The latest on Steve Gough

[Gary Naturist]

Here is an excerpt from a letter received recently by a friend of Steve Gough:

...my accommodation has been upgraded from the punishment cell out back in the cold, to one off one of the halls -- think of "Porridge", the comedy on TV, and it's not dissimilar. I've got a bit more room to walk back and forth (four steps instead of two), and there's a TV, kettle and heating.

I'm still kept separate from the rest of the inmates, only allowed out for a shower once a day. To be honest, it doesn't bother me much (isolation) as it means I have the whole cell to myself, everyone else shares, so I've got more room and I can do exactly what I want without compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised if my stay inside is for a good deal longer, maybe even stretching to years. My plan, at least for my next trial (Nov 7th Dingwall) is to again represent myself, but this time insist on my nakedness in court to the extent of refusal to cooperate if it is turned down. This runs the risk of contempt, but it's a joke for the trial to be considered fair if the judge considers it improper for the naked human body to be seen in a public place, such as the court.

I'm not interested in getting off on technical grounds, it means nothing and gets us nowhere. The acceptance of naked humans as innocent is a premise that needs to be brought into people's consciousness through acts that challenge conventions based in fear.

I saw a programme last night that documented Gandhi in his fight against the authorities in South Africa. His first stint in prison was for nine months. Even things so obviously wrong as the rights he was fighting for needed individuals prepared to suffer for their cause.

In fact, he did it with an acceptance and dignity of someone who knew that truth would win the day -- eventually. I'm convinced that what we are fighting for will also win -- we've just got to show them we are serious...

Yesterday he was convicted AGAIN - this time of two offences - and he was remanded back to prison for a couple more weeks pending sentence. Typical of his idiotic stance, he refused even to dress for court! It is apparent that he intends to dig in his heels. So be it. The courts owe it to the wider, and generally law-abading public, to dig in their heels too, right to the bitter end.

The letter nicely sums up Mr Gough's attitude. With him there is no room for compromise. He cares not a jot about the feelings of others - as far as he is concerned everyone who is upset at his behaviour should just get over it.

At one stage I did feel rather sorry for him. I hoped he would moderate a little, compromise, capitalise on what he had done so far, and then return home to his family and re-assume his responsibilities. I was wrong. The sheriff who called him "self-obsessed" was right. From what I have seen here it is clear that decent naturists would never dream of conducting themselves as he has done. They have too much consideration for the feelings and comfort of others; too much personal and social responsibility and respect for society. Mr Gough is fixated with trying to force everyone else to accept his personal ethos - like it or lump it.

Long may he rot!

Stu

[Rocket]

Put him in prison...

I had hoped the loon would come to his senses during his incarceration, apologize for his actions, advise the court that he won't continue, and ask the Judge for a conditionl discharge..and get what remains of his life back together.

Too bad the Brits don't have some of the Laws like Singapore...because a couple canes on his bare buttocks might have addressed the situation better..

I would say a minimum 2 years in prison but it's sad that UK taxpayers have to support this loser just the same..

[TXK NUDE]

Who are you people? Leave Steve Gough alone! Don't you realize that his "trek" isn't hurting anyone, nude or not. If people would just let him finish his walk without harrassing or arresting him, it would all be over, and he would go home. GEEZ, every time he gets arrested, or harrassed, his name is brought back to the news, and he gets more publicity. If you really want this to go away...leave him alone!

I feel Gough has a political point to make and of course that would include him going nude during the trial. What sense does it make for him to cover up when his message is that nudity isn't harmful and should be legal?

That Rocket calls him a loon is no surprise. She has no understanding of his motives at all and is not interested in trying to put herself in his shoes to try and figure out what he's thinking and why. Clothes minded is closed minded!

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rocket:
Too bad the Brits don't have some of the Laws like Singapore...because a couple canes on his bare buttocks might have addressed the situation better.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So physical assault is an acceptable response to nudity?

Were the hooligans who attacked and beat Mr. Gough this summer acceptable too?

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Steve Gough is a champion of freedom, much like William Wallace aka "Braveheart". Champions of freedom in South Africa, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the United States, India and even in the UK itself have withstood the tyranny of British rule.

Sic semper tyrannis!

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Arrest the nude!!!!!!

Keep DRUG DEALERS on the streets.

[NudeAl]

I think he wants to be made a marter and the authorities seem willing to make him one.

That he is totally unwilling to comprimise indicates that he will be assured of this. Those who are unwilling to bend will eventually break. I don't take the same position as Stu or Rocket, but I realize that we will only make progress by inches not miles. We should recognize when a battle is unwinnable and take whatever gains may be had then consider another way to attack the problem.

TXK

"Don't you realize that his "trek" isn't hurting anyone, nude or not."

It isn't now because he's now in prison. He has, however, caused shock, alarm and offence to ordinary people going about their lawful business.

"If people would just let him finish his walk without harrassing or arresting him, it would all be over, and he would go home. GEEZ, every time he gets arrested, or harrassed, his name is brought back to the news, and he gets more publicity. If you really want this to go away...leave him alone!"

Strangely enough people are already beginning to forget about him. I had some serious searching to do to find out what the outcome of his trial was yesterday! The point is that he's challenging the rule of law in our country. He must not be allowed to get away with it or others may follow his example.

cyndiann

"I feel Gough has a political point to make and of course that would include him going nude during the trial."

You can make political points with words. All he succeeded in doing was to antagonise the judge and confirm what was already suspected about him - that he is an obsessive who wants his own way - all his own way - and all the time. He makes no compromises. Neither should the law in his case.

"What sense does it make for him to cover up when his message is that nudity isn't harmful and should be legal?"

cyndiann, nudity isn't harmful to you because you are accustomed to seeing it. For those of us who aren't it can be very distressing and offensive. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif That is harm of a sort.

"Clothes minded is closed minded!"

Mr Gough is trying to get his own way by force - not violence, but force nontheless. He is the one who is unwilling to make any compromise - he is the one who refuses to recognise that there may be another perspective on the issue that concerns him other than his own. It is he, therefore, who is the closed-minded one.

naturistmark1

"Were the hooligans who attacked and beat Mr. Gough this summer acceptable too?"

The hooligans who attacked Mr Gough were reprehensible. Their behaviour was indefensible and I hope they were caught and punished. I can understand their anger but can never justify their behaviour.

Trailscout

"Steve Gough is a champion of freedom, much like William Wallace aka "Braveheart"".

He is the champion of the freedom of a tiny number of individuals to behave in such a way that would cause ordinary people to fear using their own public places.

But I do like the comparison with William Wallace. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If you ignore the film "Braveheart" and instead read the proper history of Mr Wallace you will see that he was a serial rapist, a sadist who enjoyed watching people, including nuns and even children, killed "for sport", and for these reasons was eventually betrayed by his closest aides. A dreadful man!

"Champions of freedom in South Africa, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the United States, India and even in the UK itself have withstood the tyranny of British rule."

An odious exhibitionist is locked away in a Scottish prison for offensive behaviour and you are talking about "the tyranny of British rule"? This sounds like something off Monty Python's Flying Circus!

Do I take it from your comments here that you are not a history scholar? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Just a hunch!

Rocket

"I wonder why this guy is segregated from other prisoners..because if he was in with general population doing this..he'll get beat up so bad he'll be begging to be clothed."

Now that's quite an interesting point, isn't is? If a bunch of hardened convicts can put up with people like themselves (theives, burglars etc) but they find a man who walks about naked to be so offensive that he has to be protected from them, what does THAT say about the public attitude towards public nudity? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Good point!!!

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
The hooligans who attacked Mr Gough were reprehensible. Their behaviour was indefensible and I hope they were caught and punished. I can understand their anger but can never justify their behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu,

Do you also find this sentiment reprehensible:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Too bad the Brits don't have some of the Laws like Singapore...because a couple canes on his bare buttocks might have addressed the situation better.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-Mark

Mark,

"Do you also find this sentiment reprehensible:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too bad the Brits don't have some of the Laws like Singapore...because a couple canes on his bare buttocks might have addressed the situation better.. "

No I don't. Our system has imprisoned Mr Gough at some considerable inconvenience to Mr Gough himself and his family and at considerable expense to the taxpayer. In spite of that he seems willing to continue to offend. A humanely administered form of corporal punishment following due process of law for certain types of antisocial behaviour is at least worthy of consideration as an alternative to extended incarceration.

That doesn't mean to say I'm advocating such a punishment should necessarily be applied in Mr Gough's case - but I do not consider the suggestion of it to be reprehensible as an alternative means of deterring certain types of offending.

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

Other than defying authority, what has Steve done that warrants such harsh treatment? He may have offended a few people. However, offending someone should not be cause for criminal action. If so, Stu and Rocket would both be in jail.

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

It seems to me that it is legitmate to prosecute someone for frightening someone else if the person threatened the other. Otherwise, anyone could be thrown in jail for coming up behind a person and yelling "Boo".

We delegate authority to the police and courts so that they can protect us from them. We are their bosses, not the other way around. The police and the courts are protecting the public from something that is not a threat to them.

How ricidiculous!

Gary

[soundman]

Garynaturist - The Voice of Reason!!

Gary

"Other than defying authority, what has Steve done that warrants such harsh treatment?"

He has repeatedly offended and repeatedly defied authority and made it perfectly clear that he intends to continue. What are the authorities supposed to do?

"He may have offended a few people. However, offending someone should not be cause for criminal action."

He had no right to cause offence to anybody going about their business using a public place. Before setting off he knew perfectly well that he would cause offence to some people and criminal action would be likely. His problems are entirely of his own making.

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

Frightened at seeing a nude man - this sight DOES cause fear to women. My wife or my daughter or my mother would have been afraid and disgusted in the same circumstances. There was no need for him to behave in that way.

"It seems to me that it is legitmate to prosecute someone for frightening someone else if the person threatened the other. Otherwise, anyone could be thrown in jail for coming up behind a person and yelling "Boo"."

He has been kept in jail for repeatedly offending, repeatedly defying the court and making it crystal clear that he intends to continue.

"We delegate authority to the police and courts so that they can protect us from them. We are their bosses, not the other way around. The police and the courts are protecting the public from something that is not a threat to them."

I applaud the police and the courts for protecting my family, myself, my public places and the rule of law in my country from Mr Gough. Nobody is preventing him from enjoying nudity - if that's what he's into - but when you enter the public domain you must respect the values and sensibilities of others. But as we know, Mr Gough couldn't care less about other people.

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I applaud the police and the courts for protecting my family, myself, my public places and the rule of law in my country from Mr Gough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you for real? Are you seriously afraid of Steve? Are you afraid of someone who believes in something you don't? What he did is sooo rare that I doubt it is hurting your life. Plus, the lack of ever seeing someone practicing that belief is what causes the fear in the frist place. It is simple fear of the unknown. The only cure for that is education.

soundman

"Are you for real? Are you seriously afraid of Steve?"

I'm afraid of what he and a few other vociferous extremists are trying to turn my society into. I do NOT want to live in a society in which nudity is commonplace in public. And that's for real! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Are you afraid of someone who believes in something you don't?"

I'm not afraid of what he believes. He's not in prison for his beliefs but for his behaviour.

"What he did is sooo rare that I doubt it is hurting your life."

I want to keep it that way. I don't want the authorities in my country to be passive whilst he and people like him behave in such a vile and outrageous way in our public places.

"Plus, the lack of ever seeing someone practicing that belief is what causes the fear in the frist place. It is simple fear of the unknown."

I know exactly what naked bodies look like - I just don't want to see them in public places.

"The only cure for that is education."

Other than forcing me against my will to see something that I find revolting when going about my business in public places, what sort of 'education' do you propose I should have?

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Other than forcing me against my will to see something that I find revolting when going about my business in public places, what sort of 'education' do you propose I should have? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WHY is it revolting? Answer that and you will see the education you need.

"WHY is it revolting? Answer that and you will see the education you need."

I did! I posted it on another thread. I explained that the offence experienced is a conditioned emotion brought about as a result of a mixture of parental values and long-established cultural and societal norms. Are such feelings based on pure logic? No. But the feelings are nontheless experienced and consequently are real and significant to the individual. Do I want to change the way I feel about nudity? No thanks - but if I change my mind I'll let you know.

Stu

[soundman]

Yes, I read your non-answer.

You still don't say why you find it revolting. Is it the shapes, the hair, what and why?

Soundman

I think I expanded on my answer since you read it. Please look again. What I find offensive is the CONTEXT rather than just the nudity. If I saw Mr Gough naked in the shower at my gym I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but on the street in that state and I want to see him handcuffed and bundled into a police car 'tout suite'!

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Soundman

I think I expanded on my answer since you read it. Please look again. What I find offensive is the CONTEXT rather than just the nudity. If I saw Mr Gough naked in the shower at my gym I wouldn't bat an eyelid, but on the street in that state and I want to see him handcuffed and bundled into a police car 'tout suite'!

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not logical at all. Doesn't respect everyone's right to be.

"Not logical at all."

Feelings and emotions aren't derived from logic.

"Doesn't respect everyone's right to be."

It respects everyone's right to exist. But it doesn't respect everyone's right to be naked in circumstances that cause offence to everyone else.

Stu

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

"Feelings and emotions aren't derived from logic."

Then why lock other people up because of the feelings in YOUR head? Isn't that forcing your ways on another?

"It respects everyone's right to exist. But it doesn't respect everyone's right to be naked in circumstances that cause offence to everyone else."

I doubt is "everone" is offended. Most are amused and even find it funny.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wonder how much prison time Gough is going to get:

1 year, 2 years

Hope it's good a long!!!

[soundman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rufus2:
I just wonder how much prison time Gough is going to get:

1 year, 2 years

Hope it's good a long!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh no!! Another one.

[Trailscout]

The prophet Isaiah walked nude for three years as a warning of the imminent captivity of the Hebrew people. (Captives were commonly led off into slavery nude). Oddly no one had Isaiah arrested, stoned or condemned. I am not saying that there was no body shame in that land, but it obviously was not as extreme as in Britain today.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by soundman:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rufus2:
I just wonder how much prison time Gough is going to get:

1 year, 2 years

Hope it's good a long!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Oh no!! Another one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Naw, just another persona.

http://webspinners.futura.net/apurdy/rocket_scientist.gif
Got Rocket Science?

TrailScout,

If you are going to talk of the bible it is recorded in what are the last days, and the world is seperated sheeps and goats, and one of the things to determine who is to be a sheep or a goat is if people who were naked were clothed. What was done for them.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in quoting the bible, but Gough has been extremely insistant on walking nude, and offending the fine UK people. It's a shame that they have to now furnish this dead beat with a rent-free home, free food, recreation for ? If caning was available, this matter could have been settled LONG AGO, and for far less cost than it will now.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rufus2:
It's a shame that they have to now furnish this dead beat with a rent-free home, free food, recreation for ? If caning was available, this matter could have been settled LONG AGO, and for far less cost than it will now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket,

Why the new name?

http://webspinners.futura.net/apurdy/rocket_scientist.gif
Got Rocket Science?

[soundman]

Who's choice was it to give Steve free rent, food, etc.?

Change the law and let him walk. Get rid of dress codes and offeneded poeple. Simple.

Who's Rocket?

I am new here but I did see some of the posts from before. Most people aren't impressed with Mr Gough. I just wondering how long this guy is going to be in prison. What do you think? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SoundMan,

Why don't we do this?

Bring back a birch stick, and for anti-social behaviour we use it!!! I reckon 5 cane whacks with a warning if he's caught offending again will take care of the indecency once and for all.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rufus2:
Who's Rocket?

I am new here but I did see some of the posts from before. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Rocket, your 'voice' is unmistakable. No one is fooled.

http://webspinners.futura.net/apurdy/rocket_scientist.gif
Got Rocket Science?

[NudeAl]

I guess you just decided to jump in and join this conversation and somehow didn't recognize one of the most virulent posters on this site? Yeah right!

By the way why stop with caneing? Why not just go get a rope? Why bother with a trial? Why don't a bunch of rightously indignant citizens grab some torches and bust him out of jail and string him up? While we're at it why don't we burn a few books and ship some more undesirables off to the concentration camps? I think you're arm band is showing.

Are you sure you are on the right board?

NaturaistMark1,

Sorry but you are mistaken. I guess the voice of reason, because it sounds so much alike, can get confusing.

I don't think he should be hanged for this, but his constant insistance to walk nude, and contrary to the UK Law and Court has to be dealt with. It WILL be dealt with. I see he's not being held with other prisoners, and I suspect that is for good reason.

Anyway, how long do you think he's going to go to jail? When he finally gets out of this, what employment prospects will he have? He'll have a criminal record. What of his ex-wife and children? These are things to consider for this guy.

[NudeAl]

Oh there you are Rocket! Hard to see you there under that rock. Just how many different personalities do you have?

[Bob S.]

You see Mark and Rufus, Rocket was a rude individual who was kicked off these forums for not following the rules. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Bob S.

NudeAl,

You are paronoid!!! I guess you think this person called Rocket was the judge who found Mr Gough guilty of 2 counts, and put him behind bars again!

Curious of what you think Mr Gough's sentance will be? I am expecting some serious prison time for him. Hopefully he'll be allowed with the general population because it's just too expensive to confine someone individualy.

[Corky]

You guys are good. You are right, Rufus2 IS Rocket. I checked the IP addresses. I banned that IP for a while because of too many complaints against Rocket.
Good luck and have fun!

[NudeAl]

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck it's probably a duck.

Same gramatical errors and same tired rantings kind of gave it away though. Something just smelled funny, kinda Rockety.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Three cheers for Corky!

Hip hip! HUZAH!
HUZAH!
HUZAH! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I thought the two sounded an awful lot alike--the same childish rantings and ravings.

[Trailscout]

Is there any way of peeking underneath Rocket's IP address and seeing if Rocket is a boy or a girl. I kinda wondered about that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Bob S.]

Trail,

That was the only thing I actually believed about Rocket. That she was a woman. Everything else was questionable.

Bob S.

[averagejoe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Now that's quite an interesting point, isn't is? If a bunch of hardened convicts can put up with people like themselves (theives, burglars etc) but they find a man who walks about naked to be so offensive that he has to be protected from them, what does THAT say about the public attitude towards public nudity? Good point!!!

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What that says, Stu, is that you are known by the company you keep...

[Nude in the North]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He has repeatedly offended and repeatedly defied authority and made it perfectly clear that he intends to continue. What are the authorities supposed to do?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Change the Law. Make public nudity legal. Allow people to dress (or not) the way they want. Teach the public that their parents were Wrong about nudity. Accept other views. Learn to tollerate differences.

Allow Freedom to grow.

You have nothing to Fear , but Fear itself.

Steve

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
Is there any way of peeking underneath Rocket's IP address and seeing if Rocket is a boy or a girl. I kinda wondered about that. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm pretty certain he is a young guy. No young woman living in modern Canada would be unfamiliar with how a tampon is worn (he suggested in one post that clothes were needed to 'hold' them in place).

When Rocket comes back (by whatever name), let's hope he will take a new tact. If that happens we need to welcome it. Different points of view are good, discussing them respectfully makes all sides better understand not only other viewpoints, but their own as well. I value Stu's thoughtful contributions, even when in disagreement.

-Mark

[Trailscout]

Mark,
Did you ever see that movie "Carrie"?
I hope Rocket doesn't have the power of telekenesis! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

When he/she comes back, I will give him/her a second chance. Dispite all the putdowns, I have a feeling he/she is listening to us a lot more than he/she is admitting.

Steve

"Change the Law. Make public nudity legal. Allow people to dress (or not) the way they want. Teach the public that their parents were Wrong about nudity. Accept other views. Learn to tollerate differences."

My parents weren't wrong. In fact, they didn't particularly teach me that nudity was something wrong or sinful. And I'm perfectly able to tolerate differences betwen people. But when you are in the public domain you have a duty to behave in such a way that most people find acceptable - you respect the fact that it's everybody's environment and everybody has the use these places and, when there, they have a right to be comfortable. That has to mean that some people's preferences about not wearing clothes has to be confined to private places or places set aside expressly for that purpose.

Your suggestion would bring utopia for those naturists who want that; it would bring hell on earth for those of us who find public nudity offensive.

What a great compromise..NOT!!!

naturistmark1

It's a shame about Rocket - and right now I'm feeling a bit isolated here again. I didn't agree with everything she said, nor the way it was said, but it was nice to have someone else here who shares my concerns about public nudity. I think she was intelligent and her intentions were good.

I respect the judgement of the administrators here. They must have a hard job keeping everyone happy and I appreciate the fact that I'm still allowed to post here a whole year after my first contraversial contribution.

It might surprise you to learn that, in spite of my profound and deep-seated opposition to PUBLIC nudity, when in conversation with others about naturism, I express an enormous amount of respect and admiration for naturists as a group.

Trailscout

"When he/she comes back, I will give him/her a second chance. Dispite all the putdowns, I have a feeling he/she is listening to us a lot more than he/she is admitting."

I think she'll be back. Or at least I hope she will.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's a shame about Rocket - and right now I'm feeling a bit isolated here again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey, you've got us nuddies haven't you? <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I think she was intelligent and her intentions were good. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well it depends what you mean by intelligent but I don't believe she was a naturist as she claimed - she used the word 'naturalist' three times which is a mistake only non-naturists make. She also claimed to be at university but her use of grammar and punctuation was, in my opinion, a bit too eccentric for a university level student.

Telling lies doesn't make her intentions look too good.

Rik

[Rik]

According to this report (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_836505.html) Steve Gough was found guilty of "walking naked in the presence of the public in circumstances likely to produce a road safety hazard ".

So now nudity is a road safety issue. Whatever next?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
So now nudity is a road safety issue. Whatever next? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course! It really has nothing to do with nudity, just safety.

The distracting sight of a nude pedestrian just happens to cause a dangerous inattention to safe driving.

But it is the 'distraction' that is the issue, not the nudity.

That is why constables all over the UK are also rounding up people sporting bad haircuts, hip-hop baggy trousers, and golfing outfits.

-Mark

When I was in England from 67-69, I went to London one day. As I walked across the street in London, I saw a gorgeous young gal in a mini-skirt that was flopping up and down (the mimi-skirt, not her) as she ran across the street. I just stood and stared. Car tires were squeeling as men slammed on their brakes to get a better look. So she was a safety hazard, and she was dressed. By the way, she wasn't wearing any underwear.

[Bob S.]

Nude in the North said:
Make public nudity legal. Allow people to dress (or not) the way they want. Teach the public that their parents were Wrong about nudity. Accept other views. Learn to tollerate differences.

"Your suggestion would bring utopia for those naturists who want that; it would bring hell on earth for those of us who find public nudity offensive."

stu, your hell on earth would last only until you were ready to accept it. It would also put the adult industry nearly out of business.

"I think she was intelligent and her intentions were good."

I don't know about her academic smarts, but her intentions did not seem to be good. She may have started off fine with the disagreement about the party where the host told someone that if he wanted to, he could undress. Her arguments there were fine, but she went downhill fast. While treating this as a debate, she refused to use any debating skills. She refused to even accept that she was wrong, or that it was even a possibility. I don't think she can learn from her mistakes.

"If a bunch of hardened convicts can put up with people like themselves (theives, burglars etc) but they find a man who walks about naked to be so offensive that he has to be protected from them, what does THAT say about the public attitude towards public nudity?"

Well, for one the source is in question. Inmates wouldn't treat him any differently than others, in my opinion. As far as I know, the only ones who need protection are the ones who harm children. However, the culture in prisons are very different than outside prison.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
According to this report (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_836505.html) Steve Gough was found guilty of "walking naked in the presence of the public in circumstances likely to produce a road safety hazard ".

So now nudity is a road safety issue. Whatever next?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my opinion, any law that has the word "likely" in it is unreasonable. What does "likely" mean? To me, it means a 50% or greater probability.

How do you test whether a distraction is likely to constitute a road hazard. If the probability required is 50% or more, you can set up a distraction and see what happens when, say, 100 cars pass by. If 50% or more slow down, swerve or spin out, then you do have a "likely" distraction.

Common sense suggests that the probability of causing enough distraction to be labelled a road hazard is much less than 50%. Let's give some credit to drivers.

Actually, a bigger distraction is a police car stopped on the side of the road, with lights flashing, while the officer spends 10 minutes giving someone a ticket. Why aren't police officers charged?

Gary

Mr Gough isn't especially a road safety hazard - he's just highly offensive.

I suspect that if there had been a law explicitly making nudity in public a criminal offence he wouldn't have been charged with this one.

