as they go I dunno what id do.

-------------------------------------------------
"He shoulve just waited till the trial, been found innocent and then went along his merry nude way."

That doesn't apply, does it, because he's been found GUILTY several times. He's almost certain to be found guilty again next month when he's back in court.
------------------------------------------------

Maybe and maybe not, someone might find something supporting him. Besides it seems like this is taking place in only one court with one or very few sets of opinions, these people really dont represent the society as a whole and may just be acting on local laws that they think apply to this guy. Some of the articles ive read on here and other places seem to speak to the contrary about the next trial. Im not saying this is fact but im pretty sure that unless theyve got a sorry defense that this guy is gonna get off this time and be able to go about his business freely. seems to me like hes only been arrested in 2 places/countries, hardly represents the thoughts of the english culture as a whole, maybe select people in those areas oppose his nudity but overall and in other areas people are backing his nudity, even if they dont back him or his policies necessarily. Thats another point, maybe these people are upset because of his actions and not merely his nudity. I mean just by being nude he wasnt doing anything wrong but he mightve done other things that people might find in question, weither the actual court does or not. Im just trying to be open and fair about this whole thing and try to show my opinion but be open to the fact that I might be wrong about some of this stuff.

-------------------------------------------------
"I can understand that but that really doesnt have anything to do with his nudity. He didnt breach the peace because he was peaceful and didnt do anything to harm people, which I thought someone said in the other post(s) was necessary for conviction along with his nudity. So I just think youre contradicting yourself and you want to find a reason for him to be guilty just to prove that you are right about nudity."

Mike - this is very very simple. He behaved in such a way that the court believed was LIKELY to cause HARASSMENT, ALARM or DISTRESS. That's all that was required for him to be convicted.
-------------------------------------------------

Or maybe it was just the people who thought it was questionable because of their prudish feelings about nudity and complained and got him convicted, im not saying weither the law necessarily says he is innocent or guilty, im just trying to look at this from other points of view but mostly center on the nudity because I beleive he is doing something right. I mean it seems kind of lousy just because the court THINKS he MIGHT HAVE done something wrong just because a the majority of the people in the court are prudish that that just seems a bit unfair because he is getting convicted by people who dont support nudity in general and are probably gonna say that he did intend to cause harm even if its obvious that he didnt. Thats what really bugs me is that largely the opinion of the court rules out over the laws, I mean dont these people have to explain WHY they thought he was going to cause distress, shock or harm or could they just say they thought he was and leave it at that without any proof facts or laws that prove their opinion is right or not. I think the law is so vague that the only thing the courts could do is use their opinions against him and thus he gets arrested just because a bunch of prudes thinks he did something bad, even if he didnt.

-------------------------------------------------
"I wasnt saying that I was just going along with what several other posters say about English law over there which ive heard for a long time is more lax about nudity than over here",

I can't comment on how lax the laws are in the US on public nudity. From what I've read on here they seem to vary hugely between states. Our laws are certainly not lax - vague, yes, but not lax.
------------------------------------------------
Yes laws here vary from state to state and its usually the community laws or codes that get you in trouble for nudity and not the actual state or federal laws, although I know of some state laws that explicitly say nudity of any kind is illegal, but even there it seems that alot of times either the federal laws win in the end, depends on the situation of course. As long as you obey the law if youre nude then you dont have much to worry about beyond the paranoid police officer but those are few and far between.

-------------------------------------------------
"thats why their teen pregancy rate and other crime rates are down."

Our teen pregnancy rates are sky high! Our crime rates would be as bad as in the US were it not for the fact that almost nobody over here has access to weapons (including the cops who don't want them).
-------------------------------------------------

Are you talking about just your country or the continent as a whole? I am talking about Europe not having a high crime/birth rate, im sure some indvidual countries like Scottland or Britain have higher crime rates than others do, I dont know this for a fact but ive heard that overall these two things areint in majority as much there as they are here, my dad even mentioned how Denmark has a high crime/pregnancy rate so maybe thats what you mean? I dunno im just going based on what I heard. im probably totally wrong though.

-------------------------------------------------
"You honestly WANT nudity to be illegal, so like the courts im sure youll try to find anyway that his actions could be illegal or cause offense just so you could see him guilty."

They do cause offence to me and others I know so yes, I do want public nudity to be effectively illegal outside of screened-off naturist places.
-------------------------------------------------

To me that is just as bad as blacks being segregated and indians living on settlements just because society wont accept their lifestyle. I mean these used to be the norm for the majority of society and you could probably say that the majority of society supported them or at leas thats how youd feel out in public and im sure a law person in that time would say the same things about those settlements that you say about current nudist resorts now. I mean blacks and indians are free now and can mostly go about their lives the way they used to, so I mean why cant public nudity be legal also if you think in that context? I mean i know you never had anything like those settlements over there but im sure you can still understand what im talking about and see the similarities and my comparison of the two. Nudity is just as good and wholesome as black and indian people are and society learned to accept them largely for who and what they are.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think the court WANTED him in jail weither he did anything wrong or not."

No. They just wanted him to behave lke a reasonable and responsible human being and either go home, or finish his walk in a pair of shorts.
-------------------------------------------------

That would defeat the purpose of the walk and if he went home hed have to admit that he failed in his objective and that would mean that society would win and people would see nudity more negatively than it does now. I mean if you arrest someone because they are nude out in public, the general public doesnt know the difference between public nudity and private nudity, they just see the nudity and thus see the guy get arrest, put two and two together and just assume its wrong, even in private. I feel that if society cant handle nudity then it will eventually come to bite even us private nudists in the *** and then we will only be able to be nude in our own homes, if that. I just want you to think of how this might turn out on the flipside. People already try to close nudist resorts down and ban them from being near public areas even if they are screened off and have met all the requirements. I just think if society continues with its largely nude=something bad and criminal idealism then we will all suffer in the end. because they will see ALL nudity as bad, not just the public nudity and that would be a step back and not forward and I dont think even you could support such a thing as that.

-------------------------------------------------
"Just because people dont like it, doesnt mean its wrong".

If it's in public it means exactly that.
-------------------------------------------------

People dont like lots of things out in public and think theyre wrong, doesnt mean they actually are. If that was true then everything most of society didnt like would be banned. Hell, some of the more extreme atheists out there are trying to ban christmas and there sure as hell isnt anything wrong with that but alot of the public doesnt like it, should we ban that too? Its bad enough that some of them wanna ban christianity and other religions all together just because they disagree with them and most of these religions and events have the vast public support but these people knock their heads off trying to make them illegal, so i guess fighting for nudity would be ok too then. I mean if these extremists can do these horrible things and not get caught or punished for them then us harmless wholesome nudists ought to be able to go nude out in public without the police doing anything. If they areint gonna stop the extremeists from burning crosses and such then they have no business banning nudity. I just feel bad that people support these other religions but dont mind people taking drastic action to ban them but dont support nudity and try to arrest us for doing something a hella lot less extreme and shocking than burning a cross down.

------------------------------------------------
"Ive heard of people who are almost totally against it, being coaxed into going to a nudist resort and by the time they left they saw nudity in a new light"

I'm sure that's true.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah thats why im saying with alot of people that would work. I mean especially if they didnt know they were going to a nudist reosrt before they got there because if they knew beforehand they might not like the idea based on their feelings and such but once they got there im sure alot of people would actually find nudity to be helpful and beneficial to them and would wonder why they ever doubted it in the first place. Some people even take their kids there and people with disorders and such sometimes get cured from it just by going to the resort and spending time there because they feel happier and more open and less ashamed of the human body and themselves in general. My opinion is that being a nudist has more to do with than just being naked, im sure alot of people here would disagree with that fact but I think it has to do more with most nudists being more open about the human body and more generally accepting of people with diff bodies, diff races and even the other gender. To me being a nudist is more of a lifestyle than just "ok im nude and I like being nude, therefore im a nudist". I just think if nudity can help people in resorts, imagine what it would do if it was accepted by the majority of the public.

-------------------------------------------------
"so obviously we need to teach the public to accept nudity because im sure alot of them would if they have their facts straight".

No-one is trying to stop you informing thepublic. But that's not what Steve Gough is doing. He is forcing people to endure his nakedness whether they want to or not.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but I think hes trying to teach people that harmless simple public nudity in and of itself isnt wrong. The only difference between say Mr Gough and a nudist advocate is that Mr Gough tries to spread his message while nude while the nudist activist wears clothing. I think that would make people wonder "if hes a nudist, why isnt he naked and instead wearing clothes like the rest of us?" I just think by being clothed, even though it MIGHT respect people, it would probably transmit a sense of confusion and curiousity with the public. I think if youre gonna support Nudity or the nudist lifestyle, theres only one way to do it, completely nude.

-------------------------------------------------
"I thought they still had to do another trial and im sure the conviction had nothing to do with his nudity and more with one of those vague laws they came up with and that doesnt seem very fair to me. Especially if they couldnt actually prove his nudity was to blame."

He does have another trial - but that's for another offence entirely. He stands fully convicted and sentenced in both England and Scotland for offences that arise out of the fact that he was naked.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but they just said he violated the law, they didnt say HOW he did it, for all we know he couldnt done something else wrong. They just used that law because they couldnt convict him of being illegally nude in public and if they didnt think his nudity was offensive to them then they wouldnt even have bothered to go to so much effort just to find a reason to convict him. I think the fact that they had to "find something to convict him for" instead of being able to say outright what he did wrong says something about the agendas of that court system. Seems like they wanted him to be convicted weither the nudity was against the law or not and they felt the laws they used were so vague that you couldnt say what he did was right but then again you couldnt say it was wrong either so they won simply because the law was so vague and Goughs defense couldnt fight it.

-------------------------------------------------
"Even if he was just walking to keep fit or winning a bet youd STILL think it was illegal just from the position you have about nudity."

"and if you go into someone's yard, they own it and youre trespassing on THEIR land and they have every right to call the police on you because you wouldnt be there unless you were to cause harm."

But you could be just peacefully crossing someone's land. And what makes the land "THEIR" land? It's just an area of planet earth and there are people who don't believe that anybody has the right to own land because land belongs to all the people. They think it's their human right to walk where they please on their planet regardless of the wishes of others just like Steve Gough thinks he can be naked where he pleases regardless of the wishes of others.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but the point is is that its obvious that some land needs to be owned by a specific person, otherwise people all over would just come and go as they please and the person who actually should be owning the land couldnt do anything about it and thus would have to live with people outside around his/her home or even in their home in that instance, people could come in and go as they please. Basically what im trying to say is that there are logical reasons we have laws that allow people to own private property, there isnt any clear cut law against simple nudity however, even if there is a law against it at all.

-------------------------------------------------
"I just think that he meant that by being born NUDE, like people who are born BLACK that we should have the same fundamental rights."

When I was born I had a right to expect people to feed me and to keep me warm and clean and provide for my needs. Then I grew up and lost those rights. People who are born black didn't choose to be black and they couldn't do anything about it even if they don't like it. A person who is naked chooses to be naked.
-----------------------------------------------

You dont chose to be naked when youre born though and people put clothing on you and as you get older teach you that nudity is wrong and half the time dont even say why, I mean I dont see much choice there. Besides babies even if they have clothes put on them, they still chose to be naked even before they even hear that nudity is even remotely wrong and theyre innocent until parents and others give them the shame they have when they get older.

-------------------------------------------------
"but im sure most people if they didnt have the shame our society and their parents give them and there wasnt any rule against it then theyd strip in a heartbeat",

It has nothing to do with shame. People do go naked in the presence of others allthe time. The changing rooms and showers at my gym are full of naked men most of the time, and I don't doubt that, if you went into the womens' changing rooms you would find them full of naked and semi-naked women showering and changing. That's accepted. But many of those very same people wouldn't be impressed at the sight of a naked person in their local park, supermarket, street, beach, golf club or railway station - far from it!
------------------------------------------------

I dont see how someone's body takes on a different appearance once it steps out of a private changing room. I mean they dont turn into some bug eyes creature or anything, theyre the same damn person with the same damn body and if people can accept seeing them in a locker room, they can accept seeing them out in public, you just treat them with the same level of understanding and respect that you do when they are changing in the locker room. Besides I dunno if people are ok changing naked together over there, BUT people over here have a huge problem with it. In fact most locker rooms at school are built especially to cater to guys who feel increasing shamed about their bodies and kids dont even take showers anymore in bigh school, hell most of em dont even require it anymore because of so many complaints from parents that someone changing has somehow shocked or embarassed their child. So the school has to waste money building barriers and other conviences just so those who are shamed dont have to learn to deal with the prescence of other naked people. I advocate freedom but forcing a student at a school to shower with other guys and see their genitals in all their natural glory for 5-10 minutes doesnt seem like that big of a demand. I think if we made more of these kids accept nudity for what it is, theyd have a better understanding of it in the future. I mean this is more than just freedom to choose here, most of these kids still have their parents deciding their every action and they have little if any choice in the matter in what they do in schools so I dont really see whats wrong with making kids see one another naked, its just another one of those things that people have to endure that they might find distateful or dont like. I mean cmon if we gotta accept all the gays and all the people who burn crosses and practically force people to not be able to have a religion then we should accept something as harmless and wholesome as nudity. My question would be that, say if a child was born into a nudist family, even though you dont think nudity is ok for people to see, that kid that is born into that family has no choice but to see nudity and forcing them to see it doesnt cause any negative reaction, in fact alot of kids who are born into those families not only learn how to deal with nudity, they have a better attitude and grasp on themselves and life. I wouldnt want a kid to be so shamed they couldnt let their own family memmbers see them nude or even be able to shower in the locker rooms without feeling negative. I mean theres an obvious problem with this so called functional textile society. So I mean forcing the public to deal with nudity isnt so bad if we have to deal with other things we dont necessarily like. I mean some people can do things merely because they have the right and freedom to do so and even if the mass public is against it, if the law clearly states that it is legal then they gotta deal with it. there are alot more worse and horrible things out there than nudity that people are exposed to and if they can handle those things, they can surely handle or learn to handle or at least accept nudity.

-------------------------------------------------
"The people who voted neutral wouldve probably picked for it to stay but they just didnt want to make a decision because they thought some people might frown on them either way".

That's just speculation.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but it was just speculation that the party against it won merely because they outnumbered the people who actully supported it and said that the people who were neutral didnt fit into the whole scheme of things. I just think it wouldve been more fair and acurate to just only let them pick yes or no, I mean its not that hard of a thing to decide on. I think most people who are neutral dont really care about it being there, otherwise theyd say no.

-------------------------------------------------
"I think people say they are against it out of the sheer fact that they dont want the public to know they support it even if it is right in their eyes."

That's just speculation, too. We have to take people by their word and not simply guess at their motives.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but not everyone is honest and if they have things to motivate them to answer either way *i.e family* then they'll do decide whatever those people want them to decide, reguardless of weither they feel that way or not. I just think most people are scared of what being caught nude in public might do to their relations with family and friends more than actually agreeing or disagreeing with nudity. I mean it would be stupid to just assume thats how the public feels without any other knowledge to the contrary. Im sure most people are worried about going nude in public thinking that the majority is against it when really theyre just as scared as they are and they dont get nude just because they feel the same thing. I mean even if someone thinks something is legal, they areint gonna try it if they think they might get arrested for it. Even if it is plainly obvious to them that its legal and the police cant lift a finger.

-------------------------------------------------
"Honestly Stu just because you dont beleive in nudity yourself, you shouldnt deny others the chance to be nude in public."

They shouldn't WANT to be nude in public in the first place. Why should any responsible and considerate person want to exhibit their private parts to people who find them shocking or disgusting? Unless that's the whole point of it.
-------------------------------------------------

I dont think you understand the whole point of being a nudist. It has to do with wanting to be free of clothing and not have to be hindered by something that is not good and natural. Since when are these parts "private parts"? Nudists dont consider any part of them to be private, thats just what society says so that they can coax people into wearing clothes and following their prudish policies. If nudists intended at all to merely expose those parts to the mass public they wouldnt even have to take off their clothes *well women might* theyd just walk around saying "look at my penis" or waving it in someone's face and be totally ignorant like that, thats the sort of attitude an exhibitionist would have, although they just wanna be nude for the "shock value" and may or may not actually enjoy living nude and just like to get nude long enough to get publicity or cause a scene, thats their goal. Our goal is to just be free of our clothing and be as nature and god intended us to be. We dont try to overly expose our genitals to people but that said we dont try to hide those parts either as we dont see them as being shameful or private and dont see any reason why society would or should be alarmed or offended by them. Theyre just body parts that are there to serve a function, enough said.

-------------------------------------------------
" so really Stu the chances of you encountering a fully nude person out in public would be slim,"

I want the chances to be zero.
-------------------------------------------------

What im basically saying is that it would be zero percent, especially where you live because your community doesnt like nudity and thus you wouldnt be exposed to it and a nudist wouldnt wanna be there naked because they wouldnt be welcomed anyways so theyd avoid you. I just think that the chances of anybody *besides you* seeing a naked person evwen if public nudity was legalized would be very slim. Also if anyone did anything to intentionally or actually cause trouble then they would be dealt with in the same fashion that a clothed person would be and they would get put in jail for their crime and not for the nudity.

-------------------------------------------------
"but still they deserve that right,"

It's not a right! No-one has the right to use public places in such a way as is lkely to cause alarm or distress to a significant proportion of the polulation who are likely to use it. People DO, on the other hand, have a right to use and enjoy public places free from discomfort.
-------------------------------------------------

If people would just learn about the nudist lifestyle and learn to accept it then such things wouldnt cause alarm or distress and would be seen as normal just like with nudist people seeing one another at a resort and some of these people used to be the same people you were trying to protect in the first place and im sure that alot of them didnt have the acceptance and tolerance of nudists that they do now, so I see nothing wrong in getting society to accept nudists and those who dont like them can simply avoid them, although I see really no reason for doing so but im sure some people do but im sure most could learn to accept nudism if we really tried hard enough and if we put a little force onto the issue. I mean we are forced to deal with all sorts of things we dont like, alot of them we cant do anything about so why would nudity be any different, why cant we just force people to accept it, seeing as simple nudity is not wrong or violent in nature in any way.

-------------------------------------------------
"Same with nudity, you cant just assume just because someone is naked in public that they want to cause problems until they actually do it"

You are missing the point. I couldn't care less WHY someone is nude in public, or what they are planning to do. The fact that they are nude in public is enough to disgust me and enough to get them arrested etc.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but the law usually says that you gotta do something else besides just being nude, I mean someplaces this is vague and sometimes people still get arrested. I just think that just because you dont like nudity doesnt mean you should make others not be able to be nude while minding their own business and surely it seems a little excessive to get them arrested, I mean itd just be easier to turn away and keep walking.

-------------------------------------------------
"It would also be silly to arrest someone for simply changing their clothes in a park, even though they are nude and might upset 1 or 2 people and also it wouldnt make sense to arrest someone who thought they were nude in a secluded area and then someone saw them".

No, and they probably wouldn't be arrested in those circumstances - so long as they covered their nakedness as soon as practicable and didn't repeat the behaviour.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah so see even if that nudity DID bother someone, its still ok, so why isnt them seeing it longer ok? Is there a certain amount of time that

MikeJB

12-23-2003, 06:49 PM

The first steven gough post I wrote has errors and is missing part of the post, if you want to see the whole thing, read the second one instead.

Bob S.

12-23-2003, 07:18 PM

"Why do you respond to me as though I was a totally uninformed and illiterate ignoramus?"

stu, I am actually with you on this one. I am seeing MikeJB as being a bit Rocketesque without the outlandishly rude comments. I see his problems as being unable to seriously look at both sides of the coin and understand the other opinions. He also seems to be impatient waiting for others to accept his ideology. He is also completely outspoken and opinionated. And a bit long-winded--and that's something coming from me. My advice Mike, pare down the replies. Now I know what everybody else feels when they see my long posts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"The reason he is 'violating the law' is that he bring attention to what he sees as the 'evils' of our cultural abhorrance towards public nudity."

And it is the very same behaviour and ideology that he is protesting.

"Who says it's a 'basic human right'?"

Uh, the StopSegregation people.

"But even if that doesn't satisfy you, the fact that nearly a quarter of respondents were so upset that they wanted to call the police whereas the proportion who were actually supportive of the nudity was miniscule should convince you tha public nudity - like that callendar - is unacceptable."

Actually, the survey didn't convince me of anything, but since you see it as empirical, I will use it in my arguments with you. Choices d) and e) are virtually the same and together, they equal 21%. That is statistically equal to the 23% that would call the police.

"I don't doubt there are plenty of people who are naked in their own homes but many of them would be MORTIFIED if they encountered a naked person in their local park or on a footpath."

And I have no doubt that most or at least many of them would see the nudity as less than mortifying. They would probably be surprised to see a naked man, but I doubt seriously that they would be "mortified"...unless that naked person was doing something that was mortifying.

"The circumstances of it - more particularly, the likely outcome. This is harassment, alarm or distress."

Harassment is a separate crime in and of itself. Causing alarm or distress is only unlawful for a select few behaviours. And it is, in my opinion a poor reason for outlawing something.

Bob S.

Rex

12-23-2003, 07:36 PM

Hey, Stu, you've answered everyone except me.
If Steve Gough went to the beach and did not wear bathers, because, to paraphrase the official advice of the WA Health Dept, "to avoid candida, keep the genital area dry and well aired", there may well be attempts to bully, threaten and discredit him, but he obviously has what it takes to ride that out and I believe he would win.
It works in WA and we probably have just as many wowsers* as anywhere else.
When I went public on this concept, I offered to meet the police on the beach, by appointment, and get arrested, but they would not take me up on it.
On one occasion, I was guest speaker at a big Neighbourhood Watch meeting, attended by senior Neighbourhood Watch people, senior police officers, community leaders, local council officers and a good cross-section of the public.
During my talk on the need and appropriateness of more free beaches, I again repeated my willingness to be arrested and charged and again my offer was ignored.
My talk was obviously well received, no-one publicly objected to anything I said and several people, including some high-profile ones, got me on one side and told me that they were on-side, but for various reasons, they could not openly support me.
Yes, we do have an image problem at times, but that is because of lies, ignorance, misinformation and stupidity. This is not helped by the fact that not enough well known, well respected people are prepared to publicly acknowledge their liking for the nudist lifestyle.
*wowser---Australian colloquialism for person who would ban any activity of which they do not personally approve.

Kari P

12-24-2003, 05:37 AM

Stu,

"I can't comment on Finnish law because I know nothing about it. Perhaps you should ask a Finnish lawyer. Or ask a Finnish police officer if they would simply accept a naked person wandering the streets of Helsinki. I suspect they wouldn't."

Did I ask you to comment? I told some details of our legal system only for comparison. Which one of the systems do you feel to be fairer to a citizen: one where the meaning of the laws is crystal clear, or another where the laws are fuzzy and get their meaning only form their interpretation in courts that can decide whatever they dislike to be a crime? From what you have told, I get the impression that British legal system is of that latter kind. I don't see the Finnish system as an ideal either but better than yours.

Rereading my latest post I found that I had used a wrong word. "Prejudice" should have been "precedent". (How I could mix the words? Probably it came from associating "judice" with "judicial".) So I repeat a sentence with the right words: "We have in use the concept of precedent you mentioned."

We are not necessarily talking about nudity in such very public places as streets. There have been streakers in Helsinki, but not plain nude walkers in streets as I know. I don't know about how they were and would be handled by the police, and I haven't a great interest to know it. Naturists aren't in the first place coming to the streets. Nature and rural environment will be conquered first, then less public places in urban areas. This is a process which lasts decades.

I would like to point you at topics were you possibly could add your comments:

About body shame and raising children: "Kids and nudists"

About driving nude: "Well, officer, it's like this..."

Kari P

12-24-2003, 06:34 AM

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 11:46 AM

Trailscout

Firstly, if you want to quote me, feel free. But do me the courtesy of citing MY words rather than substituting your own words for mine. (e.g. I never used the word "ghetto")

Secondly, I'm not suggesting banning naturists from anywhere. I am simply saying that one aspect of their behaviour is unacceptable in public places. We have done the 'black' comparison to death and no matter how many times and in how many forms it is ressurected it doesn't hold water. A black person is black 100% of the time from birth to death and they can't do a thing about it. Naturists are merely people who enjoy being in a certain state when the opportunity presents itself. It's a form of recreation - nothing more and nothing less.
-------------------------------------------------

If its just simple recreation then why is it so bad for you to see nude people participating in such recreation? Whats the difference between them doing this in private than in public if its just recreation? Sounds like the nudist people just want to relax and enjoy themselves and wouldnt ever harm anyone and the only reason people get shocked by such nudity is they dont understand it fully and in our sex-based society im not surprised. I mean personally I think people wear skimpy clothes as it is and really most of those clothes dont really cover anything that much *i.e bikinis* so really I dont see the point in someone wearing one of these when they could just go naked. All bikinis do is cover and promote *bikinis are usually in bright colors to attract the eye to those parts* certain body parts and gets people alot more excited about such parts and also gives them a curiousity about such parts that wouldnt exist if the person was naked because the exposed parts are alot less prominent when you dont have bright flashy colors to attract the eye to them. I dont know how your society is over there but over here we got a big issue with sex and it seems that alot of people like nudity but only when they can make money off of it and they resort to this sort of "peek a boo" routine and its just demeaning to people especially women. So I mean if people gotta deal with all this sex stuff which actually is more damaging then I dont see how simple harmless nudity would hurt anyone. If they got used to seeing it on a daily basis they wouldnt think twice about it and if they got nude themselves then if they were nude long enough theyd forget they were even nude at all, happens at nudist resorts with first timers all the time. Personally id rather have people have body acceptance and alot less of this sex and peek a boo crap that we have here these days. Also blacks can chose to change the color of their skin these days too, theyve got plastic surgery people over here that can do that, I beleive that Michael Jackson guy who is black had that done because whereever he goes, he always looks white so I mean blacks can alter their appearance they just chose not to, same with nudists, we chose not to wear clothing.

------------------------------------------------
Mike

"..if you do get into the court system youll probably use those opinions or policies to try and ban nudity".

I don't need to. It's already effectively illegal right now - as we can see from Mr Gough's treatment.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah youll just make it worse though by imposing stricter policies that'll ban nudity even more. The fact that it is illegal is sketchy, because there is no formal law saying it is, the court just managed to find some sort of indecency law against him and for all the public knows that couldve been for anything.

-------------------------------------------------
"Besides me and alot of other people strongly beleive that your policies are wrong and most people have facts to back them up,"

What facts? This isn't an issue about bald facts it's an issue about whether people who pay for and use public places should have to tolerate something they find outrageous or unacceptable in those places. These people DO exist - I'm one of them and I know very many more. How many we are in number may be a metter for debate but empirical evidence either way is scant.
------------------------------------------------

Nudists pay for these facilities too and just because people dont generally like them doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to go out and promote their lifestyle freely *without clothes*. Their lifestyle isnt anymore dangerous than those of say a gay activist or some of those religious people who go around spouting all this dangerous stuff and burn crosses and such, I mean alot of people are against them and there are lots more reasons to be against them and the majority doesnt like them but because we have certain freedoms over here, we gotta accept them and thus I dont see any difference with nudity, basically because it is not inherently bad or evil like these other things are. I just think instead of just saying that "well the majority is against you or people find nudity shocking" dont you think you should explain WHY the majority is against us and what good solid reasons they should have to be against us. Also if nudity is so indecent but yet most of us nudists who have actually experienced it, wbich most textiles cannot claim, how can the textile people actually say it is indecent and what exactly is indecent about certain parts of our bodies, theyre just body parts, no big deal to most people if they just understand and accept them. Besides even the most stuck up textile person that says without a doubt that they think nudity is wrong and offensive and that theyd never like it can go to a nudist resort and come out with a totally new view on nudism and the naked body in general so just because people say they dont like it means diddly squat to me because 1) these people have never experienced nudity in mixed company or done anything productive nude, so they really have no say in weither theyd actually like that or not and 2) most just have the sexual bias of society to go along with and if people have been warped by society for so long and never had a chance to experience nudism then its not surprising the way they feel. I think these people need to actually experience nudism before they voice their opinion on weither they like it or not because if they did visit a nudist resort and STILL didnt like it, at least they could have some proof to back up their opinion because they actually tried it out and it just wasnt for them.

------------------------------------------------
"yourer contradicting yourself because you say that seeing the human body would be gross and shocking and destestible to you but yet you think nudity in and of itself is ok, so I mean either it is good and clean and wholesome or it isnt"

Now you are confusing two quite different things. I personally find the sight of nudity pretty disgusting and I don't want to see it. But I recognise that what you migh call an "issue" for me and I know others don't generally share that. That is, if you like, my emotional reaction to nudity. Putting that aside, my cognitive mind is able to reason that nudity in appropriate places is perfectly OK and most people don't have a problem with it. But is HAS to be in appropriate places otherwise people who don't share my antipathy for nudity suddenly start to find it disgusting and unacceptable.
------------------------------------------------

Most people don't have a problem with it? I thought you said that the people who enjoy nudity and or support it are a minority? I just think its funny how in one sense when youre trying to stick up for society you say that the majority has your back but when you talk about nudist resorts or just private nudity then you say that most people support that? I just generally think that if people are opposed to nudism that they would be opposed to people doing it, even in private. I mean cuz if you feel something is wrong, most people wouldnt support people doing something wrong in private. Besides NUDITY isnt wrong and thus if it isnt wrong then society shouldnt have any hang ups about it, no matter where you do it and if they do, thats just something they have to learn to deal with. Like I said most people are so isolated from simple nudity that they areint used to it and thus get crazy ideas about it and its true purpose and equal mudity with sex or nudity with crime and thats just not true because the vast majority of nudists wouldnt do either of these things, I mean you always have your few bad apples but that can be said about textile society too. I just think that its possible for society to accept nudity, even in public if they would just take the time and learn to accept it.

-------------------------------------------------
"but I certainly do question alot of christian beleifs and dont think they should be relevant in the law system here"

I agree, Mike. I questioned Christian beliefs many years ago and came to the conclusion that, whilst some had foundations in basic morality, many were just doctrine based on myth and superstition. Since then I looked at many religious belief systems and the only one that really impressed me was Buddhism.