If I were the judge I'd be considering imposing an Anisocial Behaviour Order on him that directed him not to remain in or re-enter Scotland - naked or otherwise. The judge has the power to do this now even following summary conviction. That way he could be detained if he failed to leave the country forthwith and charged with a serious offence of breaching an Order and that carries upto 5 years imprisonment! I wonder if he's considered that course of action. We'll see at the end of the month.

Stu

[Kari P]

Sorry, Stu.

Case Gough has just shown that public nudity is not illegal (so it is legal) in the UK. You don't have a properly applicable law to the case. Causing a road safety hazard is only a pretext.

I hope that the case will be sent to higher courts.

Kari P

Kari - Mr Gough has been found GUILTY - the last occasion was for three matters, 1. breach of bail, 2, breach of the peace and 3. behaviour likely to distract drivers. All these offences directly relate to his nudity and nothing else. He was convicted in his home town earlier this year of a public order offence purely by virtue of him being nude in public. He tried to appeal that one but still stands convicted. He is still in prison and, by the time he is sentenced, will have bee incarcerated for almost 3 months!!

Now if you want to think public nudity is OK in England in the eyes of the law, then be my guest!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Now if you want to think public nudity is OK in England in the eyes of the law, then be my guest!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>All this gives us hope that eventually the law will catch up with public opnion which, by and large, is ambivalent towards the "antics of Steve Gough" - except of course those members of the public which are in your immediate social circle and the worthy Mrs MacDonald (51) of Inverness /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:

Now if you want to think public nudity is OK in England in the eyes of the law, then be my guest!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously not all people in law enforcement are friendly to nudity. But the fact that nudity is not illegal per se suggests some ambivalence. Surely if public nudity were so offensive to the masses a simple unambiguous law would have been enacted? Instead a multitude of squishy 'public order' laws are used against some people, but not others.

My sense from what Stu has described is that Britain doesn't outlaw the activity, just the consequencial (and occasionally hypothetical) reaction to nudity. I.E. it is illegal to use nudity to disrupt traffic, startle little old ladies, or piss off a Scottish constable or court.

This also suggests that should people stop over-reacting to harmless nudity, it will be legally acceptable without changing the squishy laws.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
...She also claimed to be at university but her use of grammar and punctuation was, in my opinion, a bit too eccentric for a university level student. Rik <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>University is absolutely NO indication of writing and/or spelling ability. I've had to work with four-year college graduates who couldn't form a cogent sentence, much less write a meaningful paragraph.

Me? I just barely graduated from high school. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

If it's illegal to be nude in public, why wasn't Steve just simply arrested for "Being nude in public" instead of making up charges against him?

[aunaturelone]

Reminds me of California where there is no state law against public nudity. There are many cities and counties with such ordinances. However in those where there is no such ordinance one may be nude anywhere on public property one wishes as long as one isn't engaging in lewd behavior.

The courts here have indeed ruled that nudity is NOT inherently lewdity, nudity being simply a state or condition of undress while lewdity is sexual behavior, as in lewd conduct.

Local communities are free to set their own nudity standards, just as they are free to pass many other ordinances. (If the nudity could be portrayed as legitimate political speech, they wouldn't be able to do so any longer.) Not every community does.

From the report it appears that Mr. Gough would not have been prosecutable had he not skipped bail nor caused a traffic hazard.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In my opinion, any law that has the word "likely" in it is unreasonable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In the US it would be considered unconstitutionally vague. Almost any law that requires one to speculate on the reaction of an observer will get thrown out of court. Generally speaking, an action must be legal or illegal by a clearly defined objective test and independent of whether or not a viewer is offended by it.

For example most people would find Nazis and Klansmen to be much more offensive than a nude person, yet it is your right to go about in a Klansman's robes or a Nazi uniform and it doesn't matter how much ofense this causes.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
In the US it would be considered unconstitutionally vague. Almost any law that requires one to speculate on the reaction of an observer will get thrown out of court. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Squishy 'offenses' are used all the time in the US. It is very common for innocently nude people to be ticketed or arrested for 'disorderly behavior', 'public unruliness' and similar charges.

-Mark

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
Almost any law that requires one to speculate on the reaction of an observer will get thrown out of court. Generally speaking, an action must be legal or illegal by a clearly defined objective test and independent of whether or not a viewer is offended by it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This agrees with the personal opinion I've been expressing all along. Of course, Mark is right too when he says people get unrelated charges for simple nudity. Now, if those victims just had the wherewithal to contest such charges, they might get them thrown out as described above. Sigh.

Jon-Marc

"If it's illegal to be nude in public, why wasn't Steve just simply arrested for "Being nude in public" instead of making up charges against him?"

There is no specific law against being nude in a public place. Most of our laws are grounded on previous laws often going back centuries. That's why we still talk of a "breach of the peace" - and that is contrary to the Justice of the Peace Act 1361!!!! Consequently it is practice here to word laws vaguely and then allow the police and courts to interpret them according to the circumstances.

aunaturelone

"...one may be nude anywhere on public property one wishes as long as one isn't engaging in lewd behavior."

So people are free to walk the streets any time they wish totally naked in California, are they? I'm NOT going there, then, EVER!

"From the report it appears that Mr. Gough would not have been prosecutable had he not skipped bail nor caused a traffic hazard."

The principle charge against him was breaching the peace - the traffic hazard was an additional charge. The 'breach of bail' means that he failed to comply with a condition of his bail.

"Almost any law that requires one to speculate on the reaction of an observer will get thrown out of court."

We have LOTS of such laws - our whole legal system, criminal and civil - would collapse without them. It works quite well for us, mostly.

"For example most people would find Nazis and Klansmen to be much more offensive than a nude person, yet it is your right to go about in a Klansman's robes or a Nazi uniform and it doesn't matter how much ofense this causes."

Here when you are in public you are protected from behaviour likely to cause you offence, alarm or distress. People can dress how they like in their own homes but in PUBLIC you must consider others' feelings.

naturistmark1

"Squishy 'offenses' are used all the time in the US. It is very common for innocently nude people to be ticketed or arrested for 'disorderly behavior', 'public unruliness' and similar charges."

I suspect that's universal.

missouriboy

"Now, if those victims just had the wherewithal to contest such charges, they might get them thrown out as described above. Sigh."

In the UK, disorderly behaviour etc is an offence against the Crown, so an offended person has no right to withdraw charges once they have been preferred.

Stu

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aunaturelone:
Almost any law that requires one to speculate on the reaction of an observer will get thrown out of court. Generally speaking, an action must be legal or illegal by a clearly defined objective test and independent of whether or not a viewer is offended by it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This agrees with the personal opinion I've been expressing all along. Of course, Mark is right too when he says people get unrelated charges for simple nudity. Now, if those victims just had the wherewithal to contest such charges, they might get them thrown out as described above. Sigh. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It happens all the time here in Florida. Our laws say it's not legal to be nude but court precedent says there has to be a lewd act, not just a nude person. Many times the police don't know the law and arrest on anything they feel fits and then the courts through it all out. Unfortunately the poor defendant has spent lots of time and money to fix it all.

[Elvis]

Perhaps this person shouldn't have been nude. If England doesn't have an expressed law against nudity perhaps they need to consider that.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis:
If England doesn't have an expressed law against nudity perhaps they need to consider that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why?

Rik

[Elvis]

It's immoral and against public will. He's disgusting and a nut. I hope he gets some good prison time. I have a new record coming out. I hope you get it /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jochanaan]

Questions for UK residents: How have your friends and the general public reacted to Steve Gough and his legal difficulties? Has there been any discussion about what the law should be, as opposed to what it is? Or about whether nudity should be accepted in more places and situations?

Elvis

"Perhaps this person shouldn't have been nude."

He definitely shouldn't have been nude!

"If England doesn't have an expressed law against nudity perhaps they need to consider that."

I agree. I have already advocated this. In the meantime we have to rely upon public order laws to protect us from this irresponsible character. A new offence should be created of exposing certain parts of the body knowing that it is likely that others will see them who may be offended.

"It's immoral and against public will. He's disgusting and a nut. I hope he gets some good prison time".

Well said! Jolly good show!

And I'll look out for your new gramophone record, Elvis, but you'll have to tell us your second name.

Jochanaan

"Questions for UK residents: How have your friends and the general public reacted to Steve Gough and his legal difficulties?"

It's surprising how few people have heard of Mr Gough. Those who have think he's just a fruitcake who has pushed his luck a bit too far.

"Has there been any discussion about what the law should be, as opposed to what it is? Or about whether nudity should be accepted in more places and situations?"

No. I don't think it's an issue for most people - and I suspect that applies to naturists too. There is no detectable demand from th epublic for nudity to be accepted beyond designated naturist places.

No doubt Rik will say there is a groundswell of sympathy for Mr Gough and that millions of Brits clamouring for the right to get their kit off in their local Marks and Spencers but the nasty cops and courts are preventing them. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
It's surprising how few people have heard of Mr Gough. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If I recall you said that 10% of your law students had heard of him (and knowing you, you probably massaged that figure down to suit your argument!). I would suggest that 10% is also the percentage of the population who could name the UK Minister for Education.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Those who have think he's just a fruitcake who has pushed his luck a bit too far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But with the exception of a small handfull of people (most of whom are aquaintances of Stu) there is no evidence to suggest that they think that public nudity should be criminalised.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I don't think it's an issue for most people - and I suspect that applies to naturists too. There is no detectable demand from th epublic for nudity to be accepted beyond designated naturist places. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Equally there is no detectable demand for public nudity for be criminalized. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>No doubt Rik will say there is a groundswell of sympathy for Mr Gough and that millions of Brits clamouring for the right to get their kit off in their local Marks and Spencers but the nasty cops and courts are preventing them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There is a groundswell of sympathy for Mr Gough and millions of Brits are clamouring for the right to get their kit off in their local Marks and Spencers but the nasty cops and courts are preventing them.

There, I said it! But of course it's not true. As Stu says the vast majority of the British public don't care one way or the other so there is certainly no need to have more stringent laws.

Rik

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis:
It's immoral and against public will. He's disgusting and a nut. I hope he gets some good prison time. I have a new record coming out. I hope you get it /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Doesn't this sound an awful lot like Rocket back with a new name? The words are very familiar.

[shãybare]

You are so on the mark, Jon-Marc. Now why would Rocket do such a thing? Is it because the only way she can get anyone in her corner is to make up imaginary people? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Rik

"If I recall you said that 10% of your law students had heard of him..I would suggest that 10% is also the percentage of the population who could name the UK Minister for Education."

My figures weren't 'massaged down' Rik - I don't need to do that and it would be unethical. My students are law students - they are expected to keep a close eye on current affairs issues that have a legal dimension. Yet 90% (roughly) hadn't heard of him. That was a while ago and he's been in the news a few times since so that figure would probably increase if I posed the question now. Nevertheless, he's hardly at the forefront either of the news or in people's minds. His last court appearance never got a mention in most newspapers or on my wireless receiver.

"But with the exception of a small handfull of people (most of whom are aquaintances of Stu) there is no evidence to suggest that they think that public nudity should be criminalised."

There is no empirical evidence to prove that the public believe that burglary, incest of drug-dealing should be criminalised either. It's not the sort of topic that is generally considered worthy of researching because the answer is a foregone conclusion.

"Equally there is no detectable demand for public nudity for be criminalized."

There is no demand because, as far as Joe Public is concerned, public nudity is already illegal!

"As Stu says the vast majority of the British public don't care one way or the other so there is certainly no need to have more stringent laws."

Nobody is calling for more stringent laws. I'd just like the laws to be clearer and more explicit so that everyone (police, courts, nudists and others) would know exactly what is and is not permitted in public and what the penalties would be for failing to comply.

Jon-Marc

"Doesn't this sound an awful lot like Rocket back with a new name? The words are very familiar."

If that's suspected then the administrator can check the IP.

Let's not get paranoid into thinking everyone who comes here and says something hostile towards public nudity is really a new manifestation of our friend Rocket.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Yet 90% (roughly) hadn't heard of him. That was a while ago and he's been in the news a few times since so that figure would probably increase if I posed the question now. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So it's actually more than 10% now. His 15 minutes of fame is obviously nearer 20 minutes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> His last court appearance never got a mention in most newspapers or on my wireless receiver. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You mean, of course, it didn't get a mention when you were listening or do you have some sort of 24 hour monitoring system attached to your crystal set?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There is no empirical evidence to prove that the public believe that burglary, incest of drug-dealing should be criminalised either. It's not the sort of topic that is generally considered worthy of researching because the answer is a foregone conclusion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Eh? Not worthy of research? Where have you been for the last 50 years? Do a Google search for "Should burglary be illegal" and the first item that pops up is The Community Attitudes Survey Bulletin (2000) (http://www.csu.nisra.gov.uk/archive/Surveys/CAS/Publications/cas%20bulletin%202000.PDF) which is all about attitudes to crime. Although this particular one is based in Northern Ireland I'm reasonably sure it's fairly typical of the UK as a whole. It mentions all sorts of criminal activities but 14% thought that burglary was an area the police should give more attention to.

I couldn't find the figure for public nudity so I guess that there's little evidence in this survey to suggest that nudity should be criminalised.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Nobody is calling for more stringent laws. I'd just like the laws to be clearer and more explicit ... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah, you're obviously using the special Stu definition of "stringent".

Rik

Rik

"...The Community Attitudes Survey Bulletin (2000) which is all about attitudes to crime. Although this particular one is based in Northern Ireland I'm reasonably sure it's fairly typical of the UK as a whole. It mentions all sorts of criminal activities but 14% thought that burglary was an area the police should give more attention to."

I see. So, by your logic, that means that the other 86% are OK with burglary. They don't have a problem with it so why can't the nasty police leave all those harmless burglars alone.

Yes of course I'm teasing. But it illustrates the point that the fact there is no empirical evidence that something which is presently a crime should, in the opinion of the majority of the public, remain a crime, doesn't mean that the majority favour its decriminalisation.

And if you walked around MY town naked and the police ignored you I can assure you that a lot more than 14% of the population would be unhappy about it!

Twisting statistical evidence to try to make it prove something it doesn't prove is one thing. But your argument takes it a whole step further. You are trying to say that the fact that there are no statistical evidence to prove something actually proves the opposite! Sorry, Rik, you'll have to do better than that! LOL /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Ah, you're obviously using the special Stu definition of "stringent"."

No. I just want a clear law that doesn't just rely on the opinion of a police officer and then the opinion of a magistrate as to whether a specific behaviour, in this case full or partial nudity in public, actually constitutes an offence. You can't, and shouldn't try to, take all the subjectivity out of it but you could make it explicit and remove any doubt about the legal status of this activity once and for all.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis:
It's immoral and against public will. He's disgusting and a nut. I hope he gets some good prison time. I have a new record coming out. I hope you get it /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sounds like the same old record /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Welcome back Rocket. Keep a cool head and civil tongue and most of us will be delighted to have you join the debate.

Now turn up the thermostat and get comfy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-Mark

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Doesn't this sound an awful lot like Rocket back with a new name? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yup. (Un)Welcome back Rocket.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>So, by your logic, that means that the other 86% are OK with burglary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, and of course you know it. You're being deliberately obtuse. It means that 14% actually want police attention significantly increased from what it is now. OTOH I doubt very much that you'd find 14% wanting police attention to nudity to be greater than it is now.

Police and the legal system have only a limited amout of time and resources. Every man-hour and every Euro (Pound?) they spend on harmless eccentrics like Gough is less they have for real crime. Britian, like every other nation-state, has no shortage of real crime.

Many people feel threatened by the possibility of being burglarized. They do not feel threatened by the possibility they might see an eccentric nudist strolling by. Ergo no need for greater attention or restrictions regarding this issue.

aunaturelone

"No, and of course you know it. You're being deliberately obtuse."

Yes - I admitted as much when I said it.

"It means that 14% actually want police attention significantly increased from what it is now. OTOH I doubt very much that you'd find 14% wanting police attention to nudity to be greater than it is now."

No, because burglary is both far more common and far more traumatic than encountering public nudity.

"Police and the legal system have only a limited amout of time and resources. Every man-hour and every Euro (Pound?) they spend on harmless eccentrics like Gough is less they have for real crime."

You consider public nudity harmless - I don't. But we've already trodden that path many times. Mr Gough knows perfectly well that his behaviour would be likely to offend and he must have reasoned that the result of this offence would likely be his arrest, a court appearance and a possibility of imprisonment. He will also know that public services are already stretched in dealing with more serious offences and offenders. Nevetheless he went ahead with this foolish venture and is now persisting. That just proves how irresponsible the man is.

"Many people feel threatened by the possibility of being burglarized. They do not feel threatened by the possibility they might see an eccentric nudist strolling by. Ergo no need for greater attention or restrictions regarding this issue."

Burglary is something many if not most people here experience from time to time. Public nudity isn't. But when it does occur the police and courts have a duty to act - and that's what they have done. I have no doubt that if Mr Gough promised to abandon this silly adventure the next time he appears in court he would be allowed to go home immediately. But he's determined to make a point. Fortunately the law is equally determined. I believe that most people in the UK would side with the law on this.

Stu

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Burglary is something many if not most people here experience from time to time. Public nudity isn't. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Ask all the folks who get streaked at soccer games what they think of it.

[Bob S.]

"Let's not get paranoid into thinking everyone who comes here and says something hostile towards public nudity is really a new manifestation of our friend Rocket."

stu, wake up. I know you are an intelligent person and you had your suspicions as well. Rocket/Rufus already made statements along those lines before, that Steve Gough was crazy and disgusting. And think of the name, Elvis. Someone who has died, but just won't go away.

"There is no detectable demand from th epublic for nudity to be accepted beyond designated naturist places."

Because the public feels it is illegal and most naturists fear the law and other people's perceptions if they were to do that. Right now, it is a stalemate.

" it is practice here to word laws vaguely and then allow the police and courts to interpret them according to the circumstances."

"I just want a clear law that doesn't just rely on the opinion of a police officer and then the opinion of a magistrate as to whether a specific behaviour, in this case full or partial nudity in public, actually constitutes an offence."

So I am going to assume that you don't agree with your first statement. And would go with such a law in every similar offense.

Bob S.

aunaturelone

"LOL! Ask all the folks who get streaked at soccer games what they think of it."

Firstly, streaking is still a rare event at soccer games. There are thousands of such matches here every weekend and there are barely a handful of streaking incidents per year. Secondly, streaking is a momentary act, and one that invariably leads to the offender being at the very least expelled and sometimes arrested and charged. Thirdly, I think you'll find that most serious sports spectators find streakers irritating bores. There is a huge difference between a spontaneous act of streaking at a high-spirits event and someone deciding to stroll naked along roads and footpaths the length of the country in open defiance of accepted public behaviour and the law.

Bob S.

"Because the public feels it is illegal and most naturists fear the law and other people's perceptions if they were to do that. Right now, it is a stalemate."

Bob, I'm saying that there is no detectable public demand to change the law to make public nudity permissible. In other words - most people seem content with the law as it stands.

"So I am going to assume that you don't agree with your first statement. And would go with such a law in every similar offense."

My statements are entirely consistent. The law is rightly vague to afford flexibility for the authorities to deal with the unforeseeable. Now that we have several instances of public nudity and those who are committing this act are, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, claiming that their act does not constitute the offence for which they were charged, it is time to make a new and specific offence. That would leave everybody in no doubt where they stood with regards to the law.

Stu

[Rik]

Stu,

You really seem to get yourself in a stew sometimes. One the one hand you say: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>... most people seem content with the law as it stands. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...and then you say: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The law is rightly vague to afford flexibility for the authorities to deal with the unforeseeable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>...and then you say: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.. it is time to make a new and specific offence. That would leave everybody in no doubt where they stood with regards to the law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So why would anyone want to change the law which the majority are content with? It just don't make sense.

Rik

Rik - most people don't know the intricacies of the law. They know - or at least believe - that public nudity is illegal and if you do it you'll probably get arrested. And they are content with that. I suspect that if they knew that the vagueness of the law in that respect means that from time to time people get away with being nude in public, they would expect the legislators to close the loopholes.

That's all I'm suggesting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
...they would expect the legislators to close the loopholes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But there are no loopholes, only a difference between what you say people think the law is and what it actually is. And as you say, there is no perceptible demand for the law to be changed in any case - only you getting in your usual stew by assuming that most people are as offended by nudity as you.

Rik

Rik,

Just ask Mr Average Joe Public this queston:

"Do you think it should be lawful to be naked in a public place?"

Most people would answer no. But it doesn't worry most people because they already assume it's illegal anyway so they don't perceive a need to change the law. When I advocate 'changing the law' all I'm doing is making explicit what most people think the law says already anyway.

I know most people don't react to public nudity to quite the extent that I do, but I don't think there's much doubt that most people find it revolting.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I know most people don't react to public nudity to quite the extent that I do, but I don't think there's much doubt that most people find it revolting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm! I think there's a lot of doubt that most people find it revolting but I accept that you would like it to be so.

Rik

"I think there's a lot of doubt that most people find it revolting"

Well Rocket, Rufus AND Elvis all agree with me that it IS revolting, so it must be. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Well Rocket, Rufus AND Elvis all agree with me that it IS revolting, so it must be. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What? All three of them?

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rik:
What? All three of them? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, all 3 of him! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Rik]

How can anyone find the naked body revolting?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Rik

http://home.t-online.de/home/RotBlitz/FKK-Online/images/meadow.jpg

[Bob S.]

How about these question stu, "What is the law about public nudity?"

"Do you think that someone should be allowed to skinny-dip in a secluded place?"

"but I don't think there's much doubt that most people find it revolting."

As you said, most people don't react to nudity the way you do. Most of them are much more rational. "Revolting" is an extreme reaction. "Inappropriate" may be a better term.

Bob S.

Rik,

"How can anyone find the naked body revolting?"

How can you ask that question and then post a picture that shows just how vile and revolting it is? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I was just about to enjoy my Sunday lunch - thanks, Rik! YUK! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm just pleased it wans't a full frontal shot.

Bob S.

"How about these question stu, "What is the law about public nudity?"

I am confident that most people would say it's illegal.

"Do you think that someone should be allowed to skinny-dip in a secluded place?"

Opinion would be divided. I think to make that a fair question you would have to actually ask several questions of a more specific nature. A 'secluded place' to someone who lives and spends nearly all their life in a conurbation - e.g. Greater London - would possibly envisage a quiet but not necessarily deserted beach. A countryside dweller in the Yorkshire Moors may imagine a place in the middle of nowhere well off the beaten track. Then you have to say what rights others would have if they came across 'skinnydippers'. And what about the behaviour of the 'skinnydippers' when they emerge from the water? Do they dress immediately and discreetly, or hang around naked and frollick or sunbathe? To arrive at a fair assessment of public opinion on that you need to ask a whole lot of very precise questions to get a meaningful result.

"As you said, most people don't react to nudity the way you do. Most of them are much more rational. "Revolting" is an extreme reaction. "Inappropriate" may be a better term."

I think we need to find a term that lies between 'revolting' and 'inappropriate'. Someone not wearing a tie in a smart restaurant is inappropriate. Public nudity is in a different league to that because it's thoroughly antisocial.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"How can anyone find the naked body revolting?"

How can you ask that question and then post a picture that shows just how vile and revolting it is? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Obviously I can sense the irony in your reply which might not transmit too well across the Atlantic so I would duck if I were you. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However you didn't actually answer the question.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was just about to enjoy my Sunday lunch - thanks, Rik! YUK! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I'm just pleased it wans't a full frontal shot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It can be arranged!

Rik

[shãybare]

Nudity is not antisocial. We socialize quite a bit. I would think segregation, as Stu proposes, would be considered antisocial. I could be wrong. NOT

Rik,

Actually I thought YOU were being ironic! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

You aren't seriously suggesting that the obscene picture you posted is not truly revolting, are you? On second thoughts, you are a naturist so you probably think it looks OK. Rik - I think that picture is truly revolting and I have no doubt that plenty of non-naturists would agree with my perception. My wife thinks it's revolting and I didn't even let her see it!!!

The reason it's revolting is that it shows ugly parts of the body that are best covered up - totally out of context (i.e. outdoors) and includes children who are too young to appreciate the true vileness of nudity. Now I know that there are people who want to do this sort of thing and I say jolly good luck to them. Just don't do it in front of me or my family or the rest of the textile ppulation.

Re frontal nudity: "It can be arranged!"

shaybare

"Nudity is not antisocial".