Over here the Christian church has little influence on the political life of the country and virtually no influence on judicial or legal matters. Basically, Christianity has become an irrelevance to most people for most of the time.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah over here we have the word "god" in alot of things and the christian beleif or at least its moral foundations are basically grounded into our society, even though many people would deny this, its a bit hard to do that. Thats partly why the atheists over here want to ban christmas and take the word god out of material in public, mostly those of children, but christmas is celebrated by everybody and you dont have to be a christian to truly enjoy it, you just celebrate it in your own way. Also the word "god" just basically stands for a higher being, it isnt necessarily the christian god, because the romans and greeks had gods and many other cultures had gods, so really the word god shouldnt automatically mean christ but because the way our society is, many people see it that way and some will even go as far as to take pencils with the word god on them away from small children and I just think this is wrong and a bit excessive. Anyways my problem with nudity being related to that is christians spout their religous morals about nudity and say how because their god says nudity is bad that the whole society here should have to go along with it and ive got two issues with that 1) not everyone beleives in god and this wouldnt be fair to those who dont beleive in him or his policies and 2) they quote morals but dont give any hard evidence or facts or any explanation as to WHY nudity is such a bad thing. Another couple of issues might be that 3) if nudity was bad in the christians eyes, then why do so many become nudists? and 4) the bible doesnt say and most christians dont think that nudity is bad per se but yet we have gottan this warped idea that just because the book talks about morals and values and such that nudity is bad and they always use the whole adam and eve thing to back them up but the bible has several other instances where they talk about various christians going about their lives nude in that time and why would christians do that if they beleive nudity was bad??????????? So I mean there are alot of loopholes and I just think these people need to have the facts and I havent ever seen any solid evidence to prove that nudity is bad for the public to see, alittle uncomfortable now because of their distorted view of it, but its certainly not bad for them, they just need someone to show them the goodness of it.

------------------------------------------------
"Yes, I do beleive that your parlament supports or at least tolerates nudity,"

Our Parliament would certainly agree that naturism is harmless and those who practice it should be accommodated as far as possible. But you can bet your life savings that any attempt to have public nudity declared legal would be heavily defeated. Just read some of the debates on the issue when the Sexual Offences Bill was being discussed for a flavour of our politicians' attitudes.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but they never declared officially that it was illegal either and although in some areas people get arrested for it, im sure in others places people are more lax about the rule, otherwise Mr Gough wouldve got arrested alot sooner and more frequently. I think it just depends on where you are and whos there and generally how they feel about nudity. My feeling on the subject is just as a whole I think people over there are more lax about nudity but because of your strict legal system, when the person is arrested, the courts take it very seriously, which they probably beleive is right and theyre just trying to do their job.

------------------------------------------------
"Yeah but its true that swear words are offensive any way you look at them"

But that's a cultural thing, isn't it? After all, words can't actually cause harm, can they? What one person finds offensive another might not. It's also to do with time and place. A bunch of rugby players may use words freely in each others company that would be highly inappropriate in, for example, a primary school. It's just the same with nudity - there are times and places where it is appropriate and where it is not.
------------------------------------------------

You could say the same about nudity. I mean it just depends *now at least* on the people and the time and place nudity is taking place. I do think that if you asked most people honestly they would say that most swear words are bad and demeaning though while their view of nudity might not be so clear cut, but I mean if you just focus on society now and look at swearing and nudity then you could see similarites in it. Although you see people trying to advocate more nudity in public, you dont see as many trying to advocate more swear words, so I think that has alot to say in and of itself about the differences between the two.

-------------------------------------------------
"alot of policemen do 1 of 3 things, 1) ignore it completely or frown at it but do nothing 2) give them a warning which basically is lousy cuz you can just go to a different area and the cops would treat you differently or 3) they fine or ticket you."

It works differently here. If the police get a complaint they HAVE to do something about it. That may mean a warning to get dressed (and stay dressed) and if you comply then there is an end to it. If you don't comply you WILL be arrested. The police here don't have the discretion to fine you or give you a ticket for inappropriate nudity. As far as they are concerned you are committing a public order offence and your offending must stop - one way or another.
------------------------------------------------

Thats probably because of police force and its rules are more lax over here. The police have alot of discretion in their actions and smaller offences like nudity, especially since there is usually no clear cut law on it and sometimes only a vague code on it, have alot of liberties in what they can do. If they feel that what the person is doing is not harmful to alot of people they can just choose to not take any action at all, it just depends on the situation and the details of it and just how the police feel about it. Arresting someone for simple nudity, especially if its their first time and first offense theyve ever had seems a bit excessive to me and I think most police here realize this and thus dont treat it in a bad way unless it is really disturbing the public and the person repeats it several times.

-------------------------------------------------
"im pretty sure that unless theyve got a sorry defense that this guy is gonna get off this time and be able to go about his business freely".

Of course anything can happen. But remember he will be in the SAME court with the SAME prosecutor and the SAME Sheriff (judge) that decided he was guilty last time under the SAME circumstances and gave him a warning to cease his behaviour. Go figure!
------------------------------------------------

Thats happened over here and people have still gotten off. The court mightve got new evidence since then and mightve actually thought the whole situation over for a period of time and came to the conclusion that its not really necessary to worry about it. Not saying that it would happen, just saying that just having the same court doesnt guarantee hes gonna be found guilty.

------------------------------------------------
"seems to me like hes only been arrested in 2 places/countries, hardly represents the thoughts of the english culture as a whole,"

No, he's been arrested a total of 13 times since starting his walk. He was also arrested at least twice in his home town shortly before starting his walk!
------------------------------------------------

Was this 13 difference areas or countries he was arrested in or just 13 times in the same place or in like just 3 or 4 places? Still that wouldnt be the majority of the feelings of the whole country. Sometimes even when something is legal everywhere if youre in the wrong place and you got a grumpy police officer and he thinks youre doing something wrong, you can still get arrested. I mean that seems to be whats happening there * not the grumpy police* this guy went into a few areas, had about 1 or 2 people complain, he got arrested and they had to find something to try him on because there is no law saying nudity is legal or it isnt. I just think that as a whole, most people wouldnt have any problems with someone nude out in public but it doesnt take the whole society being against it, usually it just takes one or two people to complain to get you put away, even if something isnt illegal and even if the mass of society is generally ok with it. That seems rather lousy to me.

------------------------------------------------
"overall and in other areas people are backing his nudity"

I live here and I see no evidence of that.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but are you just talking about the area you live in or the whole society? Im sure that even if the people that live around you are against it, the rest of your society may not be.

------------------------------------------------
"he gets arrested just because a bunch of prudes thinks he did something bad, even if he didnt."

Don't prudes have rights too? Or do we just disregard them? And he wasn't arrested merely because he did something "bad", but something that the court decided was "against the law".
-----------------------------------------------

Usually if something is against the law, usually its bad, ive never seen a law against something good. That seems rather absurd to me. Besides his nudity wasnt against the law. They had to charge him for something else which could be applied to his nudity, if you just asked someone weither nudity was against the law, they couldnt say it was or it wasnt. So I guess you cant really do much about nudity if you cant even have some reasonable law to go by that at least makes the nudity issue more clear. I just think they used the whole public offense law because in a cute way it could be applied to what he was doing. I still think they wanted to find something to get this guy for, otherwise they wouldnt have bothered looking and wouldve just let him go and said they couldnt find any law he was breaking and thus say he wasnt doing anything illegal.

------------------------------------------------
I'm puzzled about your perceptions about Europe. In Britain we have high teenage pregnancy and a high crime rate. In Denmark they have a moderately low teenage pregnancy and a low crime rate. Sweden, like Holland, has a low teenage pregnancy but a high crime rate. Levels of teenage prenancy and crime rates don't seem to correlate to attitudes about nudity.

"To me that is just as bad as blacks being segregated and indians living on settlements just because society wont accept their lifestyle."

Look at the answer I gave to Trailscout on that point.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah and I answered those above /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They dont hold water.

I guess each country over in europe has its own problems with teen pregnancy and crime, but I was just talking about the continent as a whole and not necessarily places like denmark or sweden.

------------------------------------------------
"hed have to admit that he failed in his objective and that would mean that society would win..."

What's so wrong with society winning? Just because someone has an opposing view to "society" doesn't automatically mean they have a right to win every time.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but alot of people in society are out to give nudity a bad name and if they can connect it to someone like Gough and prove that he was doing something wrong by being nude that would just give them that much more reason to oppose nudity and thus they would win and we would lose. Even those of us who desire to do it in private.

------------------------------------------------
"and people would see nudity more negatively than it does now."

Mr Gough has already done untold damage to the public perception of naturists. Most people have no connection with naturism and there is a danger that, when they see this unshaven fanatic upsetting "normal" people, and getting arrested and imprisoned on a regular basis, they start to wonder if all naturists are like that. He is obviously far out of step with the rest of society - seen as a 'weirdo' or a 'hippy' and, as such, totally alien to the average man in the street over here.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah and because the public has a problem with nudity, both private and otherwise, it would effect everyone, not just those who would like to take it public. I mean if most of society had their way, we wouldnt even have nudist resorts because they wouldnt like places that would support such things. This has more to do with just people accepting public nudity, it has to do with them getting past their delusions and misguided ideas that nudity is directly related to sex and crime. The mass majority of society, especially here has issues with that and we need to show them otherwise and I just think making nudity a publicly accepted thing would help with that alot.

------------------------------------------------
"Hell, some of the more extreme atheists out there are trying to ban christmas"

And they, being a minuscule minority, will be ignored and sidelined regardless of how vocal they are in trying to further their cause. Just as the nude activists are largely ignored and sidelined.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah but banning christmas will never happen because it would effect alot more people than making nudity public would. Besides these atheists are doing something bad with no reguard for the fact that many people look forward to and cherish christmas but instead soley think about their idealism that christmas is bad, which there is no proof of that and they want to ban christian ideals from society, but of course christmas isnt just a christian holiday although it does have christian roots but these days it means alot more and means differently to different people. I dont think that banning christmas would be as easy as getting the public to accept nudity.

------------------------------------------------
"I think hes trying to teach people that harmless simple public nudity in and of itself isnt wrong."

My students enrol for law course so that they can be lawyers or police officers or even company secretaries. They sign the forms and pay the fees confident that they will be taught what they want to learn by someone qualified to teach them. Who commissioned Mr Gough to "teach" the rest of us anything? I didn't! What qualifications or mandate does he have to decide that he's right and the public in general is wrong?
------------------------------------------------

Im sure that even though his ways of teaching this are a bit eccentric and maybe even questionable, the idea that a single man could be brave enough to go out nude into the public and speak his mind show alot for his maturity and intelligence. If he could get society to accept nudity, what does it matter if he is a legally accepted professional or not? Most nudists dont hold that postion on nudity. Should we not be allowed to teach society that nudity is right and their view is wrong, even if it is? Most of us have facts to back up our words and if society doesnt have facts to support their views then it must mean that our ideas hold more water than theirs do. They spout morals and values but rarely ever produce any solid facts on the issue. The ones they do have are usually full of loopholes or just dont hold any water at all.

------------------------------------------------
The public doesn't have to "learn to accept nudity". It's the naturist minority who must "learn to accept" the sensibilities and will of the majority that there are limitations on where they can practise their activity.
------------------------------------------------

Even if the public's view is wrong? Must we just accept it just because they are the majority and we are not?

-------------------------------------------------
"Yeah so see even if that nudity DID bother someone, its still ok, so why isnt them seeing it longer ok?"

People accept momentary sightings of unintentional nudity - they may blush but eventually they'll probably find it funny. But if it is either prolonged, or done on purpose, then it becomes offensive. That's just the way it is in our culture.
------------------------------------------------

So what youre saying is that nudity to most people is ok for a certain amount of time? I mean is there some official amount of time where breif nudity that isnt bad and funny turns into something gross or offensive? So I guess the cops gotta wait 5-10 minutes before the breif funny nudity turns to the lewd disgusting nudity before making an arrest because thats how long itd take for someone to be offended by it. I mean thats just silly, either nudity is bad or its not. Besides just because the public doesnt like nudity NOW doesnt mean they cant change and accept it later, I dont see whats wrong with at least teaching them to accept it. That seems alot better than them making us wear clothes and pulling us into their convulted and sex based society. I mean our society has several issues with how it functions and personally isnt making many brownie points for itself lately and if you look at the nudist society you dont see alot of these hangups or issues. So you tell me which one is better??????

-------------------------------------------------
"at some point there was a time ...nudity in public was accepted ..if it works there, how come that fact cant be applied to now?"

Here in the UK nudity has NEVER been the norm. We know that even our stone age ancestors covered their bodies! How far back do you want to go? Apart for a few very primitive tribes living in tropical climes, clothing has been worn by human beings since we lost our fur - and that was a very long time ago.
------------------------------------------------

Im sure your stone age ancestors used clothing for more practical purposes and that is because it was so cold and they had no choice, I mean as far as climate goes, thats just a practical issue. Clothing was originally designed for such purposes but as society developed they changed this into something that was needed for decency and something that was required even when it was pointless to have to wear such things. The reason you think people wore clothing throughout history is that is what society tells you and they are into clothing. They tell people that clothing was always the norm and even put clothing on adam and eve, even when they are supposed to be naked as to not offend children!!! This gives a very warped and convulted sense of our society, many cultures in the past used nudity frequently or at least accepted it as the norm and allowed it in certain areas but these places were still in the public and in the public view as people could come and go as they please and many of these were not hidden from the publics view because nudity was accepted and thus there was no need to. Very few people learn those facts these days because if they did then theyd start asking society all the cold hard facts about it and society wouldnt want to have to explain how nudity could be accepted as normal then but not now. Even if you use primitive tribes as an example, the mere fact that they can live together in harmony with their nudity and go about their lives and do things nude goes to show that nudity can be safe and healthy with the right knowledge and upbringing. The only reason youre against it, is because youve been brought up into a textle society that is largely against nudism and because of their convulted views on what nudism is about they feel that living your life totally nude all the time will lead to problems and that humans cant deal with that but primitive tribes and other cultures prove that to be false. If we didnt have the upbringing and society's disapproval of nudity that it has today then people would be much more accepting of it and we as a people would be better off than we are now.

------------------------------------------------
"Is the human body somehow different now?"

Could YOU survive in your climate outdoors all year round without ever needing clothing? You bet it's changed!
------------------------------------------------

Maybe not there but in warmer places you could and nudists dont advocate complete nudity all day. Just when it is practical when the climate doesnt make it impossible to do so. Most nudists understand this. We just want the right to be able to be nude outdoors when it is practical without getting alot of flack from society. We do use common sense though in certain situations.

-----------------------------------------------
"So youre basically saying that the court can decide if what someone is doing is illegal?"

Of course they do.
------------------------------------------------

Dont they need evidence or facts to back up that opinion though?

------------------------------------------------
"Even if the law specifically states to the countrary?"

No, I didn't say that. The courts look at the circumstances of each case and consider if the offence charged has been committed. Some laws are very specific and rigid - others are vague and flexible. The results of decisions made in our higher courts form the basis of much of our law. Generally speaking, they can't go against staturory law. But this doesn't apply in Mr Gough's case. In his case decisions are taken by lower courts on the basis of undisputed facts rather than case-law. The offences charged ae vague so the courts have a wide scope for interpreting the law as they see fit.
-----------------------------------------------

Well the court really didnt have a law to go against in Mr Goughs case and the law they did use doesnt say weither he is guilty or not so if they used that law they would need alot of evidence or facts because the law itself doesnt prove anything.

------------------------------------------------
"his eccentric rambling."

Rambling here is simply another word for "hiking".
------------------------------------------------

So just because he was hiking nude means he should get arrested and convicted like he was some petty criminal? I mean its like youre comparing him to someone who actually does a crime and like he was doing something that was bad and that he intended to do something that was bad.

------------------------------------------------
"I wonder if that eccentricity had anything to do with him being arrested? *besides the fact that he was nude*."

Definitely not!
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but if he was acting crazy while nude, that might give some people the impression that he was LIKELY to do something. You wouldnt think they could assume that simply because he was nude because a nudist could be nude and if he/she is just simply walking somewhere and acting calm and mature then I dont see any reasont to assume that they would do anything, unless they were acting in a suspicious way. Thats why the law here generally says they have to be doing something else while nude to be found guilty, because just being nude doesnt mean theyre likely to cause harm.

-------------------------------------------------
Bob

"And I have no doubt that most or at least many of them would see the nudity as less than mortifying. They would probably be surprised to see a naked man, but I doubt seriously that they would be "mortified"...unless that naked person was doing something that was mortifying."

Well, perhaps they wouldn't all be 'mortified' but we can say that around 57% would experience "disgust, shock or embarrassment", and a further 19% would experience "discomfort.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats just how society raised them to respond. If we wouldnt teach people that such nudity was shocking or disgusting then people seeing a nude man wouldnt react in such a way. It has more to deal with conditioning of the mind more than anything else. Besides even if people do get shocked, they can still control their emotions. Youd think most people would understand that a nude person isnt lewd.

-------------------------------------------------
Rex,

I have read your story and appreciate what you are saying but I'm not sure how I can respond to you.

If you challenge the police to arrest you for being naked on a British non-naturist beach they will certainly oblige you. The outcome could be anything from an hour in the cells to 'cool-off' to a court appearance.

Our public officials love to appear broad-minded and liberal but you would be disappointed if you expected any real, practical support to turn a popular beach into an official, clothing-optional beach.

As for diseases - I have no reason to believe that wearing swimwear increases your risk of contracting these or that nudity decreases the risks. There is no evidence that I am aware of that proves nudity is physically healthier than keeping your privates covered.
------------------------------------------------

Well Stu if you looked around at several nudists sites, especially ones talking about beaches and swimwear then youd see several facts about why swimwear can be unhealthy. The biggest one that comes to my mind is that swimwear is unecessary in the first place. I mean why should you need a garment to wear into the water? That just sounds totally absurd to me. You sure dont wear swimsuits into a shower or bath, so why should a pool be any different. I mean even people who dont accept nudity would see the logic in this. Besides these suits get all wet and clamy when you get out, nude bodies dry faster. Also being nud doesnt hinder your movements in water like a big baggy waterlogged swimsuit does. Also this just promotes body shame for people that wear them because it shows simple body parts to be bad or offensive to others. We have a big problem with image in this society and generally if someone doesnt like how you look, generally they wont like you as a person, even if you are friendly and theyd get along with you just fine if they could get past all their misconceptions about your body and its supposed imperfections. Same with genitals, you might not like how they look, but theyre just like any other body part that migh look ugly, its just a body part and people generally accept those, so why cant they accept genitals too. Also women's breasts generally have to be covered in most societys and yet they are not genitals or have anything to do with sex but we treat them just like genitals and even go as far as to say women are naked without their tops. I mean this is just absurd and just goes to show you how unhealthy our society thinks and how nudity would help put it straight. Society would accept people for who and what they are then, because they would actually have to confront what theyve been afraid of for so long.

------------------------------------------------
Kari

"Which one of the systems do you feel to be fairer to a citizen: one where the meaning of the laws is crystal clear, or another where the laws are fuzzy and get their meaning only form their interpretation in courts that can decide whatever they dislike to be a crime?"

That depends upon whether I am (a) someone who is trying very hard to obey the laws or (b) someone who is the victim of various types of antisocial behaviour.

If I am (a) then I want to know precisely what I am allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do.

If I am (b) then I want to know that the police and the courts can help me without them saying "We know you are a victim or wrongdoing, but there is a gap in the law and so we can't help you".

But remember, I actually want the law to be clarified on public nudity. I was the one who suggested a specific criminal offence of public nudity!

Stu
-------------------------------------------------

I think the law would be a bit more fair if you had a sort of law that says you can be nude in a public place but you are expected to act in a mature way and obey all the laws that clothed people have to and if you are caught doing something offensive or illegal then we would have reason to arrest you. I dont think its very fair to ban public nudity entirely but to have a law saying its legal but that they will take serious action in the event that a nude person is found violating some other law. I think they oughta be treated in the same manner as those who are clothed but maybe a bit stricter due to the fact that they are nude and that by having the right to be nude if the law is stricter for them that the nudist people would try harder to obey the other laws so that they wont get into trouble. That sounds fair to me. Banning public nudity entirely doesnt solve anything and if the police taking swift action to those who are nude who violate the law then the public would probably support that seeing that people can be nude but that theyd get arrested before causing serious harm. Just being nude by itself isnt grounds enough for conviction.

Kari P

12-24-2003, 11:52 AM

Stu,

"Here in the UK nudity has NEVER been the norm. We know that even our stone age ancestors covered their bodies!"

Yes, but how long clothing in public has been compulsory? It's not the same thing as a physical need or a common habit.

"Could YOU survive in your climate outdoors all year round without ever needing clothing?"

No, but there is a time of year, the summer, when our survival doesn't require clothing. And indoors, we could be naked at home and wear quite little in many jobs if it was accepted. (I'm a lucky man. I do my job as a programmer at home; my maximum work clothing is a t-shirt.)

I wish others to comment on the law systems, too. Which one do you want?

"I was the one who suggested a specific criminal offence of public nudity!"

Yes, but in a way unacceptable by naturists. We didn't get a deal.

Kari P

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 12:39 PM

"Here in the UK nudity has NEVER been the norm. We know that even our stone age ancestors covered their bodies!"

Yes but something being the norm and something being required are two different things. How long as your society actually just worn clothes out of habit or need and how long has it done it out of sheer force or requirement? There isnt even a specific law stricly prohibiting or allowing it so really there is no requirement to wear clothing its just the norm and thus police treat anything thats out of the norm as being wrong. Anyways the norm and a requirement are two different things. So how long has it been the norm compared to how long have people felt it was a requirement?

-------------------------------------------------
I wish others to comment on the law systems, too. Which one do you want?
-------------------------------------------------

Basically we need to have a fair and balanced law when it comes to public nudity. We need to allow public nudity BUT we need to assure the public that anyone who is nude that does commit a crime, that swift action will be taken against them to ensure the saftey of the public. I think that sounds fair and it works for both the nudist and the general public. So I guess us nudists areint as selfish as you think.

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 12:44 PM

"Could YOU survive in your climate outdoors all year round without ever needing clothing?"
------------------------------------------------

Stu you speak in protecting the public and upholding decency and preventing alarm. That is totally different from wearing clothes for practical reasons or when climate demands us to do so. There are many times, especially in other countries that maintain a higher temperature throughout the year where nudity is actually practical, do you think these people should be denied the chance to be nude outdoors even if their climate permits it? I mean yeah if we lived someplace like you do where it gets cold alot then maybe public nudity wouldnt make alot of sense but other places it does. My point is though that most of your arguements have been focused on the public's opinion and decency and not on the climate or other practical reasons to wear clothing.

12-24-2003, 04:02 PM

Nude in the North

12-24-2003, 04:42 PM

Hey Stu.

Do us all a favor and stop comparing Nudity with things such as Rape, Public Sex, Murder, Alcoholism, Torture, Rudeness, And any of the other things you seem to keep eluding to.

If you can't comment on nudity without Saying things like that then there is no point in debating anything with you.

Nobody is asking you to allow Drunks to have sex on your doorstep. Nobody is asking you to allow people to kill eachother. Nobody is asking you to allow people to be Rude by playing loud music when you are trying to enjoy the peace and quiet of a park.

The only Fair comparison to nudity is Clothing.
Ask yourself if you would allow people to do things clothed. If your answer is Yes. Then you should allow them to do those same things Nude.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Some people enjoy, for example, recreational sex. Sex is every bit as natural an activity as naturism and far more popular! But that doesn't mean I should have to see them whilst they are doing it.
Drunks pay their taxes. Does that mean they should be free to wander about public places stoned out of their heads on booze and upsetting everyone else? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Comments like these do nothing but aggravate. They have no purpose, and don't even relate to the discussion.

And by the way, Why is it that this is ok? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Yes but we do teach people that public nudity is shocking and disgusting <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But it's not ok to teach people that nudity is not Disgusting? Or to try to show Society that people can be nude without being Perverts.
The only reason nudity is Shocking is because it's still a rare occurance in public.
The only reason nudity is thought of a disgusting is because People like you try to convince the world that it is by always comparing it to public sex or rape or drunkeness.

Compare Nudity to Non Nudity. Compare a Nude person walking with a Clothed person walking. There isn't much difference.
Don't compare a Nude person walking with a Rapist or a Drunk.

Steve

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 06:07 PM

Mike

"Whats the difference between them doing this in private than in public if its just recreation?"

Some people enjoy, for example, recreational sex. Sex is every bit as natural an activity as naturism and far more popular! But that doesn't mean I should have to see them whilst they are doing it. It's the same with naturism. It should be a private activity kept well away from the rest of us.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes but even us nudists can differenciate simple nudity from sex. Thats what we want society to see is that sex and nudity are two different things. Sex is something more intimate and best left to married couples in their rooms and its obvious that there can be more negative aspects of that than simple nudity. Some people just turn something natural as sex into a recreational activity, thats not what it was ever meant for. The nudist lifestyle in many ways can be and for alot of people is recreational, because you can do alot of recreatonal activities nude thatd youd usually do clothed.

-------------------------------------------------
"Also blacks can chose to change the color of their skin these days too, theyve got plastic surgery people over here that can do that"

Plastic surgery to change one's skin colour 1. is prohibitively expensive for most people, 2. produces very abnormal results (look at Mr Jackson!) and 3. carries serious risks. None of these things apply to wearing a pair of shorts. Also, I have seen no evidence that a significant proportion of the population of any modern nation finds the sight of black skin to be "offensive".
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah well im sure Mr Jackson's current physical and mental state has more to do with other issues than a simple plastic surgery, im sure that hasnt made him into the crazed wacko everyone hears about on the news these days. I was just mentioning that the possibility was there and he was the only person I knew that has ever done such a thing and yes it might still cost alot but people still have that option so thats basically my point. Besides maybe people areint offended by black skin these days but they used to be in vast majorities and if we use your logic then all the black protestors back then had no right using the tactics they did to win the societies acceptance of them.

-----------------------------------------------
"Yeah youll just make it worse though by imposing stricter policies that'll ban nudity even more."

If you can suggest a better law, i.e. that would be acceptable to naturists and also acceptable to the vast majority of people who aren't naturists - including those of us who object to the sight of naked human beings in public places - then let's hear it. But I don't think you're interested in keeping everybody else happy, are you? You just want what suits your own minority interest.
------------------------------------------------

I think that if public nudity is allowed in a peaceful, safe and nonviolent way then there really is no harm being done besides whatever shame people have about their bodies and those of other people and thats something those people have to deal with. I dont think its too much to ask for this sort of thing to be legalized. Its not like its gonna cause any permanent harm to the vast majority of society. In fact it might actually benefit them and help them. Besides most of society thinks that nudity is bad and harmful and most nudists want to be nude in public and so if this law was legal then youd solve both of those problems the nudists could be nude and the public would know they are safe because the nudists while being nude would still have to follow the laws just like anyone else and would be treated just like if they were clothed and did something illegal. Besides after a while if the nudists didnt try anything the public would see that they are really peaceful and good and that they areint as bad as they thought they were. So it really does benefit both sides. Beleive me im not trying to be selfish or one sided here.

-------------------------------------------------
"Nudists pay for these facilities too and just because people dont generally like them doesnt mean they shouldnt be able to go out and promote their lifestyle freely *without clothes*"

Drunks pay their taxes. Does that mean they should be free to wander about public places stoned out of their heads on booze and upsetting everyone else?
------------------------------------------------

Yes, but getting drunk is unhealthy and when you get drunk you cannot control your actions and are liable to do things without thinking about them and do things that could be harmful to those around you. Besides we have clear cut laws on those sorts of things and have facts to back them up. Whereas the nudity laws areint so clear cut and there isnt as many things negative about nudity as being drunk and at least when youre nude you can still control your actions like a decent human being.

------------------------------------------------
In public places, the behaviour of the FEW must be acceptable to the MANY.
------------------------------------------------

Thats not always true. There are always going to be a few people that do things that the larger majority doesnt like but because of the freedoms and laws we already have in place, the majority needs to learn to accept these people even though they find them questionable or annoying. Same should go for nudity.

------------------------------------------------
"I think these people need to actually experience nudism before they voice their opinion on weither they like it or not"

Why should they be forced to try something themselves that they patently don't want to? I've never tried gay sex, or foxhunting, or streaking, but that doesn't mean I can't express an opinion on whether it should be allowed in public.
------------------------------------------------

No, but most people dont say that they THINK nudity is bad, they say it IS bad and they say it as a fact not an opinion and in that case thats where I disagree because you can have an opinion but when you say it like its an understood fact, especially when youve never expereienced it to know weither its a fact or not just seems wrong to me. Besides gay sex and some forms of streaking have been proven to be wrong and damaging in some studies. Makes me wonder if anyone's ever done a detailed study of the nudist lifestyle or of a nudist family. Im sure they would see that its not as bad as most people think it is. For the most part I used to think just like you Stu, I didnt think that nudity was ok and now that ive experienced it I see it in a new light and just think if others did the same then theyd feel that way too. I just think itd be better to try it and then their facts or opinions would hold more water.

----------------------------------------------
"Most people don't have a problem with it? I thought you said that the people who enjoy nudity and or support it are a minority? I just think its funny how in one sense when youre trying to stick up for society you say that the majority has your back but when you talk about nudist resorts or just private nudity then you say that most people support that?"

Mike - I can't see why you are not understanding me - this isn't rocket science. Most people don't have a problem with the nudity they encounter in their normal lives because it is where they expect it to be and apropriate for the circumstances. But that doesn't make them naturists - nor even potential naturists. Naturists are people who get naked in the company of others of both sexes - including total strangers - as a form of recreation. Most people that I know are like me in that they aren't and never will be naturists. But that doesn't mean they have anything against those people who are naturists, or them having the right to enjoy their passtime (so long as it is well away from the rest of us).
------------------------------------------------

Well actually Stu, a naturist is someone who likes to be nude in the outdoors, I think youre thinking of a nudist. I just dont see how this nudity is good if its in places you expect it to be but somehow its shocking when it isnt, I mean if you can accept it in those places, why cant you anywhere else, its no more shocking there than it is in the locker room. Besides you dont always see nudity where you necesarily expect it to be, sometimes thats just a part of life and if you learn to accept it then when you see it, its less of a shock to you and theres no reason to be upset or offended. I dont see how nudity magically turns from something ok to something dirty just because it goes outside of its little designated areas. I just think thats stupid.

-----------------------------------------------
"I just generally think that if people are opposed to nudism that they would be opposed to people doing it, even in private."

I am 46 years old and have a very wide circle of friends here in the UK and abroad and from a wide range of backgrounds. But I have yet to meet anyone who is opposed to nudism being conducted in private places - or even public places set aside for that purpose.
------------------------------------------------

Alot of people here are though and alot of them dont like nudity at all and I just think that if they ban it from being in public then people will automatically see it as bad and try to keep it from occuring in private too. Thats probably why the govenor down in florida was so upset over those nudist youth camps they had there, even though they were on private land, he still thought the nudity was damaging to the children, even though they had security, even though the parents approved completely of it, even though the kids and their families were nudists and most were official memebers of nudists organizations and even though the camps taught the kids body acceptance and good morals, the guy was STILL against it, so if that doesnt tell you how low society has sunk then I dont know what will. They were even well away from the general public's view and anyone whod get close enough to see anything would be well aware that the nudist camp is there before they even got there and would have no excuse to know that it wasnt there.

------------------------------------------------
" I just think that its possible for society to accept nudity, even in public if they would just take the time and learn to accept it."

Lots of things are 'possible', but that doesn't mean they are 'desirable'. That outcome would be desirable for you but truly horrendous to me!
------------------------------------------------

Well even if it did happen, youd probably never have to worry about it so I dont get why youd be so against it anyways. Most people would want that right for others but would be scared to take advantage of it themselves so honestly I think thered be very few that would actually go out nude and most likely youd never see one of em in your whole life. That doesnt mean the rest of them should be denied the right though.

------------------------------------------------
"I havent ever seen any solid evidence to prove that nudity is bad for the public to see, alittle uncomfortable now because of their distorted view of it,"

You are entitled to your opinion that the public's revulsion to nudity stems fro a distorted perspective. Whatever the reason for it, that IS their perception and nobody has the right to make millions of people uncomfortable in the places they have to use and have to pay for just because they have a particular recreational preference.
------------------------------------------------

Well you guys may not have the same distorted view of it there but over here it does seem pretty distorted and its plainly obvious that it is because the media and fashion and porn industries make millions off of exploiting women and promoting body shame every year and they promote the idea that the body is shameful and dirty but its ok when theyre trying to make an extra buck and honestly I think that has more to do with than just my opinion.

------------------------------------------------
"Although you see people trying to advocate more nudity in public, you dont see as many trying to advocate more swear words,"

How many people are actively trying to advocate more nudity in public? Only a very tiny number! Most teenagers that I know use, at least occasionally, swear words. But most of them wouldn't dream of going naked. Many working men, and quite a lot of women, use quite foul language in normal conversation. But most of them wouldn't dream of going naked. The same applies to sportsmen, businessmen, salesmen, fishermen and even policemen etc etc. You even hear well-educated and well-heeled people, women included, dropping out the 'F' word now and again. Swearing is far more common - and consequently far more acceptable to most people - than nudity.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah well thats pretty sad then because swear words and profanity are more demeaning than nudity and I think that has more to do with how society has been brought up than anything else. I was just saying that I think there are more people advocating to have the right to be nude in public than to have the right to swear more in public.

------------------------------------------------
"Was this 13 difference areas or countries he was arrested in or just 13 times in the same place or in like just 3 or 4 places?"

He was arrested in about six or seven English counties from the far south-west right up to the north west. In one county they even sent out a helicopter to search for him without success. He was also arrested in at least two Scottish counties. And don't forget that he mainly used quiet footpaths. Most of his arrests occurred as soon as he entered populated areas or got onto proper roads. In other words - when he was in remote places he was able to avoid the police but as soon as people started seeing him the police started getting complaints.
------------------------------------------------

Seems like 6 or 7 countries still doesnt support the whole society's view on nudity, especially since those who complained probably represented about 1 or 2 people in each area and the police just responded to their complaints and no one knows weither they actually questioned his nudity or were just arresting him because it was there job to? I think its a little bit excessive to waste time and money to send a helicopter after a nude guy. Besides I thought helicopters werent all the cheap to run, dont you think theyd wanna save them to catch murders or people in high speed pursuit chases or something like that??????????

------------------------------------------------
"I just think that as a whole, most people wouldnt have any problems with someone nude out in public"

Then I suggest you come to England and ask ordinary people. You'd be in for a surprise!
------------------------------------------------

Well im sure itd depend on weither you asked them out in front of a lot of people or in private. Im sure their opinons would be much different. I also think that each individual person would have their own outlook on nudity, but overall I think most people would be ok with it and those that areint it probably wouldnt take alot to convince them that its harmless.

-----------------------------------------------
"Besides his nudity wasnt against the law."

It doesn't matter how many times you say that it doesn't make it true. The courts have decided that his behaviour WAS against the law. That's what matters in the final analysis.
------------------------------------------------

Doesnt make it false either, the law never said weither he was illegally nude or legally nude and if all the court did is say he was guilty of a public offense that could mean anything. It didnt have to deal with his nudity but people probably just assume that because he was nude and thus thats the first thought that comes into their minds and they forget all the other details of his actions.

------------------------------------------------
Forgive me but how does this statement:

"I mean if most of society had their way, we wouldnt even have nudist resorts because they wouldnt like places that would support such things."

fit in with this statement:

"I just think that as a whole, most people wouldnt have any problems with someone nude out in public"

So you think the public would object to nudist resorts but would be OK with public nudity.
-----------------------------------------------

I just think that the way society currently thinks NOW that the first statement would apply but that itd be easy to convince them with the proper facts and persuasion that nudity was ok and thus the second statement would apply, I know it sounds kind of confusing but thats basically what I meant. I dont think society NOW if you asked them right out that theyd like nudity would say its ok but I think theyre capable of learning about it and seeing it in a new light without too much trouble. They just need to see the facts and details of it in a truthful and meaningful way.

------------------------------------------------
"Should we not be allowed to teach society that nudity is right and their view is wrong, even if it is?"

Of course not! That would be the HEIGHT of arrogance by a minority towards the majority. You are entitled to express your views and promote your beliefs, but TEACH SOCIETY THAT THEIR VIEW IS WRONG???? That's what Steve Gough is doing and that is precisely why he's in prison - that's society teaching Steve Gough that HE is wrong! And you wonder why I say what he is doing is harmful to naturism.
------------------------------------------------

No, I think hes trying to do the same thing we are, but hes taking it to extremes but is basically trying to promote a goal that he honestly thinks is right and he thinks society is wrong and honestly beleives that they are wrong. I think you confuse teach and promote, promoting is basically getting people interested in something and passing it along and teaching would basically be telling society abouty nudity and that there isnt anything wrong with it and that the opinions of people might not necessarily be wrong but some of the values and ideas placed upon them by society might be.

------------------------------------------------
"Even if the public's view is wrong? Must we just accept it just because they are the majority and we are not?"

There is no "right" and "wrong" about nudity as a concept. Whether or not nudity or anything else is permissible in public places has to be determined on the basis of what the users of those places find acceptable. If virtually everyone finds it acceptable - then it's "right", if a significant proportion find it unacceptable then it's "wrong". Simple.
-----------------------------------------------

If the concept of nudity isnt wrong then why should people think anything bad about it in public they should see the good in it like they do anywhere else, its no different.

------------------------------------------------
"So I guess the cops gotta wait 5-10 minutes before the breif funny nudity turns to the lewd disgusting nudity before making an arrest because thats how long itd take for someone to be offended by it. I mean thats just silly, either nudity is bad or its not."

That's a very simplistic approach - and incorrect. I used the term "momentary". A better legal expression would be "as quickly as possible". At the end of the day that means it's a subjective judgement, but the police and the courts are used to making such judgements about a whole range of things - e.g. what is "dangerous" in "dangerous driving", at what stage is a person not merely "under the influence of drink" but "drunk", what is mean by "unreasonable force" in detaining a criminal. This is routine stuff for the law and, whilst it can always be the subject of challenge and debate, rarely causes any major difficulties.
------------------------------------------------

I mean this whole thing is silly like the idea that when you reach a certain age your naked body isnt cute and innocent anymore is ugly and indecent and disgusting. I mean that just doesnt sound right to me. Besides the usually changes in size and shape of the body, mostly it remains the same and nothing becomes any more ugly or indecent than it was before.

------------------------------------------------
"Im sure your stone age ancestors used clothing for more practical purposes and that is because it was so cold"

I was just making the point that, for 21st century man, being clothed is every bit as natural as being naked. Possibly more so. In medievel and Tudor times in England people were very rarely naked. Baths were taken no more than once or twice a year and people weren't normally naked for sex. The only people who were routinely naked were artists' models!
------------------------------------------------

Just goes to show you how messed up their society was if they couldnt even get naked for a bath or for sex, which usually are the 2 excepted forms of nudity. So I guess an example like that would put a crimp on even private nudity.

-------------------------------------------------
"Dont they need evidence or facts to back up that opinion though?"

Yes. The FACT that someone was naked together with the FACT that others were present who were likely to have found the nudity alarming or distressing. Those FACTS support the OPINION that an offence was committed under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah maybe so, but just the mere sight of the naked body in and of itself seems a rather silly and immature reason for someone to get shocked or offended. Because if someone got shocked or offended that easily over something so natural and normal and inherently good, imagine what else might easily shock or offend them? Just seems rather childish to me for someone to be offended by something so simple as the human anatomy, every one knows what people got down there anyways so its no big surprise and im sure most people know what it looks like too. I mean yeah they might be upset at seeing it but they shouldnt act all freaked out like its some alien thing thats gonna hurt them or cause them permanent psychological harm or anything.

------------------------------------------------
"We just want the right to be able to be nude outdoors when it is practical without getting alot of flack from society."

You won't get any flack from society providing you keep out of sight of others who are likely to find your nudity offensive.
------------------------------------------------

Seems like that would take alot of effort just to keep out of sight of people who could easily adjust to our lifestyle and still be able to go on with their lives with minimal or no stress at all. especially if they got used to it over time. Might be a little uneasy at first but thats true of a lot of things when youre first trying them out or trying to get used to them.

------------------------------------------------
"So just because he was hiking nude means he should get arrested and convicted like he was some petty criminal?"

Yes. Because that's precisely what he is under our law. A petty criminal.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah that seems rather shabby though that some innocent man that is just walking naked out in the coutryside should be treated like someone that commited an actual crime and did some real harm. I think you know what I mean too.

------------------------------------------------
"I mean its like youre comparing him to someone who actually does a crime"

Yes. Because he has done a crime under our law.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah in a weird and vague sort of way. I guess your lucky that your court system was able to find something to charge him under.

------------------------------------------------
"and like he was doing something that was bad and that he intended to do something that was bad".

He was doing something bad and he intended to do something bad. He knew people would be upset and offended by his nudity but he did it anyway. That's bad.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but being nude isnt bad and he knew people might get upset but he wasnt trying to make them upset and they shouldnt get upset over seeing simple nudity, so I mean thats their fault and all this guy was doing is something very peaceful and innocent.

-----------------------------------------------
"Yeah but if he was acting crazy while nude, that might give some people the impression that he was LIKELY to do something"

He was arrested for being nude in public because being nude in public is, in the opinion of the court, likely to cause alarm or distress. Period.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah just because people get so easily alarmed over such silly things. Nudity shouldnt even cause such reactions.

------------------------------------------------
"Thats just how society raised them to respond. If we wouldnt teach people that such nudity was shocking or disgusting then people seeing a nude man wouldnt react in such a way."

Yes but we do teach people that public nudity is shocking and disgusting. That's what I taught my kids and it's what their friends have been taught too. So they are bound to react with shock and disgust if they see it - aren't they???
------------------------------------------------

Well you chose to teach them that way and thus if they react in a negative way towards nudity then you only have yourself to blame dont you? Im just saying that people wouldnt find nudity to be so bad if we didnt teach them that it was bad, especially when it isnt.

-------------------------------------------------
"You sure dont wear swimsuits into a shower or bath, so why should a pool be any different."

1. Nobody ever sees me in the shower or bath, and

2, When I'm in the shower or bath I need to clean my private parts.
------------------------------------------------

Still isnt very practical though. Besides most of the time when youre in the pool your lower body is under the water anyways so no one can see it and when you get in and out you can just run quickly from the pool to the lockers and no one would see you and even if they did, its a practical thing to swim nude so they wouldnt think twice about it, even if they were opposed to nudity elsewhere. It just seems logical to swim nude.

-----------------------------------------------
"Besides these suits get all wet and clamy when you get out, nude bodies dry faster. Also being nud doesnt hinder your movements in water like a big baggy waterlogged swimsuit does."

I rarely swim but when I do I wear a full body swimsuit. I find it perfectly comfortable and it doesn't hinder me in the least.
------------------------------------------------

Most people dont wear those and im talking about your average swimsuit that DOES hinder your movement and does get wet and soggy and sometimes full of cholrine and sometimes gets bacteria in it because of all the water and just means one more peice of clothing you gotta throw into the wash. Thats one good advantage of going nude, less laundry and less money spent on soap and laundry facilities and smaller loads.

-----------------------------------------------
"but to have a law saying its legal but that they will take serious action in the event that a nude person is found violating some other law."

Sorry but that wouldn't be acceptable to me or to most people I know who find nudity to be revolting. It's like saying it's legal to rape a woman so long as you don't cause her any physical injury!
------------------------------------------------

Most people who do rape women do cause some sort of physical injury because most get raped against their will. Besides nudity and rape are two different things. Also mere nudity isnt bad or lewd, but if youre acting in a sexual or provocative way of some sort then it can be seen as offensive and then you can be found guilty of something. Thats basically what I meant. I mean it wouldnt take much for them to be able to arrest you but if you were being good and not trying to turn anyone on then youd be ok.

-------------------------------------------------
"We need to allow public nudity BUT we need to assure the public that anyone who is nude that does commit a crime, that swift action will be taken against them to ensure the saftey of the public."

No government would be silly enough to try to legislate for it. In fact, any politician who even suggested it would be risking his or her career. Naturists must be more reasonable and realistic in what they ask for otherwise they will be viewed in the same light as the lunatic fringe headed by Mr Gough.

If it were put to a simple vote - "Do you think that adult nudity should be legal in all public places such as parks, popular beaches, streets, footpaths and places of recreation: YES or NO" - do you REALLY think you would get a "YES" result?

I'd be willing to abide by the public's verdict on that one whatever it was and accept it as their final answer (but I already know what it would be).

Would you? If you got a "NO" would you accept your lot, forget any ambitions for a widespread acceptance of public nudity, and be content to confine your nudity to private places and naturist venues?
-------------------------------------------------

Well I think that with the society the way it is now, asking for nudity in ALL public places would be rather foolhardy. I would phrase it more like recreational places like parks, beaches, pools, outdoors, etc or any place that a man or woman can go without their tops or bikinis on. Just anyplace youd generally accept that sort of thing. I dont think theyd go for it on streets or inside stores or restuarants or anything quite yet, I mean one thing at a time, but at least there could be some public places people could go and be nude without fear of harassment from the cops and still be able to go about their lives vastly without clothing. I mean id think there would have to be some basic circumstances and understanding in this and certain rules and restrictions would have to be applied. I was just saying it was possible but I would also be trying to think of how we could do that but also make the public be able to accept it knowing that they wouldnt have to deal with it necessarily if they didnt have to but yet theyd allow it and know which places where it might occur and would just accept that as the norm. Sometimes you gotta take baby steps to get what you want. My ultimate goal would be total public freedom of nudity but for now I would settle for going halfies with these guys.

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 06:38 PM

I think that one woman stated that she was frightened when she saw Steve. Frightened of what? His penis? His pubic hair?
------------------------------------------------

Yeah what exactly about the human body is so frightening to people? I mean is some long saggy sexual organ that has alot of public hair that everyone is well aware that men have really frightening to people and if it is, is it legitimate or right to be frightened of something natural that nature and god gave us, in their own image? I just dont see why someone should be frightened of such a thing and even if they were just scaring someone a little bit isnt grounds for being arrested unless you threatened them.

-------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that it is legitmate to prosecute someone for frightening someone else if the person threatened the other.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah I think that this "public offense" law would be more function if it actually stated that 1) the person actually would need to be threatened by the individual or the individual would have to be doing something *besides his/her obvious nudity* to excite or sexually stimulate someone intentionally and 2) would have to have a justifyable reason to be frightened by that person, which mere nudity shouldnt be something that most people should be frightened about, because there is nothing horrifying or disgusting about the human body because if it was like that with other people then the person could say that about themselves too. I just think this would be more fair and would allow public nudity but would arrest people who are actually causing legitimate offenses.

12-24-2003, 06:57 PM

N in the N,

Don't forget Terrorism. Stu has compared public nudism to terrorism. That means if we go nude in public, we're as bad as the men who destroyed the Twin Towers and slaughtered thousands of men, women and children and caused a nation to grieve.

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 07:39 PM

That just goes to show how absurd and illogical some of his thinking is. I cant beleive someone would compare something as simple and wholesome as nudity to something as evil and destructive as terrorism.

MikeJB

12-24-2003, 07:59 PM

Also I really do think Stu shouldnt compare nudists to rapists, drunks, terrorists, etc because even if we were nude in public, none of our actions would even compare remotely to these other things which are wrong based on facts rather than just societies own shame and misconceptions. I wouldnt want to be thought of as some petty criminal just because I was walking along nude minding my own business. Besides most of us nudists are quite resourceful and could be discreet about our actions and I dont think our nudity would offend the public that much. Besides if people are spending that much time looking down in that direction then they are doing the wrong thing in the first place and are the ones I would be questioning because most of the time to be able to see those parts you have to be looking in that general direction and I think most people have control of their head and eyeballs, if they would just look at someone face instead of their penis then there wouldnt be anything to shock them anyways.

Kari P

12-25-2003, 12:22 AM

Name corrected as requested. My apology for the error.

Mike,

Please don't take every sentence of Stu to comment on in your verbose style. Take Bob's advice: pare down the messages. We others get tired with them. And...

The following are excerpts of your recent messages:

"I mean cmon if we gotta accept all the gays and all the people who burn crosses and practically force people to not be able to have a religion then we should accept something as harmless and wholesome as nudity."

"Their lifestyle isnt anymore dangerous than those of say a gay activist or some of those religious people who go around spouting all this dangerous stuff and burn crosses and such,"

"Besides gay sex and some forms of streaking have been proven to be wrong and damaging in some studies."

What studies? Streaking also?

Mike, as naturists or nudists (these words mean basically the same) we except tolerance from the public for our harmless lifestyle. For the best result we should also prove ourselves to be tolerant for comparable harmless lifestyles. Being a gay is normal to a gay, and it is harmless. Also when they show in public that they are fond of each other. Not talking about gay sex in public, which is as condemnable as hetero sex in public.

You are not showing the level of tolerance that I expect of naturists. Please try to learn it. Learn the simple biological fact that some people are homosexual while the most are heterosexual.

Kari P

Frank R

12-25-2003, 09:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
So how, in a democracy, do we decide who is right and who isn't?
Common sense and fairness dictates that the will of the majority should be the deciding factor rather than the interests of a tiny minority who have places set aside for them anyway.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually Stu, you would be correct if a nation were a democracy. In a democracy, it is majority rule. A lynch mob is an excellent example of democracy in action. This is the major reason our founding fathers took such great efforts to try and keep this nation (USA) from ever becoming a democracy. Basic human (or God given, depending on your point of view) rights should not be the subject of the whims of a majority. So Stu, according to you, if a new Hilter comes along and gains the support of the great majority of people, all the jews, blacks, homosexuals, nudist or whatever can be popped in ovens and it is perfectly OK because the majority support it. I don't that that would be a nation any of us would want to live in. But it would be a democracy and that would make it OK right Stu?

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 11:32 AM

Mike, as naturists or nudists (these words mean basically the same) we except tolerance from the public for our harmless lifestyle. For the best result we should also prove ourselves to be tolerant for comparable harmless lifestyles. Being a gay is normal to a gay, and it is harmless. Also when they show in public that they are fond of each other. Not talking about gay sex in public, which is as condemnable as hetero sex in public.
-------------------------------------------------

Okay, well maybe I was a bit harsh on most gays, probably because of my father who seems to bash them reguarly. He just seems to not like them for 3 reasons 1) He says they are against gods will and in the bible he forbids homosexuality *my dad says there is some passage on there that mentions this* 2) He says being gay is not natural and that nature inteded for a marriage to consist of a man and a woman and that two men together in any relationship that serious is not natural and 3) He says there are health and sex issues involved with being gay that are damaging to the gay people involved and society around them *i.e AIDs*. Also society around here either supports them or totally bashes them or just has no understanding what gay means and uses it as a derogatory term. I just have always felt that nudism is a harmless lifestyle, while the gay lifestyle really isnt natural and in some way can be harmful and damaging to those involved and those around them *mostly the sex aspect of it*, I feel thats why some of the aids epidemic has gone up. Thats just my feelings on the subject and yes people have criticised me about it, oftentimes severely like I was doing something horrible by saying that or I oughta know better but ive only had my own experience to go by and ive felt that what I was saying is right so I mean they should get to know how i see it before they bash me in that way. My take on the whole gay thing is that people should basically be able to go out and talk about their lifestyle and admit they are gay, but I think they should keep their sexual practices private as normal heterosexual people do then gay people should do that as well, because im sure most people dont like some hetero person talking about how he humped his girl last night, I mean he might mention that he did it but just leave it at that and most people will get the idea. I mean sex isnt bad but most people dont need to know the details and can probably picture most of it in their minds. Im just saying while the gay lifestyle might be good, I think there are some bad aspects of it that need to be looked at and kept away from society, especially children and teens who cant really understand it well enough yet. I dont really intend to bash any lifestyle im just going along with how I feel about it and my experiences and just trying to look at it from both perspectives.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 11:46 AM

Actually Stu, you would be correct if a nation were a democracy. In a democracy, it is majority rule. A lynch mob is an excellent example of democracy in action. This is the major reason our founding fathers took such great efforts to try and keep this nation (USA) from ever becoming a democracy. Basic human (or God given, depending on your point of view) rights should not be the subject of the whims of a majority. So Stu, according to you, if a new Hilter comes along and gains the support of the great majority of people, all the jews, blacks, homosexuals, nudist or whatever can be popped in ovens and it is perfectly OK because the majority support it. I don't that that would be a nation any of us would want to live in. But it would be a democracy and that would make it OK right Stu?
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah that wouldnt be much of a free country. Although I always thought our country was a democracy? I always kinda figured it wasnt an actual democracy in a way but ive always been told it is one. Of course our view of a democracy and Stu's are probably largely different seeing as his and our country are largely different and their law system is different than ours. Anyways as far as the nudist subject goes and certain human born rights and such, I dont think these people should be denied such rights just because the majority is against them. I think the jews that got slaughtered by the majority in germany and the blacks who got segregated by the majority here prove that tactic to be most ineffective and lately it seems support for homosexuality has also risen to be something of a norm even though it would seem the country used to be against it largely as ive seen more places be open to it and more people talking about and supporting it. So I mean if those people were oppressed and now have free rights, how come us nudists cant? I mean whats so bad about us that isnt bad about these people. I mean there isnt anything more nasty and distasteful about the human body than there is about say homosexuals, so I just dont see any point in banning us. I mean yes the majority might be against us but thats largely because they misunderstand us and our society doesnt try to give us the proper understanding we deserve because it wants to keep its big money making clothing industries in business. I think by denying us our rights, society is damaging itself far more than it would if we all went around naked *when practical of course*, I mean im talking about the freedom to, not the idea that everyone would strip off and the whole country would be naked as one. I mean if only one person in each state was naked outside, doesnt that one person deserve the right, even if everyone else choses to cover up? Besides I think itd be more than just 1 because if we only had 50 people willing to do this then there probably wouldnt be as much of a driving force supporting this but then again if it was a small minority, you wouldnt think letting a few of us run around naked while everyone else stays clothed as being bad, as long as we didnt interfere heavily in their lives. I just dont think Stu is using any real logic and is instead going along with his dislike of nudism and his legal interpretations of how society really feels and functions and thats just over there, I mean what about over here? If people wanna go nude over here, he oughta support it, after all its not like he would be likely to see a nude american, unless one traveled over there but they would then have to follow the laws in his area and thus he wouldnt see them nude anyways so he wouldnt have any issues against it. I wonder how other people feel on this whole subject.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 11:55 AM

"Besides gay sex and some forms of streaking have been proven to be wrong and damaging in some studies."

What studies? Streaking also?
-------------------------------------------------

Okay maybe studies was the wrong word. I just thought that some people have "studied" or at least looked into the aspects of streaking and seeing if most of these people actually enjoy running nude and trying to get people to support them or weither most of them are just doing it for the shock value and to see what the response will be. As for the gay thing, im sure there has been studies by doctors and similar people on that because my dad mentioned that alot of the aids and other sexually transmitted dieseases these days can be directed connected with gay sex because they use foreign objects to have sex with that may or may not be clean and that some gay people use them on multiple individuals, I know most gays areint like that but some seem to be and with homosexuality not being really natural as it is, having this "dirty sex" as some people call it doesnt make it seem anymore legitmate or safe. I mean most animals even have sex between a male and a female or the animal has both sex organs or in some cases can change its gender at will to allow for sex. Ive never seen or heard of two male animals having sex, most animals seem to only have sex for the purpose of breeding and there doesnt seem to be any gay sex in nature, so it just doesnt seem natural to me. I can accept people who are gay and if they wanna be gay and live together gay, thats their business, but I really dont support the lifestyle and wouldnt suggest it to anyone.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 12:01 PM

Mike,

Please don't take every sentence of Stu to comment on in your verbose style. Take Bob's advice: pare down the messages. We others get tired with them. And...
------------------------------------------------

Okay ill try to make them shorter. I guess I was just going nuts over trying to convice Stu that what we supported was a good thing and kinda hoped I could somehow ween him from his clothing compulsiveness and some of the things he said were just so interesting to me, they were just begging for a lengthy debate.

aunaturelone

12-25-2003, 12:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>some forms of streaking have been proven to be wrong and damaging in some studies <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Good grief!

Okay, give me some links to these studies. Or at least who did them and what journal published them.

aunaturelone

12-25-2003, 12:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>aids and other sexually transmitted dieseases these days can be directed connected with gay sex because they use foreign objects to have sex with that may or may not be clean and that some gay people use them on multiple individuals, I know most gays areint like that but some seem to be and with homosexuality not being really natural as it is, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sheesh! I hate to shock you but plenty of heterosexual people use "foreign objects" in having sex. Lots of hetersexuals have sex with multiple individuals.

AIDS spreads so quickly in the gay community because of unprotected anal intercourse. In Africa, anal intercourse is the most common variety of birth control. Guess what? Hetersexual AIDS is rampant there. So the spread of AIDS has more to do with the peculiarities of the specific sexual practices of your culture than with being gay or straight.

As for homosexuality not being "natural", that's nonsensical. If it weren't "natural" you'd have to become gay through an artificial process. The only reasons you could ever become gay would be to make a conscious decision not to find the opposite gender sexually appealing or to be coerced into it.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 04:08 PM

Sheesh! I hate to shock you but plenty of heterosexual people use "foreign objects" in having sex. Lots of hetersexuals have sex with multiple individuals.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah ok, its not like im stating these things as facts. I just have always thought that gays people typically do that sort of thing more than straight people because I always thought it was somehow directly related to their lifestyle, whereas striaght people I always thought did it simply because they either wanted to try it out, didnt know the negative effects of it or just didnt give a damn. I still think using foreign objects and using the same one with more than one person without at least cleaning it is just wrong, weither youre gay or straight. I dunno, my parents just kept me away from hearing about alot of that stuff, hell they dont even french kissing, so all this anal stuff would just gross them out, they prefer it the way most people "supposedly" do it.

------------------------------------------------
AIDS spreads so quickly in the gay community because of unprotected anal intercourse.
-------------------------------------------------

Well I figured that much, as far as the anal part goes, I understood that.

------------------------------------------------
In Africa, anal intercourse is the most common variety of birth control. Guess what? Hetersexual AIDS is rampant there. So the spread of AIDS has more to do with the peculiarities of the specific sexual practices of your culture than with being gay or straight.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but areint alot of people poor over there too, so dont they wanna keep from having a lot of kids because they dont have the money or resources to support them?

------------------------------------------------
As for homosexuality not being "natural", that's nonsensical. If it weren't "natural" you'd have to become gay through an artificial process. The only reasons you could ever become gay would be to make a conscious decision not to find the opposite gender sexually appealing or to be coerced into it.
-------------------------------------------------

I dont really get exactly what you just said but I just always thought gays chose to be that way and I didnt really beleive that being attracted to someone of the same sex was healthy like that, I always saw people, especially those with families where there is a man and a woman. I just beleive that child should be brought up by a man AND a woman because if you just have two men then there isnt anyone to give the child the sort of things and feelings and knowledge that sometimes only a woman can give. I just think theres more to it than just that the person is attracted to another guy and that its their right and all of that, ive just always seen something bad come out of it or at least see something thats denied from them because there is no woman present, same with lesbians because no man is present.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 09:10 PM

I think we need to get back to the subject of this post or otherwise Stu might try using this whole gay sex thing against us? Its bad enough he cant leave a simple guy like Gough alone, I wish theyd just let him go so we could prove to stu that the brits really dont care about his nudity.

12-25-2003, 09:22 PM

Mike,

NOTHING will ever convince Stu that people are OK with nudity.