Nudity isn't antisocial per se. But any kind of behaviour in the company of others who don't want to encounter it is, by definition, antisocial.

"We socialize quite a bit."

I didn't suggest that naturists were antisocial - just inappropriate nudity.

"I would think segregation, as Stu proposes, would be considered antisocial."

Segregation at times when nude from those who don't want to see it is being considerate, not antisocial.

"I could be wrong."

In this respect Shay I'm afraid you are wrong. Naturists who are willing to risk causing offence to others are being inconsiderate and antisocial and harming the wider public's perception of naturists as a whole.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Actually I thought YOU were being ironic! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

You aren't seriously suggesting that the obscene picture you posted is not truly revolting, are you? On second thoughts, you are a naturist so you probably think it looks OK. Rik - I think that picture is truly revolting and I have no doubt that plenty of non-naturists would agree with my perception. My wife thinks it's revolting and I didn't even let her see it!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Stu, you're such a tease! Now can we get back to being serious?

Rik

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Naturists who are willing to risk causing offence to others are being inconsiderate and antisocial and harming the wider public's perception of naturists as a whole. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I find textilists willingness to cause offense by requiring me and my ilk to conform to their prejudices to be inconsiderate and antisocial and harmful to public perception as well. They should stop being so antisocial to the ilk!

-Mark

[EricNY]

How can any one find the picture that Rik posted vile...that is a beautiful picture....one of my favorites. I have shown that piture to many people, including NON-naturists, and they even saw the beauty in it.

Even if a person does not care for being nude socially, I am sure that most do not find the body in it's natural state vile and disgusting....in fact Stu, you are the first person I have ever met that feels like that. I feel bad for you, it is a shame that you find disgust in nature, and yourself.

[EricNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
OK. But I'm sure I'm not alone.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think that you are definatly a minority. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I certainly don't find my own body disgusting because, apart from a 5 minute shower each morning, I am always clothed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I seem to recall you posting in the past, that you found the nude body so disgusting that you could not even look at your self (nude)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> There are plenty of things in nature that I don't like to see - e.g. the contents of our sewers or graves etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>How can you compare a sewer to the beauty of nature?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Bob S.]

stu, that picture that Rik provided is one of my favorite, another one is the picnic where a nude family is picnicking in a wooded area. That picture gives the sense of peaceful harmony, a true feel for how the family can enjoy naturism. I can't think of too many people who would find that picture revolting.

"and includes children who are too young to appreciate the true vileness of nudity."

So you are suggesting in this comment that children should not be brought up as naturists? Because you feel that nudity is vile, children should not be a part of it?

"My wife thinks it's revolting and I didn't even let her see it!!!"

She can't think a picture is "revolting" without seeing it. Show it to her. Let her decide for herself, of course she will more than likely be prejudiced now. That attitude is like those who are against nudist parks without knowing anything about them. How about this, take this picture out to your neighbors and have them react to it. I would bet that most of the population would fing this picture neutral at best. And ironically, the ones who would find it the most revolting would probably be the religious zealots.

"A 'secluded place' to someone who lives and spends nearly all their life in a conurbation - e.g. Greater London - would possibly envisage a quiet but not necessarily deserted beach. A countryside dweller in the Yorkshire Moors may imagine a place in the middle of nowhere well off the beaten track."

Yes, I agree that the definition of a secluded place would be necessary, but I didn't feel like going into extreme detail.

"Then you have to say what rights others would have if they came across 'skinnydippers'. And what about the behaviour of the 'skinnydippers' when they emerge from the water? Do they dress immediately and discreetly, or hang around naked and frollick or sunbathe?"

Not necessarily. That wasn't the question. It only had to do with skinny-dipping in secluded place, not about their behaviour if someone shows up. And your addition is a bit on the prejudicial side. Frolicking?

" I certainly don't find my own body disgusting because, apart from a 5 minute shower each morning, I am always clothed."

How does that prove that you don't find your body disgusting? You keep it hidden from everyone else and only see it yourself about 35 minutes per week. There are 10,080 minutes in a week. That means you are naked .3472% of the time. The rest of the time you cover your body.
Compare that to me. I am naked at least 50 hours per week. There are 168 hours per week, meaning I am naked about 30% of the time, if not more. I don't mind seeing myself naked or being naked. If you don't find your own body disgusting, stand in front of a full-length mirror naked and truly look at yourself.

"OK. But I'm sure I'm not alone."

No. You have at least one other person in Canada who agrees with you. Everyone's favorite, R/R/E.

Bob S.

[EricNY]

Thanks Bob....Great input as usual!!

I still want to know how Stu can compare the beauty of nature to a sewer, and decomposing bodies in a grave.
I almost hope he is kidding....Can anyone compare nature, to sewers and rotten flesh...for real?????? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Bob S.]

"I still want to know how Stu can compare the beauty of nature to a sewer, and decomposing bodies in a grave."

In nature (the home where all of the animals are), the ground is the toilet and they do not bury their dead. That is where bacteria and fungi come in. They decompose everything. It is a perfect balance. And without the death and excrement, there would be no fertile grounds for the plants to grow.

Bob S.

[NudeAl]

I also find it a little disturbing that Stu compares this scene to a rotting corpse and human excrement. To say the least this is an extreme veiw. I am absolutely certain that this is not the reaction of the vast majority of people regardless of weather or not they are naturists. I know not all find nudity acceptable but this comparrisson is outrageous.

[averagejoe]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Rik,

Just ask Mr Average Joe Public this queston:

"Do you think it should be lawful to be naked in a public place?"

Most people would answer no. But it doesn't worry most people because they already assume it's illegal anyway so they don't perceive a need to change the law. When I advocate 'changing the law' all I'm doing is making explicit what most people think the law says already anyway.

I know most people don't react to public nudity to quite the extent that I do, but I don't think there's much doubt that most people find it revolting.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hey! I thought we all already knew my position on public nudity...

[Rik]

Stu,

Your posts are becoming more and more troll like. That's a pity because it undermines what could be a reasonable debate.

Rik

[Bob S.]

At the risk of sending this topic back into the natural debate...

"I don't think the modern human body, however, isn't an especially natural thing. We shave our faces (and possibly other parts), style and cut our hair, manicure our nails, have breast enlargements or other cosmetic surgery and exercise very particular muscles at the gym (or, conversely, over-eat) etc etc."

You read my reasoning for declaring the human body as natural in the Religion section. Just because we make cosmetic changes does not alter it that much. It is still the same body that you were born with, just matured. Underneath your clothes is your body, nothing has changed it just because you have draped fabric over it. It still can make Vitamin D out of sunlight. Your skin is stil your body's first line of defense against infection.

"The modern human form, however, is to some extent the product of human behaviour and human decisions"

Taking this comment with your comments about what you have seen in death. To a certain extent, death has also become a product of human behaviour. Autopsies are a human behaviour that is unequalled in nature. The burying of the dead is also a ritual that has been going on for a good portion of human history. Before modern-day caskets, they had wooden boxes. The bodies in wooden boxes decomposed much faster than they do in what we have nowadays. Mummification is also unnatural in death. Nearly every ritual we have for death is a result of some religious practice. And religions are not natural.

"That's upto the parents. I feel that MY children shouldn't be part of it - that's why I was revolted by the picture. When you see other kids you can't help relating them with your own. It's a common experience of parents."

And that is another problem with society today. Parents who think that they can control what other parents do with their children by what they do or believe. Many books have been banned in schools in the USA because of selfish parents. Among the most banned books is an American classic, "The Adventures of Hucleberry Finn" by Mark Twain because of its use of teh vernacular of the day of the "N" word. "Harry Potter" has also been banned for its promotion of "witchcraft" by the religious extremeists. What I don't think those people understand is that most of the students at Hogwarts Academy are Christians and follow the traditional winter off-season. Heck, the main character, Ron Weasley gets a Christmas gift from his mother every year.

Question: Would you allow a neighbor of yours to let their seven-year-old daughter play in her front yard topless? How about naked? (assuming the weather is appropriate). If not, why?

"She does because I described it to her in detail and told her I thought it was revolting. Then I asked her if she would probably agree with me and she said "Of course I would, Stu!"

I still say you hould let her make up her own mind by actually seeing this picture. Describing a picture, as we have discussed here, is impossible. She may be imagining a totally different picture than what you saw. Describe the Mona Lisa to someone who hasn't seen it.

"They might find it tolerable because it doesn't show full frontal nudity."

There. You have your answer. And that is how most people would view that picture. And why are you trying to change the picture? We are talking about the picture with a family of four, all naked, as seen from their backsides. We are not talking about any other picture.

"I'm not a religious zealout - I'm not even a believer!"

That's why it is ironic, stu. You are not a religious zealot, although you seem to share their extreme views on public nudity.

"It does depend upon what you mean by 'skinnydipping'."

My def: leaving all your clothes on shore, going out into the water for a swim, and coming back out to your towel. After that, it becomes a question of sunbathing, walking, etc.

"I'd prefer not to. I know what it looks like because I've seen it all before."

I repeat my suggestion with additional instructions. Go find a full-length mirror. Undress and look into it. Now concentrate on the thoughts you are thinking about. What kinds of feelings do you get from seeing yourself naked?

Bob S.

[Kari P]

Stu,

You have lost practically all of your credibility. At the moment I believe in my theory about you - remember it? If you really wanted to avoid seeing pictures of naked people, you would not come to these pages!

If you want to continue, please move to the threads "Equality & human rights" and "Nudity - how natural?" where you have stopped your own posting and have left my and Bob's last posts unanswered. I would like to hear what you say about "protecting the children", and what about a child's nakedness on the front yard (Bob's question above).

Kari P

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Then she asked me why I bother to debate this issue with people here and haven't I got better things to do. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And your answer was?

Rik

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I would never condemn naturist parents for bringing their children up with their own attitudes and values. Oddly enough, though, others here have condemned me because we taught our kids to keep covered up.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think I haven't condemned you. I have said very clearly that you have the right to bring your children up with your values. I and other naturists have only said that your way is not our way, and we have pointed to our reasons to believe that our way is better. This would not normally happen when talking with our neighbors; it has happened with you because you are voluntarily in this discussion where you can expect this kind of feedback to what you say.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Question: Would you allow a neighbor of yours to let their seven-year-old daughter play in her front yard topless?" - Yes. "How about naked? (assuming the weather is appropriate). If not, why?" - At age 7 I would tell my neighbour that I though it was inappropriate. But I wouldn't go beyond that. If she was, say, 12 then I'd notify the authorities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your answer is a little better than what I expected. Where's the difference? In her breasts? Why you would notify the authorities instead of saying to the girl herself, or her parents, that you would not like to see nudity?

About your stories about showing the picture to your wife and about you standing naked in front of the mirror, do you think we could believe in them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Then she asked me why I bother to debate this issue with people here and haven't I got better things to do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have wondered at the same things, as regards you and as regards myself. Isn't the debate fun? To me it means also practising my English.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The issue was whether the naked human body is revolting or beautiful. I think it looks pretty ugly from the back and even worse from the front.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Questions that you probably never will answer satisfactorily, but try it:

Why the human body looks ugly in your eyes? Which specific thing is the thing which makes it ugly? How a small piece of garment can make the bodies significantly prettier?

In the picture of a family we are talking about, if the adults had swimwear on, it would greatly spoil the sentiment arising from the facts that the family is in nature and in the most natural state. Clothes aren't natural; their shapes and colors would only fix the viewer's attention to unessential things. How nudity is (in your words) out of context in the picture that we can expect to be taken in a place where probably no other persons than the photographer has seen the naked family?

Have you ever thought of why visual arts depict so much nude people? If nudity is rude, how it can be so common in art? Is it so that many people still can see the simple beauty of a nude body, not only the artists but also a significant part of the public?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
If I wanted to look at naked pictures I'm sure I would find far more of them elsewhere on the Internet - and I wouldn't waste all this time typing responses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sure. But you are in a serious danger to see naked pictures here, and you can easily avoid the danger.

Kari P

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kari P:
Sure. But you are in a serious danger to see naked pictures here, and you can easily avoid the danger.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With most browsers it is pretty easy to turn graphics off and just view webpages as formatted text. It also makes them appear much faster. I used to do this often when I was using a slow dial-up connection.

For example in MSIE go to preferences/advanced/multimedia and uncheck show pictures

-Mark

[NudeAl]

How about some software to block these annoying post's? You know the ones that begin with an R and end with ocket?

[TXK NUDE]

I've reported Rocket2 to the administration as a possible "Rocket" alias. He/she should be removed soon if their IP is confirmed as being that of the offender.

Apparently this person isn't able to think up enough aliases and is now adding a 2. Are we supposed to be fooled by this? Why don't we all simply ignore this obnoxious person who thinks that a simple, innocent, non-sexual photo of a nude family is exploiting children.

[NudeAl]

Ya know how sometimes a guy will say, I can take a hint, I know when I'm not wanted? I really miss those guys.

[Bob S.]

"At age 7 I would tell my neighbour that I though it was inappropriate. But I wouldn't go beyond that. If she was, say, 12 then I'd notify the authorities."

Actually, at about age 10, the law could go after her, that's why I made her a seven-year-old. And what if the girl in question is not yet growing? Or what if the seven-year-old girl had gone through some precocious puberty?

"At age 12 she is developing as an adult and so I would object."

So is a nine-year-old. So is anyone going through puberty. One nine-year-old girl could have the same development as a 13-year-old girl. And yet the nine year old girl could still legally be topless in public. Does that make any sense?

"she didn't react as I thought she would. She just rolled her eyes and muttered something like: "well that's what nudists do, didn't you know that?" I asked her if she found it revolting. She said she didn't..."

OK, so you see, she can handle more than you give her credit for. And that would probably the reaction that most people have, maybe even a more positive reaction as well.

"The issue was whether the naked human body is revolting or beautiful. "

Actually my issue was whether the picture was revolting or beautiful.

"I think that the nude is popular with artists partly to demonstrate their mastery of representing complex form - i.e. the human skin and muscle.

And the other part is because they truly believe that the human figure is beautiful.

"My reaction to nudity may be a bit extreme, but I really think most people in the developed world regard public nudity as at least inappropriate and generally something that should not be allowed."

And the ones who react to it the most negatively are the ones who are the religious extremists, and you.

"I did. First I felt pretty stupid - and quite vulnerable."

But what feelings were brought to the surface? Negative ones? Positive ones? Neutral ones?

"To me, being naked is not especially natural anywhere. It is merely an essential state to be in for a very short while whilst taking a shower."

And to me, being clothed is not especially natural outside save for the weather. Being clothed is merely a state to be in until you can get to a place where you can shed those restricting garments and be au naturel.

Bob S.

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Now there is a Rocket3! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[shãybare]

It would seem someone is having a personality problem.

[pookie]

I returned to the UK after a trip abroad on Monday and opened the free newpaper that EVERYONE now reads going to work in London (published by a very right wing branch of the UK press) and there right before my very eyes was a picture of naked anti Bush demonstrators in Parliment Square! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
I think I detected a penis in the picture although it may have been a trick of the light.

One would have to look very closely for the full offensiveness effect. I'm sure some did.

Nudity is a valid subject on U.K. T.V. these days, pictures are there to be seen in the press and the majority of people in actuality don't care too much as long as the nudity is not sexually offensive - having said that the most popular breakfast TV show yesterday morning featured an item about men's underwear with close up shots of models in which the penis was clearly outlined. The reaction from the presenters was one of hilarity,desolving into fits of giggles at each models appearance.

The British reaction to nudity, on the whole has always been one of amusement as illustrated by the "Carry On" films type of humour and to some extent televison programmes like Benny Hill.

All this begs a question that is long overdue for an answer. Why would someone so offended by nudity continue to post on a nudist forum and what brought them here in the first place and caused them to stay?

What!? A Rocket3? Did I miss something? The last one I saw was Rocket2, which is two too many--not to mention his/her other names.

Bob & Kari

I posted a response to your postings but it's disappeared along with Rocket's posting. It was the one that Bob answered so I know it appeared on here.

I suspect it was done in error by the Administrator? Or was it something I said? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Stu

[pookie]

Perhaps it disappeared up its own backside ? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I posted a response to your postings but it's disappeared along with Rocket's posting. It was the one that Bob answered so I know it appeared on here.

I suspect it was done in error by the Administrator? Or was it something I said? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Must be an error of the administrator. In fact, two of your posts have been deleted. I'm also sorry that I couldn't read your last one.

I have not seen Rocket*'s recent posts, but I'm not disappointed at it at all.

Kari P

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Bob & Kari

I posted a response to your postings but it's disappeared along with Rocket's posting. It was the one that Bob answered so I know it appeared on here.

I suspect it was done in error by the Administrator? Or was it something I said? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't believe that the deletion was done in error.

Gary

[shãybare]

I don't mind that the Administrators delete certain posts. I do think, however, that if a post is deleted the poster should be informed as to why, whether by e-mail or PM. It would seem to be common courtesy. But then again, that's just me.

[Corky]

Many of the latest posts from Stu were deleted along with a few posts that were responding to him. This was because of many complaints.

We had to delete a few responding posts because it would make sense without Stu's posts.

I really don't like deleting posts. But when many paying members want them deleted I will do it.

Thanks!

Kari

Clearly the administrators are in a difficult position receiving pressure from those who wish to censor those views they don't agree with - rather an odd atitude from so-called 'freedom-loving' naturists. I fully understand the concerns about paying members (which I'm not), but if the posts I compose are being removed then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

It's sad but we just have to accept it.

Stu

[Kari P]

Stu,

You haven't been kicked out of the forum. You are free to continue.

One solution is open to you. You can take a new identity and using it start posting more honestly as yourself, not going into such incredible and ridiculous extremes as you have gone.

Kari P

[pookie]

Looks like a victory for good old fashioned common sense to me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kari - what the **** are you talking about?????? /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I only have ONE identity on here and that's Stu2630!!!! My name is Stuart - what else do you think I call myself on here?

If you are accusing me of doing what Rocket has supposedly done then we have nothing further to discuss.

I have NEVER EVER used another name on here!!!!!!!!!

Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[pookie]

Calm down Mary, you'll burst something. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Kari

but if the posts I compose are being removed then there's not much point in continuing the discussion.

It's sad but we just have to accept it.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Horray!

*

*

*

*

I mean, what a pity! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Bob S.]

Complaints about what? His opinions? And yet, others who accuse him of lying are fine? I have always found stu to be a great debater (I won't say master debater
/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ) and can not ever remember him violating the rules of this site. And that is the only criteria that I would see in deleting a post.

I absolutely do not understand anyone who complains about messages that are on a certain thread unless they violate a rule. Disagreements are not reasons for doing so. When I see a topic thread, I read the title. If I am interested, I wil open it. Upon reading it, I will decide if it is worthy a response or even if I want to continue reading further. There have been many threads which I have not been intereted in either at the thread title or within. I have never complained that a certain thread has gotten tiring or boring and would never complain about anyone who has not violated a rule.

stu, most nudists are better than that, at least I hope. I would hope that nudists are more tolrant of other opinions. I know I am. And please feel free to reanswer any of the questions in my previous posting (though we maybe should stay away from the natural debate). I know, it is hard to recreate your best BS, but at least try. (And understand that I am not disrespecting your own messages. I use that term for any lengthy discourse that is made up with no or very little research). It has happened to be also. Push the wrong button and suddenly, all of the work is down the drain.

Bob S.

[NudeAl]

I'll second that. I know Stu is stuborn and I certainly don't agree with his opinions all the time but he is polite about his discussions on this board. I think he had a right to get a little bent out of shape over being accused of taking on an assumed name. I doublt he would do this.

I've never seen Stu resort to the kind of behavior that Rocket1,2,3,/Elvis/whoever does. He/she will probably be back with a new name, but we will recognize the writing.

What I can't understand is why anyone who is as repulsed by nudity as Stu is would come to a nudist forum where he's very apt to see pictures of nude people. If I was as repulsed by nudity as Stu is, I wouldn't come here. However, maybe he's trying to overcome his phobia about seeing nudity, and that would be a good thing. Facing a fear is the first step to overcoming it--I think.

[averagejoe]

Stu, keep posting your opinions. I have never found you to be disrespectful or arrogant. As Voltaire said, I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

The only thing I would ask is that you not hijack a thread with an arguement. That is really the only thing that can tick me off, no matter who does it. If the discussion warrants your input, but you know it will be off-topic for the thread, start a new thread. That way those of us that want to practice our textile debating skills can reply to you without feeling guilty for doing so.

BTW, I am a paying member. If we are going to have a homogenized, sanitized, everyone thinks the same thing kind of board here, I can leave. That would be very boring. And if other paying members don't want to read Stu's posts, DON'T. I thought only textiles would go out of their way to be offended by what someone else does...

[Gary Naturist]

Because of their length, frequency and content, Stu's posts are nothing more than discussion forum spam.

Gary

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I only have ONE identity on here and that's Stu2630!!!! My name is Stuart - what else do you think I call myself on here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmm! You could try one of your many other names. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If you are accusing me of doing what Rocket has supposedly done then we have nothing further to discuss. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you misunderstood. Kari was not accusing you of using another identity, merely suggesting that if you did you might take the opportunity to reduce the troll-like nature of some of your recent posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have NEVER EVER used another name on here!!!!!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I believe that - especially as you were careful to us the words "on here".

I too don't understand the nature of complaints against you by 'paying members' - perhaps the administrators could explain.

However I suspect that some people feel that your presence here is inflamatory because your posts are almost exclusively about forcing your opinions (to reuse an overused expression) on others without ever attempting to understand other people's points of view. So it perhaps appears to some that all you want to do is score debating points.

For example, I can't recall a single instance where you have asked questions about the motives of naturists although you have been pretty quick to suggest the motives of Steve Gough which seem to be based on your own abhorrence of nudity even though you are careful to attach some sort of legal or democratic label to your views. But you know as well as I do that if you were so disposed you could 'succesfully' argue the opposing view.

For my part, and for what it's worth, I have always opposed the idea of censoring people's posts on this board unless they are off topic and likely to impact badly on the perception of naturism (so we're talking here about things like links to porn sites although I think genital shaving comes a close second /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ). Anything else can just be ignored if people don't like it. But not being a paying member of INA I guess my view is not relevant. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

But let's not forget that this is a naturist discussion board and whilst anti-nudity views should be welcomed they should always be in the context of furthering the cause of naturism. Regretably, Stu, many of your posts do nothing but inflame.

Rik

[Kari P]

Stu,

Rik said it right, you have misunderstood me. If you haven't seen it, I'm on your side. For my part, you have the right to continue posting in this forum.

Please read again what I said. And think. If you continue in the direction you have taken, you have the risk that your posts will be deleted. You can save your face by taking another name.

It's not acceptable to use parallel names (and I didn't accuse you of it) but to cease posting with one name and to continue it with another name is another thing: it can be accepted if the person in question takes a better direction. Rocket didn't. You can.

Kari P

[shãybare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Corky:

I really don't like deleting posts. But when many paying members want them deleted I will do it.

Thanks! [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Paying members should not have more weight than nonpaying members when it comes to having offensive posts removed. A post is either offensive or not. And paying members should not be able to have posts removed unless there is an actual offense. I don't think that being boring and redundant is an offense to cause deletion. Were that so, we would have a lot of deletions. That is my opinion, humble or not.

[shãybare]

P.S. I don,t think Stu should have to change his name to post here. Stu has been with us long enough that we would reconize him anyway. Stu is a very honest person and posts what he feels is right to him.

[Frank R]

In a sense, any censorship may be seen as bad but the truth still is, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". Therefore, paying members should have more say in what is and what is not acceptable on these boards.
While I do not agree with them, I did not and do not have any objection to what Stu or anyone says. It would be a very boring world if everyone thought the way I do. I would agree that anytime a post is removed or censored a comment should be included saying so.
I stopped writing our local newspaper here in Austin because they have a nasty habit of removing a word or sentence that completely changes what you wrote. I sincerely hope our boards here do not resort to that.

[Corky]

Stu is welcome here. He does not have to change his name or anything.

We just deleted two posts that were a problem with some members. If we don't cater to paying members, we can't afford to keep this forum running. Just like TV networks have to cater to their sponsors.

Stu,

You have brought another side that poeple can talk about and you very welcome here.

"You have brought another side that poeple can talk about and you very welcome here."

Thank you, Corky. It's now been over a year since I started coming here and I know I've ruffled a few feathers.

I've certainly enjoyed discussion and the cut and thrust of debate with my friends here. Occasionally I have revised my opinions and I hope I've given food for thought to others.