MikeJB

12-25-2003, 10:35 PM

Why would we need his approve to go nude in public anyways? I dont even think any of us here even live in his neck of the woods and if any of us did id feel real sorry for them and suggest they steer clear of his place. Anyways im sure he has a barbed wire fence with a sign saying "No {Nude} Trespassing, Law Expert Will Bite!" I could just imagine something like that in front of his house. I bet hed even have a gaurd tower looking for all the nude people on the street just so he could shine his hi beam on them and highlight them for the police. Besides his place wouldnt need dogs, his bite and those of the people in his community would hurt nudists enough. Anyways all this is just a big joke, dont take it soo seriously, im sure stu will though. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

12-25-2003, 11:59 PM

Rex

12-26-2003, 12:20 AM

Hi Stu,
A few comments on your response to me.
I have never tried to "turn a popular beach into an official clothing-optional beach". To do so would, in my opinion, be treating others unfairly. In return, I expect fairness from others and, if I don't get it, I'll fight for it.
You say you "have no reason to believe that wearing swimwear increases your risk of contracting diseases".
That's fair enough. No-one is expected to know everything, you, me, or anyone else. But, in regard to the known health risks of staying in wet swimwear, the information is out there, on the internet, in countless books, newspaper and magazine articles, official govt Health Dept warnings, etc.
I recently picked up a leaflet on the disease Candidiasis in a local pharmacy, published by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia.It says, "Dry your genital area well after showers, baths swimming etc".
Maybe I've got to spell it out, but that advice is impossible to take, if you're still wearing your wet swimwear. And if you're in a place where you can't legally take it off, what are you supposed to do, keep your mouth shut and get sick?
I've also got a letter, addressed to me, from the WA Health Dept, signed by the Director of Disease Control, which states that staying in wet bathers is a health risk.
The fact is, Stu, it's virtually the consensus of the medical profession.
You are obviously an astute and capable man. You could get such information for yourself, if you wanted to, but I suspect that, on this subject, you prefer "Ignorance is Bliss".
Yes, if I were in England and I decided to take on the authorities, it would be on a quiet bit of waterside, possibly already known for nude bathing, I would be very well prepared and my intentions [and prepared defence] would be publicised in advance.
That's the way I did it here and it works!
Yes, "the outcome could be anything from an hour in the cells to cool-off to a court appearance", but in event that I was acquitted, on health grounds, a not unlikely result, then every swimming area would become clothes-optional and warning notices about wet bathers would have to be posted to avoid public liability suits and civilisation, [as YOU know it], would come to an end.
The WA authorities checked out the situation with the govt Crown Law Dept and decided that they could not risk it and I believe that, if the situation were correctly handled, then the British authorities would have to do the same.

12-26-2003, 06:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:

I dont really get exactly what you just said but I just always thought gays chose to be that way and I didnt really beleive that being attracted to someone of the same sex was healthy like that, I always saw people, especially those with families where there is a man and a woman. I just beleive that child should be brought up by a man AND a woman because if you just have two men then there isnt anyone to give the child the sort of things and feelings and knowledge that sometimes only a woman can give. I just think theres more to it than just that the person is attracted to another guy and that its their right and all of that, ive just always seen something bad come out of it or at least see something thats denied from them because there is no woman present, same with lesbians because no man is present. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Mike, gays don't make a choice about who they are attracted to anymore than you do. This is something bad that your father has taught you and I do hope that if you learn nothing else from being on this website it is that being attracted to the same sex is perfectly healthy and natural. As for kids being raised by a man and a woman, with the rate of divorce and the number of "Deadbeat Dads (and Moms) in the world at least half the children out there grow up with one parent and often without even financial support from the other parent. Gay men can be extremely loving to their children. I think they are more capable of showing emotions than straight men are from my personal experience.

Nothing bad comes from being gay unless those who are against it cause something bad to happen. To a gay person being with another of the same sex is fulfilling and there is nothing lacking as they would feel if with someone of the opposite sex.

12-26-2003, 07:58 AM

Mike

"Besides his place wouldnt need dogs, his bite and those of the people in his community would hurt nudists enough."

Well I do have a monster-sized Great Dane. She is trained to attack on command but only to bite the genital area. Nudists in my street are strongly advised to wear chainmail shorts.

We also have a set of stocks in our churchyard. They may have been crafted in the thirteenth century but they are perfectly functioning and have been used fairly recently. Fortunately our local constable turned a blind eye.

Jon-Marc

"we do need the approval of those who would see us nude, as well as the approval of the law".

Hear hear! Steve Gough can hardly be said to have either.

Rex

"I have never tried to "turn a popular beach into an official clothing-optional beach". To do so would, in my opinion, be treating others unfairly".

Delighted to hear it. So you wouldn't go nude on a popular (textile) beach, then?

"But, in regard to the known health risks of staying in wet swimwear, the information is out there, on the internet, in countless books, newspaper and magazine articles, official govt Health Dept warnings, etc."

Yes, I know it's not a good idea to stay too long in WET swimwear. But, if you're in swimwear you are normally outdoors and it's warm, in which case your costume dries pretty quickly. Otherwise you just cover your middle with a towel, slip off your costume, dry yourself, and put on some dry shorts or trunks. No problem.

"It says, "Dry your genital area well after showers, baths swimming etc"."

Good advice! Does it also tell you that being naked is more healthy? I bet it doesn't.

"Maybe I've got to spell it out, but that advice is impossible to take, if you're still wearing your wet swimwear. And if you're in a place where you can't legally take it off, what are you supposed to do, keep your mouth shut and get sick?"

The overwhelming majority of bathers 1. Don't go nude and 2. don't get sick. Why? Because they do as I do.

"You could get such information for yourself, if you wanted to, but I suspect that, on this subject, you prefer "Ignorance is Bliss"."

I aready knew that sitting around in wet trunks could provoke haemorrhoids (though I'd never heard of Candidiasis) so I don't do it.

"Yes, if I were in England and I decided to take on the authorities, it would be on a quiet bit of waterside, possibly already known for nude bathing, I would be very well prepared and my intentions [and prepared defence] would be publicised in advance".

You would be unwise to do that. Certainly if an area was already a long-established and widely-used venue for naturists there wouldn't be a problem. But do it unofficially and you'd be well advised to abide by any requests you may receive from the police to "cover up". Our courts here have quite draconian powers to deal with what they class as "antisocial behaviour". If they ever choose to use these against Mr Gough, then he'd better watch out!

"but in event that I was acquitted, on health grounds, a not unlikely result, then every swimming area would become clothes-optional and warning notices about wet bathers would have to be posted to avoid public liability suits and civilisation, [as YOU know it], would come to an end."

It's good to have a dream. I can absolutely guarantee you that scenario wouldn't happen here for a host of legal and political reasons too numerous to list. Besides - you said you wouldn't want to "treat people unfairly". If every beach and swimming area were clothing optional that wouldn't be fair to us committed textiles, would it? Or don't people like me have any rights?

Stu

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 08:03 AM

Well, Mike, we may not need Stu's approval, but we do need the approval of those who would see us nude, as well as the approval of the law. Despite some people saying, "Nudity is legal everywhere"--it isn't. If I walked out in my yard nude and was seen by a child next door where my neighbor babysits, I could be arrested. There's a young boy on the other side of me. What if he saw me nude in my yard and mentioned it to his mother who complained to the police about the man next running around naked outdoors? I would quickly find out just how "legal" it was.

Maybe nudity is more accepted in some places than it is here, but it isn't legal to be nude in public here--no matter how much I wish it were.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but did you ever try talking to your neighbors about your nudity and seeing if you could work it out so you could be nude in your yard when their little boy isnt outside? Therefore if he doesnt see anything, no reason to complain? Did you ever ask her why she doesnt like your nudity? All she would have to tell her little boy is that youre just lounging around or doing yardwork, but that you just dont wear clothes or just dont like wearing them. Youd think shed get used to the fact that she has a nudist living next door.

As for the legal thing, it seems kind of stupid that all someone has to do is be pmsed about your nudity and just call the police and they come and arrest you without you even being able to back up your actions. They shouldnt be able to arrest you just because youre in your front yard, I mean so what if kids can see, if their parents dont do anything to keep their kids away from seeing you and they see you, thats the parents fault. I mean you should have the right to enjoy yourself without some prude calling the cops on you. Besides I thought most people just get arrested, go to jail until their trial *if they get that far* and just get let off or at least get a warning or a fine. Seems kind of stupid to arrest someone and go to all that work just for the judge to say that the case is crap and let you go anyways, they should just make it officially legal and stop jerking themselves around.

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 08:09 AM

Or Maybe you could just put up a privacy fence or some bushes and keep your yard somehow concealed from that woman's prying eyes, then she has no reason to do anything against you. I mean I dont get what the big deal is with her, all shed have to do when you come outside is just take her kid in or something and you could be careful not to be out there when he is, im sure he isnt out there everyday. I think its rather shameful that parents keep their kids from simple nudity, treating it like its some bad thing and scolding them when they see it or are naked because they think its wrong. I mean its one thing for a parent to see nudity as wrong but its another thing to treat their kid like they did something horrible and will be damned to an eternity of shame their whole life. I am just getting so sick of our government, we keep telling them to make our nudity legal and it keeps going in one ear and out the other, I mean who are they to tell us what we can do with our OWN bodies????? These people are just stuck up. Of course thats what happens when you elect people like Bush into office, I mean hes doing good with the terrorist thing mostly, but he should just concentrate on that and not bother with issues he knows nothing about, like our lifestyle.

MO.skin

12-26-2003, 10:50 AM

Hi folks. I cant help but think this argument probably started the day Adam and Eve got kicked out of the first clothes free garden. We can keep arguing about it or we can just go on about the business of getting naked and enjoying ourselves. As time goes by more and more people will come in contact with naked people one place or another and will naturally become less concerned about the whole issue. We need to concentrate on making that contact as painless as possible. A big smile and respectfull responce during that first contact will go a long way toward making it a peacefull and police-free day. Im opening a clothes free campground here in the central Missouri area.

12-26-2003, 11:54 AM

MO

Welcome!

"As time goes by more and more people will come in contact with naked people one place or another and will naturally become less concerned about the whole issue."

People have always come into contact with naked people - their partners or children, people using changing rooms and showers at fitness centres and swimming pools, etc. It's unexpected and inappropriate nudity that causes angst - and that doesn't look like changing.

"We need to concentrate on making that contact as painless as possible".

As painless as possible won't do. It should be guaranteed totally painless. The only way to achieve that is to keep your nudity out of sight of anyone who may find it disgusting, alarming or offensive.

"A big smile and respectfull responce during that first contact will go a long way toward making it a peacefull and police-free day."

If anyone gets naked where I can see them they can smile as much as they like but I guarantee they would have problems - police or otherwise.

"Im opening a clothes free campground here in the central Missouri area."

Provided it's well signposted and out of sight of those who don't want to see it - I wish you every success.

Stu

Rik

12-26-2003, 02:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's unexpected and inappropriate nudity that causes angst ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean people don't like surprises?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"We need to concentrate on making that contact as painless as possible".

As painless as possible won't do. It should be guaranteed totally painless. The only way to achieve that is to keep your nudity out of sight of anyone who may find it disgusting, alarming or offensive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you want to go around harangueing women for breast feeding in public or demanding that YOU be protected from the sight of human beings in their natural state then that's fine but why (oh why, oh why) do you insist on demanding that other people should not be allowed to make up their own minds?

Rik

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 02:17 PM

If you want to go around harangueing women for breast feeding in public or demanding that YOU be protected from the sight of human beings in their natural state then that's fine but why (oh why, oh why) do you insist on demanding that other people should not be allowed to make up their own minds?

Rik
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah I mean you should let the individuals you are gonna be exposing yourself to decide what they think about it. I just really think that a nudist if he/she is gonna go public, should have the opinion and feelings of alot of the people around them *im sure it wont be possible to go around asking everyone their opinion* but just have a general idea of how they feel, then just strip and go along with it and if one group of people has a problem with it then move to someplace else outside where people dont have an issue with it. Im sure whereever a nude person is, not everyone is gonna have an issue with it and I think most people are decent enough to deal with the situation in a way that is good for both people. Just because Stu feels that he doesnt want to see nudity, doesnt mean he should be speaking for everyone else about it.

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 02:20 PM

Hey Stu, why dont you think of nudity this way. You wouldnt eat your candy bar with the wrapper on it would ya? Or play with your new birthday present while it was still wrapped up. So why should people have to interact with nudists with their clothes on? I mean its easier to do things with them without their clothes on and if they dont have their clothes on you see the real them, you see the real present, you see the details of the candy bar, etc. I know its kind of a lame comparison but even someone as thick headed as you oughta get what im saying.

12-26-2003, 05:02 PM

The neighbors on one side live on a hill. I would need a fence at least 20 feet high. There is a privacy fence on the other side, but anyone standing on their back deck can see over the fence. She has a lot of kids there all the time that she watches until their parents come and get them. How do I get the permission of all those parents that I don't know just to be nude in my own back yard? It's a shame that we have to have anyone's permission to be nude in our own back yard, but laws are not made for us; they're made for people who have a serious problem with nudity. For me it just isn't worth the hassle. Besides, after you've been taken in, questioned, and sent to a shrink to be analysed just because a child saw you through your uncovered window, it's an experience best not repeated. It's better (to me anyway) to be safe than sorry. I'm not a Steve Gough. I'm not willing to be arrested and jailed for exercising my right to be natural the way God intended.

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 07:52 PM

why would you need all those kids parents permission? its your yard, you should be able to be nude in it if you want. That lady should have no right to call the cops on you just because you appear naked in your own yard. if she doesnt like your nakedness then maybe she shouldnt have all those kids back there then. I dont see how someone can get arrested for something stupid like that. Im surprised you havent tried to fight that law in someway and get some legislation passed so that its at least possible to be nude outside as long as you stick to your own yard.

Rex

12-26-2003, 08:06 PM

Hi Stu,
A couple of points about Candidiasis.
It is very prevalent worldwide.
Those who are likely to be particularly susceptible include pregnant women, diabetics, HIV sufferers, overweight people, women taking some forms of oral contraceptive, people using some antibiotics, some steroid medicines, or treatments that affect the immune system. This list is taken from standard medical literature, is in context and is by no means exhaustive.
In many instances, symptoms can be manageable, or perhaps apparently non-existent, but in some cases symptoms can be severe and in rare cases, dangerous.
Either way, I think that those with health problems deserve extra consideration, even if that can require some re-adjustment on the part of the general population. Do you agree with that statement, Stu?
Some years ago, a Perth WA medical specialist, who is accepted as a world authority on candida, was quoted in a newspaper article as saying that [in rare cases] candida could lead to a fatal condition. This was not a misquote or misprint, he repeated this statement shortly afterwards during a live TV interview [which I videoed].
Like many adverse health conditions, those without medical knowledge, which is most of us, can assume we haven't got it. Many people, like you, for instance, haven't even heard of it. Many, perhaps also like you, wouldn't want to know about it, because that knowledge may upset their cosy little world.
And just the few minutes that swimwear may take to dry may present a significant and avoidable risk to some people.
I am interested to know how you can "absolutely guarantee" the British authorities would take action against me. Are you the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord High Executioner, or something?
After receiving advice from the WA Crown Law Dept, another govt dept decided not to attempt to prosecute me for being nude on "their" beach
and the WA police kept out of it. I would suggest that the Crown Law Dept collectively knows far more about WA and Australian law and precedent than you or I will ever know and, before you say it, many of our laws on nudity and "causing offence" are virtual carbon copies of English laws.
As regards public liability type litigation, the Dean of the Law School of a highly respected WA University, said recently, [about an unrelated matter], "Litigation is all about whether or not the risk is foreseeable".
[This is not just conjecture, there are plenty of successful law-suits, the world over, where this was the deciding factor].
In regard to wet bathers being a significant risk factor in causing candida, the risk is most certainly foreseeable.
I do not want people like yourself being disadvantaged by having nowhere to swim without seeing nudity, but I publicly pointed out to the authorities that an unsuccessful prosecution against me could lead to that. When you are trying to negotiate with people who will not compromise, sometimes it is a winning tactic to "raise the stakes".
The fact is, when people perceive themselves as not getting a fair go and then they eventually get the upper hand, sometimes an over-reaction does take place. History is full of these occurrencies. They are usually referred to as "revolutions".
Maybe for nudism a revolution is long overdue.

Bob S.

12-26-2003, 09:26 PM

"Well, Mike, we may not need Stu's approval, but we do need the approval of those who would see us nude, as well as the approval of the law."

And that is why we need to go on a crusade to try to convince the populace that nudity is not something to look at in a negative manner. We also have to convince the government that nudity laws should be abridged to better serve the society as a whole.

"Does it also tell you that being naked is more healthy?"

stu, pediatricians suggest parents to allow babies to go around naked to get rid of diaper rash. The only reason why they do not suggest staying naked to completely dry off is because it is against public policy. The more socially acceptable nudity becomes, the more public policy will change.

"It's unexpected and inappropriate nudity that causes angst"

In other words, stu, what you are talking about is public nudity and they feel that is illegal, and that is what causes a lot of the negative feelings. The other part of it is the surprise of seeing the nudity and not knowing how to respond to it, not knowing where to look, how to act around a naked person, etc.

"It should be guaranteed totally painless."

I can guarentee that if someone who does not have any anxiety problems sees my nudity, they will not experience any pain.

Bob S.

MikeJB

12-26-2003, 10:47 PM

In other words, stu, what you are talking about is public nudity and they feel that is illegal, and that is what causes a lot of the negative feelings. The other part of it is the surprise of seeing the nudity and not knowing how to respond to it, not knowing where to look, how to act around a naked person, etc.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah Stu, its basically a matter of knowing how to respond to nudity and what to think of it. Most people think that nudity *public or otherwise* is illegal and most havent ever seen it so when they do see it, their emotions go nuts because they dont know how to properly deal with it as say a nudist might. So if people accepted and understood nudism a little bit more and then saw it in public, they wouldnt have all those emotional disconnects and hangups.

12-27-2003, 04:40 AM

Rex

Thanks for the information on Candidiasis. I really had never heard of it before - aren't I a dummy!

"Either way, I think that those with health problems deserve extra consideration, even if that can require some re-adjustment on the part of the general population. Do you agree with that statement, Stu?"

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "extra consideration", Rex. If that means they should hav ethe right to expose their private parts in public places then no, I don't agree, because I fail to see the need.

"Many, perhaps also like you, wouldn't want to know about it, because that knowledge may upset their cosy little world."

I'm happy to know about such things. I know about other unpleasant and potentially fatal diseases.

"And just the few minutes that swimwear may take to dry may present a significant and avoidable risk to some people."

OK, so next time that I go to the beach I'll remember to take three of four costumes with me so that, as soon as I get out of the water, I can put on something dry.

"I am interested to know how you can "absolutely guarantee" the British authorities would take action against me. Are you the Lord Chief Justice or the Lord High Executioner, or something?"

I have 25 years experience working in the law. I have friends and acquaintances who are Members of Parliament, senior civil servants, police officers, judges at various levels and others who are, like myself, legal academics. Our Home Secretary is practically a neighbour! So I have a 'feel' for how these people think and I see the directions that our laws are taking and the attitudes of the police, CPS and courts. You only have to see what's happened to Mr Gough - and he didn't hang about naked or try to make somewhere "clothing optional" - he was just a sort of 'passer-by' doing a nationally publicised stunt!

"I would suggest that the Crown Law Dept collectively knows far more about WA and Australian law and precedent than you or I will ever know and, before you say it, many of our laws on nudity and "causing offence" are virtual carbon copies of English laws".

I don't doubt that Australian lawyers know more aboutr Australian law than I do. But remember that my job is teaching criminal law in a university to our next generation. I'm sure your lawyers wouldn't dream of contradicting ME on English criminal law.

"Litigation is all about whether or not the risk is foreseeable".

We have the same principle in England. But, for the most part, this comes under civil rather than criminal law. It therefore has no bearing on the Gough case or your suggested action.

"In regard to wet bathers being a significant risk factor in causing candida, the risk is most certainly foreseeable."

This would be totally irrelevant in a criminal case in the UK. And even if it were a civil case, all that the plaintiff would have to show would be that, on the balance of probabilities, there was a way of preventing offence by changing the shorts out of view of others (e.g. by doing so under a towel, in a car, behind a bush, in a tolet etc etc).

"I do not want people like yourself being disadvantaged by having nowhere to swim without seeing nudity, but I publicly pointed out to the authorities that an unsuccessful prosecution against me could lead to that. When you are trying to negotiate with people who will not compromise, sometimes it is a winning tactic to "raise the stakes".

I remember when Mike Tyson was in prison he said that a few people offered to take him on in he boxing ring. But he was a professional - an expert in his art - and they just looked silly. Rex, I too am a professional in my field. People pay me a lot of money for my legal opinion on criminal law isues - and you're getting it for free /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ! Now you can choose to believe me or not but I assure you that if you came to England and tried that tack you would lose - spectacularly. And you'd help make a lot of money for the lawyers in the process. Your only realistic hope would be to exhaust the legal processes in the UK and then try to have the matter heard in Strasbourg under Human Rights. Then you would be raising the stakes and, whether yo won or lost, the whole experience would be extremely costly. And I would put the odd against you succeeding even there at around 5 to 1.

Bob S.

"And that is why we need to go on a crusade to try to convince the populace that nudity is not something to look at in a negative manner".

If you feel that you must do this "crusade" then OK, do it. But it is advisable to use words to convince people rather than inflicting discomfort on them in the form of nudity. Bob, think psychologically. If somebody tries to force you to accept something, what is your natural reaction? I like what Steve Gough is doing in some ways. He's convincing people that naturists have a fanatical element and they are going to force people to accept their nudity. He's onto a loser!

"We also have to convince the government that nudity laws should be abridged to better serve the society as a whole."

Our government will be amending the Public Order Act before too much longer. I am reliably informed that, as a direct result of Mr Bethell's case, consideration will be given to creating a specific offence designed to catch public nudity activists. Whilst this will not be aimed at genuine naturists, a future offence may encroach upon unregulated naturist activities in the future. The more that genuine naturists voice support for Bethell, Gough and Co., the less the government will be likely to listen to naturists' concerns.

"Does it also tell you that being naked is more healthy?"

"stu, pediatricians suggest parents to allow babies to go around naked to get rid of diaper rash."

It has always been acceptable for babies to be naked.

"The only reason why they do not suggest staying naked to completely dry off is because it is against public policy".

It's not so much against public policy as against public sensibilities and consequently against the law.

"The more socially acceptable nudity becomes, the more public policy will change".

It's not becoming socially acceptable, Bob. Didn't you tell me that society is on a "downward slide"? And in schools communal showering is becoming less common as they install individual cubicles.

"In other words, stu, what you are talking about is public nudity and they feel that is illegal, and that is what causes a lot of the negative feelings".

The illegality is part of it, Bob, but not the whole story. If you knew that your wife's (female) hairdresser was coming to your house to cut her hair, would you answer the door to her naked? Or your child's schoolteacher? Or even the district nurse? And nobody would ever imagine or suggest that nudity inside your own home is illegal. These visitors probably wouldn't like it because they find it inappropriate and offensive.

"I can guarentee that if someone who does not have any anxiety problems sees my nudity, they will not experience any pain."

But you are using your definition of "anxiety problems". That could apply to many millions of people. Nobody has the right to inflict pain on a sizeable proportion of the population just for the sake of their own preference of marginal comfort.

MikeJB

"Most people think that nudity *public or otherwise* is illegal and most havent ever seen it so when they do see it, their emotions go nuts because they dont know how to properly deal with it as say a nudist might. So if people accepted and understood nudism a little bit more and then saw it in public, they wouldnt have all those emotional disconnects and hangups."

Yes but do they want to? People are happy as they are. They don't think they have hang-ups. They have no desire to desensitize themselves to nudity. You should respect that.

Stu

Jochanaan

12-27-2003, 05:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If you feel that you must do this "crusade" then OK, do it. But it is advisable to use words to convince people rather than inflicting discomfort on them in the form of nudity. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A wise person (I forget who) once said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand." Remember also that "One picture is worth a thousand words."

Many of us have tried words. But words can only go so far. Mr. Gough has decided that now is the time for action--to walk the talk, as we say on this side of the lake.

And haven't you, as someone who loves law, sat under a professor who challenged you to defend or revise your viewpoints? Wasn't that painful? Pain is an unavoidable part of growth and change. Sure, it should be minimized, but it cannot be eliminated.

Kari P

12-27-2003, 07:33 AM

Stu,

"I have friends and acquaintances who are Members of Parliament, senior civil servants, police officers, judges at various levels and others who are, like myself, legal academics. Our Home Secretary is practically a neighbour!"

We already knew you have many academic and other high class people as your friends and acquintances. I would like to know how many "ordinary" people you have relations to in the same way so that you frequently speak with them about political and everyday matters. I mean people in industrial and service occupations, and also unemployed people, as "ordinary".

If all of your social contacts are within the high class, it explains much of your attitude about what you think people in general think regarding nudity and how common family nudity is etc. Can you figure to yourself that these things were a bit different within lower class people?

"remember that my job is teaching criminal law in a university to our next generation."

And in your profession (are you a professor, or what kind of teacher?) you do your best to make the traditions be continued, including what we critisize much: that the judges read the law in the way they like, regardless of what the law actually says and especially what it doesn't say.

Sorry, I don't mean to attack you personally. But I take the right to be nude in principle as a human right thing (remember, I started the topic "Equality & human rights"). And I see that Steve Gough's human rights have been violated.

Kari P

12-27-2003, 07:37 AM

Johanaan

"I see and I remember. I do and I understand."

That relates to the cognitive retention and absorbtion of facts, so it's hardly pertinent here. What Steve Gough is trying to do is to force people to become desensitized to something regardless of whether or not they wish to retain their sensitivity. We all wish to retain certain sensitivities - even nudists. In World War II a lot of people under Germans rule were forced to 'desensitize' themselves to seeing the mass murder of people but that was hardly something we should all strive for.

"Remember also that "One picture is worth a thousand words."

Pictures of nudists have always been available for those who want to see them. People can deal with pictures - even unpleasant or disgusting ones - far better than actually being there and seeing it for real. At the end of the day, Johanaan, you are still in the area of forcing people who are using a public environment to see something they REALLY don't want to see. I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.

"Many of us have tried words. But words can only go so far."

So the only option to get your own way is to use force?

"Mr. Gough has decided that now is the time for action--to walk the talk, as we say on this side of the lake."

Yes, so he's decided that if people won't see things his way he'll force them to.

"And haven't you, as someone who loves law, sat under a professor who challenged you to defend or revise your viewpoints?"

Indeed. And people challenge my viewpoints here every day. But, like the professors, they challenge my standpoints with words and not by force. And I do reflect on what people say and I have consequently revised my standpoint accordingly.

"Wasn't that painful? Pain is an unavoidable part of growth and change. Sure, it should be minimized, but it cannot be eliminated."

Painful? Good heavens no! Do you really think I would come here if it were painful? I come to this 'environment' of my own free will and in the full knowledge that I am going to encounter people who hold views seriously at odds with my own. Here is a place where views are challenged and new and better standpoints are forged. The street, park, beach or 'bus station are places where people should feel at ease and entirely comfortable. They are not places where people should encounter experiences that cause them trauma, angst nor even discomfort. And anyone behaves in such a way in the knowledge that people are likely to have these feelings because of it is antisocial and, in most cases, criminal.

Kari

"I would like to know how many "ordinary" people you have relations to in the same way so that you frequently speak with them about political and everyday matters."

I have friends right across the social spectrum. Oddly enough I have just arrived home after enjoying a pleasant afternoon in the company of an old schoolfriend, Alan, and his wife Cheryl. Alan works for our local council maintaining street lighting (although he's a keen amateur artist) and his wife is a receptionist at a dental surgery. Is that ordinary enough for you?

I have a female cousin (Judith) who is presently living with her boyfriend (Ben) in Christiania, Copenhagen. She makes scented oils which she puts into small bottles and sells to 'hippy' shops and her man doesn't do very much at all - apart from playing guitar in a band. I spent some time with them last summer and they are extremely liberal-minded. They even use a communal steam bath in Christiania and are very "uninhibited" when it comes to nudity. I can't speak for Ben, but I know that Judith thinks tha it's not OK to be nude unless everybody else is OK with it. Are they ordinary enough for you?

I also mix with the students at my university - to some extent socially as well as professionally.

"the judges read the law in the way they like, regardless of what the law actually says and especially what it doesn't say."

You do our judges a mis-service. They really do try to interpret the law upon what they believe to have been the intention of Parliament when the law was enacted. They even read through the original Parliamentary debates, select committee reports and other background information to help them come to the right judgement.

"But I take the right to be nude in principle as a human right thing (remember, I started the topic "Equality & human rights"). And I see that Steve Gough's human rights have been violated."

I really don't think the European Court of Human Rights would agree with you about that. They would say that such things are a matter for domestic governments and courts based on the particular social attitudes, values and traditions of individual states and not matters for them. I also suspect that they would invoke the now internationally-reconised "de minimis" rule that states that the major international court in Europe should be concerned with weightier matters and not interfere with relatively trivial issues such as this.

From a moral point of view, I consider it would be a breach of my human rights not to be able to walk along my own streets or use my own parks without being confronted by what I consider to be offensive and unacceptable behaviour.

Stu

Kari P

12-27-2003, 12:13 PM

Stu,

"Are they ordinary enough for you?" - Yes, they are. In your second example we actually see that either "ordinary" people or Danes (which factor you choose to weight more) are more liberal-minded and less inhibited with nudity than what you believe to be the standard level.

"You do our judges a mis-service. They really do try to interpret the law upon what they believe to have been the intention of Parliament when the law was enacted. They even read through the original Parliamentary debates, select committee reports and other background information to help them come to the right judgement."

OK. You didn't earlier comment on using the purpose of the law as a guide in interpretation of a law. It's only good if they do it. But there are such characteristics in Gough's sentences that I cannot be convinced in that the applied laws were selected and interpreted honestly.

When very old laws are applied (I have the impression that some of Gough's sentences are this kind, e.g. breach of peace), their interpretation is based on tradition. But we can ask if the traditional interpretation of an old, indistinct law is fair and legitimate if it has been based on what people think is the law, which can change from time to time. Sometimes it is really necessary to deviate from the tradition, which makes a new precedent in the interpretation of the specific law. The best thing to do with this kind of law is to nullify it, or to replace it with a new law if a law is needed.

I sent information about Steve Gough case to a local Amnesty International activist. Let's see what it results in.

"From a moral point of view, I consider it would be a breach of my human rights not to be able to walk along my own streets or use my own parks without being confronted by what I consider to be offensive and unacceptable behaviour."

If your laws were made clear - or their interpretation was relaxed - in favour of naturists so that simple nudity is not a crime, yet you wouldn't be in a real "danger" to see nudes all around. They would actually be discreet. British naturists should tell themselves how they would act.

Kari P

Bob S.

12-27-2003, 02:00 PM

"But it is advisable to use words to convince people rather than inflicting discomfort on them in the form of nudity."

stu, you are making no progress and seem to forget things that I tell you within a few days. You should know my point of view of gaining public acceptance by now. Please tell me your interpretation of how I feel that we should get the public to better accept nudity. I am curious as as to how different we are on this.

"The more that genuine naturists voice support for Bethell, Gough and Co., the less the government will be likely to listen to naturists' concerns."

And how many publicly have?

"It's not so much against public policy as against public sensibilities and consequently against the law."

That is what I meant, and by the way, if I may bring us back to this, the only reason it is against public sensibilities is because it is against the law.

"It's not becoming socially acceptable."

It is, slowly. And that is why I said that we need to go ona crusade.

"Didn't you tell me that society is on a "downward slide"?"

That was more in reference to the loss of rights and mania coming from the pedophilia witchhunt.

"The illegality is part of it, Bob, but not the whole story."

I know, go back and read my full paragraph.

"These visitors probably wouldn't like it because they find it inappropriate and offensive."

They couldn't find it inappropriate, it is in someone else's home. And offensive, again, they are in the other person's home.

"Nobody has the right to inflict pain on a sizeable proportion of the population just for the sake of their own preference of marginal comfort."

Nobody has the right to live a life without pain. And there are many things that make many people uncomfortable that are still legal. And I still go on to say that nudity will not causae anybody any pain. So it makes them uncomfortable, so what? That shouldn't automatically make it a crime.

Bob S.

Bob S.

12-27-2003, 02:13 PM

"That relates to the cognitive retention and absorbtion of facts, so it's hardly pertinent here."

Not necessarily the "I do and I understand" aspect. You can not understand what swimming naked is like until you do it. You cannot comment on what it feels like to go on a nude hike until you actual do it.

"I hear and I forget." That means that people who have heard arguments for nudity will forget them. "I see and I remember" is that seeing nudity for themselves.

Taking these arguments to something that you will accept. Trying to convince someone to go to a nude beach. You can try to convince them, vut your arguments may fall on deaf ears. Taking them to a nude beach (willingly, of course) and they will b able to see what goes on there. But they will not be able to understand what the big deal is untilthey actually disrobe.

"So the only option to get your own way is to use force?"

Civil disobedience, stu.

"Yes, so he's decided that if people won't see things his way he'll force them to."

He's not forcing anybody to change their minds, stu. He is making people debate the issue. Who knows how many people he has affected for the good (nudist side).

"They are not places where people should encounter experiences that cause them trauma, angst nor even discomfort."

No one should have to experience trauma, but an extreme moinority of people would think of viewing as a "trauma." And I am sure that a relative few number of people would classify nudity as causing "angst." A majority may consider it a discomfort, but many things can cause that. And no one can realistically expect to live a life free of discomfort and expect the police to stop all of it.

Bob S.

12-27-2003, 02:23 PM

"Offensive and unacceptable behavior" has nothing to do with whether a person is dressed or not. Being nude is not a "behavior". It is simply a state of being nude--nothing more. A nude person can be doing nothing offensive or unacceptable, while a clothed person can be very offensive and unacceptable by his/her behavior through gestures, words and actions.

MikeJB

12-27-2003, 07:20 PM

Pictures of nudists have always been available for those who want to see them. People can deal with pictures - even unpleasant or disgusting ones - far better than actually being there and seeing it for real. At the end of the day, Johanaan, you are still in the area of forcing people who are using a public environment to see something they REALLY don't want to see. I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.
-----------------------------------------------

Stu, we are not trying to force people to see other people nude. They dont have to look at us., they can always chose to look the other way and ignore us.

------------------------------------------------
So the only option to get your own way is to use force?
------------------------------------------------

We just want the public to accept our nudity. We are not forcing them to do anything. They dont HAVE to look at us.

------------------------------------------------
Yes, so he's decided that if people won't see things his way he'll force them to.
------------------------------------------------

Hes just fighting for what he beleives in, a harmless cause.

-------------------------------------------------
Indeed. And people challenge my viewpoints here every day. But, like the professors, they challenge my standpoints with words and not by force. And I do reflect on what people say and I have consequently revised my standpoint accordingly.
------------------------------------------------

Well we just want to challenge societies viewpoint and hope that it changes accordingly.

----------------------------------------------
The street, park, beach or 'bus station are places where people should feel at ease and entirely comfortable. They are not places where people should encounter experiences that cause them trauma, angst nor even discomfort. And anyone behaves in such a way in the knowledge that people are likely to have these feelings because of it is antisocial and, in most cases, criminal.
-----------------------------------------------

Of course not and if people would learn to accept nudity then they would be comfortable in these places. Most nudists are respectful and discreet and wouldnt bother most people.

-------------------------------------------------
They even use a communal steam bath in Christiania and are very "uninhibited" when it comes to nudity. I can't speak for Ben, but I know that Judith thinks tha it's not OK to be nude unless everybody else is OK with it. Are they ordinary enough for you?
------------------------------------------------

Well lets encourage society to be OK with nudity, then public nudity wont be such a big issue because everyone will accept it.

-------------------------------------------------
You do our judges a mis-service. They really do try to interpret the law upon what they believe to have been the intention of Parliament when the law was enacted. They even read through the original Parliamentary debates, select committee reports and other background information to help them come to the right judgement.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but when it boils down to it, its really the judges own opinions about the law, over the real facts about it. Some courts over here have some really bad bias about some things and thats why some people get little or no setencing when alot of them have done horrible things and should get far worse punishments. Would we be doing those judges a mis service by saying they were following their beleifs and not weither the crime commited was actually legal or not?

------------------------------------------------
From a moral point of view, I consider it would be a breach of my human rights not to be able to walk along my own streets or use my own parks without being confronted by what I consider to be offensive and unacceptable behaviour.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats just simply not possible Stu. There are way too many things that are offensive and unacceptable to people in this world and to get rid of and ban all of them from public would just be absurd. for one thing, nudity is not offensive in and of itself and compared to most behavior, nudity can be quite acceptable to some people. I do think this is a human rights issue and humans really deserve the right to be nude, it really doesnt matter what the public wants to see or not, it has more to do with our god given rights and what us as humans deserve. I think most people can learn to deal with our nakedness if given the chance.

Bob S.

12-27-2003, 09:40 PM

Mike, I appreciate your exuberance in advocating public nudity, but sometimes you can say things that contradict themselves.

"We just want the public to accept our nudity. We are not forcing them to do anything. They dont HAVE to look at us."

Now if they do accept us, they would have no problem with looking at us. And if they don't look at us, they haven't accepted us.

You seem to want public nudity now. I am willing to wait until we can either win in court cases consistently, win over the government, or win over the public. That is why I think we need to start trying to make good PR in the nudist movement and expand that into mainstream media and other venues open to the public.

Bob S.

MikeJB

12-27-2003, 10:22 PM

Now if they do accept us, they would have no problem with looking at us. And if they don't look at us, they haven't accepted us.
------------------------------------------------

I think its similar. Just because they accept us being nude in public doesnt mean they would want to look at us. Besides even if we get mostly public support there will still be there who dislike and oppose us and they may not want to look at us. I just want the law to get to the point where people can be nude legall in public and the people who dont like it cant do anything to stop us from going about our business naked. I just thought that getting the public's support and acceptance would be the best way, but I really just want the right to be able to be nude in public as much as I can be.

12-28-2003, 03:22 AM

Bob

"I am willing to wait until we can either win in court cases consistently, win over the government, or win over the public."

You would need to win over the public first and then the governments and courts would inevitably follow. Where I live if the police and courts didn't act against public nudity then the residents would - and they'd get very nasty indeed about it.

"That is why I think we need to start trying to make good PR in the nudist movement and expand that into mainstream media and other venues open to the public."

That's precisely why Steve Gough is so harmful to the naturist movement. People see him as fanatical, a hippy, an anarchist, a confrontational law-breaker interested only in his own agenda. Most people don't encounter nudists in their day-to-day lives - and if they do they don't know they are nudists. If the only nationally known figurehead for the naturist movement appears to be an unshaven, reclusive nutcase who is constantly getting arrested and locked in prisons, how will that create the impression of naturism as a normal family leisure activity? He is doing a fantastic job in alienating the public from naturism.

Stu

12-28-2003, 06:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob

"I am willing to wait until we can either win in court cases consistently, win over the government, or win over the public."

You would need to win over the public first and then the governments and courts would inevitably follow. Where I live if the police and courts didn't act against public nudity then the residents would - and they'd get very nasty indeed about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You don't need to win over the public first. Please, can you come up with something original? Just once? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

"That is why I think we need to start trying to make good PR in the nudist movement and expand that into mainstream media and other venues open to the public."

That's precisely why Steve Gough is so harmful to the naturist movement. People see him as fanatical, a hippy, an anarchist, a confrontational law-breaker interested only in his own agenda. Most people don't encounter nudists in their day-to-day lives - and if they do they don't know they are nudists. If the only nationally known figurehead for the naturist movement appears to be an unshaven, reclusive nutcase who is constantly getting arrested and locked in prisons, how will that create the impression of naturism as a normal family leisure activity? He is doing a fantastic job in alienating the public from naturism.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Steve isn't a naturist and I think the general public knows that. How come you don't?

He's not alienating the public from naturism at all.

12-28-2003, 07:37 AM

"Steve isn't a naturist and I think the general public knows that. How come you don't?"

I know he SAYS he's not a naturist but people here think that's exactly what he is. Even certain limbs of the media have referred to him as a "naturist campaigner" or "nudist campaigner" etc. It calls him such in many popular newspapers and on TV - see, for example, the second paragraph from The Courier:

http://test.thecourier.co.uk/output/2003/08/16/newsstory5054448t0.asp

Perhaps it's misinformation, but your average citizen is hardly likely to draw the fine distinction between a nude rights campaigner and naturist activist.

And not alienating the public? This is from Scotland's most popular daily newspaper - the Daily Record:

"RAMBLER'S WALK ON THE WILD SIDE

THIS bloke they call the Naked Rambler really is a pain in the backside.

Stephen Gough insists on walking in the nude from Lands End to John O'Groats even though he knows the police will lift him each time he peels off.

He was sentenced to three months in jail last Friday, but was allowed out of Inverness Prison because he'd been in custody since October 6.

So what did he do on his release? He went back to the point where he'd been picked up Cromarty Bridge and set off again.

His bare-faced cheek has landed him back in custody, but this time Gough should be kept banged up until he agrees to give up his ludicrous quest.

I'm all for civil liberties, but Gough is going too far and should be made to see sense. The countryside isn't his private domain, but there might be one way to make him cover up.

Why not let him complete his walk, but make him follow a different path, one with lots of high, barbed-wire fences and deep glens with chesthigh bracken. Let's see how that tickles his fancy."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/columnists/traynor/content_objectid=13682647_method=full_siteid=89488 _headline=-JIM-TRAYNOR-name_page.html

That's what the mainstream popular press are saying about him. Ask the average Scot whether they would agree that Mr Gough is a nudist and I would bet you the vast majority would answer in the affirmative! And that he's "a pain in the backside".

Stu

12-28-2003, 12:43 PM

I read just about every news article on him and rarely are they negative at all and the one you chose to post really has no equal.

Please, keep it truthful.

12-28-2003, 03:02 PM

Cyndiann

I have seen plenty of articles about Mr Gough and his enterprise in our press. Mostly they just report the facts but the comments/editorials have been divided roughly equally three ways. Some say let him get on with it because he's harmless, some say he's an attention-seeking pain in the backside but we should still let him get on with it to deny him that publicity, and the rest think he's a public nuisance.

I don't doubt you keep your eye open for items in the media from where you are, but I'm reporting what I see, hear and read here in Britain in the British media.

Nearly everyone I have spoken to about him think he's just an idiot and have no sympathy for him being locked up. That's why there is no massive wave of public support demanding he be given his liberty.

Stu

MikeJB

12-28-2003, 05:19 PM

Where I live if the police and courts didn't act against public nudity then the residents would - and they'd get very nasty indeed about it.
-------------------------------------------------

I think that would be an excellent idea. Stop the police from prohibiting nudity, let those people itching for a fight with a nudist deal with them themselves and as soon as they throw the first punch then the police can throw THEM in jail for actually doing something violent. At least then theyd be doing their job and these people might learn to respect nudists and if they get violent, the police throw them in jail. There is no reason for violence against nudists or any activists.

Bob S.

12-28-2003, 05:38 PM

"You would need to win over the public first and then the governments and courts would inevitably follow."

Or winning over the courts first. Or winning over the government first. The public will be the easiest, but Vincent Bethell already proved you can win in the courts.

"It calls him such in many popular newspapers and on TV - see, for example, the second paragraph from The Courier:"

Even if it is a popular paper, it doesn't mean massive amounts of people read his column, or that those who read his column agree with him on everything.

"Some say let him get on with it because he's harmless, some say he's an attention-seeking pain in the backside but we should still let him get on with it to deny him that publicity, and the rest think he's a public nuisance."

And you said that they are "divided roughly equally three ways." So that means that about the same number of opinion columnists say he is harmless as say he is a pain in the rear. That would equal about 33% of the opinion cloumnists saying that he is harmless. Hmm...

Bob S.

Rex

12-28-2003, 10:22 PM

Hi Stu,
Don't assume I don't respect you, I recently called you "astute and capable", if you remember.
Some people talk about public acceptance of nudity.
Here in WA, the public were "won over" many years ago. In 1980, the Gallup Poll found that 60% of WA people surveyed were for public nude bathing, with only 35% against.
Since then, EVERY impartial, properly controlled, public opinion survey, in WA, has found in favour of [or not opposed to, depending on the wording of the questions].
Naturally, neither nudists nor non-nudists regarded this approval rating to apply to anywhere or everywhere, but to specified locations.
In 1984, a city council, not far from Perth, in response to a concerted campaign for a free beach, held a ratepayer referendum, in which the majority of respondents voted in favour.
The council then said they were not legally obliged to comply with the vote and that city is still without a free beach.
If you agree with the concept that the authorities should be guided by the stated will of the majority, then presumably you would agree that, in every feasible instance, every WA resident should have the opportunity to safely and conveniently swim nude, if he/she so wishes.
The actual situation is far from that. Whilst there are many clothes-optional swimming places in WA and a relative handful of these are legally approved, most of them are very poorly serviced, in various important ways, than equivalent textile beaches in the same general area, despite the fact that in some cases, the free beach gets higher patronage than the adjacent textile beach.
And many WA people, for no good reason, have no conveniently situated free beach at all.
I have long been a campaigner for human rights and for the environment and so was my second wife. The blatant disregard by the authorities for the basic concepts of democracy in regard to nudists influenced me to become a campaigner for nudists' rights.
My first big mistake was to assume that the authorities were honest. I should have known better!
The usual "petitions, submissions and public awareness campaigns" got me and my fellow campaigners nowhere. And I learned plenty about the dishonesty, deviousness and hypocrisy of various "morally correct" public figures.
I am proud to be associated, [in a small way], with the Green political movement in Australia. The Greens are steadily increasing their membership, political representation and influence.
The Green movement in Australia was, and sometimes still is, well known for public demonstrations, often based on well publicised civil disobedience. Despite all the usual threats and bullying, many laws have now been passed, which embody Green aims.
Probably little would have been achieved, in this respect, without civil disobedience.
I suggest the same could be said about the early trade union movement, gay rights and the American civil rights movement, all of which, in principle, I support.
It's easy to insist that various reforms will never happen, or at least not in the foreseeable future, but consider this. The tobacco industry was smugly serene in the knowledge that they would not be successfully legally challenged and they had immense wealth, top legal representation and "friends in high places" to back up their feelings of invulnerability, but, on a number of occasions, they have had to "eat dirt" and I suggest that most thinking people believe that for them, what has happened is only the beginning.
Various successful civil cases, and maybe even the publicity associated with some unsuccessful ones, have resulted to changes in the laws of many countries regarding the marketing and usage of tobacco. Perhaps significantly, it was the health aspect which convinced the authorities to have a fresh look at some of the laws.
By the way, Stu, whereabouts do you live? I was unaware that any part of Yorkshire resembled that place in the movie, "Deliverance".

12-29-2003, 08:40 AM

Mike

"Stop the police from prohibiting nudity, let those people itching for a fight with a nudist deal with them themselves and as soon as they throw the first punch then the police can throw THEM in jail for actually doing something violent."

Here the police are told to focus on what concerns the public - to orientate their eforts towards what local people want them to do. They would certainly want the police to deal with public nudity. If the police were impotent to do anything about such antisocial behaviour then they would expect them at least to turn something of a blind eye against summary retribution. If they didn't then the courts might be inordinately lenient where violence is directed against antisocial individuals in light of public opinion. I don't condone this but, at the end of the day, the police, like the courts and Parliament, are there to serve the people.

You seem to be saying that it's OK to behave in such a way that outrages a major portion of the population when they are using the very places they have to pay for. I don't agree that it's OK to upset people in this way.

Bob S.

"The public will be the easiest, but Vincent Bethell already proved you can win in the courts."

Vincent Bethell was charged with a ridiculously over-the-top crime that carried a possible life sentence. I predicted he would be acquitted before the verdict was anounced for that very reason. Mr Gough, on the other hand, has been convicted successively and in both countries where he has walked about naked. The reason is that he was charged with the correct level of offence.

"And you said that they are "divided roughly equally three ways." So that means that about the same number of opinion columnists say he is harmless as say he is a pain in the rear. That would equal about 33% of the opinion cloumnists saying that he is harmless. Hmm..."

Yes. In fairness what he's doing hasn't attracted the interest of the majority of columnists so we don't know what they think. They too may think he's harmless, or they may think he's an attention-seeking idiot and they don't want to add to his publicity. There is certainly no major campaign being run in the media to have him released or the charges against him dropped. In the past the press has initiated such campaigns - usually successfully. It's clear that they don't feel hat Mr Gough is worthy of such efforts.

Rex

"Naturally, neither nudists nor non-nudists regarded this approval rating to apply to anywhere or everywhere, but to specified locations."

In other words - people aproved of there being beaches set aside for naturists, as is the position now. OK. So what's your point? Even I would support that proposition.

"In 1984, a city council, not far from Perth, in response to a concerted campaign for a free beach, held a ratepayer referendum, in which the majority of respondents voted in favour."

Provided there is sufficient demonstrable demand, there should be at least one "clothing optional" beach on every stretch of coastline. So I too would have voted in favour - so long as it was well signposted and out of sight of the rest of us.

"If you agree with the concept that the authorities should be guided by the stated will of the majority, then presumably you would agree that, in every feasible instance, every WA resident should have the opportunity to safely and conveniently swim nude, if he/she so wishes."

Absolutely! There should be plenty of decent and acessible facilities provided expressly for nudists. I am not saying that the situation now is fair and I agree that nudists are very poorly served. I deplore that and would support nudists gaining more and better venues.

"The usual "petitions, submissions and public awareness campaigns" got me and my fellow campaigners nowhere. And I learned plenty about the dishonesty, deviousness and hypocrisy of various "morally correct" public figures."

Rex, I am vehemently anti-nude, but I am far from being an anti-nudist. There are lots of ordinary textiles who would agree that you guys get a raw deal. If you convince the majority textile population that you just want a decent share of the available places and you won't bother (or cause offence to) the rest of us then you'll get massive public sympathy and the politicians will have no choice but to listen. Lose public support and you're sunk! Mr Gough, the subject of this thread, is a liability in this respect. He and his cronies seem to despise naturists who go off to segregated beaches of the very sort you are wanting to acquire! He won't be content with anything less than a total right to be naked when and where he wants and regardless who it offends or distresses. The one thing for certain is that he's not going to get that but he'll do a great deal of damage to genuine naturists such as yourself in the attempt. He is keen to distance himself from naturists. Naturists would be well advised to distance themselves from him.

Asfor the tobacco industry - wel - they hurt a lot of ordinary people. They told lies and were caught out and now they're starting to pay the price. And they weren't defeated by civil disobedience, but by democratic and legal process.

"Perhaps significantly, it was the health aspect which convinced the authorities to have a fresh look at some of the laws."

You are not seriously comparing the requirement not to be naked in public with the effects or tobacco, are you? Please find me a reputable medical source who will say that (a) wearing wet swimwear presents as great a threat to public health as smoking, and (b) the only alternative to wearing wet swimwear on a public beach is nudity. Come off it, Rex!

"By the way, Stu, whereabouts do you live? I was unaware that any part of Yorkshire resembled that place in the movie, "Deliverance"."

If you've seen "The Full Monty" then you'll have an idea of where I live. By the way, to save you asking, I haven't seen it myself.

Stu

Bob S.

12-29-2003, 07:09 PM

"Asfor the tobacco industry...they weren't defeated by civil disobedience, but by democratic and legal process."

Democratic my ****! (I didn't actually say anything bad, I put those in myself). Yes, they lied, but what they went through was more like legal extortion. There has only been one point to all of this, to put them out of business in any way possible (and of course, to line the pockets of some attorneys). Most of the states have squandered the money they got from the tobacco industry, rarely using it for health care for tobacco-related diseases. The FDA has refused to regulate tobacco because they would have to ban it and people still recall prohibition from the 20s (alcohol).

"Please find me a reputable medical source who will say that (a) wearing wet swimwear presents as great a threat to public health as smoking"

He wasn't saying that it was. He was saying that some laws were looked over, this time with health issues in mind (tobacco, in this example). And maybe Candidita (?) should force authorities to rethink their ideas about disallowing changing simming trunks.

"(b) the only alternative to wearing wet swimwear on a public beach is nudity."

Or just changing.

Bob S.

Rex

12-29-2003, 07:42 PM

Thanks for your comments, Stu.
Yes, for many years we have had majority support in WA, but this support is largely passive. we do not get "massive public sympathy", we get massive public apathy [and so also does almost every other issue in Australia].
As a consequence, the politicians are able to ignore our reasonable requests [and also the reasonable requests of many other special interest groups, who also have majority public support].
I have a copy of an Australian made doco, "Neck-To-Knee to Nude", which was shown on one of our commercial TV channels, 20 or so years ago. It is historically accurate and shows how we have progressed from 1902, when it was illegal to swim [even covered from neck to ankle] from an Australian beach during daylight hours, to our now pretty laid-back situation.
Some of the restrictive beach laws that the Australian govt tried to force on us over the years are so preposterous as to be almost unbelievable, but almost invariably, they were overcome by open public defiance. It was the only thing which worked then,and sometimes it still is, not only for nudity, but for various aspects of human rights, industrial reform and the environment.
In regard to my successful public defiance, unlike Steve Gough, I was on relatively quiet stretches of beach and I was not a man on my own, I was with my wife, who was also nude.
I was also active in business and community affairs, almost a "pillar of society". [Bit tongue in cheek, one thing I'm not is pompous].
It was obvious to any impartial observer that I was not causing any significant problems for anyone, in fact it was my stated objective to attract tourists and it was working.
I was also looking for a test-case, but the authorities would not [I prefer dare not] give me one.
In regard to the ill-health caused by tobacco, yes, to my knowledge, cadidiasis does not compare.
But it does not have to, because the long-term effects of tobacco are not the benchmark against which all other public liability claims have to be judged.
Another very important difference, claims of ill-health allegedly attributable to tobacco, generally come after 20, 30, or 40 years use or exposure and even the most ardent anti-tobacco campainer would readily agree that there could be other contributing factors, such as industrial pollution.
With a candida-prone person, [according to appropriately qualified medical experts, they would number in the tens of thousands in a city of approx 1 million, like Perth], it may not take long in wet bathers to cause, in a female, vaginal thrush. This may or may not respond to
simple treatment and it may be just the outward symptom of a systemic condition which is playing havoc with that woman's body.
So far as I am aware, this concept has not been legally tested anywhere in the world. The authorities would not want such a situation either, because, even if they won, they would not want this kind of publicity. They would not want the huge number of affected people to be saying, why weren't we told, why doesn't someone do something about it.
Finally, your comment, "Provided there is sufficient demonstrable demand, there should be at least one "clothing optional" beach on every stretch of coastline".
Thank you, Stu, I would be happy to do business with you.

MikeJB

12-29-2003, 11:03 PM

"Stop the police from prohibiting nudity, let those people itching for a fight with a nudist deal with them themselves and as soon as they throw the first punch then the police can throw THEM in jail for actually doing something violent."

Here the police are told to focus on what concerns the public - to orientate their eforts towards what local people want them to do. They would certainly want the police to deal with public nudity. If the police were impotent to do anything about such antisocial behaviour then they would expect them at least to turn something of a blind eye against summary retribution. If they didn't then the courts might be inordinately lenient where violence is directed against antisocial individuals in light of public opinion. I don't condone this but, at the end of the day, the police, like the courts and Parliament, are there to serve the people.
------------------------------------------------

Stu, my argument was basically this, you said that if the police didnt do anything about nudity, then the public would and they would deal with it violently. So my response was IF the police did put a blind eye to nudity and the public DID react violently to the nudist people, as soon as they reacted violently, the police could arrest the violent protesters and because they areint worried about the nudists, they wouldnt do anything to them. I just figured itd be a good way to find out those who really hate nudists and if people have to resort to violence just because they dont like something simple as nudism then honestly they have no business being out on the street.

------------------------------------------------
You are not seriously comparing the requirement not to be naked in public with the effects or tobacco, are you? Please find me a reputable medical source who will say that (a) wearing wet swimwear presents as great a threat to public health as smoking, and (b) the only alternative to wearing wet swimwear on a public beach is nudity. Come off it, Rex!
-------------------------------------------------

I dont think he means that, as tobacco is much more damaging than wearing swimsuits ever could be. There are though several things that swimsuits can do to harm swimmers 1) they can become water logged and thus make the person really cold when they come out of the water, 2) they can get really baggy and be uncomfortable 3) they are excess clothing that isnt needed in water 4) some beaches have bacteria and small jellyfish that can get into the fabric and cause harm to the user and 5) people can just swim better without swimsuits. There is no logical reason to wear clothing into a swimming pool. Even the most anti-nude person could understand this. The only reason we do wear them is because we are so paranoid of people being naked.

12-30-2003, 09:06 AM

Bob

"Democratic my ****!"

Here in the UK the tobacco giants have been brought to heel by lawful and democratic campaigning that has resulted in funding for litigation against them. I assumed it was the same in the US.

"And maybe Candidita (?) should force authorities to rethink their ideas about disallowing changing simming trunks."

I have never heard of any auhotrity disallowing changing swimming trunks. As I said, there are plenty of ways to change your trunks without exposing your private parts to others.

"(b) the only alternative to wearing wet swimwear on a public beach is nudity."

Rex

"As a consequence, the politicians are able to ignore our reasonable requests [and also the reasonable requests of many other special interest groups, who also have majority public support]".

Whilst I am in no way doubting what you are saying, I do find this rather strange, Rex. Politicians are merely people from communities. If ordinary people have no objection to there being naturist beaches set aside then why are politicians reacting to it with such hostility?

"to our now pretty laid-back situation."

I'm glad you have a "pretty laid back situaton". So you are happy with the status quo now? You won't have to defy the law, then?

"so preposterous as to be almost unbelievable, but almost invariably, they were overcome by open public defiance."

Where governments make laws that are vastly out of step with public opinion then it is inevitable that there will be large-scale defiance - and this defiance will be supported by the majority of people. Basically, democracy isn't working in these circumstances. But a decision to break the law is a very serious step indeed and many ethical considerations must be addressed first if it is to be legitimate. Foremost among them is whether you have, and can demonstrate that you have, mass support from ordinary people.

"In regard to my successful public defiance, unlike Steve Gough, I was on relatively quiet stretches of beach and I was not a man on my own, I was with my wife, who was also nude".

OK. But Steve Gough wouldn't particularly respect that. He wants the RIGHT to be nude anywhere he likes and couldn't care less who or how many he offends of upsets to achieve that. Now that's not your position, is it, Rex? You want more places where you can enjoy your nudist recreation - that's reasonable. He wants to be able to be naked everywhere and anywhere - that's unreasonable. Huge difference.

"So far as I am aware, this concept has not been legally tested anywhere in the world."

I'm trying to envisage a test case scenario. If you are suggesting that a desire to avoid contracting candidiasis could provide a viable defence to a charge relating to an act of wilful and sustained public nudity then you are most certainly barking up the wrong tree. I'd happily take that case on - for the prosecution - with complete confidence!

MikeJB

"you said that if the police didnt do anything about nudity, then the public would and they would deal with it violently".

They would.

"the police could arrest the violent protesters and because they areint worried about the nudists, they wouldnt do anything to them."

What I was saying was that the police wouldn't feel too inclined to protect the nudists or prosecute those who attacked them. If the police did prosecute, many courts here would be sympathetic to the attackers rather than the nudists.

"I just figured itd be a good way to find out those who really hate nudists"

Nobody hates nudists. But many people hate irresponsible public nudity and anyone who engaged in that would be at risk - if not from the law then from vigilanties.

"and if people have to resort to violence just because they dont like something simple as nudism then honestly they have no business being out on the street."

and if people are prepared to behave in a way that makes a significant proportion of the public shocked, upset, alarmed or uncomfortable, then they have no business being out on the street either.

"There is no logical reason to wear clothing into a swimming pool. Even the most anti-nude person could understand this. The only reason we do wear them is because we are so paranoid of people being naked".

You call it paranoia - I call it preference. Either way the reaction against nudity exists for many people and so we wear swimsuits. If you prefer not to wear a swimsuit that's fine. Just swim at nudist beaches or events, or in your own private pool.

And bear (or should it be "bare") in mind that nudity of the sort Mr Gough is engaged in is frowned upon even when the culprit is female and attractive - including in your own country. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/30/offbeat.naked.web.ticket.ap/index.html

Stu

MikeJB

12-30-2003, 08:48 PM

"you said that if the police didnt do anything about nudity, then the public would and they would deal with it violently".

They would.
-------------------------------------------------

So I guess you condone such violence? You think that just because the people are nude, they are asking to get beaten up and or deserve to because of their actions? Wouldnt proper procedure to be either A) ignore them, b) ask them kindly to get dressed or leave or c) call the police? I mean they could do any of those things without violence.