It's very hard for me to imagine what goes through the mind of a naturist when they openly divest themselves of all their clothing in the presence of others. I suppose those who have been involved in naturism for a long time will have forgotten what it's like being a stick-in-the-mud prude like me!

Anyway....what were we debating again? Oh yes - Mr Gough's antics! Now where was I... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
I suppose those who have been involved in naturism for a long time will have forgotten what it's like being a stick-in-the-mud prude like me!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>"Stick-in-the-mud" eh? At least you admit it so there's hope for you yet. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rik

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>those who wish to censor those views they don't agree with <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only government can truly censor. In the private world of books, magazines, newspapers, radio, television, movies, web pages, bulletin boards, etc., it's called "editorial discretion". (Or "media bias", depending on whether it's your ox being gored.)

In any event, it makes no sense to have hostile content on a board specifically intended for the popularization of the clothes free lifestyle. That's why the site is called clothesfree.com and not keepnudityprivate.com.

[Jochanaan]

Now that the discussion has cooled down a bit perhaps I can make a few comments about the picture Rik posted.

On second thought, I really don't have much to say. Beautiful. Peaceful. Natural. (This despite the man's hair being cropped and the woman's looking as if its color came from a salon.) Magnificently composed. The children look very safe between their parents (guardians?).

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison. And so forth.

I never was a "stick-in-the-mud prude". All my life I've enjoyed nudity, mine and other people's. I just had a problem with others seeing me nude, but I got over it.

[NudeAl]

Glad you're back stick in the mud, I mean Stu.

P.S. be careful which end of that stick you touch /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Bob S.]

"It's very hard for me to imagine what goes through the mind of a naturist when they openly divest themselves of all their clothing in the presence of others."

It isn't that hard to imagine. stu. I'm sure some very religious people find it hard to imagine what goes through the minds of non-believers as well. And also, we have been trying to find out what goes through the mind of a non-nudist as well. But the only one we have is you, who has had an unusual childhood and unusually extreme reactions to nudity.

"Because of their length, frequency and content, Stu's posts are nothing more than discussion forum spam."

And basically, the difference between stu's messages and mine is that mine you agree with while stu's you disagree with. This is a topic that has come up before when stu and I promised to shorten our posts. It worked for a while but I think we have both slipped back into our dissertation-length messages again, and Kari to some extent as well. I am working to try to pare my messages down again. stu, are you with me? Kari?

Bob S.

[Kari P]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:
I think we have both slipped back into our dissertation-length messages again, and Kari to some extent as well. I am working to try to pare my messages down again. stu, are you with me? Kari?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I have done it already. I don't take every minor point to comment on, and I try to find something to say that hasn't been said earlier. As I did when I referred to nudity in visual arts. I'm sorry that I couldn't see Stu's answer. Maybe he can recapitulate it some time.

Stu, if you feel that I should apologize for something - something that I don't actually know what it is - then I do it. I haven't blamed you on lying; I have just meant that you have told some funny stories (could I call them fairy-tales?) that I and probably many of the readers cannot believe. And you did it in a way that someone took as trolling the forum. Be more careful!

Should we start a new thread? This discussion is not under the proper title.

Kari P

[EricNY]

I for one enjoy Stu's posts, I certainly do not always agree with them, but I enjoy reading them.

Stu: I wish I was able to debate as well as you!!

I do not understand what the problem with his posts were, but maybe I missed them.

ercNY

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bob S.:

"Because of their length, frequency and content, Stu's posts are nothing more than discussion forum spam."

And basically, the difference between stu's messages and mine is that mine you agree with while stu's you disagree with. This is a topic that has come up before when stu and I promised to shorten our posts.
Bob S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With Stu, it's not that I disagree with him. It's that his views about nudity, which include descriptions like "revolting", "vile" and "disgusting" are incompatible with the general purpose of these forums, which is to support nudism rather than to denigrate it.

In addition, he persistently hijacks topics. As an example, take this topic "The latest on Steve Gough" which I started. Stu has redirected it for his own purposes.

Also, he regularly provides sentence-by-sentence rebuttals, which are very long and, I suspect, very boring for all but a small minority. I must say that you are another offender in this regard.

I'd be satisfied if the administrators would set up a section called "Endless debates with Stu" and if Stu confined his contributions to that section.

Gary

[missouriboy]

What he said!

[R.M.GREENMAN2]

Hey! I started a thread a couple of months ago just for Stu, yet he avoided it like the plague.

It is on the Misc. section.

I felt back then that Stu needed his own corner and those who like to debate would do it there.

"I started a thread a couple of months ago just for Stu, yet he avoided it like the plague."

I didn't see it, that's why.

Anyway, aren't we supposed to be discussing Steve Gough rather than griping on about me?

Stu

[Bob S.]

"It's that his views about nudity, which include descriptions like "revolting", "vile" and "disgusting" are incompatible with the general purpose of these forums, which is to support nudism rather than to denigrate it."

I agree that his descriptions of nudity are extreme. But I don't see those descriptions as a negative to this board as long as stu words it in a way that makes it his own opinion and not as fact.

"he persistently hijacks topics."

He puts in his own opinions that are usually on topic. As happens on message boards, topic threads do sometimes stray. And in this case, it seems that the point that it strayed from the Steve Gough/legalities of public nudity topic is when Rik posted the picture of the naked family.

"I'd be satisfied if the administrators would set up a section called "Endless debates with Stu" and if Stu confined his contributions to that section."

Add "and Bob" to that and I'll be happy. But really, we would need a topic. Are you going to act as "Linda Richman (?)" from Mike Myers' Saturday Night Live "Coffee Talk? "I'm feeling perclempt. Please talk amongst yourselves...I'll give you a topic. The Cold War: it was neither cold nor a war; discuss."

Bob S.

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rufus2:
I just wonder how much prison time Gough is going to get:

1 year, 2 years

Hope it's good a long!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Steve Gough was sentenced to 3 months but as he's been held in custody since the 6th October he was released today.

Tonight he continues his nude walk. http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2236988

Rik

"Steve Gough was sentenced to 3 months but as he's been held in custody since the 6th October he was released today."

I think that's a fair sentence. That should act as a deterrent to the vast majority of people who might otherwise be tempted to ape his idiotic and antisocial behaviour.

"Tonight he continues his nude walk. http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2236988"

Unless and until someone else complains. Then he can expect to enjoy Christmas as a guest of Her Majesty. If he gets arrested again the courts may see fit to impose an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) on him requiring him not to enter the north of Scotland. If he breaches an ASBO he can then expect to go down for considerably longer!

It doesn't particularly matter now whether he finishes the walk or not. The message is clear that inappropriate public nudity can result in a prison sentence. I for one am content with that as it's a victory for decency and common sense.

Stu

[NuTex]

His conviction proves nothing more than he may have violated some laws in the eyes of the judge or jury. It does not prove whether the laws are correct or if they were correctly applied. A short time ago in America many people served time in jail fighting segregation too but that didn't make the Jim Crows laws correct.

Good for Steve! He has principles and beliefs for which he's willing to stand and even to be arrested. While I wouldn't do what he's doing because I don't care to be arrested, I'm in favor of those with the courage to stand up for their belief that nude isn't lewd doing so. No one has been harmed by his nudity, offended yes, but not harmed. He's the only one who has been harmed, by the idiot who beat on him. He's been arrested and released repeatedly, and yet he continues his walk. However, it's got to awful cold now for walking nude!

Tex

"It does not prove whether the laws are correct or if they were correctly applied."

Is there a cast-iron way of ensuring that ANY law is correct or correctly applied? The only way I know of ascertaining whether it is is to establish whether or not the law itself or its enforcement meets with public approval. I have seen little evidence that there is much disapproval of the way Mr Gough has been treated.

Jon-Marc

"Good for Steve! He has principles and beliefs for which he's willing to stand and even to be arrested."

Yep. And so does Osama bin Laden, or the man who murdered abortion doctors, so do we admire them, too?

"No one has been harmed by his nudity, offended yes, but not harmed".

Offending people is just a form of harm. It's not on a par with assault or murder, nor even damaging someone else's property, rather it is harm similar causing inconvenience or wilful annoyance. People in the UK expect to be able to use THEIR public places free from any kind of harm.

"However, it's got to awful cold now for walking nude!"

Yep, below freezing. Brrr! Never mind, I'm sure they'll find him a nice warm cell as soon as somebody complains.

By the way, have you seen his picture on the BBC report? It makes him look like some sort of crazy man!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3247398.stm

Believe me - British naturists don't want the public to regard this guy as some kind of emblem for naturism. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Stu

[Gary Naturist]

Good for Steve! My admiration for him, already high, has increased because of his decision to finish the job that he started out to do, and despite the colder weather now.

Gary

Hey! Some GREAT NEWS folks! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

See:

"NAKED RAMBLER ARRESTED AGAIN

Naked Rambler Stephen Gough is back behind bars in Inverness after only 15 hours of freedom.

The 44-year-old from Eastleigh, Hampshire, was released after serving three months for breach of the peace.

He recommenced his trek from John O'Groats to Land's End and was picked up by police. Gough is due to appear in court again on Monday."

http://www.teletext.co.uk/news/story.asp?intArticleID=62644&intarticlenumber=1&intRegionID=5&intSubsectionID=1&From=I&indent=30

Stu (gloating? me? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )

I'd be willing to bet that with Rocket gone (I hope), you're the ONLY one here who thinks it's great news, Stu.

Jon-Marc

I think you're forgetting about MaxUK - I seem to recall hat he wasn't very impressed by Mr Gough's venture!

Are you still here, Max?

Stu

Oh yeah, Max....

stu's one and only member in his fan club.

[Scud5]

Jon-Marc,

Not gone..here all the time! Don't you do anything but sit home nude in front of a computer and talk to strangers?

Cyndiann,

Stu's got more fans than one I assure you. He's the voice of logic in a field of ignorance. I appreciate his writings very much. I am sure you don't, but then I am pretty sure you don't deal with too many people with an education.

I see that loser Gough is BACK inprison. Think of just how stupid that man must be:

*he's in prison for 3 months, and must know that if he keeps walking around nude, he'll be back

*he's now got a criminal record

AND HE DOES IT ANYWAY!

As I've said, the best thing would be 4 strikes of a bamboo cane on his bare buttocks, and you can bet he won't be walking around nude offending people at all!

The guy is a complete loser..I almost think Webster's or Oxford, for their definition of "loser" should define it as "re:Steve Gough" but that would give the guy more publicity than he deserves.

ta..ta.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Bob S.]

stu, I am appalled at your comment comparing Steve Gough to a cowardly terrorist leader and someone who kills other people for performing a legal service to the community. Steve has done no lasting harm to anyone. No one has died because of what he has done. He has caused temproary discomfort to a few people.

"It makes him look like some sort of crazy man!"

We are all crazy in our own ways. You just have to embrace that insanity in yourself. And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he picked up for breach of probation? When you are released from prison, the judge can give you some probationary rules that you must follow if you want to stay out of prison. For Steve Gough, that was not appearing in the nude in public. So he basically was arrested for breaking h is probation rules.

Now Rocket, You remind me of Steve Gough. In fact, you two are very similar. He has been repeatedly put into jail for being naked, you have been repeatedly kicked out of this site for being disruptive. He is resolute and continues his naked hike after being released from jail, you are resolute and continue to come back here after having been kicked out. So call him whatever names you need to, but just remember, you and him are very much alike.

Bob S.

Scud5, Rocket, Rocket2, and all your other aliases, at least I know who I am. I haven't been deleted as a member over and over and have to sneak back in with a new name hoping no one will notice. However, you can't hide the childish way in which you write. You call anyone who disagrees with you a loser, or who does something you think is wrong. Even Stu, with his phobia about seeing nude people or being seen nude, is respectful toward the people here. Of course, he's a lot more mature than you are, as everyone else here is. You also seem to think that your asinine opinion means anything to me.

I spent over 35 years of my life working for a living. I'm retired and think I deserve a rest. Does anyone here have a problem with that other than Scud 5, Rocket, Rocket2, etc, etc, etc? If you have a problem with that, Scud5, then go and get some counselling. It's none of your business what I do or don't do. You need to get a life and stay out of other people's.

I have children nearly twice your age and grandchildren, so who are you, child, to question my life? I'm sure I lost her/him long before now since she/he doesn't read all through anyone's post before expressing her/his usual childish, unwanted, and negative opinion.

Bob

"I am appalled at your comment comparing Steve Gough to a cowardly terrorist leader.."

Look again, Bob, I made no such comparison. I was making the general point that acting according to one's convictions doesn't automatically absolve a person of all their wrongdoing.

"He has caused temproary discomfort to a few people."

Yes he has. And he had no right to put innocent people going about their normal business through such discomfort.

"We are all crazy in our own ways."

I'm not. I am so sane it frightens me.

"And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he picked up for breach of probation?"

No he wasn't. He was never put on probation. You can't be sentenced to a probation order for a breach of the peace in England and I believe the same applies in Scotland.

"For Steve Gough, that was not appearing in the nude in public. So he basically was arrested for breaking h is probation rules."

One, and ONLY one, of the matters he was sentenced for was breach of bail. That means that he was given bail with conditions (one probably was not to be nude in public) and he breached one or more of them. The 3-month sentence was for breach of the peace, according to the news reports. You can't be given that penalty for breach of bail anyway.

I must say though that I do admire Rocket's persistence - and you seem to do so too!

Stu

[Bob S.]

Osama is not willing to be held accountable for his crimes. To him, he committed no crime nor do any of his followers who fulfill their missions. They are serving a higher purpose in Jihad, where in the afterlife, they will gain their rewards.

People who kill abortion doctors also do not consider their murders as crimes. They are acting in defense of the most vuknerable, people who cannot defend themselves.

Steve Gough is willing to suffer the punishments for his cause.

"And he had no right to put innocent people going about their normal business through such discomfort."

He has every right to do what he did. And the people who were upset had every right to complain.

"I am so sane it frightens me."

When someone tells me that I am weird, my response is "Thanks for noticing." Everyone has their own idiosyncracies. Everyone is weird in their own way, crazy in some aspect of their life. You are crazy in that you get extreme anxiety upon looking at female nudity. I'm crazy in that I am afraid of flying (and have minor obsession/compulsion disorder, but I am able to live with it). I cannot destroy a picture because of the superstition that I will harm the person in the picture. These are just a small list of my craziness.

"I must say though that I do admire Rocket's persistence - and you seem to do so too!"

No. I find it troubling. I admire your persistence as the lone voice of the textiles in a sea of nudists. You are civil and respectful. Rocket cannot follow the rules, is rude, hateful, and cannot take no for an answer. For her, it is not persistence, it is harassment.

Bob S.

[shãybare]

There is a great article on Stephen Gough on the front page of INA in the NUDES IN THE NEWS section. I urge everyone to read it and then join the site listed in support for Stephen. I especially hope Stu will read this.

I had already seen this article elsewhere. It was a straight lift from a press statement written by Mr Gough's chief henchman, Richard Collins. I read most of the UK papers today and listened to the news but it doesn't seem to have been used by them.

All Mr Collins is doing is outlining the appellant's case so it's only presenting one side of the argument. Clearly the respondents, the CPS, will have other ideas.

I must say that I am rather surprised, and a little disappointed, that so many decent and considerate naturists on here are supporting Mr Gough. He is a man who refuses to associate himself in any way with naturism. I get the impression that the "stopsegregation group" to which he belongs actually despises naturists because they go off and do their own thing in their own places rather than openly confronting the world at large. According to what I read, a spokesman for British Naturism had tried to distance the movement from this man's behaviour because it would be likely to bring naturism into disrepute. He was 100% right!

Stu

[shãybare]

Good day, stu. Hope you had a good weekend.

What kind of evidence do you have that the "stopsegregation group" actually despises naturists? Or is this merely an opinion?

I still see it as a great article and urge naturists to support him.
BTW, how is your knee coming along?

[Bob S.]

They do not descpise naturists per se. The issue the group has wth naturists is that they are not so willing to bare all for the greater cause. That naturists do not have the chutzpah to do what Vincent and Steve have done.

And I read this on their yahoo group which I am a member of. But I believe that naturists serve their puprose just as the Steves and Vincents of this world. And if there were more of both, naturism and public nudty would be seen much more positively.

Bob S.

[Jochanaan]

In this discussion (not "thread" /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ), we have slammed into some basic philosophical differences. Stu, correct me if I've misinterpreted your previous posts, but I seem to recall that you do not believe in a "higher law," but merely the laws on which the majority of people have agreed. Others advocate a principle of redressing damage, that is, measurable harm that one person does to another. (Heinlein in his story "Coventry" shows how such a system might work in real life.) Still others, like me, believe that the most important laws originate not with humans but with the One who made them.

With those differences, it doesn't surprise me that we cannot agree on means! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Shaybare

"What kind of evidence do you have that the "stopsegregation group" actually despises naturists? Or is this merely an opinion?"

Good question! Here is just one quote from Vincent Bethell, the leading light in Stop Segregation, that illustrates his attitude towards naturists:

"The majority of naturists (and non-naturists) would not like to see the body visibility accepted because they enjoy the secret, naughty, shocking and kinky element of a segregated visual appearance."

And another quote from him (his spelling errors, not mine!):

"The segregartion will stop the naturtist business/industry will loose its captive market, the naturist industry will be going down the pan,
sorry CCBN."

Does that answer your question? /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"I still see it as a great article and urge naturists to support him."

Well he certainly doesn't support you!

"BTW, how is your knee coming along?"

Don't ask! My ligament has stretched and now has 2cms of laxity. If the PT doesn't take up the looseness I'll be back on the operating table sometime in the future. But thanks for asking anyway.

Bob S.

"They do not descpise naturists per se. The issue the group has wth naturists is that they are not so willing to bare all for the greater cause. That naturists do not have the chutzpah to do what Vincent and Steve have done."

Bob - Vincent says you and me and everybody else here are "kinky" - in other words he thinks we're perverts!

"And if there were more of both, naturism and public nudty would be seen much more positively."

Stop Segregation gives you the worst of both worlds. When they are not accusing you and me and everyone else of being perverts they advocate walking about naked - an activity which upsets, shocks, embarrasses etc ordinary peple going about their ordinary business. For that they end up on the wrong side of the law; possibly in prison. People will then label them "naturists" and assume that other naturists are irresponsible fanatics at odds with the law too.

Genuine naturists need Steve Gough like a seven year old needs a loaded shotgun! British Naturism seems to have realised that and are distancing themselves from him and his little organisation.

Jochanaan

"...but I seem to recall that you do not believe in a "higher law," but merely the laws on which the majority of people have agreed."

Laws should be grounded upon what the majority want rather than what one particular religious school advocates from their doctrine. This is especially true where the society is an educated and developed society.

"Others advocate a principle of redressing damage, that is, measurable harm that one person does to another."

We're still in the area of defining what we mean by 'harm'. If you obstruct a street so that I have to find another route to work you are causing me a low-level harm, but it's harm nontheless. If you erect a huge, grotesque statue of an aborted foetus just outside my house you are causing me harm. Similarly if you pick the lovely flowers in the park near my home then you are causing me harm. What I do in your environment affects you and what you do in mine affects me. Making a shared environment less comfortable for a significant proportion of its users is a form of harm.

"Still others, like me, believe that the most important laws originate not with humans but with the One who made them."

OK, but you have to realise that societies who try to base laws on religious doctrine are doomed to failure and worse! A Christian Fundamentalist state is no better than an Islamic Fundamentalist state. They may have a different complexion but they are both irrational, intolerant and deeply unpopular.

Stu

It seems Gough has some buddies out there!

************
NAKED joggers have caused a stir after being seen running through the freezing Worcestershire countryside.

http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcest....T0.html

A driver making early morning deliveries has spotted the runners three times on Castlemorton Common, near Malvern.

At first, it was a middle-aged couple - but, by the third sighting, the nude jogging party had grown to six.

The barefaced cheek of the joggers - whose identities remain a mystery - has amused Ray Biggs, of Welland Post Office.

He has bread delivered every day at around 6.45am.

"One morning, the driver said he'd seen a couple of joggers going across the common stark naked, and I wasn't sure whether to believe him or not.

"But he saw them again the following week and then a third time, when there were half-a-dozen of them," said Mr Biggs.

A spokesman for the Wyvern Naturist Club, near Ledbury - which has more than 100 members - said the runners sounded like "hardy souls" to be jogging naked at this time of year.

"I suspect they're doing it independently. It could be members of a running club doing it for a bet," he said.

"They wouldn't be members of our club, because they use our site and it isn't usually that well-occupied from about September.

"It's open all the year round, but we are not masochists. The weather conditions aren't such that people want to strip off."

The sightings come as determined naked runner Steve Gough, aged 44, from Hampshire, tries to complete the 845-mile run from Land's End to John O' Groats, despite being arrested several times on the way.

The idea of naked runners dates back to the ancient Greeks and the original Greek Olympics. At Tything Barn, a naturist site near Pembroke, Wales, there is an annual fun run for people who enjoy casting off their clothes.

The website says there are some naturists "committed to extending their naturism beyond the confines of the club stockade and striking out with a unique sense of freedom for the great outdoors".

It says runners who have had the opportunity to combine their running with nakedness have found a feeling of freedom and tranquillity, which cannot be matched in any other way.

But a Worcester police spokesman saw it differently.

The naked joggers could face prosecution under four different laws - the Public Order Act, Common Law, the Vagrancy Act and the Town Police Clauses Act.

[BareDebCNA]

Cyndiann,
Just to let you know that when trying to access the link you provided, that is not available for whatever reason. I tried twice and got the same information. I am sure it was a very good article and wish I could have read it; perhaps another time.
Hope you are enjoying your nice Florida weather. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif We have 6 plus inches of SNOW here, burr!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Have a great nude day everyone /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Deb /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nurse2b:
Cyndiann,
Just to let you know that when trying to access the link you provided, that is not available for whatever reason. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It looks like the link got 'shortened' when Cyndiann posted it. Here it is whole: Link (http://www.thisisworcestershire.co.uk/worcestershire/worcester/news/WEN_NEWS_LATEST0.html). The story is the same as posted above.

Here's a tiny shot of the tabloid cover. It seems the story was rather prominent.
http://members.aol.com/naturistmark/wenfront.jpg

-Mark

Nurse2B,

It's in the 30's F here in the daytime, but all we've got at the moment is rain. At least we don't have to shovel it!

[BareDebCNA]

Jon-Marc,
Thats okay, I'm sure you will get your fair share of snow here sometime this winter!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
Just time to move south and enjoy life /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Got to go as supper is almost ready /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Have a great nude day,
Deb /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Naturist Mark]

Scotland Violating Human Rights Over Naked Rambler Steve Gough?

PRESS RELEASE

Breaking News: SCOTLAND IN BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS

18:30GMT, December 5, 2003

Stephen Gough, 44 of Eastleigh, Hampshire aka 'Naked Rambler' was to
appear at Southampton Crown Court, England on an appeal against his
"naked stroll" conviction in February 2003. The Southamton court had
issued a production order to the Scottish authorities for Mr Gough to
appear on the 8th and 9th December. Gough is currently on remand for the
forth time in Inverness jail, this time until January, but according to
Gough's solicitor's, the authorities have again failed to agree to
produce him in court and denying Gough his Article 6, European
Convention Right, Right to a fair trial. The Southampton appeal will not
go ahead in Gough's absence.

"If he is allowed to appear and wins, it will make a mockery of the
cases brought against Mr Gough in Scotland", said Richard Collins,
spokeperson for The Freedom to be Yourself campaign.

You can follow the latest events in this breaking news through the new
support group at www.go-bare.com (http://www.go-bare.com) and see an archive of news reports at
http://nakedrambler.com

Gough is resolute in defending his 'right' to self-determination,
freedom of conscience, belief and expression as stated in his letter to
Bernard Boase, a fellow supporter, published on the 'Freedom to be
Yourself' website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopsegregation/
The text of Bernard's post is attached.

The Home Office 'Human Rights Act' Study Guide which can be found at
http://www.humanrights.gov.uk/studyguide/ says:

"Article 6: Right to a fair trial

3.46 You have the right to a fair trial. This is a key feature of a
democratic society, and includes:
* the right to a fair hearing"

This is a major concern in relation to public nudity cases as the
'facts' of the case are not considered on their merit. Judgements are
made based on the view (prejudice) of the court towards nudity in a
public place.