----------------------------------------------
What I was saying was that the police wouldn't feel too inclined to protect the nudists or prosecute those who attacked them. If the police did prosecute, many courts here would be sympathetic to the attackers rather than the nudists.
------------------------------------------------

The courts should treat both sides fairly and because the people attacked the nudists without provocation *as just being nude wouldnt be a good enough reason for them to beat those people up*, then the people should get arrested and not the nudists, ebcause the nudists were doing something quite innocent and did not deserve to be beaten up.

---------------------------------------------
Nobody hates nudists. But many people hate irresponsible public nudity and anyone who engaged in that would be at risk - if not from the law then from vigilanties.
-------------------------------------------------

If they get mad enough to beat a nudist up then they obviously hold some hatred towards them. Most people who would genuienly be nude in public would probably be very responsible about it and be very discreet and respectful to those people around them. I dont think that someone being irresponsible should give someone the right to resort to violence against them anyways.

------------------------------------------------
and if people are prepared to behave in a way that makes a significant proportion of the public shocked, upset, alarmed or uncomfortable, then they have no business being out on the street either.
-------------------------------------------------

Of course they do, because nudists would not be harming anyone or disrupting the public and would have no intention to, people attacking nudists violently would and such people who resort to violence belong off the streets before a nudist ever would.

-------------------------------------------------
You call it paranoia - I call it preference. Either way the reaction against nudity exists for many people and so we wear swimsuits. If you prefer not to wear a swimsuit that's fine. Just swim at nudist beaches or events, or in your own private pool.
-------------------------------------------------

Just because someone "prefers" not to see a nudist, why is that reason for all nudists to have tocover up in public? There are lots of things we would prefer to see or not see at pools. If people dont like the nudity then they should just leave, simple as that. Im sure they could find another pool or beach that doesnt have any nudity on it or merely just another part of that beach. It would be so easy for people who dislike it to avoid it that there is no reason to make people wear some useless garment into the water. People need to deal with their problems, not hide from them.

----------------------------------------------
And bear (or should it be "bare") in mind that nudity of the sort Mr Gough is engaged in is frowned upon even when the culprit is female and attractive - including in your own country. See:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/30/offbeat.naked.web.ticket.ap/index.html
------------------------------------------------

That woman was naked at a privately owned place, not in public. It is different if she were naked on the street than in a bar. I think that they wont be able to find any evidence against her and she'll probably be able to be found innocent. I dont think that law applies to the nudity when it isnt out on the street.

Rex

01-02-2004, 04:56 AM

Hi Stu,
You have never heard of an authority forbidding the changing of swimming costumes. In WA, most councils have a "model by-law", based, I believe, on an old English law approx 1928, which has a clause forbidding changing on the beach.
Maybe some parts of Britain still have the same. Maybe you can check it out and let me know.
Yes, in many ways we have become "laid back", but not usually because the laws have been changed, but because enough Australians have had the good sense to defy them, and maybe at least some Australian courts have interpreted some of the antiquated, ambiguous, laws in ways which have not suited the prudes.
And we're still not so "laid back" that demonstrable demand will get a clothes-optional beach on every stretch of coastline, a solution which would satisfy most people and one which, I am delighted to know,you would support.
The politicians do not generally re-act with hostility, they generally do nothing and have "passed the buck" to the local councils. Most local councillors are probably not opposed to having a free beach, but few have the guts to declare one, even when they already have a well-known unofficial one within their area.
In Australia, prudes [we call them "wowsers"] have influence out of all proportion to their numbers.
The earlier beach laws may well have had majority support at the time, probably no-one knows, but they were still defied.
In more recent times, laws affecting gay people and the environment initially had majority support, but public protests, which sometimes led to arrests, gradually swung public opinion around and have since led to changes in the law.
Sometimes, it's the only way.

01-02-2004, 08:54 AM

Mike,

"So I guess you condone such violence?"

Certainly not. But where I live if the police don't act against antisocial behaviour then people sometimes take the law into their own hands.

"You think that just because the people are nude, they are asking to get beaten up and or deserve to because of their actions?"

That's like asking me if people who leave their cars unlocked deserve to get them stolen. Of course not. BUT if you behave irresponsibly and without considering the feelings of others then misfortune is likely to result.

"Wouldnt proper procedure to be either A) ignore them, b) ask them kindly to get dressed or leave or c) call the police? I mean they could do any of those things without violence."

Of course. But you presented me with the scenario that the police wouldn't take any action if called. If that did happen then the result could wee be violence. Fortunately here the police would almost certainly step in and resolve things.

"because the nudists were doing something quite innocent and did not deserve to be beaten up."

Behaving in a public place in a way you know is likely to cause offence to others isn't "something quite innocent". It may not warrant a beating up but such disgusting behaviour should never be ignored by the authorities.

"If they get mad enough to beat a nudist up then they obviously hold some hatred towards them."

People would get mad at the inappropriate public nudity - not the fact that they happened to be nudists.

"Most people who would genuienly be nude in public would probably be very responsible about it and be very discreet and respectful to those people around them."

Such people would have no problems. Provided of course they keep their nudity out of sight and if they get caught out they cover their nakedness immediately.

"Just because someone "prefers" not to see a nudist, why is that reason for all nudists to have tocover up in public?"

People often react with abhorrance, shock and disgust at the sight of nudity. It goes way beyond what is merely a "preference".

"If people dont like the nudity then they should just leave, simple as that".

Why should a large proportion of the population be subject to shock and disgust and have to alter their own activities to facilitate those of a selfish yet tiny minority? They PAY for these public places. They are ENTITLED not only to use them, but to be comfortable in using them.

"Im sure they could find another pool or beach that doesnt have any nudity on it or merely just another part of that beach".

Nudists have their own beaches. They should use those.

"People need to deal with their problems, not hide from them."

If nudists are considerate then people wouldn't have any problems.

Hi Rex

"You have never heard of an authority forbidding the changing of swimming costumes".

Never. We have no such prohibition here in the UK.

"Maybe some parts of Britain still have the same".

There isn't to the best of my knowledge any such byelaw anywhere in the UK - I would be very surprised if there was.

"but because enough Australians have had the good sense to defy them,"

That's not healthy. Unless it's a life and death situation, if you live in a democracy you should seek to change laws you consider to be unfair - not break them just because they don't suit you.

"And we're still not so "laid back" that demonstrable demand will get a clothes-optional beach on every stretch of coastline, a solution which would satisfy most people and one which, I am delighted to know,you would support."

Yes I would. If you were granted that would you then abandon any attempts to get ALL beaches designated as clothing optional? Would you give as well as take? Or would you just see that as one small battle won but the war goes on? You se, Rex, that's what really terrifies me. Does the prude have to give everything to the nude?

"The politicians do not generally re-act with hostility, they generally do nothing and have "passed the buck" to the local councils."

They need a kick up the b***

"In Australia, prudes [we call them "wowsers"] have influence out of all proportion to their numbers."

Now don't be too sure of their "numbers" unless you have sound, reliable and impartially procured statistical evidence as to how many prudes there are. You are a nudist and people you talk to generally tell you that they have no problem with nudity. I'm a fully qualified prude and people tell me the opposite. Why do you think that is?

"In more recent times, laws affecting gay people and the environment initially had majority support, but public protests, which sometimes led to arrests, gradually swung public opinion around and have since led to changes in the law".

Here in the UK there have been two main movements aimed at improving rights for homosexuals. One was a moderate one that always urged its members to protest within the law, and a more militant one (called Stonewall) that didn't do that but preferred to see its leaders being arrested. The former worked with our Members of Parliament and ministers and achieved many things including property rights for gay couples. Stonewall, on the other hand, achieved notoriety and derision and set the movement back.

There is an old saying that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. Simply making people have it whether they like it or not is definitely the sour liquid! That's a lesson Steve Gough hasn't learned.

Stu

MikeJB

01-02-2004, 03:43 PM

Mike,

"So I guess you condone such violence?"

Certainly not. But where I live if the police don't act against antisocial behaviour then people sometimes take the law into their own hands.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but you say that like its something that is normal and ok. If people take such things into their own hands then they deserve to get arrested. Just because the police refuse to take action does not give these people the right to deal with the situation in their own way or as they see fit. Maybe these people should realize because the police dont think its a big deal that maybe it really isnt a big deal? Police only deal with important things or things that really are bad or cause problems, like theft and murder and rape and stuff like that. The police cannot waste their time on stupid things like nudity that isnt even bad or harmful to begin with.

-------------------------------------------------
"You think that just because the people are nude, they are asking to get beaten up and or deserve to because of their actions?"

That's like asking me if people who leave their cars unlocked deserve to get them stolen. Of course not. BUT if you behave irresponsibly and without considering the feelings of others then misfortune is likely to result.
-------------------------------------------------

I dont see the connection with people being nude/beaten up and someone not locking their car/having their stuff being stolen. I think that people shouldnt have to wear clothing just as much as I think they shouldnt have to lock their cars. If the police would do their job and make sure that when and if people got nude that no one reacted violently or made sure that if people didnt lock their cars that nothing would get stolen then we wouldnt have this problem. Heck 40-50 some years ago, people didnt have to worry about locking their cars or houses because crime wasnt a big thing in most urban areas but now it is and I think thats because people let it get out of hand just like with this thing where people turn violent just by seeing a nude person, during the 70's people probably figured that being nude was a normal thing and probably wouldnt even have done anything, until in the 80's when the prudes on the conservative side stepped in and started their whole moral campaign and gave people a reason to frown on nudity.

-------------------------------------------------
"Wouldnt proper procedure to be either A) ignore them, b) ask them kindly to get dressed or leave or c) call the police? I mean they could do any of those things without violence."

Of course. But you presented me with the scenario that the police wouldn't take any action if called. If that did happen then the result could wee be violence. Fortunately here the police would almost certainly step in and resolve things.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but dont you think because the police DIDNT step in that might be a sign that its not really a big deal and that people shouldnt worry about it? I mean because most of the time the police dont worry about things unless they are important or harm people and if they dont worry about it or turn a blind eye to it, that must mean that it isnt worth their time because it isnt something that deserves their manpower to deal with. I know people like you find nudity disgusting but would you really want them to waste their manpower on something so unimportant when they barealy have enough men to deal with the issues that really deserve their attention? Especially if the public could either do A) ignore the person and just label them asbeing weird or different and just walk away or B) talk to them politely and ask them to cover up or leave. The public could do both of these things but still insist on wasting the police time to deal with something in a more constructive and less stressful way both for them, the police and the nude person.

-------------------------------------------------
"because the nudists were doing something quite innocent and did not deserve to be beaten up."

Behaving in a public place in a way you know is likely to cause offence to others isn't "something quite innocent". It may not warrant a beating up but such disgusting behaviour should never be ignored by the authorities.
-------------------------------------------------

Then why do other things that people do that some find offensive are dealt with as being innocent? Just because it might make someone upset, that doesnt make it a crime nor does it make it deserving enough to beat someone up for or call the cops and cause a scene. I think that beating someone up for that or calling the cops to come in would cause a bigger scene than the nude person is causing in the first place.

------------------------------------------------
"If they get mad enough to beat a nudist up then they obviously hold some hatred towards them."

People would get mad at the inappropriate public nudity - not the fact that they happened to be nudists.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but they still hate the nudity in public, but just because they dont like it doesnt give them a reason to beat the person up, I dont care how much the nudity pisses them off, they can deal with it more subtly and discreetly than beating someone up or even calling the cops on them. Maybe calling the cops is good, but not until youve tried other means to deal with the nudist in a less stressful and scene causing way.

------------------------------------------------
"Most people who would genuienly be nude in public would probably be very responsible about it and be very discreet and respectful to those people around them."

Such people would have no problems. Provided of course they keep their nudity out of sight and if they get caught out they cover their nakedness immediately.
-------------------------------------------------

Thats wbat I meant basically. Im not saying that the nudity wouldnt be seen by the public 100% but they would be alot more discreet and respectful than say an exhibitionist or a streaker or a stripper or flasher would be about it. I think that youre average joe being naked in public would be alot more respectful and less disgusting than say any exhibitionist or pediphile would which would actually be intending to cause some sort of harm to someone, either with their nudity or by other means. Its the actions of these people that make people question nudity in general, not the nudity itself but what these people do while they are nude. What im trying to say is, that if nudists were nude in public, yes they would be nude in view of others BUT they would still be thinking about the public's feelings and would strive to respect their feelings and be discreet to those who might question their nudity. Thats what makes us different from say Mr Gough if we were nude in public.

------------------------------------------------
"Just because someone "prefers" not to see a nudist, why is that reason for all nudists to have tocover up in public?"

People often react with abhorrance, shock and disgust at the sight of nudity. It goes way beyond what is merely a "preference".
------------------------------------------------

They still "chose" to react that way. So it is still their preference and just because they "prefer" not to see nudity, that doesnt make it a crime. If you use this logic, you are just asking for trouble with other issues because you could say the same thing.

------------------------------------------------
"If people dont like the nudity then they should just leave, simple as that".

Why should a large proportion of the population be subject to shock and disgust and have to alter their own activities to facilitate those of a selfish yet tiny minority? They PAY for these public places. They are ENTITLED not only to use them, but to be comfortable in using them.
------------------------------------------------

Stu, most nudists are not selfish nor are we just some tiny insignificant minority nor do we intend to shock or disgust, quite the contrary. We do respect people's feelings and would be discreet in our actions and would do our best not to harm anyone or hurt anyone's feelings. We pay for such facilities too and why should be have to alter OUR lifestyle just to please these individuals? We would do our best to make sure that we could be nude and also make sure that the people enjoying the facility are comfortable. I just meant by that statement that instead of staying and complaining about seeing something, they have the "option" of leaving, I didnt actually mean theyd have to leave the place all together but just merely look the other way or move to an area where the nudist isnt at, this could be true for anyone that the public doesnt like. If you dont like something, then just move away from it or look away or ignore it.

------------------------------------------------
"Im sure they could find another pool or beach that doesnt have any nudity on it or merely just another part of that beach".

Nudists have their own beaches. They should use those.
------------------------------------------------

Yes but why should we need to be separated from the public and have to go out of our way just so we can enjoy our lifestyle? That seems a bit excessive to me. We dont ask that the textile population goes someplace else because we find their clothing questionable, so why should we have to do the same because they find our nudity questionable? This is basically segregation and it just isnt right. It goes against our rights as humans and as our rights we have in a free country. So the human rights would apply to your country and the human and free rights would apply over here. So we have more reason to have public nudity than you do there but the need still exists and so does the right.

-----------------------------------------------
"People need to deal with their problems, not hide from them."

If nudists are considerate then people wouldn't have any problems.
-------------------------------------------------

Just by finding nudity questionable or seeing it as disgusting or shocking shows that these people have problems with it and if we continue to hide it from them instead of getting them used to it then they will always have these issues and never come to face them in a mature way.

nudeM

01-08-2004, 03:58 PM

Just to add a comment about Steve Grough. Yesterday on the web, there was a story about him getting some time in jail this time. Surprised it didn't make the headlines here. Apparently, he was going through the "city limits" when he was busted. The "judge" wasn't too concerned about him being nude, but he was concerned that Steve did it within city limits.

My question: Why didn't Steve just go around the town, instead of right in the middle of it? Standing up for nudist rights, this wasn't. In this case, he decided to push the envelope a little too far. Comments?

MikeJB

01-08-2004, 08:07 PM

Why doesnt this Gough guy if he really wants public nudity rights just do what the judge says, do his jail time, do his court time, get it over with and just go on with his nude business? I mean why go against what the judge says and make it worse.

Rik

01-09-2004, 12:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
I mean why go against what the judge says and make it worse. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Such is the nature of civil disobedience.

Rik

Jochanaan

01-09-2004, 12:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by nudeM:
My question: Why didn't Steve just go around the town, instead of right in the middle of it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I understand it, Mr. Gough's premise is that nudity should be accepted in any location or circumstance. It would have defeated his purpose to go around town.

Rik has it right that the essence of civil disobedience is breaking the laws you want changed. Sometimes that's the only way to get enough attention to the unjust laws.

nudeM

01-09-2004, 03:57 PM

I believe that if you wish to protest some of the laws, it would be much better if more people would support him and/or join him. Apparently, he is doing this alone with little or no support. Perhaps, if he had the backing of others, such as participates, then things would be much different. Landing in jail would then send out a louder message with a group, rather than just one. Just my interpretation.

MikeJB

01-09-2004, 05:42 PM

Going around the town instead of thru it makes about as much sense and defeats his purpose as much as Stu's idea of him wearing a thong instead of going naked. People would wonder if he is so adamant about doing these things and about other people doing them then why doesnt he do them himself? I mean I know hes breaking the law, but sometimes to get them changed you gotta do that and of course if you get more people to support you *and dont have the rude negative attitude he does* then its easier to be heard and more likely to gain support.

Rex

01-09-2004, 06:25 PM

I think most of us would agree that civil disobedience is sometimes the only way to get a law changed, but sometimes the most effective way is to do it a bit at a time.
If Steve Gough had [initially] worn a thong in more densely populated areas and dispensed with it in relatively quiet places, perhaps he could have achieved more.
He could then have gradually stretched the boundaries of acceptance.
Maybe that is how most successful civil disobedience campaigns have progressed.
Surely the goal is to achieve one's objective, not to become a martyr to a failed cause.
Does anyone know if Steve has tried this style of approach?

MikeJB

01-09-2004, 09:02 PM

Yeah but people accept thongs, I mean I see what youre getting at but like people around here if they saw a guy in a thong wouldnt think anything of it but if they saw him take it off theyd be just as disgusted by him if he had just been naked in the first place. It might be different over there but thats just the general idea id think most people would have if they saw him. I think if he wanted to go nude though he shouldve just stuck to the countryside and only let people see him in small amounts so it could be known he was naked but not a large chance that he would be caught and he shouldve had some clothes close by so he couldve slipped into them quickly and just denied the fact that he was even naked when and if the cops came.

01-10-2004, 12:03 PM

For those nudists who support what Mr Gough is doing - keep it up, guys, he's doing a fantastic job for us prudes!! Just think about it:

Firstly: people assume (wrongly) that he is a nudist. They also think that he's a fanatic/eccentric/loon - and who can blame them (have you see the latest pictures of him? He even looks like some sort of mad hermit!). The association therefore in people's minds is nudist = fanatic. If they can be bothered to consider what he wants to achieve - i.e. the right to be naked anywhere and everywhere - that confirms their suspicions. And I can say with complete confidence that the vast majority of people will not accept such a thing!

Secondly: the fact that he is being continually arrested and imprisoned demonstrates magnificently that the police and courts in this country will punish public nudity. People in the UK don't want to cross swords with the law enforcement branch nor with the judiciary. They certainly don't fancy the idea of getting banged up in police cells, sent to prison, and having a criminal record for offences that sound as though they might have sexual connotations!

Mr Gough has tried to distance himself from naturism by insisting that he's not a nudist. The wiser nudists will return the compliment by keeping Mr Gough very much at arms length lest they find themselves and their movement tarred with the same brush as far as public opinion is concerned. Nudists have to ask themselves if it will really help their cause to be seen to be supporting a man perceived to be a weird, fanatical exhibitionist who repeatedly offends ordinary members of the public, attracts the scorn of the judiciary and finds himself incarcerated in a bleak Scottish prison time after time.

The only sympathy for Mr Gough is that one might feel for a misguided child who can't help themselves but to do stupid things and land themselves in trouble. He certainly isn't winning public respect or approbation from either the public or the media. This character is perceived as a subversive oddball and alien to the values and traditions of ordinary British people. We hear about him every month or two with a tiny article in the paper saying he's been arrested yet again or sent to prison and nobody really cares. He has made himself the object of derision and ridicule.

When Mr Gough gets out of prison I think I will bestow on him an honour - for services rendered to prudery! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

Rik

01-10-2004, 12:36 PM

Stu,

You're talking nonsense again.

The whole of your previous post is based on the illogical extrapolation that because Steve Gough is (in your words) a fanatic and that he is perceived as being a nudist then it follows that nudist=fanatic.

It makes no more sense that concluding that because he's a prisoner and a nudist then nudist=prisoner.

I expect better of you than that. http://www.my-smileys.de/bash_andrea-cathrin.de.vu.gif

Rik

01-10-2004, 01:10 PM

Rik,

I don't know any nudists apart from you all here. Before I came here I had never knowingly spoken to a nudist.

If I were young and impressionable and I bought the Sunday Sport on the way to work I might read about the "Naked Rambler" somewhere between the stories of "Choirgirl in naked romp with vicar" and "Lovely Lisa wishes all her fans a Happy Nude Year". If, however, I read the Daily Express I might read about Steve Gough among a column of articles that include "Councillor Quits Following Child Porn Enquiry" and "Free School Condoms to Under 11s".

They don't generally refer to Mr Gough as a "campaigner" or as a "human rights activist". No. The headline always contains the word "naked" and that word along with "nude" is used as often as possible to attract the (prurient) interests of readers. Combine that with the impression of screwiness and you have a story that will run and run - but for all the wrong reasons.

By the way, you're giving me a headache with that hammer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Stu

Rik

01-10-2004, 01:54 PM

Stu,

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying, for example, that impressionable young people who buy the Sunday Sport would also assume that choirgirls = romp naked with vicars?

I expect the headlines refer to him as a "Naked Rambler" because 1) he's naked and 2) he's rambling. In the US he'd be called the "Naked Hiker". Obviously the fact that he's naked is what attracts the press to his story in the first place and anyone who actually reads the articles (which perhaps the Sunday Sport readers don't) will often see a quotes such as "Gough has been arrested several times for his naked rambling, which he said is a protest against negative attitudes towards the human body." and "He began his crusade to promote the virtues of going naked in June.."(both from the most recent BBC article) which makes pretty clear I think that he's campaigning.

Frankly I don't accept that he's seen as a fanatic - as far as I know only you and Rocket have ever called him that - although there are some within the naturist community who refer to him as a 'nutter' but that's just newsgroup speak for eccentric.

Sorry about the hammer. http://www.my-smileys.de/bussi.gif Better now?

Rik

Bob S.

01-10-2004, 02:20 PM

The reason why I support him: if he is successful, it will be not only a win for him, but for naturists. A legal challange could then be waged to make more places for nudity. I don't necessarily support the way he has tried to win those rights, but I do support him now that he is in the court system.

"In the US he'd be called the "Naked Hiker""

Actually Rik, there was a small mention of him in the local paper and he was referred to as the "Naked Rambler."

Bob S.

NakedGary

01-10-2004, 03:25 PM

here is the latest from BBC on the naked rambler:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3376521.stm

NakedGary

MikeJB

01-10-2004, 08:37 PM

This is the latest article in its entirety, except for the nude pic of course.

Another jail term for naked walker

Mr Gough wore only a blanket tied around his waist with a belt
A naked rambler has again been found guilty of breach of the peace and sentenced to a spell in a Scots jail.
Stephen Gough, 44, from Hampshire, was convicted after walking through a village in Easter Ross in the Highlands clad only in a hat and boots.

Gough has been arrested several times for his naked rambling, which he said is a protest against negative attitudes towards the human body.

He could be released in days as he has already served a month on remand.

There is no law saying thou shalt not go naked

Stephen Gough
Dingwall Sheriff Court heard how police received a 999 call from a resident who had spotted Gough walking on Drummond Road in Evanton, Easter Ross, on 29 November.

He was arrested just hours after being released from prison in Inverness where he was serving a three-month jail term for committing a similar offence on Cromarty Bridge.

He began his crusade to promote the virtues of going naked in June, setting off on a 900-mile trek from Land's End in England to John O'Groats in Scotland. His route also took him into Wales.

Gough, who was also found guilty of breaching bail conditions, argued that what he was doing was permitted under the rights of freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act.

Sentencing him, Sheriff Edward Savage said: "You seemed determined, Mr Gough, to break the law."

The sheriff jailed Gough for three months, backdated to 1 December.

Police station

Evanton resident Robert Thow, 52, told the court that he saw Gough walking through the village while he was in his car.

He said he contacted the police because: "I think there is a time and a place for it. I did not think Evanton was the place for it, or any other village."

Constable Ian Davidson said Gough was eventually found near a quarry on the Novar estate and taken to a local police station.

Gough appeared in court wearing a scarlet prison blanket tied with a police belt and a pair of handcuffs.

He said he wanted to "celebrate myself as a human being" and added that he had continued his walk as a protest at being continually arrested.

Gough told the court: "All I am doing is dressing how I want to dress and believing what I want to believe.

"There is no law saying thou shalt not go naked."

The former Royal Marine alleged that he got a warm reception in Evanton.

He said people on a bus waved at him, workers on a building site cheered and he had numerous requests for people to have their pictures taken with him.

He has 100 miles to go to complete his journey.
-------------------------------------------------

Seems like people in Evarton like him more than Stu thinks.

"The former Royal Marine alleged that he got a warm reception in Evanton."

"He said people on a bus waved at him, workers on a building site cheered and he had numerous requests for people to have their pictures taken with him."

This seems rather positive to me. Why cant all people react this way? This guy isnt a loon, he just looks like one with his practical accesories, the fact that hes old and that he is nude. I think the thought of him being eccentric is just a sterotype people put on others who look like this. I think they oughta just leave Mr Gough alone, he only has 100 miles left after all, just let him finish and let us move on with our lives and stop arresting him every time some dude gets pissed at him.

==Mike==

NakedGary

01-10-2004, 10:02 PM

NAKED RAMBLER Sentenced to 3 more months!

Steve Gough sentenced to 3 months in jail dated back to December 1st.

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=952&id=23832004

NakedGary

Rik

01-11-2004, 01:31 AM

Gary

Just to avoid confusion, the link you gave was to an earlier article published on 29 November 2003 when Steve Gough had been arrested shortly after being released from prison. Since that time he has been back in prison awaiting sentencing which was announced last week: another three month sentence backdated to the 1st December.

Rik

NakedGary

01-11-2004, 02:14 AM

Rik

Now that I look into it I think you are correct, and here is the lastest as of December 8th.

Now it says he was sentenced to 3 months dated from December 1st.

Very confusing reading all the news releases, when some do not date, or reference past events with the current date.

Thanks for noting that and mentioning...

latest link: dated 8 december 2004

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=952&id=23832004

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3376521.stm

MikeJB

01-11-2004, 08:41 PM

I dont get why people insist on calling this man the "Naked Rambler" like he is some nutty homeless guy that doesnt know what he is talking about and running around like some eccentric nutcase. I mean all this guy is trying to do is promote his political statement and he only had 100 miles to go so i dont get why they dont just let him finish his damned walk and just be done with him. They know hes just gonna try again when he gets out.

Rex

01-11-2004, 10:46 PM

It's good to see some balanced reporting from the UK.
Does anyone know if there have been any professional, impartial, surveys, regarding the British public's attitude to Steve Gough, or are we just expected to accept the official line that almost everyone is against him?

Rik

01-12-2004, 04:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
Does anyone know if there have been any professional, impartial, surveys, regarding the British public's attitude to Steve Gough, or are we just expected to accept the official line that almost everyone is against him? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's no official or unofficial line that almost everyone (or even a majority) is against him.

Rik

Rex

01-12-2004, 05:09 AM

Thanks, Rik.
Stu talks so much about the authorities having to take notice of "the majority", and I just wondered if there was any factual basis for what is happening to Steve Gough.
It seems to me that Steve's "crime" is not so much his public nudity, but that he has had the audacity to openly challenge "the establishment".
I think Steve has exposed an unpleasant side of Britain's so-called "justice" system, that if you upset "the establishment", there is no justice.
I will draw a comparison, [which some people will not necessarily agree with].
About 50 years ago, a young man named Christopher Craig gunned down a British police officer. But Chris was only 17, and under British law could not be executed. But Chris had a friend Roy, who was with him at the time. Roy was unarmed, well below average intelligence, and reportedly was under the influence of the charismatic Chris. But Roy was 19, and was hung for Chris's crime.
My point is that, if the British establishment wants revenge, they will get it.
It does them no credit, but, with the vindictiveness and stupidity of the minority and the apathy of the majority, they usually get away with it.

nudeM

01-12-2004, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by MikeJB: "...the fact that hes old and and he is nude." If being 44 years old is considered to be old, then there are a lot of "old" people here. Your only as old as you feel. Just couldn't resist. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Rex

01-12-2004, 05:29 AM

Or, "you're only as old as the woman you feel"
Couldn't resist.

01-12-2004, 06:25 AM

I heard that a woman is only as old as she looks, and a man isn't old until he stops looking.

Rik

01-12-2004, 07:51 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
Stu talks so much about the authorities having to take notice of "the majority", and I just wondered if there was any factual basis for what is happening to Steve Gough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm sure Stu won't mind me saying that he debates by mantra so I've long ago given up refuting his claim that the majority are offended by nudity.

However for what it's worth, my view is that whilst there are clearly some people who are shocked or distressed at the sight of nudity - hence a handful of complaints to the police - they are in a small minority. Quite often, it seems, they are shocked on behalf of other people - usually women and children (Stu has said this himself many times).

I honestly don't believe that here in the UK people are anywhere near as freaky about nudity as in the US but still have quite a long way to go to be as relaxed as those countries of mainland Europe. All the anectotal evidence suggests that most people's reaction to nudity ranges from embarrassment to amusement - neither emotion, in my view, is sufficient to warrant legal action being taken against nude people.

Stu's position seems to be that even if just one person is offended by nudity then that should be sufficient to incarcerate someone who appears nude in public - although reading between the lines I feel that his position is softening. It wasn't that long ago he was telling us that anyone who witnessed public nudity would immediately call the police but now he's saying perhaps they wouldn't bother after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>It seems to me that Steve's "crime" is not so much his public nudity, but that he has had the audacity to openly challenge "the establishment". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I'd agree with that although he misjudged the reaction from the establishment in Scotland which has a slightly different judicial system from England where, despite a few brushes with the law on the way, he actually managed to walk all the way through England without the establishment needing to lock him up for months on end.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I will draw a comparison... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm. Not sure I follow the analogy but you're talking about Derek Bentley (not Roy) who was hanged for murder even though it was Craig who shot the policeman. This was a controversial conviction at the time (1953 I think) but it was overturned a few years ago after many years of appeal by Derek Bentley's family.

Rik

01-12-2004, 08:11 AM

"There's no official or unofficial line that almost everyone (or even a majority) is against him."