This includes the right of appeal in a timely manner. Gough's appeal at
Southampton was first set for March 2003 but postponed several times.

Stephen Gough has never intended to cause offence and knows that most
people are unconcerned by non-threatening non-sexual public nudity (see
NOP Poll report on www.nuff.org.uk (http://www.nuff.org.uk) and www.british-naturism.org.uk). (http://www.british-naturism.org.uk).)
This view is reflected in the Governments final amendment to the Sexual
Offences Bill 'Exposure' clause which has now received Royal Assent.

Sexual Offence Act, published wording:

"66 Exposure

(1) A person commits an offence if -
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or
distress."

Full details of the changes with debate extracts from Hansard can be
found on www.nuff.org.uk (http://www.nuff.org.uk)

It was acknowledge by Paul Goggins MP, during the Commons Committee B
debate in October re: 'Exposure' (Clause 68 as it was then), that it was
Steve Gough's "intention that matters". As Mr Goggins recalls, Steve
"intended to walk from Lands End to John O'Groats, not to cause alarm or
distress, so he would not be covered by this piece of legislation".

For a transcript of this debate, please see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/b/st030918/pm/30918s06.htm

As of today, Gough will have spent over 3 months on remand in Inverness
Prison - an initial one week term, followed by two terms of over one month
each. His last appearance at Dingwall was on Nov 7th 2003, when having
been 'found' guilty, he was held until Nov 28th for sentencing. Given a
3 month prison sentence and deemed to have served his time, Gough was
released only to be arrested again the following day for suspected
breach of the peace after he resumed his walk.

"Scottish breach of the peace, requires a threat of "serious
disturbance" to a "reasonable person", a threshold, I'm sure, Steve has
not crossed," remarked Collins.

Bruce McKain, wrote in The Herald, Scotland, 10 October 2002, that
during an appeal, Faslane protester Pamela Smith, "contended that breach
of the peace was such a vague charge that it would be entirely possible
to commit an offence without being aware of it."

McKain continued in his article:

Although Ms Smith failed in her argument, she paved the way for Tommy
Sheridan's acquittal at Helensburgh district court last year.

Although the appeal judges - Lords Coulsfield, Osborne and Caplan -
refused her appeal, they redefined the law in a way that seems to make
it more difficult to get a conviction. It now appears that Lord Cullen,
Scotland's senior judge, wants the whole breach of the peace issue
reviewed so that the law can be clarified.

The Crown is drawing up a list of cases covering a wide range of
circumstances to place before a five-judge bench.

In the Smith case., Lord Coulsfield said that, before you could commit
breach of the peace, your behaviour had to be severe enough to cause
alarm to ordinary people and threaten "serious disturbance".

"If there is no evidence of actual alarm, the conduct must be flagrant
if it is to justify a conviction. Flagrant is a strong word and the
use of that word points to a standard of conduct which would be
alarming or seriously disturbing to any reasonable person..."


"Given the above interpretation, I fail to see how Steve could be found
guilty of breach of the peace for simply walking naked. A not guilty
verdict would render the bail conditions set at earlier hearings "not to
commit further offences" unlawful, which rather creates a paradox
highlighting the prejudice of the Sheriffs Court and apparent bullying
tactics used to stop him," said Collins.

"Steve has many supporters worldwide, those most 'active' being south of
the border, which gives rise to geographical difficulties in lending
greater support, particularly 'in person'. This gives a false impression
that Gough is fighting the issue 'single-handedly' but the new support
group gained 48 members in the first twenty-four hours. Several of
Steve's supporters have written to Human Rights organisations in
Scotland, England (Liberty), and Amnesty International. All have replied
to say that a lack of funds and staff means they are unable to assist",
he added.

It is clear from the lack of evidence to support alleged offences during
Steve's walk through England and Wales since June 16th, and the
Government's accession over Clause 67 to pressure brought by the
naturist community, that the public does not need to be protected from
this kind of nudity as practised by Steve and naturists in general.

The new support group http://groups.yahoo/com/group/go-bare was formed
last Sunday and has already attracted 90 subscribers - the domain
www.go-bare.com (http://www.go-bare.com) links to the group's home page.

This is a serious Human Rights issue - please show your support by
subscribing to www.go-bare.com (http://www.go-bare.com) - you can join simply by sending a blank
email to: go-bare-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

The Freedom to be Yourself
Please use www.go-bare.com (http://www.go-bare.com) in all press reports and internet links.


Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 23:34:00 -0000
From: bernardboase
Reply-To: stopsegregation@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [ the freedom to be yourself ] Steve's letter
To: stopsegregation@yahoogroups.com


I got a letter from Steve today which includes the following:

QUOTE
...my accommodation has been upgraded from the punishment cell out
back in the cold, to one off one of the halls -- think of "Porridge",
the comedy on TV, and it's not dissimilar. I've got a bit more room
to walk back and forth (four steps instead of two), and there's a TV,
kettle and heating. I'm still kept separate from the rest of the
inmates, only allowed out for a shower once a day. To be honest, it
doesn't bother me much (isolation) as it means I have the whole cell
to myself, everyone else shares, so I've got more room and I can do
exactly what I want without compromise.

I wouldn't be surprised if my stay inside is for a good deal longer,
maybe even stretching to years. My plan, at least for my next trial
(Nov 7th Dingwall) is to again represent myself, but this time insist
on my nakedness in court to the extent of refusal to cooperate if it
is turned down. This runs the risk of contempt, but it's a joke for
the trial to be considered fair if the judge considers it improper
for the naked human body to be seen in a public place, such as the
court. I'm not interested in getting off on technical grounds, it
means nothing and gets us nowhere. The acceptance of naked humans as
innocent is a premise that needs to be brought into people's
consciousness through acts that challenge conventions based in fear.

I saw a programme last night that documented Gandhi in his fight
against the authorities in South Africa. His first stint in prison
was for nine months. Even things so obviously wrong as the rights he
was fighting for needed individuals prepared to suffer for their
cause. In fact, he did it with an acceptance and dignity of someone
who knew that truth would win the day -- eventually. I'm convinced
that what we are fighting for will also win -- we've just got to show
them we are serious...
UNQUOTE

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


You can write to Steve in prison at the address below:

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


To receive press releases and announcements only, please subscribe to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/go-bare-announce To subscribe by email
simply send a blank email to go-bare-announce-subscribe@yahoogroups.com


================================================== ======================
END OF PRESS RELEASE

[Bob S.]

stu, where did you get those quotes from Vincent Bethell? I do agree that if public nudity became the norm, it would hurt the business of the naturist venues. They would have to change drastically their businesses or close.

I just finsihed reading a discourse on Vincent's criticisms of the naturists. It is message number 1629 in the stopsegregation group http://groups.yahoo.com/stopsegregation You must join to read this message.

Basically, Vincent goes to say that because of the reticent of naturists to make any stance outside of the parks/beaches, that they are useless for his ideology. Because naturists aren't willing to go naked in public, such as in his protests, they are not worthy of his time or support. That hiding behind their labels makes them less willing to be confrontational, lest others would be "offended" by their actions and give naturism a black eye. He also feels that naturists are a clique bent on defending themselves and themselves only. They will not defend those who are naked outside of the proper context.

His problem is that he is a bit too extreme for his time. He sees the mandatory clothing of the naked body as racism. That the root of a lot of hatred in the world is body shame and if everyone could accept their own naked body and those of everyone else, peace on Earth would be within our grasp.

"Stop Segregation gives you the worst of both worlds."

SS is an extreme fringe group. I may not believe or follow their message, but I do believe in their ultimate goal, the acceptance of the human body. And they are going about it by attacking the laws. I will support anyone who tries to either overturn laws that I do not agree with or prove that the laws that are on the books are being used improperly, as Steve and Vincent are doing.

"British Naturism seems to have realised that and are distancing themselves from him and his little organisation."

As they should. BN and SS have two completely different agendas in mind. BN wants to get more people involved in natuirism while SS wants to rid the UK of its anti-nudity laws.

"If you obstruct a street so that I have to find another route to work you are causing me a low-level harm"

You are also endangering your and other people's lives. Of course, if the street is being worked on and is closed for repairs...

"If you erect a huge, grotesque statue of an aborted foetus just outside my house you are causing me harm."

On your property, it would be trespassing and you could feel threatened. Otherwise, it would be considered art and no one can claim to be harmed by viewing art. Maybe feel a bit disgusted, but that is not harm in this case.

"Similarly if you pick the lovely flowers in the park near my home then you are causing me harm."

How? It would merely be an aesthetic difference. You may be upset that they were gone, but no harm would befall you. Unless of course I was harmed when the elementary school which I attended and had a feeling of nostalgia was razed and a new school was built in its place (kept the same name--Woodstock).

Bob S.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nurse2b:
Cyndiann,
Just to let you know that when trying to access the link you provided, that is not available for whatever reason. I tried twice and got the same information. I am sure it was a very good article and wish I could have read it; perhaps another time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well I posted the whole article here anyway so it doesn't matter that the link stopped working. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Hope you are enjoying your nice Florida weather. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif We have 6 plus inches of SNOW here, burr!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
Have a great nude day everyone /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Deb /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was 76 here today and I guess I should stop bragging while I can. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

A great day to you too Deb!

[sawdust]

This long running "pissing contest" between the local offended communities and Mr.Steve Gough, is really getting to be a tiresome subject. If the local communities really wanted to solve this problem easily, they would have given him an escort through those areas where a problems might exist, and be done with it. They could also have just told the offended callers to "close your eyes for the few moments Mr.Steve will take to pass your way. He is not really doing any one any harm, is he?" Mr.Steve for his part, could have done his walking within these local communities at night. His passing then might not even have been noticed. By each side not being willing to give an inche, both the local courts and Mr. Steve are tied up in an on going legal quagmire.

What really seems to be going on here is that these people and communities, that very few have ever heard of, now find them selves in the lime lite of notoriety. You know, I think they all like it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif It is that one moment of (in this case offended) fame thing! My thought is to "get on with it folks. There are bigger fish to fry!" /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Just thought you would like to know. Sawdust

[Gary Naturist]

Bob S said: Basically, Vincent goes to say that because of the reticent of naturists to make any stance outside of the parks/beaches, that they are useless for his ideology. Because naturists aren't willing to go naked in public, such as in his protests, they are not worthy of his time or support. That hiding behind their labels makes them less willing to be confrontational, lest others would be "offended" by their actions and give naturism a black eye. He also feels that naturists are a clique bent on defending themselves and themselves only. They will not defend those who are naked outside of the proper context.

As one who practices nudity in public (i.e. not in nudist-only locations), I understand Vince's point of view. The proprietors of nudists parks and resorts don't want the right to be nude in public because that would reduce or eliminate the need to join a club to be nude. And some members of these clubs don't care about public nudity because they choose to be nude only within the confines of nudist parks.

I don't think that Vince appreciates that there two types of nudists - private and public. I'm quite sure that he would not be negative about public nudists.

Gary

[Jochanaan]

This Vincent character reminds me of some fundamentalist or charismatic Christians I've known, who have little use for mainline Christians because they don't support the fundamentalists' or charismatics' radical agenda. Such fringe groups may call attention to Christians, or nudists, but without patient activity and support from massive numbers, they do little to advance either cause.

More positive role models are Billy Graham, who throughout his career as an evangelist has relied on support from local churches of all denominations, and Martin Luther King, who among other things was a great coalition-builder.

[aunaturelone]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>if public nudity became the norm, it would hurt the business of the naturist venues <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yet another reason public nudity should become the norm. The current law acts as a subsidy for a class of business. Nothing so vile in the body politic as corporate welfare!

In reality the quality of nudist venues would have to improve or they'd go out of business. They'd have to stand on their merits as specialty resorts rather than being, by law, the only game in town.

This is a good thing. Today most nudist resorts are little more than campgrounds with minimal ameanities. The last resort I went to was a row of parking spaces circled around an algea clogged pond and in turn circled by a high opaque fence and a trailer for a "clubhouse". A broader acceptance of nudity would break the "nudist ghetto" syndrome.

The high quality nudist venues tha exist now wouldn't suffer any. They are populated with people for whom nudism is a social lifestyle, for people who are attempting to escape the textile world and are willing to pay top dollar. If anything their numbers would increase as more people try the life informally and like it.

To look at it in a different way, anyone who wants can go camping and skiing in the national forest. Lots do. It hasn't hurt the mountain resorts a bit.

[NudeAl]

There are extremists in almost all parts of society. They take there beliefs to a level that most of us would not. But that is also how boundries are pushed a little further. I am not saying I fully support them and I am disapointed in how they view naturists. Though we have been somewhat timid in accepting the role society has given us. I mean we are not exactly burning up the phone lines contacting our government representatives asking for more nude rights and freedoms so they have a point. Of the two I find Steve Gough a little more palletable. He seems to confine his nudity to the woods and pathways that are a bit off the beaten track. I doubt that either of them is going to have a significant impact on how we nudists are seen by the general public. Though I admit I know very little about what the public opinion in England of him is. I do agree it is time that we who enjoy nude recreation should start to be a bit more vocal in calling for our right to enjoy this pastime in more areas.

"Yet another reason public nudity should become the norm."

Sorry to repeat my mantra but things should only become the norm if there is evidence that most people want them to become the norm. Otherwise you are inflicting your own wishes for the public environment onto an unwilling and unaccepting majority. That is the opposite of considerate naturism.

NudeAl

"There are extremists in almost all parts of society".

There is nothing to choose between the views of Mr Gough and Mr Bethell. They are both extremists and subscribe to the same group. Don't imagine that Mr Gough tries to confine his nakedness to remote footpaths - he does no such thing. He tried to get naked in a popular public park right in the centre of London one weekend last summer in spite of the undoubted presence of women and children who he would have known might well have been upset or alarmed at his conduct. He has been arrested, charged and convicted of wandering about the streets of his home town naked. He tried to enter a BBC studio naked - since when have the female reception staff at a broadcasting organisation consented to be exposed to like that when at work?

"I do agree it is time that we who enjoy nude recreation should start to be a bit more vocal in calling for our right to enjoy this pastime in more areas."

I agree. There is plenty of scope for some truly concerted and persistent campaigning on the part of naturists in the UK to gain more and better facilities. But the objectionable behaviour of a few extremists are hardly likely to win naturists any public sympathy or support.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Sorry to repeat my mantra but things should only become the norm if there is evidence that most people want them to become the norm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When it comes to social change it is not a question of whether people want or don't want things to become the norm it's a question of whether they accept that things they might not like have become normal. By definition it takes most people to accept social change for social change to happen.

Who are you to subvert the course of social change by demanding that those who want change should be denied the opportunity to seek acceptance from the rest?

Rik

[NudeAl]

Stu,

I wasn't aware of these other previous exploits. I am starting to have a change of heart on the matter. Heaven help me but I think we may be starting to see eye to eye on the issue. Though I still feel that nudity is basicly a harmless thing in and of itself. I do recognize that it is a matter of a time and place for everything. We may just disagree a bit on that part.

Yes we are a minority but watch out because our numbers are growing. More people than you might realize are sympathetic to our view. I believe this may even include you.

We seem to agree that presently the recreation opportunities are some what limited to say the least. We have quite a lot of public lands here in the western U.S. I would like to see some sort of official designation for nude use in a portion of that land. Currently there is no federal law prohibiting nudity on these federal lands, nor is there a state law in California against mere nudity. But often the local managment agency opts to follow local county or city ordinances which may prohibit it. I would like this to change so we would have a clearly designated right to use certain portions nude even campgrounds. I doubt that this will ever happen but that would go a long ways towards satisfying me.

[Bob S.]

There are two types of naturists. Activist and passive. The activist naturists are the ones who are out there fighting for our rights be it defeating anti-nudist bills, trying to get new nude beaches, doing some good PR for public nudism, etc. The passive naturists are the home naturists, the ones who go to the parks/beaches, but do not contribute to their overall acceptance.

And yes, aunaturel, the more popular naturism becomes, the more the parks will need to offer. The biggest problems that some of them have is that they are in rural areas and can only build so much, they have very limited space to grow, money issues, etc.

"things should only become the norm if there is evidence that most people want them to become the norm."

stu, most of the time, change happens before acceptance of the change happens. That is how most of the social change has occurred in societies. And usually, it will take about a generation for the change to take hold.

And as I have said, the Vincents and Steves have their own purpose in public nudity. The naturist movement has its purpose in converting people. One is about social change, the other is about social acceptance.

Bob S.

Rik

You make a general point about social change. But that applies to bad things as well as good things. People in the UK nowadays accept the fact that it's normal to have to wait many hours in a Casualty Department to get seen by a doctor. They accept that it's normal for many of our city centres to be cesspools of drunkenness and yobbery every Friday night. And they accept that if they get their car broken into they won't actually get a policeman to come out and see them and investigate it - they'll have to make do with getting a crime number on the phone. But things don't have to be like that if people refuse to accept them. It can never be right for one group to inflict social change on the masses for its own interests without any regard to how the remainder of society feels. If we are to accept Ryan's survey, a majority of the populace respond with negative feelings about nudity. 23% of people of people are so offended by the sight of nudity they would go to the trouble of seeking out a policeman. Compare that to the 2% of the population who are practising naturists - more than ten times as many! And yet you are defending a man who is willing to risk causing distress to so many on behalf on the personal desires of so few.

We can't always engineer social change so that it matches exactly the majority of the public's wishes and preferences. But we shouldn't just sit idly by whilst minority interests further their own agenda at the expense of a significant proportio of the rest of society. That's why I am so passionate in speaking out against Mr Gough and Co.

NudeAl

"Though I still feel that nudity is basicly a harmless thing in and of itself. I do recognize that it is a matter of a time and place for everything. We may just disagree a bit on that part."

That's the attitude I expect to find from responsible naturists. The bits we disagree o can, of course, be negotiated.

"Yes we are a minority but watch out because our numbers are growing".

I don't have a problem with your numbers growing. I think naturists will remain a minority either forever, or at least for a very long time to come (by which time I'll be a branch of McDonalds for a local maggot society). Nudists should be more bold and open about their naturists; these days there is no reason to be a closet naturist. Only by revealing yourselves (figuratively speaking of course /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) to the wider society, discussing your needs and being willing to campaign, canvass support and negotiate will you succeed in getting the facilities you are entitled to expect. Of course you can demand more as and when your numbers grow. But you have to be realistic and prepared to give and take.

Messrs Gough, Bethell and the other fanatics won't deliver you to your promised land. They're more likely to take naturism down a very bumpy side road that leads to a dead end.

Bob S.

"The naturist movement has its purpose in converting people."

Gosh! Bob, is that how you see it? 'Converting people'? I find that quite disturbing. To me that statement conjured images of some naturist intelligentsia enlighting the ignorant masses in the same way that early collonial missionaries brought Christianity to the savages. Surely you accept that non-naturism is every bit as legitimate a lifestyle choice as naturism. Of course the naturist movement can seek to be informative and welcoming. But "converting"? I must say that I have a problem with that.

"One is about social change, the other is about social acceptance."

As I tried to explain to Rik, social change is merely a development of social acceptance. How about we just inform the populace and let them decide it for themselves rather than trying to inflict it upon them? Wouldn't that be more ethical? More democratic?

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You make a general point about social change. But that applies to bad things as well as good things. People in the UK nowadays accept the fact that it's normal to have to wait many hours in a Casualty Department to get seen by a doctor. They accept that it's normal for many of our city centres to be cesspools of drunkenness and yobbery every Friday night. And they accept that if they get their car broken into they won't actually get a policeman to come out and see them and investigate it - they'll have to make do with getting a crime number on the phone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Compared to these real threats to public safety and quality of life, the social risks of body freedom seem trivial.

It would probably be a good idea to stop worrying about someone seeing Steve Gough's willie, and devote some resources towards those real problems.

-Mark

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
You make a general point about social change. But that applies to bad things as well as good things. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Things may be good or bad depending on your perspective. Presumably those who like to get drunk on a Saturday night welcome the opportunity to do so in a cesspool. The other things you mention are economic issues rather than social values. The wait to see a doctor is compensated for by a relativley cheap national health system; the lack of policemen to tackle real crimes is beacuse, as a society, we're only prepared to pay our police to a certain level - or perhaps it's because they're too busy arresting innocent naked people.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It can never be right for one group to inflict social change on the masses for its own interests without any regard to how the remainder of society feels. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But that's exactly what happens to naturists: the views of one section - in requiring naturists to practise their sordid little activities out of sight - are inflicted on others. Except that you justify such oppression as democracy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We can't always engineer social change so that it matches exactly the majority of the public's wishes and preferences. But we shouldn't just sit idly by whilst minority interests further their own agenda at the expense of a significant proportio of the rest of society. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well there have been plenty of people opposed to and offended by open homosexuality, there have been draconian legal sanctions against gays in the past, there are still some sections of the community who abhor the very thought of homosexuality and yet in our lifetime we have seen a complete turnaround in the acceptance of homosexuality. Today it's completely normal even for people in the public eye to have an openly homosexual relationship so I see no reason why it should be beyond the realms of possibility for the general public to accept that simple nudity is actually OK.

Rik

"Things may be good or bad depending on your perspective. Presumably those who like to get drunk on a Saturday night welcome the opportunity to do so in a cesspool."

Precisely! But this is something inflicted upon the whole of society mainly by one section of one generation of the populace at the expense of everyone else. Consequently many people avoid our city centres on Friday and Saturday evenings. They shouldn't feel that they have to do that.

"we're only prepared to pay our police to a certain level - or perhaps it's because they're too busy arresting innocent naked people."

Before beginning this walk Mr Gough would have known perfectly well that quite a few people would be upset at what he was doing and would call the police. If people such as him weren't behaving irresponsibly and thus tying up police resources perhaps our over-stretched police could have more time to deal with the more serious criminals.

"But that's exactly what happens to naturists: the views of one section - in requiring naturists to practise their sordid little activities out of sight - are inflicted on others. Except that you justify such oppression as democracy."

It IS democracy - and it's tolerant democracy to boot. Naturists aren't being prevented from practising their activities. There are even places provided for that purpose - inadequate as they are. Naturists are also welcome in any public place they like, just so long as they keep a tiny area of their bodies covered up just like the rest of us. That's not oppression at all - it's a recognition of the rights of a minority to behave as they please being curtailed in the interests of the majority whilst in public places.

"Well there have been plenty of people opposed to and offended by open homosexuality...Today it's completely normal even for people in the public eye to have an openly homosexual relationship.."

Firstly I don't fully accept your premise about open homosexuality. Most of what we would regard as homosexual behaviour happens in private, just like heterosexual behaviour. Secondly, that which does occur in public and other than at gay venues is largely limited. I have yet to see two homosexual men involved in heavy petting at my local park, but I see plenty of heterosexuals doing that. Thirdly, homosexuality is a syndrome. It's not simply a preference, something you one day decide to get into. You either are or you are not that way. For this reason the public at large have moderated their attitudes towards it. But the same cannot be said for naturism. That is a wholly voluntary lifestyle choice - you can stop and start being a naturist at will. Naturists generally spend most of their lives clothed, so the wearing of clothes causes them no real problem. In other words - homosexuals have got an 'excuse' that naturists can't claim.

Any generally recognised right afforded to naturists to be naked whenever or wherever they liked would amount to the majority having to put up with something they are uncomfortable with just to provide a little more comfort to a tiny minority.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
If people such as him weren't behaving irresponsibly and thus tying up police resources perhaps our over-stretched police could have more time to deal with the more serious criminals. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Or they could just prioritise their workload more effectively.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Firstly I don't fully accept your premise about open homosexuality. Most of what we would regard as homosexual behaviour happens in private, just like heterosexual behaviour. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was talking about open homosexuality not open homosexual behaviour. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Thirdly, homosexuality is a syndrome. It's not simply a preference, something you one day decide to get into. You either are or you are not that way. For this reason the public at large have moderated their attitudes towards it. But the same cannot be said for naturism. That is a wholly voluntary lifestyle choice - you can stop and start being a naturist at will. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you're wrong. You can wear or not wear clothes at will but you cannot necessarily stop being a naturist - it is syndrome not a set of behaviours. I do not stop being a naturist just because I'm wearing clothes.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Naturists generally spend most of their lives clothed, so the wearing of clothes causes them no real problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I know you like to speak for everyone else but you simply cannot speak for naturists and expect to get away with it. On this one issue at least you have no idea what you're talking about: being forced by law and social convention to wear clothes when clothing is unnecessary (by our definition) often feels demeaning and therefore does cause a problem.

Rik

[Kari P]

Rik is right. We naturists can make a decision to wear clothes, but as it is a forced decision it doesn't stop us being naturists. Of course it is possible to a naturist to be converted back to a non-naturist, but this is as rare and unlikely to happen to a serious naturist as it is to a confessing Christian to become an atheist or muslim. As has been said before, naturism has this kind of religious aspect although it isn't a religion.

Kari P

[Bob S.]

"People in the UK nowadays accept the fact that it's normal to have to wait many hours in a Casualty Department to get seen by a doctor..."

Yes, they have accepted such things. But these things apparently have not gotten so bad that the people are demanding immediate change. And by the way, it sounds like the UK needs some extra police officers (do you still call them bobbies?) if they are too busy to come to the aid of someone who has been the victim of a robbery. And especially if they are too busy with naked people that more serious crimes are going on unadulterated. Would an officer actually stay with a naked man if there were a bank robbery in progress in his immediate vicinity?

"It can never be right for one group to inflict social change on the masses for its own interests without any regard to how the remainder of society feels."

Legally right or morally right? Tattoos were once seen as bad. It took many years for people to become accustomed to seeing tattoos on their neighbors. They were being "forcably exposed" to the tattoos. Decades passed and the threat of the tattoos waned until they became commonplace. Social change begins with a minority doing something that previous generations did not do.

Let us look at some of the television shows on today. They would never have passed the censors twenty years ago. How are they now acceptable, social change, some say for the worse, others say for the better.

"We can't always engineer social change so that it matches exactly the majority of the public's wishes and preferences. But we shouldn't just sit idly by whilst minority interests further their own agenda at the expense of a significant proportio of the rest of society."

So what are we supposed to do? You are giving society no chance to change.

"Bob, is that how you see it? 'Converting people'? I find that quite disturbing."

stu, I do think you are now just trying to find fault with my words. You know what I am talking about. Naturism is there to assist in converting those who are interested in the lifestyle. Just as churches are there not only for those who wish to worship that particular religion, but also help those who are interested in that particular religion.

"How about we just inform the populace and let them decide it for themselves rather than trying to inflict it upon them? Wouldn't that be more ethical? More democratic?"

And as I said above, change must come before acceptance of the change. People didn't just suddenly wake up one day and think to themselves, "You know, tattoos aren't that bad." "I would love to hear more curse words on TV." And Steve and Vincent do not believe the laws that are being used against them should be applied to simple nudity nor do they think that people should be ashamed to see nudity. I see them as being ultimately democratic. Testing the laws through civil disobedience. But we've been down that road before.

Bob S.

Rik,

"I was talking about open homosexuality not open homosexual behaviour."

There's a difference? Where I live if two adults of the same sex were seen in the street holding hands or kissing (passionately) they'd be subject to verbal abuse or violence.

"You can wear or not wear clothes at will but you cannot necessarily stop being a naturist - it is syndrome not a set of behaviours."

Sorry, Rik, I don't buy that. It may be a highly pleasurable behaviour (if you like that sort of thing) even to the extent of being mildly addictive, but it isn't a syndrome. Both naturists and textiles are made, not born.

Again, take the analogy of homosexuals. As a rule they know there is a time and place to do what they do - they engage in homosexual activity in private. They have demanded the right to be open about their sexuality and people are gradually accepting that. But I don't recall even their most militant organisations demanding the right to engage in homosexual sex in public. Naturists similarly have a right to be open about their activity; to declare their passion for being naked. That doesn't give them the right to BE naked in any public place regardless of the wishes of most other people.

"...being forced by law and social convention to wear clothes when clothing is unnecessary (by our definition) often feels demeaning and therefore does cause a problem."

Rik, naturists are doctors, plumbers, jouralists, policemen, scientists, ice-cream salesmen, students, florists and bankers. Apart from holding down jobs they are members of clubs, societies and libraries. They go to football matches, the opera, fun-fairs and race meetings. They go shopping in Tescos and Sainsbury's, eating in restaurants and drinking in pubs etc etc. Presumably they do all these things with their clothes on and without any problem. When the weather is suitable they like to take their clothes off - as we all do. The only difference is that, unlike the majority of people in the society they live in, they prefer to divest themselves of the clothing that cover certain intimate parts of the anatomy. Of course I can't speak for naturists. But I have a real problem believing that, when there are plenty of places where they can do exactly what they like, the fact they can't do it everywhere because it offends or upsets people, it "feels demeaning and therefore does cause a problem" for most naturists.

Kari P

"but as it is a forced decision it doesn't stop us being naturists."

I'm a cyclist, Kari. I love to cycle, especially when the weather is suitable. I much prefer to cycle than to drive. But sometimes I have to drive for various reasons. When I'm driving my car I am a motorist but when I'm on my bike I'm a cyclist. Being a naturist is no different to being a cyclist. It's a preferred state. Sometimes we can be in that state but much of the time we are forced by circumstance to be in the other state. So, because we have to live in the world as it is and functon in society, we have to recognise that our preferred state is relegated to the status of being a recreational passtime.

Bob S.

"Yes, they have accepted such things. But these things apparently have not gotten so bad that the people are demanding immediate change".

The point I was making was that not all changes improve our collective quality of life. These changes have been foisted upon us. It has been a gradual and insidious process and people aren't happy about it but now it's too late to go back.

"(do you still call them bobbies?)"

Yes.

"And especially if they are too busy with naked people that more serious crimes are going on unadulterated. Would an officer actually stay with a naked man if there were a bank robbery in progress in his immediate vicinity?"

No. But we expect our police to deal with lesser offences as much as the major crimes and disasters. If the police didn't prosecute grafitti artists or litter louts from time to time then these crimes would proliferate and our environment would suffer. A naked man in a public place makes the environment less pleasant for many people. If he does it and gets away with it then others will copy him. Then the public environment has changed in such a way as to make it far less pleasant for many people. I don't want that change to happen to my environment.

"Legally right or morally right?"

Morally right.

"Tattoos were once seen as bad. It took many years for people to become accustomed to seeing tattoos on their neighbors."

To me tattoos, like body piercings, are ugly things. But I have yet to find a person who found them so offensive that they believed they should be covered up in public on pain of criminal sanction. Nudity is in a different league to tattoos or body-piercing.

"Let us look at some of the television shows on today. They would never have passed the censors twenty years ago".

What is and is not acceptable on television shows is in a state of constant shift, swinging one way and then the next. One minute a show gets away with pushing the boundaries. The next minute the authorities clamp down or the broadcasters clean up their act. Then someone else challenges the boundary again and so forth. Thinking about some of the shows that were on TV twenty years ago, I doubt they'd get past the censors now. And some things that are on today would have caused outrage back then. It's a two-way movement.

"How are they now acceptable, social change, some say for the worse, others say for the better."

That's why there should be a proper decision-making process here - to make certain that only the things that make things better are allowed to happen.

"So what are we supposed to do? You are giving society no chance to change".

Society should change by dialogue, debate, discussion and negotiation. Change shouldn't be foisted upon it by minorities with their own agendas at the expense of the unheard majority opinion.

"Naturism is there to assist in converting those who are interested in the lifestyle".

OK, Bob, if you mean it that way. To convert means to change whereas what you meant was to assist. I really thought you had in mind changing masses of textiles into naturists. You had me worried there.

"And as I said above, change must come before acceptance of the change. People didn't just suddenly wake up one day and think to themselves, "You know, tattoos aren't that bad." "I would love to hear more curse words on TV."

I don't think that society has changed that much with regard to tattoos. People either like them or hate them as hey do with any other aspect of fashion. Swearwords on the other hand merely serve to illustrate my point. I find them offensive too and yet broadcasters and film-makers feel they have the right to use them liberally in programmes, documentaries, plays and films. There have been plenty of surveys to show that a significant proportion of people prefer not to hear them. Their rights in this respect have been disregarded. To be fair, though, where such language is used warnings are given either in the programme description or can be guessed at by the age certificate awarded in the case of a film. We also have the option of pressing the 'off' button and and instantaneously and permanently ending the offence.

"Testing the laws through civil disobedience. But we've been down that road before".

OK. And in Mr Gough's case he's paying the price for that disobedience by being imprisoned. I take it from your last comment that you approve of him being punished in the democratic way.

Stu

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"I was talking about open homosexuality not open homosexual behaviour."

There's a difference? Where I live if two adults of the same sex were seen in the street holding hands or kissing (passionately) they'd be subject to verbal abuse or violence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes there is a difference. You seem only to be able to think in visual terms. By open homosexuality I mean people like, for example, Will Young who won the UK Pop Idol competition and has recently released a new CD and who openly professes his homosexuality. Ten or Twenty years ago many people would have been so offended at the very idea that such a public person could be open about their homosexuality that his career would have been ruined as a result. Instead his recently released single is currently number 1 in the pop charts.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It may be a highly pleasurable behaviour (if you like that sort of thing) even to the extent of being mildly addictive, but it isn't a syndrome. Both naturists and textiles are made, not born. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well you don't have to be born with a syndrome for it to be valid but your comment once again reinforces my view that your knowledge of naturism is limited only to the visual aspects of it.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Rik, naturists are doctors, plumbers, jouralists, policemen, scientists, ice-cream salesmen, students, florists and bankers. ....etc etc. Presumably they do all these things with their clothes on and without any problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again you see this only from you own limited perspective.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>When the weather is suitable they like to take their clothes off - as we all do. The only difference is that, unlike the majority of people in the society they live in, they prefer to divest themselves of the clothing that cover certain intimate parts of the anatomy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fine weather makes naturism more comfortable in the open - that's obvious - but naturism is not about sunbathing it's much more to do with thngs like freedom, self expression, self-worth, and mental relaxation which only total nudity can achieve. Naturism is not, surprisingly perhaps to you, the antithesis of clothes wearing, it's not about hating clothes, or not wanting to be warm in winter and although it's physically more comfortable without restrictive clothing, it's not exclusively about physical comfort. Nor is social naturism about seeing naked people but about being with naked people.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course I can't speak for naturists. But I have a real problem believing that, when there are plenty of places where they can do exactly what they like, the fact they can't do it everywhere because it offends or upsets people, it "feels demeaning and therefore does cause a problem" for most naturists. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I understand your problem and am doing my best to help you with it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm a cyclist, Kari. I love to cycle, especially when the weather is suitable. I much prefer to cycle than to drive. But sometimes I have to drive for various reasons. When I'm driving my car I am a motorist but when I'm on my bike I'm a cyclist. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Er no! Your'e still a cyclist even when you drive your car - you said so to Kari at the beginning of this quote when presumably you were on your computer and not on your bike. Get a grip Stu!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Being a naturist is no different to being a cyclist.It's a preferred state. Sometimes we can be in that state but much of the time we are forced by circumstance to be in the other state. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're analogy is flawed. You are not forced to drive a car when you cannot cycle. You choose to do so. Even if your journey is one of hundreds of miles you are still making a choice to drive. So being a cyclist is nothing like being a naturist. I know; I'm both - and I've even been known to cycle when I'm nude!

Rik

[Bob S.]

"Where I live if two adults of the same sex were seen in the street holding hands or kissing (passionately) they'd be subject to verbal abuse or violence."

Holding hands is hardly open homosexual behaviour. Kissing is more to that point, but it is not behaviour that would be subject to assault. And yes, someone who is openly homosexual can be persecuted for being just that. A college boy here (I can't recall which state) Matthew Shepard was tortured and killed, left outside for dead just for being homosexual. In the US military, if it is found out that you are homosexual, you will be discharged.

A Reverend (in name only, not in behaviour) got a group together to picket and harass people who were going to a nude beach in Michigan. These people were clothed when they were being assailed by the Bible-thumpers. They were not engaged in any "naturist" behaviour.

"But I have a real problem believing that, when there are plenty of places where they can do exactly what they like, the fact they can't do it everywhere because it offends or upsets people, it "feels demeaning and therefore does cause a problem" for most naturists."

So if a Muslim woman wanted to wear a burka or some other traditional veil you would argue that since she has her own house and her Mosque, the law can require her to wear traditional clothing at all other times. Would not that be demeaning to her?

"It has been a gradual and insidious process and people aren't happy about it but now it's too late to go back."

No it is not. There have been people whose neighborhoods had been turned into gang hangouts, where illicit drugs were being sold openly on the streets and where the murder rate was very high, but they banded together and won back their neighborhood, got rid of the miscreants, and made it safe once again. You live in a democracy, if enough people complain and work toward a solution, it can be reversed.

"Nudity is in a different league to tattoos or body-piercing."

Only in the minds of how people perceive them. Not in how they came to feel about tattoos and piercings.

"to make certain that only the things that make things better are allowed to happen."

I believe that society will be better if nudity wasn't so hidden or looked at so negatively. That is a very subjective phrase "things that make things better".

"Change shouldn't be foisted upon it by minorities with their own agendas at the expense of the unheard majority opinion."

That is how most change begins. A minority starts the ball rolling. They are almost all unpopular in the beginning stages.

"I don't think that society has changed that much with regard to tattoos."

My statement was that the change in thinking does not happen spontaneously in a bubble. It happens as a result of constant exposure to either dialogue or the real thing. The Emancipation Proclamation may have freed the slaves in the US, but it didn't change people's prejudices. The recent Supreme Court decision overturning the Texas anti-sodomy law may have made homosexuals happy (and those who have a more imaginitive sex life) but it didn't change the minds of those who saw sodomy as wrong.

"I take it from your last comment that you approve of him being punished in the democratic way."

Yes! That is part of the point of civil disobedience. In fact, people who partake in civil disobedience are hoping to get arrested. Steve Gough is steadfast in his beliefs even though he is in prison. He feels that he needs to suffer in order to prevail in his accomplishments.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

This seems like its a big post and obviously has created a heated controversy from both sides and reallyI dont see what the big issue is with this Gough guy. I mean all he wants to do is make an accomplishment and make a political standpoint, he doesnt want to hurt anyone and he just wants people to realize that simple nudity is harmless and beneficial. What has he gotten for this simple request? being beaten, thrown in jail, lost the respect of his family/friends and been publicised over the news as some deviant and you wonder why he acts the way he does? I mean who wouldnt in his situation? The only reason he defies authority is because they deny him something that is good and wholesome and all he wants to do is prove his point without the authorities getting into his business. I dont see how him simply being nude walking through towns causes any harm or offends anyone and if anyone is offended or shocked by his appearance then that is because of THEIR values and he cannot control what these people think or how they feel and thus shouldnt be responsible for their reactions, if they would just keep quiet, let him stroll on through town, hed be gone the next day and they could go back to their happy clothed lives and no one would be hurt and life would go on. I think what he is doing is a good influence. I cant beleive how much negative publicity he is getting.

[Jochanaan]

Your post started me thinking, MikeJB. You say that Mr. Gough is just standing for something he thinks is right, and you're right. But there's a lot more going on.

Mr. Gough is not insane, nor violent, nor a rapist or child molester or even (as far as I've heard) homosexual. And unlike the streakers, who can be dismissed as tricksters or victims of momentary insanity (even if they shouldn't be), he has gone about his naked walk with planning and persistence. His trek has challenged society's belief that nudity is sexual or perverted in nature, and his continuing insistence on going naked is forcing the law--at least, UK law--to come up with some justification for its own stance on nudity. And his extraordinary sanity has forced a lot of people to re-examine their own feelings regarding the naked human body.

I have been asking, "Where is the Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi to persuade society to give nakedness independence and acceptance?" We may have found him.

[MikeJB]

Thats just the feeling I get of whats going on from what I read about him. He seems to kind of be an inspiration for nudists, although his methods are not something someone like me would try to accomplish, but he's good at it so I guess I could say its a good idea he is doing what he is doing and I think he oughta fight anyone who gets in his way and keep going till he reaches his destination, even if he has to go to jail a few times to do it.

[Gary Naturist]

MikeJB and Jochanaan: Excellent posts. And concise. You have shown that it's possible to say a lot in a few words.

Gary

Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing. He has no massive support base nor is he fronting some popular movement. HE has decided that people should be OK with public nudity and as far as he is concerned if they find it upsetting or offensive, if it causes them shock or alarm, or if it angers parents etc - that's their problem. Tough luck! He is indulging his own desires and ambitions regardless of the feelings of others.

He deserves to be punished.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He has a mandate from his conscience.

Which mandate is superior?

-Mark

"He has a mandate from his conscience."

Yup. And it's just the same excuse for every psycho serial killer, religious fanatic and terrorist on this planet.

Fortunately, a mandate from one's conscience is no defence in law. It also affords no moral defence to those who cause suffering to others to further their own ends or ambitions.

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
"He has a mandate from his conscience."

Yup. And it's just the same excuse for every psycho serial killer, religious fanatic and terrorist on this planet. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Do you really think there is any level of equivalence between nudity and mass murder?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Fortunately, a mandate from one's conscience is no defence in law. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course not. It is intended to challenge the public conscience, the law will follow.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It also affords no moral defence to those who cause suffering to others to further their own ends or ambitions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The only person suffering is Steve Gough, so your point has lost its ... point.

-Mark

I never cease to be amazed at the horrific things to which Stu compares simple, harmless non-sexual nudity. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing. He has no massive support base nor is he fronting some popular movement. HE has decided that people should be OK with public nudity and as far as he is concerned if they find it upsetting or offensive, if it causes them shock or alarm, or if it angers parents etc - that's their problem. Tough luck! He is indulging his own desires and ambitions regardless of the feelings of others.

He deserves to be punished.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Being right and believing in a concept isn't about having a majority behind your philosophies.

When prejudice against blacks was basily made illegal here in the US by passing various laws it was done against the will of the majority. The first black children going to all white schools caused rioting all over the place.

"Being right and believing in a concept isn't about having a majority behind your philosophies."

So how, in a democracy, do we decide who is right and who isn't?

Besides, the decisions about what behaviour is and is not acceptable in public places has to be based upon the wishes of (a) those who own the places and (b) those who have to use them.

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

[Bob S.]

"Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing."

He doesn't need it. He is doing something that he feels should not be against the law. Pioneers of social changes are always going to be unpopular. But they are willing to risk everything to change society. It is that which I applaud him.

"So how, in a democracy, do we decide who is right and who isn't?"

That is a hard thing, isn't it? Laws can be wrong even with the popular support of the society. So we are basically deciding two rights and wrongs, the legal and the moral. The legal is fairly easy to define. The moral is harder as different people define morality in different ways. Every law has to balance the rights of the citiznery with the safety and well-being of them. But the tricky part is to also make a law that is popular as well. Sometimes that can happen, sometimes that cannot happen.

The US Supreme Court ruled a year or two ago (or longer) that artistic renderings of child pron are legal under the freedom of expression that protects art. If there are no victims, no law can be broken. This law, I am sure, is unpopular, but it is right. If the government can suggest that one type of "fictional" art is illegal, then all art is under attack.

"the decisions about what behaviour is and is not acceptable in public places has to be based upon the wishes of (a) those who own the places and (b) those who have to use them."

Your a) is correct that if you own a property, you should be able to decide what behaviour is acceptable or not. However, b) must satisfy the balance that I described above.

"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."

So long as the interests of the minorities are not being abridged.

Bob S.

[Gary Naturist]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing. He has no massive support base nor is he fronting some popular movement. HE has decided that people should be OK with public nudity and as far as he is concerned if they find it upsetting or offensive, if it causes them shock or alarm, or if it angers parents etc - that's their problem. Tough luck! He is indulging his own desires and ambitions regardless of the feelings of others.

He deserves to be punished.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>When prejudice against blacks was basily made illegal here in the US by passing various laws it was done against the will of the majority. The first black children going to all white schools caused rioting all over the place. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cyndiann: I wonder if your statement is true, even if restricted to the southern states. Yes, there were demonstrations and rioting, but the group involved may well have been part of a minority who were opposed, with a silent majority who were not opposed.

Gary

Gary I believe that not only was it true back then but still true for way too many people in the US.

For some reason people who are prejudice against other races somehow think all whites are and freely make comments in front of me about the N word at times.

This is 40 years after blacks fought for equality!

"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."

They do? Here the rights of minorities are just as important as what the majority wants. Common sense is no guide to what should be the deciding factor at all.

If the government used more common sense we would not have given all those tax cuts to only the top 2% of taxpayers.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
I wonder if your statement is true, even if restricted to the southern states. Yes, there were demonstrations and rioting, but the group involved may well have been part of a minority who were opposed, with a silent majority who were not opposed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It may not be true that the majority was in support of Jim Crow laws, but they were certainly complacent. The violent reactions to the peaceful civil disobedience of the freedom riders, the the injustice exposed by MLK and Rosa Parks, the raw hatred exhibited by the Klan and their ilk all served to shock the conscience of the nation.

The use of water cannon and attack dogs by police against peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham shocked the conscience of the nation:
http://www.abouttimemag.com/gifs/dogs.jpg

Norman Rockwell's conscience was shocked by the threat of violence against school children:
http://archives.theconnection.org/archive/category/art/rockwell/images/problem_we_live_with.jpg

The more severe the official reaction towards Steven Gough's completely peaceful activities become, the more likely they are to shock the conscience of his nation.

Mark

"But the violent reactions to the peaceful civil disobedience of the freedom riders, the the injustice exposed by MKL and Rosa Parks, the raw hatred exhibited by the Klan and their ilk all served to shock the conscience of the nation."

That's funny - when I liken Mr Gough's activities to terrorism, people say that I'm citing extreme examples that have no bearing on what he's doing.

Then the same people compare his case to the appalling situation of blacks in certain states being treated like vermin and denied the most basic human rights and, when they simply protest, they are violently attacked with water canon and police dogs, and even violence against schoolchildren!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

"The more severe the official reaction towards Steven Gough's completely peaceful activities become, the more likely they are to shock the conscience of his nation."

Firstly, there is no "severe" reaction to his activities. The man is wilfully and persistently breaking the law. The courts have tried other means to deal with him but he won't co-operate. So what are they supposed to do? Shrug their shoulders and tell him to carry on breaking the law? They could do the same with anyone who doesn't like a law and so breaks it but that would bring the law into disrepute. Secondly, there is very little evidence of any widespread public sympathy for him. Even otherwise liberally-minded people here, including naturists, regard him as an obsessive 'nut' and recognise that he is the architect of his own misfortune.

I hope he's not hoping to "shock the conscience of his nation" because I can virtualy guarantee that's not going to happen.

Stu

[David77]

In reference to racial prejudice, you may find that my web page regarding one of my ancestors in Connecticut (a northern state), of interest.
It is;
http://community.webtv.net/EDEHorizon/EarlyPrejudiceinCT

[MikeJB]

Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing. He has no massive support base nor is he fronting some popular movement. HE has decided that people should be OK with public nudity and as far as he is concerned if they find it upsetting or offensive, if it causes them shock or alarm, or if it angers parents etc - that's their problem. Tough luck! He is indulging his own desires and ambitions regardless of the feelings of others.

He deserves to be punished.

Stu

-------------------------------------------------
No, he is just trying to pursue a just cause and is being hassled by your prudish moralist prorights people who beleive in people's rights so long as the majority have your backing and you oppress these nudist people half the time by saying they are immoral, indecent, offensive to society without a shred of proof, just those words. Sometimes when you beleive in something being right you gotta have the good fight with the government and I think this guy, although he may not seem to be simpithetic of the people's wishes, is doing most of his campaigning in a harmless and non hostile way, not that I could say the same for the police and extremeist groups. This guy just seems like he doesnt care about morals and such because he is sick of people denying him his god given right to be nude and they wont listen to reason democratically so hes had to take drastic measures, most of which havent hurt a single hair on the public's face, so until he beats someone up or shoots them or does anything dangerous, he has my backing. Beleive me if people would just be more open and accepting of this man, then none of this media bull**** would even be going on, this guy would reach his goal, claim he suceeded, itd be over and we could go back to Stu's boring illogical textile world of eternal clothing hell.

-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stu2630:
Mr Gough has no mandate from society to do what he's doing."

"He has a mandate from his conscience.

Which mandate is superior?"

-Mark
-------------------------------------------------

Yeaqh Stu, if you thought something was so wrongly placed by the government and you did everything in your power to settle the issue peacefully and on paper or in person and they wouldnt accept it, does this mean youd just sit idly by and accept the laws the way they are just because the people would be upset at you, especially if they had no moral or ethical reason to do so? I dont think so, just try putting yourself in his shoes *when he wears them* and see it from his point of view for once, just once.

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


"He has a mandate from his conscience."