The Scottish judges who have heard his case have criticised him before sentencing him. From that it would seem fair to deduce that he is officially regarded as a law-breaker.

There is no solid empirical evidence that the "majority" have even heard of him. Those that I have spoken to who know what he is doing think he's just a nutcase. I have certainly not detected any signs of sympathy for him as a person nor for what he supposedly stands for.

The press report his arrests and court appearances but make no comment about his treatment.

"It seems to me that Steve's "crime" is not so much his public nudity, but that he has had the audacity to openly challenge "the establishment"."

No, Rex, we are a civilised country and we set great store in the rule of law. If Mr Gough decided to complete his walk wearing shorts and a t-shirt bearing a message that he wants the right to be nude in public, he would be able to do so unmolested by the authorities. The simple fact is that his arrests are due to him exposing his genitals.

"But Chris had a friend Roy, who was with him at the time."

I thought Christopher Craig's partner in crime was Derek Bentley!

"But Roy was 19, and was hung for Chris's crime.
My point is that, if the British establishment wants revenge, they will get it."

That's not the case. Derek Bentley was convicted of the murder of an unarmed police officer by a jury of his peers. At the time there was only one sentence the judge could lawfully pass for that crime and that was to suffer death by hanging. The Home Secretary at the time had the power to commute the sentence to one of life imprisonment but decided against doing so. There is certainly a case that he should have done so considering Bentley's poor level of intelligence. But even more pertinent was the fact that the defence claimed that Bentley's instruction to Craig immediately before the shooting - i.e. "Let him have it, Chris" was intended to mean give the officer the weapon whereas Craig interpreted it as an encouragement to fire. The Home Secretary decided that when two men go out intending to commit burglaries and armed with a loaded firearm and then wilfully use that firearm against an unarmed policeman doing his duty, the message should be crystal clear that those men will face the most severe justice allowed.

Even if, having regard to all the circumstances, a life sentence for Bentley might have been fairer, this wasn't a case of our justice system being stupid or vindictive.

Stu

Rex

01-12-2004, 05:37 PM

Thank you Rik and Stu for refreshing my memory on the Craig/Bentley case.
The point I was making, however, remains the same. Someone killed a British police officer and someone had to be made an example of. Under British law, the actual killer could not be executed, so the authorities "made an example of" the killer's accomplice.
I accept that the official response was within the letter of the law, otherwise it could not have happened that way, but I suggest that response was driven by emotion and the desire for revenge.
Nearly 50 years later, as Rik says, that conviction was overturned, on appeal.
My point of comparison, is that the authorities' reaction to Steve Gough is a gross over-reaction, driven by emotion and the desire to "make an example of him", ie revenge.
In regard to England being a civilised country, following the rule of law. Not so long ago, England used agents provocateur, in order to entrap and convict gay men. By today's standards, this sounds more like Afghanistan, under the Taliban, [and this time I'm not being ironic]. The only difference would be the degree of punishment.

Bob S.

01-12-2004, 06:57 PM

"There is no solid empirical evidence that the "majority" have even heard of him."
"The press report his arrests and court appearances"

So the majority of the people do not read the papers? But we all know that there is no way to find out how the public feels about him, is there?

"we are a civilised country and we set great store in the rule of law."

So are we and yet our government and legal system does also favor more punishment for those who "challenge the esptablishment." It is like that in all nations. Sometimes, the law is swayed a bit by personal vandettas.

"f Mr Gough decided to complete his walk wearing shorts and a t-shirt bearing a message that he wants the right to be nude in public, he would be able to do so unmolested by the authorities."

That's not "challenging the establishment". That is giving in to "the establishment".

Bob S.

Rik

01-13-2004, 07:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"There's no official or unofficial line that almost everyone (or even a majority) is against him."

The Scottish judges who have heard his case have criticised him before sentencing him. From that it would seem fair to deduce that he is officially regarded as a law-breaker. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But that does't mean that "everyone is against him". Stick to the point please!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>"It seems to me that Steve's "crime" is not so much his public nudity, but that he has had the audacity to openly challenge "the establishment"."

No, Rex, we are a civilised country and we set great store in the rule of law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>We also set great store in our ability and willingness to challenge the establishment (more so, I would suggest, than in the US). Sometimes these attributes conflict where the need to challenge the establishment can only be satisfied by challenging the law.

Rik

01-13-2004, 08:04 AM

Rex

"so the authorities "made an example of" the killer's accomplice."

Yes - but the law does sometimes make an example of wrongdoers - and Bentley was a wrongdoer whichever way you look at it. Whilst I have misgivings about the death sentence being passed on that young man, I believe it was less about malice on the part of the authorities than a case of deterring other criminals from going out armed with a loaded firearm when about their nafarious business and being willing to use firearms against unarmed policemen.

"Nearly 50 years later, as Rik says, that conviction was overturned, on appeal."

The conviction for murder was substituted with a conviction for manslaughter - a crime which itself carried a possible death sentence for many years.

"My point of comparison, is that the authorities' reaction to Steve Gough is a gross over-reaction, driven by emotion and the desire to "make an example of him", ie revenge."

The courts have decided that his behaviour is against the law. We expect our courts to uphold the law and to send a clear message that lawbreaking will not be tolerated. What are they supposed to do with somebody who persistently and wilfully defies the law and the orders of the court? Slap his wrists?

Bob S.

"So the majority of the people do not read the papers?"

In my experience most people don't generally read through all the tiny items on page seventeen, no. If they do the chances are that they don't remember seeing articles such as the ones that state that Mr Gough was imprisoned again. There are lots of little stories about talking dogs, buraucratic mix-ups and the antics of nutcases and these are just column fillers to most people. People are far more interested in hard news (e.g. Iraq, terrorism), politics, share-prices, serious human interest and last but not least, sport!

"But we all know that there is no way to find out how the public feels about him, is there?"

No. Except to ask people you meet. And I have! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"That's not "challenging the establishment". That is giving in to "the establishment"."

Challenging the establishment might have legitimacy where the authorities are acting against the wishes of the people. He's not so much "challenging the establishment" as challenging the will of the people. He knows (and has said) that there isn't the sort of body-acceptance among the public that he would like to see. So what is he doing? He's making them have it whether they like it or not.

Rik

"Sometimes these attributes conflict where the need to challenge the establishment can only be satisfied by challenging the law."

Mr Gough could have challenged the law without offending ordinary people, tying up public services and causing a wasteful diversion of public money. He could have lobbied MPs and ministers. He could have got together a petition. He could have sought support from the media - or even, just for starters, official nudist groups. He could have argued his case that the law of England is contrary to the Human Rights convention by applying for judicial review at the High Court.

But no. He prefers to expose his genitals at an unwilling public and then whine when the courts finally lose patience and deal firmly with him.

Stu

Rik

pookie

01-13-2004, 02:42 PM

Oops!
Wandered into the wrong page.
Sorry ! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MikeJB

01-13-2004, 03:52 PM

"That's not "challenging the establishment". That is giving in to "the establishment"."

Challenging the establishment might have legitimacy where the authorities are acting against the wishes of the people. He's not so much "challenging the establishment" as challenging the will of the people. He knows (and has said) that there isn't the sort of body-acceptance among the public that he would like to see. So what is he doing? He's making them have it whether they like it or not.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but what are people going to beleive more, a person who wants public nudity who is nude or a person who wants public nudity who wears a shirt and shorts that says that? Same as a white advocating black rights and a black doing the same thing, who are the public gonna take seriously? People wouldnt take his wanting to be nude seriously unless he actually is nude.

-----------------------------------------------
"Sometimes these attributes conflict where the need to challenge the establishment can only be satisfied by challenging the law."

Mr Gough could have challenged the law without offending ordinary people, tying up public services and causing a wasteful diversion of public money. He could have lobbied MPs and ministers. He could have got together a petition. He could have sought support from the media - or even, just for starters, official nudist groups. He could have argued his case that the law of England is contrary to the Human Rights convention by applying for judicial review at the High Court.
------------------------------------------------

People have challenged the establishment for good reasons sometimes even when it was the will of the people, that will isnt always good or just and sometimes you gotta get out there and prove that and sometimes that means breaking the law or estabilishment.

------------------------------------------------
But no. He prefers to expose his genitals at an unwilling public and then whine when the courts finally lose patience and deal firmly with him.
------------------------------------------------

He wants nude rights, he doesnt really care if people see his genitals or not. The courts make bad decisions sometimes.

Bob S.

01-13-2004, 06:54 PM

Come on pookie, confess, you are just chomping at the bit to give your opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"In my experience most people don't generally read through all the tiny items on page seventeen, no."

OK, confess, is that actually on pager 17 or is it just coloquially called "Page Seventeen"?

"No. Except to ask people you meet. And I have!"

And I have no reason to seeing as how I am almost positive that many here have not heard of him. It is barely mentioned across the blue waters. But as for polling, well, can't that be done in a way that could be easily interpreted?

"He's making them have it whether they like it or not."

No, he's just walking. And for the most part, in rural areas. I'm sure 99% of the population has missed him.

"Challenging the establishment might have legitimacy where the authorities are acting against the wishes of the people."

Or where the police are simply following on what others feel is an unfair law. In that case, "the establishment" is not necessarily the police but the government.

Bob S.

Rex

01-13-2004, 09:23 PM

Hi Stu,
Just because something is "The Law", does not necessarily mean that it is fair, or even necessary.
Lobbying frequently achieves nothing, so civil disobedience becomes the only thing an ordinary person can use.
I notice you did not comment on recent English law, which allowed agents provocateur to set-up gay men. Yes, it was within the law of a "civilised" country, but was it either fair or necessary?
If you tell me that it was perceived to be appropriate, at that time, then again I will draw a comparison between England and the Taliban.
I seem to remember that this tactic was regarded as controversial, and widely criticised, perhaps someone can refresh my memory on that.

MikeJB

01-13-2004, 10:20 PM

"He's making them have it whether they like it or not."

No, he's just walking. And for the most part, in rural areas. I'm sure 99% of the population has missed him.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah thats my whole point, why is this guy such a big issue with some people when only 1% of people have even seen him and less than that have actually called the cops on him.

Besides why call the cops when you can do one of 4 other things

a) ignore him *best option*

b) snicker and look the other way *makes his actions look humorous and less incidental*

c) say rude things to him and walk the other way disgusted

d) just look the other way or just keep walking
*you do have the option to do this you know*

So I mean really even if it COULD be proven that Mr Gough was doing some terrible deed, why the need to call the cops, thats wasteful and time consuming and stressful for the person calling them, Mr Gough and the cops, besides its a waste of their time and resources. If he was doing something provocative or sexual or damaging property or harassing someone then yeah id call the cops, otherwise you should just leave the man alone and let him finish his walk. He's just walking by, not doing anything harmful.

NakedGary

01-14-2004, 12:01 AM

Mr. Gough [Naked Rambler]

Is not walking anywhere except in his cell. Last week he was sentenced to 3 more months of jail time dated from December 1st i believe

01-14-2004, 10:13 AM

Mike

" People wouldnt take his wanting to be nude seriously unless he actually is nude."

That's wrong - they would actually take him much more seriously because he would have demonstrated that he is mature and considerate rather than fanatical and offensive.

"He wants nude rights, he doesnt really care if people see his genitals or not."

He doesn't care if he upsets or offends people - all he cares about is what HE wants, not what others want.

Bob S.

"OK, confess, is that actually on pager 17 or is it just coloquially called "Page Seventeen"?"

Depends which paper you read, Bob. I take The Times.

"But as for polling, well, can't that be done in a way that could be easily interpreted?"

Yes - but you'd have difficulty generating sufficient interest among neutral academics to bother doing this.

"No, he's just walking. And for the most part, in rural areas. I'm sure 99% of the population has missed him."

He could have done the walking in a pair of shorts - or with a t-shirt stating his motivation.

"Or where the police are simply following on what others feel is an unfair law. In that case, "the establishment" is not necessarily the police but the government."

Who are these "others"? They certainly aren't the bulk of the UK people. You must mean that minute minority who are nudists who want the legalisation of public nudity.

Bob S.

"Just because something is "The Law", does not necessarily mean that it is fair, or even necessary."

I didn't say it did.

"Lobbying frequently achieves nothing, so civil disobedience becomes the only thing an ordinary person can use."

You could say that about any cause - I can't get what I want so I'll break the law. That's not an attitude I subscribe to except in the most extreme circumstances (and nude recreation isn't an extreme circumstance) or where the government who makes the laws has no democratic mandate (and our government, and yours, does).

"I notice you did not comment on recent English law, which allowed agents provocateur to set-up gay men. Yes, it was within the law of a "civilised" country, but was it either fair or necessary?"

You are right, Rex, I didn't. I don't know where you got your information from about this but I can assure you it is totally wrong. There are two different forms of agent provocateur in England - one can be lawfully used and the other can not. There has been no substantial change in this in decades. I have never heard of either form being used against 'gay men' per se - but the lawful form has been rightly used against men committing grossly indecent acts with other men in public lavatories. In recent years a law has been introduced that regulates police surveillance in all respects - including men soliciting other men for sex. But this has nothing to do with agent provocateur. This is a huge and complex subject, Rex, and not relevant to this discussion. If you want more information about the legality of the application of agent provocateur methods under English law then please feel free to PM me and I'll gladly explain it to you.

MikeJB

"why is this guy such a big issue with some people when only 1% of people have even seen him and less than that have actually called the cops on him."

Because some of those who have seen him have found his behaviour offensive.

"Besides why call the cops when you can do one of 4 other things"

Why shouldn't they call the police? If they see something that they think is offensive and antisocial and also unlawful then they have every right to call the police.

"even if it COULD be proven that Mr Gough was doing some terrible deed, why the need to call the cops, thats wasteful and time consuming and stressful for the person calling them, Mr Gough and the cops, besides its a waste of their time and resources."

It HAS ben proved that he was doing an antisocial and unlawful deed. The cops who attended didn't think it was a waste of their time, nor did the courts.

"He's just walking by, not doing anything harmful."

Walking about public areas naked upsetting and offending people is harmful. If he doesn't want to do any harm he could just put on a pair of shorts - but no - he's only content when he is forcing others to see his genitals. Most people would regard that as exhibitionism.

Stu

Rik

01-14-2004, 02:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
" People wouldnt take his wanting to be nude seriously unless he actually is nude."

That's wrong - they would actually take him much more seriously because he would have demonstrated that he is mature and considerate rather than fanatical and offensive.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh Stu, what can I say? How can I find the words to succinctly articulate that your assumption is mere wishful thinking and shows little understanding of the way real people might react.

Hmm! I know what Pookie would say: "Stu, you're talking bollocks". But then Pookie, on those rare occasions we hear from him, always manages to say in two or three words what I would take a whole paragraph saying.

But on this occasion I think he's right.

http://www.my-smileys.de/roflmao.gif Rik

01-14-2004, 03:28 PM

Rik,

I recall back in the 1970s and 1980s a certain Bruce Kent, national leader of CND, advising members who held office that, when acting in their official capacity, they should abandon the traditional CND tee-shirts, badges etc in favour of a smart shirt and tie.

I also recall attending a National Front meeting many years ago (no, I wasn't a member of that organisation - I was paid to go there to advise the police on something - I'll tell you about it some time). All the junior supporters were wearing the usual Nazi stuff - brown shirts, black ties, swastikas) but the national leadership all dressed very conventionally in suits. It stated in their literature that, in order to be taken seriously as a political movement, prospective councillors and Members of Parliament should avoid any hint of fanaticism in their appearance and try to exude stablity, reasonableness, trustworthiness.

This is valid and coherent reasoning. But if you prefer the word "bollocks" then I confess I'm a bit disappointed.

Stu

MikeJB

01-14-2004, 03:43 PM

" People wouldnt take his wanting to be nude seriously unless he actually is nude."

That's wrong - they would actually take him much more seriously because he would have demonstrated that he is mature and considerate rather than fanatical and offensive.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but the best way to promote something is to actually do it and if youre doing something to the contrary, people will see that and not beleive you are serious about what youre trying to advocate. That makes just as much sense as a woman advocating other women dont wear bras but yet shes wearing one herself.

------------------------------------------------
"He wants nude rights, he doesnt really care if people see his genitals or not."

He doesn't care if he upsets or offends people - all he cares about is what HE wants, not what others want.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but he doesnt know what everyone wants and he is advocating a right that he thinks everyone should have and one that benefits him. What he is advocating isnt going to make everyone happy and you cant expect that.

------------------------------------------------
"OK, confess, is that actually on pager 17 or is it just coloquially called "Page Seventeen"?"

Depends which paper you read, Bob. I take The Times.
------------------------------------------------

He couldve just been using that as an example. Im sure it is on that page in some papers.

------------------------------------------------
"But as for polling, well, can't that be done in a way that could be easily interpreted?"

Yes - but you'd have difficulty generating sufficient interest among neutral academics to bother doing this.
------------------------------------------------

Im sure you could if you did polls that were more specific in their questions and you channeled them more towards who you were trying to get the results from.

------------------------------------------------
"No, he's just walking. And for the most part, in rural areas. I'm sure 99% of the population has missed him."

He could have done the walking in a pair of shorts - or with a t-shirt stating his motivation.
------------------------------------------------

Whats the point in that, he cant advocate his nude rights in clothing and besides if no one sees him or complains at all besides just 1 person then whats the big deal?

----------------------------------------------
"Or where the police are simply following on what others feel is an unfair law. In that case, "the establishment" is not necessarily the police but the government."

Who are these "others"? They certainly aren't the bulk of the UK people. You must mean that minute minority who are nudists who want the legalisation of public nudity.
---------------------------------------------

Im sure he means the general public, just because it seems alot of people support a law, doesnt mean they really do, they just dont want to admit openly that they support nudity.

-----------------------------------------------
"Just because something is "The Law", does not necessarily mean that it is fair, or even necessary."

I didn't say it did.
----------------------------------------------

You almost do.

-----------------------------------------------
"Lobbying frequently achieves nothing, so civil disobedience becomes the only thing an ordinary person can use."

You could say that about any cause - I can't get what I want so I'll break the law. That's not an attitude I subscribe to except in the most extreme circumstances (and nude recreation isn't an extreme circumstance) or where the government who makes the laws has no democratic mandate (and our government, and yours, does).
------------------------------------------------

Its extreme enough to us and when the government and law makers dont see reason then sometimes people gotta take more aggressive action. I mean this could be solved so much easier if nudity was just legalized or we had some sort of more reasonable compromise than we have now.

-----------------------------------------------
"I notice you did not comment on recent English law, which allowed agents provocateur to set-up gay men. Yes, it was within the law of a "civilised" country, but was it either fair or necessary?"

You are right, Rex, I didn't. I don't know where you got your information from about this but I can assure you it is totally wrong. There are two different forms of agent provocateur in England - one can be lawfully used and the other can not. There has been no substantial change in this in decades. I have never heard of either form being used against 'gay men' per se - but the lawful form has been rightly used against men committing grossly indecent acts with other men in public lavatories. In recent years a law has been introduced that regulates police surveillance in all respects - including men soliciting other men for sex. But this has nothing to do with agent provocateur. This is a huge and complex subject, Rex, and not relevant to this discussion. If you want more information about the legality of the application of agent provocateur methods under English law then please feel free to PM me and I'll gladly explain it to you.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but it seems that people generally accept gay men and gay sex more than they do nudity and this really shows how far our country and yours has to go

------------------------------------------------
"why is this guy such a big issue with some people when only 1% of people have even seen him and less than that have actually called the cops on him."

Because some of those who have seen him have found his behaviour offensive.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but theyre a minority. Besides im sure he walked by so fast, they couldve just as easily ignored him anyways.

-----------------------------------------------
"Besides why call the cops when you can do one of 4 other things"

Why shouldn't they call the police? If they see something that they think is offensive and antisocial and also unlawful then they have every right to call the police.
----------------------------------------------

Because there are more appropriate and civilized things to do. Why call the cops when you dont have to? If I called cops for every little thing that offended me, they never get anything done.

---------------------------------------------
"even if it COULD be proven that Mr Gough was doing some terrible deed, why the need to call the cops, thats wasteful and time consuming and stressful for the person calling them, Mr Gough and the cops, besides its a waste of their time and resources."

It HAS ben proved that he was doing an antisocial and unlawful deed. The cops who attended didn't think it was a waste of their time, nor did the courts.
-------------------------------------------------

How do you know? Did you ask them? Just because they arrest him doesnt mean they dont think that being called to arrest some naked man is a waste of their time. Also im sure the courts wouldve been more than happy to do without a long and stressful court case, especially for something as idiotic as a nude man.

----------------------------------------------
"He's just walking by, not doing anything harmful."

Walking about public areas naked upsetting and offending people is harmful.
----------------------------------------------

Yeah, in your opinion.

-----------------------------------------------
If he doesn't want to do any harm he could just put on a pair of shorts - but no
-----------------------------------------------

That would be contradictory to the point he is making, a man advocating nudity while clothed makes as much sense as a woman advocating bralessness with a bra on. Maybe people dont want to see her nipples through her top, but thats besides the point, if people are wearing the thing(s) they are against then people wont take them seriously.

-----------------------------------------------
- he's only content when he is forcing others to see his genitals.
-----------------------------------------------

He doesnt force them to see his genitals at all. He doesnt force people to look at him or continue to look at him once they see him, they can control what direction they look and what they look at.

------------------------------------------------
Most people would regard that as exhibitionism.
------------------------------------------------

Exhibitionists expose themselves for the sheer thrill of people seeing their genitals and getting some sort of reaction out of them, Mr Gough wants to change a law and is nude because he feels comfortable that way and because by being nude he shows he supports what he is advocating.

Bob S.

01-14-2004, 08:10 PM

"Depends which paper you read, Bob. I take The Times."

Stop leading me on, stu. What about in The Times? Is it on pg 17? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

"but you'd have difficulty generating sufficient interest among neutral academics to bother doing this."

So you have to be neutral to ask the question: Have you heard of Steve Gough, the Naked Rambler?

"He could have done the walking in a pair of shorts - or with a t-shirt stating his motivation."

You are kidding, right? His point was not necessarily to be seen as a regular civil rights crusader, but as the man who walked naked from the southern tip of the Island to the Northern tip. To do so with clothes on would negate the point of his walk.

"Who are these "others"?"

Anyone who agrees with him. Others can be two people or two billion people.

And by the way, Rex talked about "The Law" not me. I know you love arguing withme, but please contain your arguments with me to what I say, not what others say. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"You could say that about any cause - I can't get what I want so I'll break the law."

Yes, and it would still be applicable as long as what you are doing is peaceful and passive. Stealing and harming someone else (and viewing nudity does no one harm) are not options in civil disobedience. And Steve Gough had the question as to whether there is a democratic mandate over dress codes. So he had pursued this on that point.

Bob S.

Rex

01-15-2004, 12:11 AM

Couple of things, Stu,
Various forum members have drawn a comparison between the way nudists often find themselves treated by the legal systems of some countries and the way other minority groups, eg gays or coloureds, are, or have until recently, been treated. I believe that concept makes my reference to "agents provocateur" relevant.
Also, your comments about England being a civilised country, following the rule of law, with the implication, [I'm not claiming that you actually said this], with the very clear implication, that the English legal system does not generally do inappropriate things.
I understand that you were admitting that agents provocateur were used, in England, in fairly recent times, [in the correct legal manner, of course], to arrest and convict "men committing grossly indecent acts with other men in public lavatories".
I suppose that "committing grossly indecent acts" is a euphemism for engaging in conduct of a sexual nature, but it sounds a lot worse, and perhaps it is also open to interpretation, [just like some of the laws used to convict nudists], which gives the prosecution a very useful, but very unfair, advantage.
Besides which, I don't regard adult, consensual, sexual activity, where the participants have taken reasonable steps to get privacy, as "grossly indecent". Does English law still think so?
And if a man, in an endeavour to initiate a liaison, approaches another man in a public toilet, then, in those days, what were his options? It's easy for me, I'm hetero, I can go to a dance, but I have feelings for those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in circumstances which could be described as less favourable.
In regard to dress code, many people whose acts and intentions are unbelievably evil, wear a suit to create an impression of businesslike respectability. We all know that.
Whatever Steve Gough is, he is not a con-man. He chose the direct approach, and otherwise he would not even have got publicity.

Kari P

01-15-2004, 12:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
I understand that you were admitting that agents provocateur were used, in England, in fairly recent times, [in the correct legal manner, of course], to arrest and convict "men committing grossly indecent acts with other men in public lavatories".
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understood the same.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Besides which, I don't regard adult, consensual, sexual activity, where the participants have taken reasonable steps to get privacy, as "grossly indecent". Does English law still think so?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If two men kiss or hug each other wherever in public or go behind a closed door in a toilet to do whatever they might do there, in my eyes they haven't done anything that should be a crime. No, a toilet is not an appropriate place for sex, but still it shouldn't be criminal. Is it in England?

Rik

01-15-2004, 01:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
This is valid and coherent reasoning.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But not realistic! Do you really believe that if Steve Gough had done his walk wearing a suit and carrying a placard demanding the right to be nude that ANYONE would have taken any notice?

Now where's that hammer again?

http://www.my-smileys.de/bonk.gif Ah, that's better!

Rik

01-15-2004, 10:05 AM

MaxUK

01-15-2004, 11:00 AM

Stu,

Nothing for me to add. More sound common sense. Some of us are listening...

Max

Kari P

01-15-2004, 11:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The perverts had effectively prevented me from using a public facility that I pay to use through my taxes for their own thrills. Of course it should be criminal. Decent people, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, don't behave in that way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OK, they don't. I didn't know how bad their behaviour was. What you described is clearly criminal. But still I don't understand the need of agents provocateur.

MaxUK

01-15-2004, 11:10 AM

Kari P,

Why should you care? If they catch the perverts then all well and good. Don't tell me you are another one of the bleeding hearts preaching for the 'rights' of the criminal?!!

Max

Kari P

01-15-2004, 11:23 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MaxUK:
Why should you care? If they catch the perverts then all well and good.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If they catch someone else who is a homosexual but not a real pervert, then not good. I don't know their methods, but I suspect that there is such a risk. Normal police work and videotaping cameras in the worst places should be sufficient.

01-15-2004, 02:10 PM

Kari

"But still I don't understand the need of agents provocateur."

Neither do I. I can't think of a real example of the British police using agents provocateur in these circumstances.

Agents provocateur are used to prosecute people selling alcohol to minors, and for drug dealers. I can't see how they would be used in public lavatories. Surveillance can do the job perfectly well.

Stu

MikeJB

01-15-2004, 04:07 PM

Bob

"His point was not necessarily to be seen as a regular civil rights crusader, but as the man who walked naked from the southern tip of the Island to the Northern tip. To do so with clothes on would negate the point of his walk."

That's a fair point, Bob, if his objective is just to set a record - a 'first'. But as I understand it that's not the main point, is it?
------------------------------------------------

I think that was part of what he was trying to do, because it actually would have been a first, but that was not his main point, his main point was a political one but really unless he was trying to make money off of it or was advocating a certain organization or political party by doing it then I see nothing bad about him making a point and the only way to effectively make this point and have people take him seriously...maybe not respect him, but take him seriously.....is to do it nude.

----------------------------------------------
He could instead have teamed up with a friend and done the walk dressed as a pantomome horse. That way he wouldn't have gotten beaten up, arrested, charged, imprisoned etc. And he could have raised some money for charity in the process.
----------------------------------------------

That was not his intention though, he didnt intend to make this a mere stunt, nor exactly make a first, but actually to make a political point and fight a law that he honestly beleived inside was wrong. He may seem rude and uncaring but im sure he has good honest intentions and is just sticking up for how he feels and what he beleives in, although he could still do this and not be so rude about it though as well.

------------------------------------------------
No - his venture is a stunt aimed at making a social/political point and that could have been achieved just as easily and without the consequences he has experienced if he had at least made some sort of concession to people's feelings
------------------------------------------------

Maybe people wouldve respected him but they wouldnt have taken him seriously and he wouldnt have acheived his objective.

------------------------------------------------
- e.g. he could have done the walk wearing nothing but a bath-towel and carrying a placard.
------------------------------------------------

People wouldve made more fun of him that way than nude and besides you cant be nude unless you remove the bathtowel and thus no one wouldve taken him seriously even then.

-----------------------------------------------
He may not have received quite as much publicity but he would have earned far more respect - and by now he would have succeeded in his venture.
-----------------------------------------------

He mightve been respected by society by large but they wouldnt have taken his political statement seriously and thus he wouldnt have suceeded in his venture.

-----------------------------------------------
"Yes, and it would still be applicable as long as what you are doing is peaceful and passive." Stealing and harming someone else (and viewing nudity does no one harm) are not options in civil disobedience."

This is the old question about what does and does not constitute harm. I think causing unnecessary shock and offence to people innocently going about their business in public places is a sort of harm. I know you don't.
-------------------------------------------------

I think Bob partially is having a difference of opinion as far as harm than you do but I think hes just trying to be rational and not trying to say that someone should be punished for simply being nude but for doing some sort of lewd or sexual act along with the nudity, neither of which Mr Gough was doing, having the law where any form of harm can be seen as illegal can leave the law too much up to interpretation, if you can actually prove they did something harmful *i.e lewd or sexual acts* then the facts can prove he is doing something bad and not just someone's view or opinion of the situation. It would be based more on actual facts and evidence.

-------------------------------------------
"Various forum members have drawn a comparison between the way nudists often find themselves treated by the legal systems of some countries and the way other minority groups, eg gays or coloureds, are, or have until recently, been treated."

I know, Rex, and I don't believe these comparisons are valid for the reasons I have stated many times.
------------------------------------------------

Public Nudity is in many ways like these things though, most people feel they are disgusting or indecent when really they are usually harmless acts that really do little or no damage in and of themselves.

-----------------------------------------------
"with the very clear implication, that the English legal system does not generally do inappropriate things."

The English legal system is far from perfect - but it has been around for a very long time and during its existence it has been honed and fashioned into what it is now. It has its faults but in most respects it is sound enough.
------------------------------------------------

I think that some of its faults is that it is not more clear about the issue of nudity, they really should have a clear law stating what is and isnt legal about nudity and enforce it strictly. I think that public nudity should be allowed, except for some extreme exceptions *i.e lewd or sexual or promiscuous acts*.