Yup. And it's just the same excuse for every psycho serial killer, religious fanatic and terrorist on this planet.

Fortunately, a mandate from one's conscience is no defence in law. It also affords no moral defence to those who cause suffering to others to further their own ends or ambitions.

Stu

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

Stu sometimes your illogical thinking is why people dont beleive a bit of what you say sometimes. Are you actually comparing a simple god loving, peaceloving, nudist loving man with someone like Saddam who is a bloodthirsty terrorist who enjoys putting fear in people and killing them for his own amusement and enjoyment. Besides Gough is doing his nude walk for a political standpoint and is not hurting a fly, Saddam does it because he enjoys death and kills millions, so I mean you do the math and think the logic and see wherre you come next time now that youve seen it from a different point of view. I mean I am no political major or anything, but I think I know the difference between a nudist and a terrorist. Besides im sure he had to use more than his conscience to get him through court and I think he has the sense and bravery to do it. Most people who do something out of the ordinary because they beleive in it have a story and facts to back it up.


------------------------------------------------
So how, in a democracy, do we decide who is right and who isn't?

Besides, the decisions about what behaviour is and is not acceptable in public places has to be based upon the wishes of (a) those who own the places and (b) those who have to use them.

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


Oh ok, so the majority of whites were right in the 60's when the opposed Martin Luther King and he shouldve been in jail soley because the mass public dissagreed with his logic and honestly thought some harm was gonna come to them from blacks. I mean the whites had the majority and thought they knew best, just like with nudity, but also just like with nudity im sure most nudists will eventually stand up to these people and gain their freedom as well and I admire those who do and I just hope that you dont get in between the nudists and the government because you probably would be on the losing side in that war.

-------------------------------------------------
It may not be true that the majority was in support of Jim Crow laws, but they were certainly complacent. But the violent reactions to the peaceful civil disobedience of the freedom riders, the the injustice exposed by MKL and Rosa Parks, the raw hatred exhibited by the Klan and their ilk all served to shock the conscience of the nation.

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

Yeah Stu, I mean do we have to have violence to settle your mind? I dont beleive violence is the answer and I dont think Gough did either and he never actually hurt anyone, just offended a few ignorant government officials who got what they deserved for arresting him. I mean if I was treated the way that he was for taking a simple nude jog, hell id be pissed too and id let em know it and as long as I didnt hurt them they couldnt do a damn thing to me because ive got first amendment rights.

Mike

"No, he is just trying to pursue a just cause..."

I don't think it is a just cause. I don't see it as a right to abuse one's usage of shared public areas by causing offence to people.

"...and is being hassled by your prudish moralist prorights people..."

He is being hassled by decent members of the public who find his conduct disgusting and offensive. He is being hassled by the police who agree with them, and by the prosecutors who also agree with them, and finally by the courts who are also persuaded that his conduct is unacceptable. You can call me a prude if you like. I'm quite happy to be one.

"...who beleive in people's rights so long as the majority have your backing"

Yes. The backing of the majority is otherwise known as democracy. I support democracy.

"...and you oppress these nudist people half the time by saying they are immoral, indecent, offensive to society without a shred of proof, just those words."

This has nothing to do with 'nudists' as a group. Mr Gough has publicly stated that he doesn't regard himself as a nudist. Most nudist people are respectful of the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the public who are not nudists. I don't oppress them. I am happy, however, to see the state oppressing minorities who put their own preferences above those of the majority. As for proof - what sort of proof would you like?

"...is doing most of his campaigning in a harmless and non hostile way, not that I could say the same for the police and extremeist groups".

There is nothing harmless about causing revulsion and disgust to decent, ordinary people using public places.

"This guy just seems like he doesnt care about morals and such because he is sick of people denying him his god given right to be nude"

He has every right to be nude on his own property. He has no right to be nude where it causes offence to others.

"...and they wont listen to reason democratically"

Oh! I see! People won't listen to "reason" (by which you mean his opinion) so they should be forced to endure his horrid behaviour? Hmmm!

"Beleive me if people would just be more open and accepting of this man, then none of this media bull**** would even be going on,"

But people don't find what he's doing acceptable. I certainly don't.

"Yeaqh Stu, if you thought something was so wrongly placed by the government and you did everything in your power to settle the issue peacefully and on paper or in person and they wouldnt accept it, does this mean youd just sit idly by and accept the laws the way they are just because the people would be upset at you, especially if they had no moral or ethical reason to do so?"

I would work democratically and always within the law to achieve the change I was seeking. I have done this countless times, Mike. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about something, you have no right to try to force change that the majority doesn't want. In a democracy change is achieved by force of argument, not by force of will.

"Are you actually comparing a simple god loving, peaceloving, nudist loving man with someone like Saddam who is a bloodthirsty terrorist who enjoys putting fear in people and killing them for his own amusement and enjoyment".

I'm saying that there is a dangerous parrallel here. A relatively small interest group can't get its way by simple persuasion bringing the public round to its way of thinking, so it tries to force the issue and gain media and public attention by doing something outrageous and illegal. Tell me, am I talking here about the Stop Segregation group and Mr Gough? Or am I describing Al Qaida and Mr bin Laden? OK, Al Qaida is operating on a different scale and using extreme violence, but the underlying thinking isn't all that different.

"I mean I am no political major or anything, but I think I know the difference between a nudist and a terrorist".

So do I. Most people here are law-abiding nudists. Steve Gough is more akin to a non-violent but law-breaking terrorist.

"...I mean the whites had the majority and thought they knew best,"

Mike, as a Brit who has never visited your country you must realise that I don't know a great deal about your history or the factors and influences that determined past events in the US. You can hardly expect me to counter your arguments when you are relating facts that I know little about. What I will say is that, as a general principle, what behaviour is acceptable in a public place should be of a standard that is acceptable to the majority of users and/or owners of that place. Behaviour which falls outside of those standards should be prohibited by law.

"...just like with nudity, but also just like with nudity im sure most nudists will eventually stand up to these people and gain their freedom"

Nudists have freedom. But we must all be prepared to subjugate our own desires where they conflict with those of the majority - and sometimes even for the benefit of a sizeable minority.

"...I admire those who do and I just hope that you dont get in between the nudists and the government because you probably would be on the losing side in that war."

You seem to lose sight of the fact that naturists make up around 2% of the population. That means that, out of every 50 people, 49 are NOT nudists. Then there are nudists (e.g. MaxUK who posts here) who don't agree with Mr Gough and don't want nudity to become acceptable anywhere and everywhere. So, if we're talking about winning, I'm carrying the stars and stripes in this war and you're carrying a picture of Saddam! LOL

"...the raw hatred exhibited by the Klan and their ilk all served to shock the conscience of the nation".

Any decent and right-thinking population would abho hatred against people for the colour of their skin or their religion. That has nothing to do with curtailing the behaviour of a selfish and obsessive minority that behave in a way that people find unacceptable.

"Yeah Stu, I mean do we have to have violence to settle your mind?"

This is not about violence. I wouldn't condone that regardless as to who perpetrated it or why.

"...just offended a few ignorant government officials who got what they deserved for arresting him".

What are you talking about? He's been arrested now several times. Some times he was released without charge, some times he was charged and appeared in court. To the best of my knowledge no violence was used in any arrest by, or against, the police officers. And by the way, I don't know what your police are like but over here they are generally well educated, intelligent and fair-minded people.

"I mean if I was treated the way that he was for taking a simple nude jog, hell id be pissed too and id let em know it and as long as I didnt hurt them they couldnt do a damn thing to me because ive got first amendment rights."

I can't comment about your "first amendment rights". Here we don't have such a thing and the police can act against transgressors. That's why Mr Gough is still in prison.

Stu

[MikeJB]

I don't think it is a just cause. I don't see it as a right to abuse one's usage of shared public areas by causing offence to people.
-------------------------------------------------

Since when is he "abusing" anything? What im wondering is if he actually offended people where he went or just the local police because of one or two complaints? I mean he could get arrested for just one person complaining and the rest of the people dont mind or dont care. I dont see how or why simply walking nude through a town promoting a cause he beleives to be just is wrong. Hes trying to prove that nudity isnt lewd or disgusting, I question some of his methods in doing this but if they are effective then thats what really matters as long as he isnt causing true harm to anyone.

-------------------------------------------------
He is being hassled by decent members of the public who find his conduct disgusting and offensive. He is being hassled by the police who agree with them, and by the prosecutors who also agree with them, and finally by the courts who are also persuaded that his conduct is unacceptable. You can call me a prude if you like. I'm quite happy to be one.
-------------------------------------------------

Most people that are complaining are those of some sort of religous group or people who dont like nudity for various reasons and dont understand it or dont understand this guy's true intentions. The police really dont care about the issue, someone complains and calls, they come, cite him for some anonymous law or municipal code and just haul him away, its their job, nobody cares what they really think. The courts just look at all the evidence and make a decision for themselves and its obvious that they dont always make good decisions. It just depends on where the judge and jury are coming from and weither they actually beleive this guy did something wrong, weither he actually broke a law or was just simply doing something the police thought to be indecent but was really not.
I think youre a good example of a person who would be against this guy. Youd probably complain and get him arrested even if his being nude was legal, youd just try to use some other offense to get him thrown in jail just so you wouldnt have to deal with his nudity. I mean honestly does nudity scare you that much? Are you gonna crawl under a rock and hide if someone exposes their body to you? There are plenty of nudists who grow up to be good honest people and you try to deny them one of the basic most natural state that they were intended to be in just because you have a conflict with it. Dont you think you could come to some sort of compromise or something with these people? I mean especially if they try to keep their nudity discreet, you should just accept it, wave and just keep going, most likely youll never see it again...........wow! 5 seconds of nudity, is that too much to ask of someone like you?

-------------------------------------------------
Yes. The backing of the majority is otherwise known as democracy. I support democracy.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes but alot of people mistake this and use the majority to automatically go along with whatever is the norm without even thinking of weither its right or not. I mean some people do but the vast majority of people stand by the majority just so they wont get flamed weither the majority want a juse cause or not.

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

"This has nothing to do with 'nudists' as a group. Mr Gough has publicly stated that he doesn't regard himself as a nudist. Most nudist people are respectful of the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the public who are not nudists. I don't oppress them. I am happy, however, to see the state oppressing minorities who put their own preferences above those of the majority. As for proof - what sort of proof would you like?"

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

I never really actually stated that he thought he was a nudist. I think he is actually just trying to promote the nudist lifestyle in a political message, you dont have to be a nudist to do that. Like ive said before, most people who want something that isnt legal and think its a just cause sometimes have to go against the majority and they may or may not be respecting them or they might be respecting them but the majority doesnt feel that they are. Im sure this guy wasnt rude to anyone he ran into until the government stuck its big nose in and caused a problem, which most people under those circumstances I could understand that theyd be a little pissed. Im sure if you were treated the way he is, you wouldnt have a smile on your face and just accept the facts. IM not saying youd do soemthing like Mr Gough did but if you were in a similar situation legally wise and wanted to promote something and you went through all the proper ways and it didnt work and you did something similar to what Mr Gough did and the police/court treated you the way they did, im sure you wouldnt be too friendly to the masses either because theyre the ones who put you there.

-------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing harmless about causing revulsion and disgust to decent, ordinary people using public places."

There is no proof *aside from his nudity* that he did ANYTHING before he was arrested to disgust or revulse anyone. His nudity in and of itself isnt disgusting, the Supreme Court and similar courts could say that, you usually have to be DOING something else that is offensive or causes alarm WHILE you are nude. Most places dont have laws or the laws areint clearly stating that mere nudity is enough to put someone in jail and certainly you wouldnt think any logical court would say he is guilty if all he was doing was walking nude, that isnt enough to cite someone. So I think they are treting HIM wrongly, not the other way around. If people are offended, thats their problem, they CHOSE to be offended and not just leave him to his little jont and I know ur gonna say its their right to be offended BUT he in no way had any intentions of making people offended or even saying "ok now, I want you to be offended at me" those people CHOSE to be offended and Mr Gough had nothing to do with that, mere nudity is not offensive, otherwise art and other nude venues would be illegal.

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

He has every right to be nude on his own property. He has no right to be nude where it causes offence to others.

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

Says who? I mean just because something offends someone isnt enough grounds for legal action. If that was true, everyone could call up the police and cite something and theyd be arresting people left and right. The person that got offended has to have some sort of legal backing or reason WHY it was offensive as far as the law is concerned and be able to state which law the person is breaking or that they are doing something illegal. What makes me wonder is if he broke a LAW or just a simple municiple code, because over here municiple codes are kinda in the grey area and you cant really decide whats illegal and what isnt because they arent exact or precise and as such he might have been convicted of something they THOUGHT was illegal but really the code says nothing of that sort but thats just the way someone interpreted it.

------------------------------------------------
"Oh! I see! People won't listen to "reason" (by which you mean his opinion) so they should be forced to endure his horrid behaviour? Hmmm!
-------------------------------------------------

Being naked isnt a behavior, its a state of being. You have to be doing something naked to be able to consider what youre doing to be a behavior. Also I think that they should just charge you for whatever youre doing and ignore the fact that youre naked unless youre doing the behavior with your body * dancing sexually, masturbation, etc* because simple nudity isnt illegal and just by doing something illegal shouldnt make the nudity itself illegal just the action you took. Besides his nudity, I saw nothing "horrid" about his actions.


-------------------------------------------------
"But people don't find what he's doing acceptable. I certainly don't."
-------------------------------------------------

What people dont find it acceptable? Im sure not every person out there or not even most of them found his actions to be lewd or anything. It only takes one person to complain to get someone arrested. The media likes to make this into a bigger issue than it is so that they get more ratings, they care more about their ratings than if they have their facts straight or not. Besides if youve got a problem with nudity, thats something YOU have to deal with, Mr Gough wouldnt deserve to have you drag him into your mental issues.

-------------------------------------------------
"I would work democratically and always within the law to achieve the change I was seeking. I have done this countless times, Mike. It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about something, you have no right to try to force change that the majority doesn't want. In a democracy change is achieved by force of argument, not by force of will."
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but what if you did work inside the law and you STILL didnt get something accepted that you strongly beleive in. I guess you would say that everyone in the past who has challenged authority for a just cause *blacks, free rights, women voting, etc* shouldnt just done it through the law and if it didnt work I guess they shouldve just given up right? Sometimes as a last resort you gotta do these things and im sure Mr Gough had reached that point or he thought he would get more publicity actually doing it.

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

"I'm saying that there is a dangerous parrallel here. A relatively small interest group can't get its way by simple persuasion bringing the public round to its way of thinking, so it tries to force the issue and gain media and public attention by doing something outrageous and illegal. Tell me, am I talking here about the Stop Segregation group and Mr Gough? Or am I describing Al Qaida and Mr bin Laden? OK, Al Qaida is operating on a different scale and using extreme violence, but the underlying thinking isn't all that different."

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

Yeah, but nudists and these saddam type people like to challenge authority for a just cause. Mr Gough might not be a nudist but he seems to support our cause and wants to do all he can to make sure we have the freedom that people like you deny us just because it might "offend" you I cant say that Mr Gough or even Nudists as a whole are as bad as Al Queda, but they all beleive their cause is just and sometimes u gotta get a lil brave with these government people to get what you want. I think peaceful protesting like Mr Gough is doing is a hella lot better thsn what Al Queda does and even if their danger scale is totally opposite, my point is they both want the same sort of thing. One is good though and one is very bad. I mean if you had naked people on planes than Al Queda would have no place to stick a bomb on themselves to blow it up, think of it that way.

-------------------------------------------------"So do I. Most people here are law-abiding nudists. Steve Gough is more akin to a non-violent but law-breaking terrorist."
-------------------------------------------------

If Mr Gough was a terrorist, then he would be trying to inspire terror in others, his goal is not to frighten but to persuade people to just accept his simple and non violent lifestyle. To refer to him as a terrorist in any way is just excessive, as are your comments on how bad nudity is. I mean nudity may be bad to you but even if its not public nudity, it isnt as bad as you make it sound.

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

Mike, as a Brit who has never visited your country you must realise that I don't know a great deal about your history or the factors and influences that determined past events in the US. You can hardly expect me to counter your arguments when you are relating facts that I know little about. What I will say is that, as a general principle, what behaviour is acceptable in a public place should be of a standard that is acceptable to the majority of users and/or owners of that place. Behaviour which falls outside of those standards should be prohibited by law.

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

Didnt you even take basic US history in school? Youd think that even in Britain youd have to take some sort of foreign country class, especially if youre in the law area, even if its British law. I mean I live here in the US and I have to still learn about countries I could care less about or not even go to but I still gotta have a broad education so to see that you dont even understand something as important as the blacks movement over here just goes to show you what little you know. Anyways you dont have to get into detail really to understand what im saying, im talking about the basic principle of people fighting and sometimes breaking the law to meet a just cause. Im sure you beleive in free rights for all races and im sure there are people here who wouldnt thought that the blacks should work within the legal system even though that legal system had white superiority and wouldnt listen to them, so do you think this person was anymore right about blacks than you are about Public Nudity? I mean im sure he felt the same disgust over blacks that you do over the mere aspect of someone being simply nude in a public place. Thats what I meant. I dont think you know anything more about nudity than you know about blacks.


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

Nudists have freedom. But we must all be prepared to subjugate our own desires where they conflict with those of the majority - and sometimes even for the benefit of a sizeable minority.

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

First off, there is no solid proof that the MAJORITY is against nudism or even simple public nudity for that matter. Most people dont even understand nudity or our cause, most have never been to a nudist resort or a beach or any of those things, so how can they even say they think something is wrong that they never even do more than 5 mins every day? I mean if people would just TRY public nudity or TRY to go to a nudist resort, then they would have my backing because they could have some actual experience to go by but since most people have never been nude very much they dont know the benefits of it, so i dont think they should judge us until they can expereience it for themsleves. I think John Marc said something about how he had to force his daughter to eat stuff she didnt like the idea of eating before she could say she doesnt like it. How can you say you dont like something if youve never tried it. Ive been clothed and nude and ive been exposed to textile AND nudist people, while I have never been to a nudist resort, ive had experience in being nude and seeing things from both sides of the fence so I have some say in it, most people in society dont though, you cant really be nude for just 5 mins and decide weither you like it or not, you gotta do it longer than that because you really dont get the feel for it otherwise.

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

You seem to lose sight of the fact that naturists make up around 2% of the population. That means that, out of every 50 people, 49 are NOT nudists. Then there are nudists (e.g. MaxUK who posts here) who don't agree with Mr Gough and don't want nudity to become acceptable anywhere and everywhere. So, if we're talking about winning, I'm carrying the stars and stripes in this war and you're carrying a picture of Saddam! LOL

------------------------------------------------
That figure isnt true, most people would say that, especiallyt nudists because they have proof to the contrary. Maybe not necesarily me but other nudists do and that 2% thing just doesnt fit, considering there are like 50-60 million nudist members over here, most of them probably wouldnt admit on a public poll that they were nudists and there are all sorts of different kinds of nudists, even ones who areint official ones but who would still back us up so id say more of the population has support for nudism than you say they do. Also since you dont know much about customs, maybe over there the 2% of nudists is true but over here it might be different although I wouldnt beleive that because u Brits have a much more relaxed attitude about the body and dont have such a high teen pregnancy rate.

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

"Any decent and right-thinking population would abho hatred against people for the colour of their skin or their religion. That has nothing to do with curtailing the behaviour of a selfish and obsessive minority that behave in a way that people find unacceptable."

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

Who really decides if the population is decent or not? Most of the people around here are rude and uncaring and theyre TEXTILES so that doesnt really bode well for you. The people here are a prime example of how the textile world can corrupt your mind. These people here dont deserve any respect because they dont even try to give it. Id be surprised if they could pass a decent law at all around here, thats why we had that idiot Davis in office, the majority picked him and look what he did, I guess that goes to show you how stupid the majority can be sometimes. I dont beleive even those of us who do want public nudity are obsessive or selfish, quite the contrary, we respect the law but I mean since we respect it so much they oughta somehow come to a fair deal with us so that we can enjoy our lifestyle so long as we are discreet and avoid upsetting the public. I think that is possible even if public nudity was legal, you can still be nude and be discreet and not bother anyone.

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

This is not about violence. I wouldn't condone that regardless as to who perpetrated it or why.

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

Yeah but us Nudists want public nudity to be a reality and we do work within the law to acheive that, its just that with prudish people like you it makes our task that much harder.


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

What are you talking about? He's been arrested now several times. Some times he was released without charge, some times he was charged and appeared in court. To the best of my knowledge no violence was used in any arrest by, or against, the police officers. And by the way, I don't know what your police are like but over here they are generally well educated, intelligent and fair-minded people.

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

Well ok, maybe I was a bit too harsh saying they used violence with him, but they made a bigger scene out of this than they had to, im sure just leaving him to his business wouldve been less of an uproar by the media than when he was arrested and subjected to the media's annoying, nosey, repetitive questions, besides the media doesnt like nudity anyways becasue if everyone was nude then their supporters *the fashion industry* would go broke or take a hit and it would affect them . Im also sure most police officers are good minded but you still have those bad apples out there that like to exercise their authority more than is good for them.


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

"I can't comment about your "first amendment rights". Here we don't have such a thing and the police can act against transgressors. That's why Mr Gough is still in prison."

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

Yeah ok but still I was under the impression that the Brits were more open about public nudity and just nudity in general than the mas populace. Maybe he went into a town, or province that doesnt allow nudity where other parts of Europe do, because Europe is a big place and while the whole of it is more relaxed about the body, certain countries may not accept nudity as the whole of the area. I just dont get exactly what law or code he broke and weither it was one of the nudity offenses or just one of those indecent laws or disturb the peace laws because it mightve had more to do with his actions than his simple nudity.

Mike

"Since when is he "abusing" anything?"

I consider it to be abuse.

"What im wondering is if he actually offended people where he went or just the local police because of one or two complaints?"

Even if there are only a few complaints - he's ONE man upsetting SEVERAL people! So he's outnumbered whichever way you look at it.

"Hes trying to prove that nudity isnt lewd or disgusting",

Clearly to some people he is proving the precise opposite. Otherwise they might not have complained.

"I question some of his methods in doing"

Good! So do I! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"this but if they are effective then thats what really matters as long as he isnt causing true harm to anyone."

They are effective at upsetting people. They are effective in bringing considerate naturism into disrepute. And if he is causing offence to people using public places then he is causing harm.

"Most people that are complaining are those of some sort of religous group or people who dont like nudity for various reasons and dont understand it or dont understand this guy's true intentions."

Religious groups? I can tell you have never been to Great Britain, Mike. LOL. Why do you keep thinking Europe is like the US? People here don't mind nudity in context (i.e. where they expect to see it such as in their own homes or in the showers at the gym etc). When they see it out of context they find that offensive or disturbing or alarming etc. They really couldn't care less what his intentions are - it's the nudity they object to.

"The police really dont care about the issue, someone complains and calls, they come, cite him for some anonymous law or municipal code and just haul him away"

Normally the police would arrest him under public order legislation for behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress - which is precisely what his behaviour does cause. We don't have "municipal codes" over here. Just the criminal law.

"weither he actually broke a law or was just simply doing something the police thought to be indecent but was really not".

If the magistrate, on hearing all the evidence, believes that he has broken the law then he will be convicted and sentenced.

"Youd probably complain and get him arrested even if his being nude was legal, youd just try to use some other offense to get him thrown in jail just so you wouldnt have to deal with his nudity".

If nudity was legal I'd either resign myself to that fact and try to accustom myself to it, or move to another country where it wasn't.

"I mean honestly does nudity scare you that much?"

I don't like nudity - never have and never will.

"There are plenty of nudists who grow up to be good honest people and you try to deny them one of the basic most natural state that they were intended to be in just because you have a conflict with it".

Of course not. That's why I support there being more and better facilities for naturists. But they must be thoroughly screened off and signposted.

"...you should just accept it, wave and just keep going, most likely youll never see it again...........wow! 5 seconds of nudity, is that too much to ask of someone like you?"

Yes it is. If naturists were the majority then I'd have to accept it. But they're not. They are in the minority - a very small minority. The rest of the population avoid naturist places and events. That should tell you something.

".. the vast majority of people stand by the majority just so they wont get flamed weither the majority want a juse cause or not."

I know. Isn't democracy annoying! The trouble is, your perception of what constitutes a just cause and mine are quite different.

"Im sure this guy wasnt rude to anyone he ran into until the government stuck its big nose in and caused a problem, which most people under those circumstances I could understand that theyd be a little pissed."