-----------------------------------------------
"I understand that you were admitting that agents provocateur were used, in England, in fairly recent times, [in the correct legal manner, of course], to arrest and convict "men committing grossly indecent acts with other men in public lavatories".

Yes. And rightly so. There has been no legislative change that is preventing this from happening in the future. Public lavatories are for everyone to use to empty their bladders or bowels and to wash their hands. They are not provided to facilitate the sexual gratification of thrill-seekers.
-------------------------------------------------

I know its disgusting but if grown consenting men do it in the privacy of a bathroom stall then why is it anyone else's business, unless of course the bathroom is full and people actually need to use the toilet. Otherwise, why bother worrying about something so stupid, I mean yeah its nasty and should be wrong but its dumb to try to enforce something like that. You couldnt really without invading people's privacy in a bathroom.

------------------------------------------------
"I suppose that "committing grossly indecent acts" is a euphemism for engaging in conduct of a sexual nature, but it sounds a lot worse...

You can relax. The expression "gross indecency" was effectively rendered obsolete by the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
------------------------------------------------

Thats good, nudity isnt a gross indecency anyways.

-----------------------------------------------
"Besides which, I don't regard adult, consensual, sexual activity, where the participants have taken reasonable steps to get privacy, as "grossly indecent". Does English law still think so?"

Using public toilets for these activities does not amount to taking "reasonable steps to get privacy" in my book.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but if youre in the stall, you have privacy *unless the bathroom is full of course, then its just rude* so really there isnt any problem. Besides how do you inforce this without invading people's privacy while going to the bathroom?

-----------------------------------------------
It is disgusting and unacceptable behaviour when done in public places that people are likely to use.
-----------------------------------------------

Not when it isnt visible to them or likely to cause offense.

----------------------------------------------
Most regular homosexuals wouldn't dream of using public toilets for such purposes and there is no reason why they should.
----------------------------------------------

Well I wouldnt either, I wouldnt even dream of doing anything homosexual. I have a very nice girlfriend.

-----------------------------------------------
There are plenty of homosexual bars, pubs, clubs and discos, societies, associations, meeting places etc etc. So why use public lavatories?
-----------------------------------------------

Maybe they just get an urge and thats the closest available place that offers privacy.

------------------------------------------------
"Whatever Steve Gough is, he is not a con-man. He chose the direct approach, and otherwise he would not even have got publicity."

I wasn't advocating he wore a suit and tie - just, say, a towel and he could carry a placard asI said to Bob. That way he would have made his point at far less personal cost to himself, caused no offence to members of the public and saved the British taxpayer a fortune in policing,legal and imprisoning costs.
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah but he wouldnt have been taken seriously then and his point wouldnt have held any water. Also wouldnt it be cheaper for the british taxpayer to just ignore him or ask him to cover up than call the cops? I mean if youre so interested in costs, why facilitate a needless arrest and trial when this could be solved peacefully.

------------------------------------------------
"If two men kiss or hug each other wherever in public or go behind a closed door in a toilet to do whatever they might do there, in my eyes they haven't done anything that should be a crime."

Kari - at one stage in my town I wouldn't have dared use about 50% of the PUBLIC toilets because of these antisocial people. I have walked into them with my son when he was very young only to hear men moaning and banging behind toilet doors and shouting out what action they wanted performing on them next in graphic terms.
------------------------------------------------

Maybe the excessive noise and condoms and pictures were too much, but we are talking about the sex itself, not any results of it. Some gay men wouldnt do this, only the most sick of them would.

----------------------------------------------
They were also littered with used condoms and had the most disgusting pictures stuck to the walls.
----------------------------------------------

Yeah well leaving condoms on the ground is littering and having objectional pictures could be seen as illegal but we are talking about just the act of having sex in a bathroom stall *assuming no noise, condoms, or raunchy pictures exist*.

---------------------------------------------
The perverts had effectively prevented me from using a public facility that I pay to use through my taxes for their own thrills.
---------------------------------------------

You couldve still used it, the people having sex in the stall didnt prevent you from quickly doing your business and leaving. it only usually takes a couple minutes *unless youre taking a dump of course*.

------------------------------------------------
Of course it should be criminal. Decent people, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, don't behave in that way.
------------------------------------------------

Well I dont suggest or condone that people act this way but given the situation, its best to just let it go.

------------------------------------------------
"Do you really believe that if Steve Gough had done his walk wearing a suit and carrying a placard demanding the right to be nude that ANYONE would have taken any notice?"

Maybe - maybe not - but you are suggesting that the end justifies the means.
-------------------------------------------------

If he wants people to take him seriously *maybe not respect him* then he has to do his campaigning nude. People dont always favor what or how a person is trying to fight against, thats probably why its illegal and Mr Gough wants to promote his idea that it should be legal. I honestly dont think that people would like seeing Mr Gough if nudity was illegal, because if it was legal then people wouldnt mind and consequently he wouldnt have to be taking such drastic measures like he is taking. I dont get what the courts expect to obtain by locking this guy up, they're just wasting money, he wont stop until he reaches the end of his journey and all the cops are gonna do is waste more tax payer money arresting and trying him for a meaningless thing.

-----------------------------------------------
There are a lot of things you can do to ensure people take notice. You can plant a bomb. That'll do the trick. Doesn't make it right, though.
-----------------------------------------------

Planting a bomb and walking nude in public are two extremes. Besides planting a bomb is a FELONY, public nudity is at most a misdemeanor. Besides planting a bomb is without a doubt wrong and evil, while nudity is generally harmless and good.

------------------------------------------------
By the way, I wasn't advocating he wore a suit.
------------------------------------------------

I think he knows that, he just said he wasnt a con man, you dont have to wear a suit to be a con man.

Rex

01-15-2004, 11:24 PM

Hi Stu,
I would just like to say how horrified I was to read about what you and your son were subjected to. My feelings of disgust would most certainly have been similar to yours. I would have felt like taking the law into my own hands, in fact I would have at least banged on the door and told them, in very strong language, what I thought of them.
I would also have demanded that the authorities put an end to this outrage, make public the names of the offenders, and severely punish them.
The fact is, I've never experienced anything like this, sometimes I think I've led a sheltered life.
Having said that, I have no problems with gay people, and I get the feeling you haven't either.
Perhaps where we differ, is that, whilst I regard a toilet as being a most inappropriate place for sex, homosexual, lesbian, or heterosexual, [I have a romantic turn of mind], I don't think it should constitute a criminal offence, as long as the people outside the cubicle would have no reasonable way of knowing what was going on inside.
One of the problems with laws designed to control so-called moral situations, is that they can be, and sometimes are, used more sweepingly and/or indiscriminately than was perhaps the original intent of the law, and perhaps at the whim of just one senior official, who has, perhaps, a special sensibility to certain behavior.
It's like a fishing net, designed to catch the big fish, it also catches the little fish, and the harmless creatures that just happen to be part of the shoal.
A situation where the many are blamed for the sins, real or imaginary, of the few, is not unknown, both for gay people and for nudists. That can also apply to racial, religious and cultural minorities, and that is why this kind of analogy is often drawn, on this forum.
If, for instance, a university lecturer in your area were convicted of a particularly heinous crime, that would, in no way, reflect unfavourably on you, but if it were a nudist, or gay man, or Muslim, or Gypsy, or, in Australia, a poor Aboriginal, it would not necessarily be any different, but it could be.

pookie

01-16-2004, 08:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

Neither do I. I can't think of a real example of the British police using agents provocateur in these circumstances.

Agents provocateur are used to prosecute people selling alcohol to minors, and for drug dealers. I can't see how they would be used in public lavatories. Surveillance can do the job perfectly well.

Stu [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think it's time for you to come clean Stu.

If you are what you say you are (and God help the British legal system if that is the case) you would know that the U.K. police have admitted that they used agents provocateur. I worked as a solicitors clerk for a London firm some 15
years ago and was involved in at least two cases where this was true.

So you are either talking through that tiny hole in the top of your head, or you are not what you claim to be, or they don't have agents provocateur or your home planet. Perhaps it's time to go there back for a refresher course? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

01-16-2004, 10:32 AM

Rex

"Having said that, I have no problems with gay people, and I get the feeling you haven't either."

I don't, Rex. In fact many if not most of those who frequent public lavatories for gay sex aren't actually gay at all! A friend on mine is a police custody officer and he tells me that many are married men who are thrill-seeking. The danger of getting caught is part of the buzz they get out of it! That's why these characters don't use gay pubs, clubs and discos etc.

"I don't think it should constitute a criminal offence, as long as the people outside the cubicle would have no reasonable way of knowing what was going on inside."

The trouble is that the law can't discriminate in that way - it's either permitted or it's not. I'm not suggesting that it should be regardd as a serious crime, Rex, but that it should be a punishable offence of a relatively minor nature - which is exactly what it is. It is disorderly conduct in public.

"If, for instance, a university lecturer in your area were convicted of a particularly heinous crime, that would, in no way, reflect unfavourably on you, but if it were a nudist, or gay man, or Muslim, or Gypsy, or, in Australia, a poor Aboriginal, it would not necessarily be any different, but it could be."

I agree. People should be punished for what they do, not what they are. I just think that what people do in public should be acceptable behaviour to practically everybody else.

pookie

"If you are what you say you are (and God help the British legal system if that is the case) you would know that the U.K. police have admitted that they used agents provocateur."

Go and have a look in some of your law books on English law. Look in the index for "agent provocateur". Many law books make no reference to this at all because English Law doesn't recognise the concept. What it does take account of is an improper entrapment and this is defined in several pieces of caselaw, the one which sticks in my mind is R v Burton (2002) when the judge nicely summarised it as where "officers had gone beyond providing the opportunity for a crime and actively encouraged it". Actually encouraging the commission of a crime can not only negate a prosecution but can, in some circumstances, result in the agents themselves being prosecuted for incitement!

I have never heard the police actually admit that they have used "agents provocateur" and would be quite surprised if they did. Perhaps you can cite a verifiable reference for this? They wouldn't dispute the fact that they do actively afford the opportunity for people to offend every day. So do Customs Officers, Social Security investigators and even some local authority officials for that matter and this is a legitimate investigatory technique. But simply affording an opportunity isn't being an "agent provocateur" in my book. For that you would need, by words or deeds, to encourage someone to commit a crime that may not have been otherwise committed.

"I worked as a solicitors clerk for a London firm some 15 years ago and was involved in at least two cases where this was true."

Gosh - a solicitors' clerk - I probably trained some of your bosses! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Again I say that your definition of what amounts to an "agent provocateur" and mine are probably at variance. Where the police do use such methods (i.e. improper entrapment) they will almost certainly not succeed in achieving a conviction. This not only applies to the actual commission of the crime but also, for example, to the obtaining of an admission. The best known instance of this was the Rachel Nickell case about 11 or 12 years ago whereby the suspect was befriended by a plain clothes police woman and she enticed him into admitting murdering the girl.

"So you are either talking through that tiny hole in the top of your head, or you are not what you claim to be, or they don't have agents provocateur or your home planet. Perhaps it's time to go there back for a refresher course?"

Now you are just being offensive. I am quite happy to explain the finer points of criminal law with anyone, but:

(a) This is a thread about Steve Gough and isn't the place for such a discussion as it would be horribly off-topic, and

(b) I am not disposed to argue the nuts and bolts of English criminal law, a subject I have taught at graduate and post graduate level for more than 20 years, with someone whose only claim to expertise is that he worked as a solicitor's clerk some 15 years ago. If you choose not to believe me either about the law or who or what I am, that's your business.

Have a nice day. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Stu

pookie

01-16-2004, 11:28 AM

Stu, with each post you make you make yourself more pompous and ridiculous, a feat to be applauded as something incredible.

I ask you in this forum to declare the proof for what you claim to be.

You make me ashamed to be English.
Or a Martian. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

01-16-2004, 12:30 PM

Yeah pookie - or is it Bertie Potatohead - I'll let others decide who is the ridiculous one.

As for me proving I am what I say I am - OK, I confess - I'm really a hairdresser from Croydon with no legal knowledge at all. I make it all up as I go along. Happy?

Please feel free to ignore my posts from now on as I shall surely ignore yours.

Stu

pookie

01-16-2004, 04:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yeah pookie - or is it Bertie Potatohead - I'll let others decide who is the ridiculous one.

As for me proving I am what I say I am - OK, I confess - I'm really a hairdresser from Croydon with no legal knowledge at all. I make it all up as I go along. Happy?

Please feel free to ignore my posts from now on as I shall surely ignore yours.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So can we take that as a no then? You are not prepared to declare yourself?
Because what you have stated regards 'agent provacteurs" is simply not true is it?
And you know that.

You are a fraud.

As an Englishmen I feel it is my duty to defend the honour of my country against your constant drivel.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MikeJB

01-16-2004, 05:06 PM

------------------------------------------------
I don't, Rex. In fact many if not most of those who frequent public lavatories for gay sex aren't actually gay at all! A friend on mine is a police custody officer and he tells me that many are married men who are thrill-seeking. The danger of getting caught is part of the buzz they get out of it! That's why these characters don't use gay pubs, clubs and discos etc.
------------------------------------------------

Honeslty I think if they are there for this then they should be doing something that would give people a reasonable idea that thats why they are there and thats what they are doing in the stall and secondly it should actually be having to disturb someone and they should need to actually file a complaint, otherwise I dont think it should be a punishable offense merely for them being there and doing that because it is in privacy and its between two consenting adults so really no harm is done, except maybe to themselves.

-------------------------------------------------
The trouble is that the law can't discriminate in that way - it's either permitted or it's not.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but I think someone like you knows that the law isnt so clear cut and all I think he was saying is that if people had a reason to beleive thats what these people were going in there to do then it should be punishable. Personally even though I find it gross, I think that it should actually be having to disturb someone or be causing some sort of harm beyond the fact that theyre there doing what theyre doing, even if people know thats what they are doing, it should either have to bother someone or be causing some sort of disturbance or harm, otherwise its harmless and while gross, really isnt something that needs to be criminalized. it all should really depend on the situation, not necessarly weither its legal or not. if its in private, with two consenting adults and not bothering anyone, then its harmless.

------------------------------------------------
I'm not suggesting that it should be regardd as a serious crime, Rex, but that it should be a punishable offence of a relatively minor nature - which is exactly what it is. It is disorderly conduct in public.
-----------------------------------------------

Stu, I think hes trying to say that if it isnt bothering anyone or causing a disturbance then there is no disorder going on and in fact besides the men being in the stall having sex, every thing else is quite in order. I think at the very least, the men should get a warning or a fine.

------------------------------------------------
I agree. People should be punished for what they do, not what they are.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you cant arrest a nudist for doing something while letting a religous leader off for doing the same thing, thats discrimating.

----------------------------------------------
I just think that what people do in public should be acceptable behaviour to practically everybody else.
----------------------------------------------

If their behavior is not causing a disturbance or bothering or harming people, then its not unacceptable, because no one is bothered by it or even knows about it.

Rex

01-16-2004, 08:59 PM

Hey Guys,
I'm not taking sides here, but I believe both pookie and Mike are making some very valid points. And, Stu, maybe I can understand why you can feel offended, because I'm sensitive by nature, too.
But we need to address the message, not shoot the messenger, because we feel that his/her manner is disrepectful.
It's not uncommon for a comparatively junior employee to gather in-depth knowledge into the professional workings of their chosen field, in fact my own personal experience is that by doing so, one can be awarded with a pay-rise and/or promotion.
Sometimes, in the public mind, it's the common usage concept which is important, rather than the exact legal definition. [Although I do realise the need for exact legal definition.]
My work, for the most part, has revolved around sales and sales management. Long before I entered the workforce, I realised I had the ability to strike up a friendly exchange of greeting with someone I did not know.
This attribute is very useful in sales, particularly in the type of sales work known as "cold canvassing". It would also be essential for being a successful agent provocateur.
My understanding is that, many men choosing to make contact with prospective male sex partners in public toilets, are married. I, and many others, find this alarming, for obvious reasons, but being alarmed at an activity, does not, to me, give one the right to expect that activity to necessarily be made illegal.
But, being married, or in a male/female relationship, obviously means they can't be seen in a gay bar etc, so they choose the anonymity of a public toilet. Perhaps they are bi-sexual, perhaps homosexual, but married for companionship, or children, or outward "respectability", or from the mistaken belief that they can be "cured", a "solution" still promoted by some out-of-touch religious groups.
Whatever, I think I would make a pretty good agent provocateur, and I could make a friendly opening remark about the weather, or the latest sports results, knowing that could be construed as a "come-on", and could eventually lead to the conviction of an unfortunate man, who is really just a sad victim of his own circumstances.
We all know there are "good cops" and "bad cops"
and I'm sure there are also "good agents provocateur" and bad ones.
And, just like sales people, they sometimes see a need to "get some figures on the board".
I understand your comment that, in law, something is "either permitted or it's not", but I believe there is a legal principle in some jurisdictions, "De minimis non curat lex". Could this be applicable in England?

Bob S.

01-16-2004, 09:47 PM

stu, I'm still waiting. Page 17, yes or no? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"f his objective is just to set a record - a 'first'. But as I understand it that's not the main point, is it?"

His objective was to walk naked from Southern England to Northern Scotland and raise a political point as well. I agree he went about this wrongly by not having others with him or some other alteratoions, but the nudity was the main point. It would be like gathering a group together for a cause and not having any speakers. He was saying that nudity should not be against the law, and that people should not have any problems with it. He could not have done that with a sign.

"I think causing unnecessary shock and offence to people innocently going about their business in public places is a sort of harm."

It also goes back to your belief that you have a basic human right not to have any unnecessary negative experiences in public places. And I feel that is wrong and that something harmful should only be made illegal when it registers a lasting impression. If the negative consequenecs are over quickly (within a few hours) for a majority of the population, then it should be illegal. Physical harm is not counted in this.

Bob S.

MikeJB

01-16-2004, 09:52 PM

If the negative consequenecs are over quickly (within a few hours) for a majority of the population, then it should be illegal. Physical harm is not counted in this.
-------------------------------------------------

I understand what you meant Bob but when you said the "If the negative consequenecs are over quickly (within a few hours) for a majority of the population, then it should be illegal." part, didnt you mean that "then it should be legal?" Im asking this because shouldnt something that disturbs people only for a few hours and quickly goes away, isnt that something that shouldnt be a crime?

pookie

01-17-2004, 01:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

"I worked as a solicitors clerk for a London firm some 15 years ago and was involved in at least two cases where this was true."

Gosh - a solicitors' clerk - I probably trained some of your bosses! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Again I say that your definition of what amounts to an "agent provocateur" and mine are probably at variance.
Stu [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Interesting that you choose this as an answer.

I mearly stated that in the year I worked as a clerk -which was just a fill in between jobs, I sat in on at least two cases where agents provocateur were used. That, as a fact, something you seem unable to ackowledge.
And it was not "my definition" -it was that of the court.
Your definition of any event seems to be unique to yourself !

Again Stu, I ask you to declare yourself as what you really are. Come out of the closet !

Rik

01-17-2004, 01:23 PM

Steve Gough has been released from prison as is currently just under 70 miles from his target.

Let's hope he'll be allowed to continue his walk.

Rik

Bob S.

01-17-2004, 08:59 PM

Yes Mike, sometimes you just have to read what I mean. It should say it should not be illegal or it should be legal. I was writing both sentences at the same time.

Bob S.

pookie

01-18-2004, 01:35 PM

Well, this thread went quiet didn't it?

Kind of debunks the old saying "empty vessels make the most noise "

Incidently, is there a way of finding out who is the most prolific poster ?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

David77

01-18-2004, 07:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by pookie:

Incidently, is there a way of finding out who is the most prolific poster ?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, click on "Search User Profiles(New)" listed at the top.

aunaturelone

01-22-2004, 12:09 PM

Just hear on the Fox Report (Shepherd Smith) that Steve Gough just completed his trek. The announcer did an even handed job of explaining why Gough did it (for body awareness, rolling back nudity laws etc.) but then added that we were already aware of our bodies and would like to be less aware of his.

Oh well.

NakedGary

01-22-2004, 12:56 PM

Here is the latest on Steve Gough "The Naked Rambler" It's over he has completed the journey and needs food, a warm bed, and rest. Then clothes back on, and back to home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3420685.stm

AUDIO:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39771000/rm/_39771203_cutrambler.ram

NakedGary
javascript:SendLinkByEMail('C:\DownLoad%20Folder\_ 39771203_cutrambler.ram',%20'Stephen%20Gough')

colinavdi

01-22-2004, 01:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NakedGary:
Here is the latest on Steve Gough "The Naked Rambler" It's over he has completed the journey and needs food, a warm bed, and rest. Then clothes back on, and back to home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3420685.stm

AUDIO:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39771000/rm/_39771203_cutrambler.ram

NakedGary
javascript:SendLinkByEMail('C:\DownLoad%20Folder\_ 39771203_cutrambler.ram',%20'Stephen%20Gough') <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

colinavdi

01-22-2004, 01:18 PM

A little information from England - in the final week of steve's efforts, the sunday morning religious magazine programme on the BBC - Heaven and earth - devoted the majority of its programme to an item about Steve particularly mentioning how much he had been delayed in his venture in northern Scotland. To go hand in hand with this, they had a panel of three people to stimulate discussion and a lot of viewers sent in emails and made phone calls. The majority of responses were supportive and very few criticized nude recreation. Some people were uncomfortable with the public nature of Steve's nudity,... its alright on certain beaches or other places but not on our high streets......

The panel cosisted ofa female journalist who was determined to be anti nude rec (who was not convincing), a pro rec guy who first encounterd nudity on a naturist beach in Dorset as a child with family and a psycholgist who sat mainly on the fence.

All in all it was an intersting sunday morning viewing and beat the average sodom and gomorrah sermon. looks like we brits are not so stuffy as some might think

MikeJB

01-22-2004, 05:26 PM

Yeah just imagine how faster this wouldve gotten over with if people wouldve just given that guy a break and if the police werent so stuck up and arrested him then he wouldnt have gotten such negative publicity. I think some people just need to mind their own business and not call the cops for every damned thing they see. Cant these people get the notion that nudity isnt bad?

Naturist Mark

01-22-2004, 06:15 PM

I don't think Gough got negative publicity. He got exactly what he was looking for -lots of opportunities to air his views in the press. If the police had ignored him there would have been no story and he would be unknown outside of body freedom activist circles.

What do you want to bet that the Scottish authorities decided to let Steve finish his trek in peace just to avoid any more publicity and to be rid of him?

-Mark

Rik

01-22-2004, 11:41 PM

See news report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3420685.stm . Congratulations to Steve Gough for finally completing his trek. It has made the front page of this morning's Times, one of the most prestigious newspapers in the UK, and was also announced on BBC television this morning.

Rik

Rex

01-23-2004, 12:27 AM

I hope he gets into the Guinness Book of Records.
And I bet most of the nudists and official nudist organisations who, for whatever reason, could not be seen to support him, are secretly delighted at his achievement.

pookie

01-23-2004, 02:08 AM

Congrats to Steve Gough -he had the guts and nuts to do what most of us wouldn't do.

Whatever the general outcome of his trek, it generated publicity and gave the news people something to fill there pages and timeslots with therefore it was job creation and Steve deserves to be honoured by The Queen ,although where she would pin an M.B.E. is anyones guess.

One slight negative is that the thousands of Britons who have been traumatised by Steves (or anyone else's) naked body ( I'm curious - is it genitals that are traumatising or an exposed ankle, small of the back or collarbone perhaps? ) will now be able to claim treatment on our overburdend National Health Service. although possibly some of the most traumatised will have private health insurance so they'll be ok.

To celebrate Steve's walk, I suggest we all club together and send Stu down to London for a luxury weekend at a nice West End hotel were he can put the bathrobe on over his clothes and bathe in his overcoat.
A theatre trip might be nice and soothing for him, there are some good shows on - maybe"Puppetry of The Penis" or maybe "A Woman Of No Importance"?

aunaturelone

01-23-2004, 07:49 AM

Scotland in January? Brrrr!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Naked Rambler Reaches Journey's End

LONDON (Reuters) - A Briton fulfilled his ambition Thursday of walking naked through the length of the country, despite being arrested several times over the course of his half-year trek.

Steve Gough, 44, reached John O'Groats at the very northern tip of Scotland, after a 900-mile walk which began at Land's End in the southwest corner of England in the middle of last year.

Walking often in near freezing temperatures, he was wearing only socks, walking boots, a hat and a rucksack.

Gough said he was blazing a trail against antiquated British indecency laws and establishment attitudes.

The unemployed truck driver was arrested several times during his journey after complaints from the public. Not even two brief prison sentences and sometimes outright public hostility put him off his quest.

Speaking as he approached his final destination, Gough said it would take time to change people's minds about nudity, but hoped the campaign would be successful.

"This is just one step in the whole process of making people aware about our bodies because we are so paranoid about them," Gough said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I bet he was in great physical shape when he was done, too.

shãybare

01-23-2004, 10:47 AM

I am so glad he never quit and he achieved his goal. I applaud him.

NakedGary

01-23-2004, 02:11 PM

BBC news and audio on Steves Gough [Naked Rambler] end of Journey

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3420685.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/39771000/rm/_39771203_cutrambler.ram

Jochanaan

01-23-2004, 04:42 PM

He did it! That's great! Three cheers!

MikeJB

01-23-2004, 10:35 PM

Yeah those police were just wasting their time arresting Gough because they shouldve known better that someone who was as determined as he was, would try to reach the end of his journey no matter who or what got in his way. I think the best thing they couldve done is just got outta his way and let him finish and just have that be the end of it, which obviously now it is, I hope theyre happy now, they can go back to their stuck up prudish lives and never have to see his nakedness again.

Rex

01-25-2004, 12:19 AM

Steve is an ex-member of the Royal Marines, one of the tough British elite fighting groups.
Maybe someone could tell us what their motto is.
It may be that Steve was living up to it.

Rik

01-25-2004, 01:54 AM

The Royal Marines' motto is "Per Mare Per Terram" meaning 'by sea, by land'.

Well I guess he lived up to half of it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

MikeJB

01-25-2004, 12:55 PM

Yeah all he's gotta do now is go all the way across the atlantic ocean naked in a boat and then he would acheive the "by sea" part. Hopefully its an enclosed boat for when it gets cold and rainy though /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rex

01-25-2004, 05:35 PM

I believe at least one nude relay team has swum the English Channel from England to France. If Steve [or any of his supporters] are reading this, that may be an achievable objective for him.

Naturist Mark

01-25-2004, 06:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
I believe at least one nude relay team has swum the English Channel from England to France. If Steve [or any of his supporters] are reading this, that may be an achievable objective for him. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I read someplace or another that many of the early attempts at long distance swims such as across the English Channel were made nude. Wearing a suit (especially pre lycra) on such long swims not only slowed the swimmer, but caused severe chafing and open sores.

I doubt Steve Gough would be a candidate for such a swim unless he has extensive experience in long distance swims. It isn't a walk in the country (or across).

-Mark

Gary Naturist

01-27-2004, 01:54 AM

Yea, Steve! I really admire his courage in following through on something he believes in.

I'd like to know about the last part of his trip. Was he released early? Did the police finally decide to just ignore him?

Gary

Rik

01-27-2004, 02:41 AM

Gary

Yes, Steve was released early which is typical in the UK. As I understand it he was released at night away from the glare of publicity which enabled him to quickly pick up the route where he left off - about 70 miles short of his goal.

The police, apparently, commented that they hoped no-one else would complain as clearly they didn't want to get further involved. They have only acted on actual complaints, which they are obliged to do, so it's probable that the police acted as well as they could in the circumstances.

I suspect the local courts are also pleased he's completed his walk - it'll save wasting a lot of public money in unnecessary trials and imprisonment.

Steve continues to face other charges - all in England - which have been postponed because of his imprisonment in Scotland. It remains to be seen how these are handled.

He's due to appear on national television this afternoon in a chat show. I'll let you know what happens.

Rik

Rik

01-27-2004, 11:55 PM

Steve Gough was interviewed live on UK national TV yesterday afternoon (The Richard and Judy Show, Channel 4) to talk about his walk. He appeared naked apart from his hat and hiking boots although careful camera angles ensured that his genitals were obscured.

Interestingly neither Richard (Madely) nor Judy (Finnegan) made any comment which might be taken as innuendo and treated the whole interview in a serious manner and even their body language suggested they were quite at ease with a naked man sitting opposite them. The interview focussed on his motives rather than the supposed effect he might have had on other people.

They also showed a few films clips: one of him beaing arrested by the police, one of his arrival at John O'Groats and one of him being cheered on by various people en route. Apart from the police arrest there was nothing in the film clips or the interview which could be construed as negative.

At the end of the interview Steve was congratulated on his achievement and Richard Madely said "You're a man to be honoured."

A good result I think.

Rik

Gary Naturist

01-28-2004, 12:14 AM

Thanks, Rik, for the update. I'm delighted at your report of the BBC interview. Just the sort of thing that I had hoped would result from his completing the walk.

Gary

Rex

01-28-2004, 12:16 AM

An excellent result.
I would imagine that Steve would have generally got a similar reception in Yorkshire, too, despite Stu's protestations to the contrary.
I remember seeing Billy Connolley nude on Australian TV. I think it was during a "Tour of Scotland" program. Why wasn't Billy arrested?

Rik

01-28-2004, 07:32 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rex:
Why wasn't Billy arrested? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Probably because when Billy Connelly does it it's for comedy purposes which, apparently, is OK because people understand the comedic nature of nudity just as they understand its sexual nature.

What some people don't seem to understand is nudity for its own sake which I guess is why they condemn it.

Rik

Rex

01-28-2004, 09:21 AM

In 1999, a team of 6 nude relay swimmers crossed the English Channel. Their plan was for each person to swim for two periods of one hour.
In 2000, I think it was basically the same team which established a record for a relay swim the length of Loch Ness. Evidently Nessie, the famous monster, is nudist friendly, and didn't complain to the cops.
I would think that anyone who can walk hundreds of miles nude, sometimes in near freezing conditions, could probably handle being part of a swimming relay team.
If anyone complained, all Steve would have to do is assume a Scottish accent, and tell a few jokes.

aunaturelone

01-30-2004, 11:08 AM

IIRC that team consisted of people of both genders from the mid teens to their 60s or somesuch.

The best "suit" for distance swimming in cold water is vaseline or oil and nothing else.