No. He just broke the law, people complained and he got arrested. That's what happens here.

"Im sure if you were treated the way he is, you wouldnt have a smile on your face and just accept the facts".

I wouldn't break the law in the first place. And I certainly wouldn't behave in such a way as to cause offence to people going about their normal business. It's called being considerate. If I couldn't get my way through lawful means then I'd either keep trying, or accept the verdict of the majority as voiced by our democratically elected government.

"There is no proof *aside from his nudity* that he did ANYTHING before he was arrested to disgust or revulse anyone."

Precisely. His nudity was sufficient!

"His nudity in and of itself isnt disgusting"

I disagree. I would find it quite loathsome.

"..the Supreme Court and similar courts could say that, you usually have to be DOING something else that is offensive or causes alarm WHILE you are nude."

Here it is enough if the courts find that your nudity is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

"If people are offended, thats their problem, they CHOSE to be offended and not just leave him to his little jont and I know ur gonna say its their right to be offended BUT he in no way had any intentions of making people offended"

He knew that it was likely that his actions would cause offence before he started. But he didn't care.

".. mere nudity is not offensive, otherwise art and other nude venues would be illegal."

Some so-called 'art' is offensive. But real naked human flesh is far more offensive!

"I mean just because something offends someone isnt enough grounds for legal action".

If his conduct is likely to cause alarm or distress to people here then it IS grounds for legal action. The prosecution must prove that to secure a conviction. They have done that successfully with Mr Gough.

"If that was true, everyone could call up the police and cite something and theyd be arresting people left and right".

No, you have to judge the behaviour by current values and standards.

"Being naked isnt a behavior, its a state of being."

Walking in a public place naked IS a behaviour by any definition. He did that. Stripping off in a public place IS a behaviour. He did that. Refusing to get dressed when required to do so is also a behaviour. He did that too. In English law a 'behaviour' encompasses not only acts but also omissions.

"What people dont find it acceptable?"

Most of the people I have spoken to agree with me that such behaviour in public is unacceptable.

"Besides if youve got a problem with nudity, thats something YOU have to deal with, Mr Gough wouldnt deserve to have you drag him into your mental issues."

If it were just me then yes. But it isn't. Many people in my society - I would argue that MOST people - would have what you call an 'issue' with public nudity. So it is our one-man crusader who must adapt, not the millions of people like myself.

"I think peaceful protesting like Mr Gough is doing is a hella lot better thsn what Al Queda does"

Yes but he's still causing offence and he's still breaking the law.

"..his goal is not to frighten but to persuade people to just accept his simple and non violent lifestyle."

You persuade people with words, not by forcing them to endure something they can't stomach.

"Didnt you even take basic US history in school? Youd think that even in Britain youd have to take some sort of foreign country class, especially if youre in the law area, even if its British law".

Strangely enough no. Not to any depth anyway. Why? Do you have sufficient in-depth knowledge of British history (e.g. Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Tolpuddle Martyrs etc) to debate issues around that with me?

"Anyways you dont have to get into detail really to understand what im saying, im talking about the basic principle of people fighting and sometimes breaking the law to meet a just cause."

I know you are. I do believe in freedom and equality for all races. But there are serious gaps in my knowledge of all the issues.

I do know, however, that black people don't have a choice other than to be black. A naturist, OTOH, does have a choice about whether to be nude or not. And where and when to be nude.

"First off, there is no solid proof that the MAJORITY is against nudism or even simple public nudity for that matter".

OK. IF, and I mean IF, it could be shown that a majority of people were against introducing a law that legalised public nudity, would you then accept that and support the punishment of those who broke who still engaged in this activity? I'd be prepared to go along with the majority decision on that one - would you?

"I mean if people would just TRY public nudity or TRY to go to a nudist resort, then they would have my backing because they could have some actual experience to go by but since most people have never been nude very much they dont know the benefits of it",

There are no benefits. Most people have never tried homosexual sex, or cannibalism, or Paganist rituals, why? because they don't want to. They don't think it's for them. Respect that.

"That figure isnt true",

Isn't it? That's funny - it's the figure that was cited here by naturists! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"considering there are like 50-60 million nudist members over here,"

50-60 million? Hmm. That's an awful lot. Can you prove that figure, please?

"although I wouldnt beleive that because u Brits have a much more relaxed attitude about the body and dont have such a high teen pregnancy rate."

I really don't know where you get the idea from that most Europeans are OK with nudity. Trust me - it's a MYTH!

I once read in an very respectable newspaper - The Sunday Times - that, if taking a holiday in Denmark, one need not bother with a swimming costume because nudity was the norm on all beaches. I know Denmark extremely well - nearly as well as I know the UK. I've been on more Danish beaches than most Danes - we takeour summer vacaton in Denmark EVERY year for at least three weeks. And how many nude adult people have I seen on Danish beaches? None. Zero!

"I dont beleive even those of us who do want public nudity are obsessive or selfish, quite the contrary, we respect the law but I mean since we respect it so much they oughta somehow come to a fair deal with us so that we can enjoy our lifestyle so long as we are discreet and avoid upsetting the public".

You can. Stay on naturist beaches if you want to get nude. And wear shorts elsewhere. That way you won'y upset anyone.

"Yeah but us Nudists want public nudity to be a reality and we do work within the law to acheive that, its just that with prudish people like you it makes our task that much harder."

Yeah but us Textiles don't. And there are more ofus than there are of you. So can you blame us for wanting to prevent you from fulfilling your ambition?

"I just dont get exactly what law or code he broke and weither it was one of the nudity offenses or just one of those indecent laws or disturb the peace laws because it mightve had more to do with his actions than his simple nudity".

Basically, it was his nudity that got him arrested and imprisoned. Nothing else.

Stu

[MikeJB]

I consider it to be abuse.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but your opinion is irrelevant as far as Mr Gough getting convicted.

-------------------------------------------------
"Even if there are only a few complaints - he's ONE man upsetting SEVERAL people! So he's outnumbered whichever way you look at it."
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but its still not the majority like you say, its a small group being offended, not the society as a whole.

------------------------------------------------
"Clearly to some people he is proving the precise opposite. Otherwise they might not have complained."
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but it really depends on how many of those people complained. I bet it was only one or two and I just think if these people hadnt worried about such a silly thing that this whole ordeal wouldve been over and done with along time ago.

-------------------------------------------------
Good! So do I!
-------------------------------------------------

I just dont beleive that he was perfect though but his nudity was in good taste. Its much better than some sex ad or something that suggest something that is more demeaning than simple nudity

-------------------------------------------------
They are effective at upsetting people. They are effective in bringing considerate naturism into disrepute. And if he is causing offence to people using public places then he is causing harm.
-------------------------------------------------

No, he is just making people mad, making them mad and actually causing harm are two different things. Im sure he was rude to the police, not the general public and that was just for arresting him for something really idiotic.

------------------------------------------------
Religious groups? I can tell you have never been to Great Britain, Mike. LOL. Why do you keep thinking Europe is like the US? People here don't mind nudity in context (i.e. where they expect to see it such as in their own homes or in the showers at the gym etc). When they see it out of context they find that offensive or disturbing or alarming etc. They really couldn't care less what his intentions are - it's the nudity they object to.
-------------------------------------------------

I know I havent ever been there, but I just figured you obviously had a similar kind of crowd over there, at least as far as this nudity thing goes. I just dont think the guy did anything wrong.

-------------------------------------------------
Normally the police would arrest him under public order legislation for behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress - which is precisely what his behaviour does cause. We don't have "municipal codes" over here. Just the criminal law.
-------------------------------------------------

Likely to cause harassment? So now its that he was likely to cause harassment? I mean either he did or he didnt, you oughta get your facts straight.

-------------------------------------------------
If the magistrate, on hearing all the evidence, believes that he has broken the law then he will be convicted and sentenced.
-------------------------------------------------

Not all legal systems are perfect, just because he was convicted doesnt necessarily mean he did anything illegal.

------------------------------------------------
If nudity was legal I'd either resign myself to that fact and try to accustom myself to it, or move to another country where it wasn't.
------------------------------------------------

If it was legal then you shouldnt have any problem with it because then your majority would support it and I thought you liked what the majority supported?????

-------------------------------------------------
I don't like nudity - never have and never will.
-------------------------------------------------

Im sure that is a direct result of how you were brought up and the kind of people you relate with.

-------------------------------------------------
Of course not. That's why I support there being more and better facilities for naturists. But they must be thoroughly screened off and signposted.
-------------------------------------------------

Why would you want more nudist resorts if you are against nudity. I think its obvious that you dont think its a big deal as long as you dont have to see it or deal with it. Besides making more nudist resorts means more people will go nude and soon alot may support it to the point where it ends up being allowed in public and then youd be sunk.

------------------------------------------------
Yes it is. If naturists were the majority then I'd have to accept it. But they're not. They are in the minority - a very small minority. The rest of the population avoid naturist places and events. That should tell you something.
-----------------------------------------------

The rest of the populace strays from nudist resorts because they have this sexualized view of them and dont have all the facts, simple as that. The majority of people dont understand nudity or the nudist way of thinking.

-------------------------------------------------
I know. Isn't democracy annoying! The trouble is, your perception of what constitutes a just cause and mine are quite different.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah well I actually beleive in making nudity commonplace because there is nothing morally wrong about it and I think you just dont understand it very well and just want an excuse to argue about it. Im sure you havent even tried it out ever.

------------------------------------------------
No. He just broke the law, people complained and he got arrested. That's what happens here.
------------------------------------------------

I dont see how he was breaking any law. He didnt harm anyone, he just upset them and they were too stubborn to just live with it. I mean im sure the guy was just walking through and wouldve been gone really quickly. I mean legal or not, doesnt it seem like it just be easier to just let him walk through and be gone with him and not have to worry about it anymore? It would be different if he actually did some harm and commited a fellony.

------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't break the law in the first place. And I certainly wouldn't behave in such a way as to cause offence to people going about their normal business. It's called being considerate. If I couldn't get my way through lawful means then I'd either keep trying, or accept the verdict of the majority as voiced by our democratically elected government.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah you talk that way now but if you had something you really wanted im sure youd act differently.

------------------------------------------------
Precisely. His nudity was sufficient!
------------------------------------------------

I dont see how simple nudity could harm anyone. It doesnt even phase me.

------------------------------------------------
I disagree. I would find it quite loathsome.
------------------------------------------------

What exactly do you find loathsome about it?

------------------------------------------------
Here it is enough if the courts find that your nudity is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but his wasnt causing any harm but im sure the people made a bigger deal out of it than it really was. Kinda makes me wonder weither they didnt just make up some of the stuff he did just so they could convict him.

-----------------------------------------------
He knew that it was likely that his actions would cause offence before he started. But he didn't care.
-----------------------------------------------

He wanted to make a point and its obvious he didnt care if a few people were upset by him, I mean thats to be expected because the mass society doesnt understand nudity.

------------------------------------------------
Some so-called 'art' is offensive. But real naked human flesh is far more offensive!
------------------------------------------------

Im talking about the non offensive kind. I also dont see how a picture and a real human being naked are any different, you dont see any thing different in the picture that you dont see in real life, especially in photographs.

------------------------------------------------
If his conduct is likely to cause alarm or distress to people here then it IS grounds for legal action. The prosecution must prove that to secure a conviction. They have done that successfully with Mr Gough.
-------------------------------------------------

The prosecution isnt always right though. I think theres more to it than just his nudity, weither he was doing anything else or not, obviously the court thinks he was. I cant imagein someone being treated the way he was for simple nudity, isnt that just like a fine or a short stay in jail for being nude in public?

------------------------------------------------
No, you have to judge the behaviour by current values and standards.
------------------------------------------------

Most people these days have no values and the ones they might have are distorted by the media.

-------------------------------------------------
Walking in a public place naked IS a behaviour by any definition. He did that. Stripping off in a public place IS a behaviour. He did that. Refusing to get dressed when required to do so is also a behaviour. He did that too. In English law a 'behaviour' encompasses not only acts but also omissions.
-------------------------------------------------

Well ok I suck at that sort of thing I can admit it, but I just dont see how being naked and minding your own business could offend someone enough to call the cops on you.

------------------------------------------------
Most of the people I have spoken to agree with me that such behaviour in public is unacceptable.
------------------------------------------------

Most people you talk to are a very small minority and they are probably in the same small group of friends and family that you are. I think you gotta get out of your box and see things for what they really are and stop saying that nudity is bad just because your close group of friends says it is. I mean are they supposed to speak for the rest of us?

------------------------------------------------
If it were just me then yes. But it isn't. Many people in my society - I would argue that MOST people - would have what you call an 'issue' with public nudity. So it is our one-man crusader who must adapt, not the millions of people like myself.
------------------------------------------------

You mean your close knit group of prudish friends, that isnt society as a whole. Most people even if they are against nudity, areint as picky about it as you are. I admire that one man crusader for what he has done. Obivously the millions of people like you havent bothered to step up.

------------------------------------------------
Yes but he's still causing offence and he's still breaking the law.
------------------------------------------------

Maybe so but most laws areint necessarily right and alot of them are distored. I dont think he was causing any offense, its the people who allowed themselves to be offended. If he wanted to offend them, beleive me, hed be in much hotter water than he is now, people who want to genuinely offend others do more harm than this guy has.

------------------------------------------------
You persuade people with words, not by forcing them to endure something they can't stomach.
------------------------------------------------

Is it our fault they cant stomach it? Theres lots of things people are exposed to that they cant stomach, they just gotta learn to adapt and live with it. I just feel you oughta live and let live and just not worry about trivial things.

------------------------------------------------
Strangely enough no. Not to any depth anyway. Why? Do you have sufficient in-depth knowledge of British history (e.g. Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Tolpuddle Martyrs etc) to debate issues around that with me?
------------------------------------------------

Well no, our history courses basically centered on this country and I only really had one world history class and it covered a bit of everything and it wasnt that great. I never said I was any professional.

------------------------------------------------
I know you are. I do believe in freedom and equality for all races. But there are serious gaps in my knowledge of all the issues.
------------------------------------------------

Maybe you oughta learn how to fill in those gaps so you can understand why nudists wanna have their freedom out in public just like everyone else.

-------------------------------------------------
I do know, however, that black people don't have a choice other than to be black. A naturist, OTOH, does have a choice about whether to be nude or not. And where and when to be nude.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but part of being a nudist is accepting what you are and even if you are wearing clothes, youre still naked underneath them, no matter what you do. So I mean youre not chaging yourself youre just putting shame on your body and making it into something bad and harmful which can actually be quite beneficial.

-------------------------------------------------
OK. IF, and I mean IF, it could be shown that a majority of people were against introducing a law that legalised public nudity, would you then accept that and support the punishment of those who broke who still engaged in this activity? I'd be prepared to go along with the majority decision on that one - would you?
-------------------------------------------------

The majority of people dont understand nudity or nudism enough to even make such a decision. They would just make this decision based on all the stuff the media feels us about sex and other things. I think if there was a poll, that alot of people wouldnt mind public nudity as long as people were discreet about it and didnt harm others. I mean most people have more important things to worry about than weither someone around them is nude or not. If you get used to nudity it doesnt bother you anymore and you sometimes even forget that youre naked at all.

------------------------------------------------
There are no benefits. Most people have never tried homosexual sex, or cannibalism, or Paganist rituals, why? because they don't want to. They don't think it's for them. Respect that.
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but its plainly obvious to most that those things are harmful to other people and alot of those rituals actually would hurt someone. I cannot beleive you would associate homosexual intercourse, cannibalism and nudity together. I just think that its dumb that homosexuals are getting to have more free rights when their culture is more questionable than ours is, I mean at least we dont contribute to the rising aids epidemic like homosexuals do. Most decent people want a man to be with a woman, having a man be with another man is just wrong and that isnt natural. Being nude is natural, its our default state. We were born naked, many peoiple in other countries live naked and were gonna die naked so its obvious that this is something normal.

-----------------------------------------------
Isn't it? That's funny - it's the figure that was cited here by naturists!
-----------------------------------------------

Yeah but thats just an internet poll done by a few people. It doesnt say weither these people are just actual naturists or represent the whole community. I mean there are enough nudist beaches and resorts around where millions of people go every year and youre trying to tell me that only 2% of people are nudist/naturists?

------------------------------------------------
50-60 million? Hmm. That's an awful lot. Can you prove that figure, please?
-------------------------------------------------

Not really. I dont think you can prove your 2% figure either so we are both outta luck i guess.

------------------------------------------------
I really don't know where you get the idea from that most Europeans are OK with nudity. Trust me - it's a MYTH!
------------------------------------------------

Then why do they come here and want to be topless/nude on our beaches and we get 100's to thousands of tourists every year.

-------------------------------------------------
I once read in an very respectable newspaper - The Sunday Times - that, if taking a holiday in Denmark, one need not bother with a swimming costume because nudity was the norm on all beaches. I know Denmark extremely well - nearly as well as I know the UK. I've been on more Danish beaches than most Danes - we takeour summer vacaton in Denmark EVERY year for at least three weeks. And how many nude adult people have I seen on Danish beaches? None. Zero!
-------------------------------------------------

Well maybe youre not on tat part of the beach where they do it. Most naturist/nudist beaches areint in places where you can find them easily because they dont want some textile person to come over and cause trouble.


------------------------------------------------
You can. Stay on naturist beaches if you want to get nude. And wear shorts elsewhere. That way you won'y upset anyone.
------------------------------------------------

I think its demeaning that women can go to beaches and wear bikinis that cover about 5 percent of them and it makes me wonder why they even bother. Those outfits dont even cover anything and all they usually cover are the nipples *which are no different than a guys nipple* and the vagina *which the actual sexual organs are on the inside* and it just makes me wonder why they can allow such tantilizing outfits that highlight certain parts but they dont want complete nudity. I mean they dont even leave much to the imagination.


------------------------------------------------
Yeah but us Textiles don't. And there are more ofus than there are of you. So can you blame us for wanting to prevent you from fulfilling your ambition?
------------------------------------------------

I just think that its a silly thing to worry about and that if people were nude more often, itd hurt the fashion and media industries hard because they couldnt sell their sexy outfits anymore and the porn industry would go down the tube because people wouldnt be so excited about nude bodies and even if they were they could just go to the beaches and see the real thing for free insteading of paying to see a distorted fixed up image of what the body looks like.

------------------------------------------------
Basically, it was his nudity that got him arrested and imprisoned. Nothing else.
------------------------------------------------

Im sure it had to do with more than that for him to be in jail as long as he is/was.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
That's funny - when I liken Mr Gough's activities to terrorism, people say that I'm citing extreme examples that have no bearing on what he's doing.
Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I was expounding on the thesis that peaceful civil disobedience often works to change the law because the official response to it shocks the conscience of the public, thus causing a shift in public opinion and the body politic.

-Mark

[MikeJB]

I think that guy was doing the right thing, I mean he was breaking the law but you gotta break a few eggs to make omlets so I mean there ya go. Sometimes the only way to get something you want is to break a few laws and like if you end up in jail you just do your time and keep on going. Most likely he wouldnt have had much trouble in a lot of countries over there but because of all the media hype about him, lots of people get paranoid and think he is some bad and dangerous man when all he is really trying to do is make a peaceful statement.

[MikeJB]

Ok Stu, ive got something for you. I read the article here on Mr Gough and from reading that it seems to be against most of what you said to me earlier, goes to show how much you really know about this but anyways I just thought id show some of the more important facts I found in the article


------------------------------------------------
Stephen Gough has never intended to cause offence and knows that most people are unconcerned by non-threatening non-sexual public nudity (see NOP Poll report on www.nuff.org.uk (http://www.nuff.org.uk) and www.british-naturism.org.uk). (http://www.british-naturism.org.uk).) This view is reflected in the Governments final amendment to the Sexual Offences Bill 'Exposure' clause which has now received Royal Assent.
-------------------------------------------------

This statement alone seems to hold more water than what you said about this Mr Gough guy. Appearantly most people are NOT concerned about non threatening non sexual nudity, as much as youd like me and the rest of us here to beleive that. Also the statement says that he never INTENDED to cause offense, which means that even if he did, his actions were meant to cause that offense which from reading the sexual offenses bill that you guys have over there which is below seems to suggest that you cant be convinced unless you INTENDED to cause offense which the evidence seems to state otherwise. Non sexual non threatening nudity is not a big thing stu and youd be surprised how many people dont find it a big issue. I just think they oughta let this guy out and let him finish his little jog and then everyone can get back to doing whatever they were before.

-------------------------------------------------
"contended that breach of the peace was such a vague charge that it would be entirely possible to commit an offence without being aware of it."
-------------------------------------------------

Obviously your laws are more vague than youd like people to beleive if you can commit an offense and not even know it. I think the law people over there are screwy and need to rethink their laws more carefully.

-------------------------------------------------
Sexual Offence Act, published wording:

"66 Exposure

(1) A person commits an offence if -
(a) he intentionally exposes his genitals, and
(b) he intends that someone will see them and be caused alarm or distress."
------------------------------------------------

See Stu you gotta have both A and B to be convinced because it says both A and B. You have to INTENTIONALLY make them visible in such a way that would cause alarm or distress. Mr Gough did not intend for that to happen so thus he is not applicable to this bill. He only did A, he didnt do B and you gotta actually do both to be convicted so I think when he goes to trial they are gonna find him innocent and let him go.

-------------------------------------------------
"The acceptance of naked humans as innocent is a premise that needs to be brought into people's consciousness through acts that challenge conventions based in fear. "
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah our society needs a little bit of a challenge Stu and I think us fellow nudists are up to that challenge and I think with a little bit of effort we can get public nudity to be commonplace.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MikeJB:
See Stu you gotta have both A and B to be convinced because it says both A and B. You have to INTENTIONALLY make them visible in such a way that would cause alarm or distress. Mr Gough did not intend for that to happen so thus he is not applicable to this bill. He only did A, he didnt do B and you gotta actually do both to be convicted so I think when he goes to trial they are gonna find him innocent and let him go.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ahhh, but Steven Gough has never been charged with indecent exposure. That's the genius of the system, they can outlaw lawful behavior by imprisoning people on other charges only tangentially related to the lawful behavior being discouraged. In Mr. Gough's case he has been convicted of 1. breach of bail, 2, breach of the peace and 3. behavior likely to distract drivers.

Of course each of those charges are balony (note to non-Americans: pronounced the same as bologna, it means 'a load of crap').

Breach of bail means he was required by previous courts to not break the law while free awaiting trial. Walking nude in the British countryside is not illegal.

Breach of peace doesn't apply, because Mr. Gough's actions were always peaceful! In particular his nude ramblling is not a breach of peace because his mere nudity is not unlawful or disorderly.

Behavior likely to distract drivers... sounds like an offense aimed at billboards, cell phones and backseat drivers. If this were a real offense it would outlaw bad haircuts, leisure suits and golf outfits, Christina Aguilera and scenic countryside views. But of course it is not a real offense, it is just another balony charge intended to outlaw lawful behavior.

Hi Stu /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

-Mark

[MikeJB]

Well either way Stu is at fault because he said that it WAS illegal to be nude in the british country side and either way you look at it he goofed up big and I just really thunk this Gough guy is a harmless individual who besides his occasional ramblings, never did anything really questionable. I think Stu really oughta get his facts straight before questioning mine or anyone elses and he really shouldnt say nudity is illega if it isnt and he even thinks that the majority of society is against nudity and this is not true at all.

[MikeJB]

Mr Gough shouldve just waited for his trial, given the green light that he wasnt doing anything illegal and then high tailed it outta there as soon as he got out and then they couldnt convict him because it wouldve already been proven that his actions were not illegal. I dont get how nudity in and of itself can cause a traffic accident, I think it has more do with the driver not paying attention, because if he/she is distracted that easily then they dont belong behind the wheel in the first place.

[Bob S.]

"That's funny - when I liken Mr Gough's activities to terrorism, people say that I'm citing extreme examples that have no bearing on what he's doing."

He is not a terrorist. A terrorist performs random acts of vioence in an attempt to terrorize the public and make them feel unsafe wherever they go. Steve Gough was merely naked walking in a "straight line" from point a to point b, staying out of urban areas for the most part.

"A relatively small interest group can't get its way by simple persuasion bringing the public round to its way of thinking, so it tries to force the issue and gain media and public attention by doing something outrageous and illegal."

The difference between Steve Gough and Al Qaeda is that Steve Gough is violating the very law that he feels is wrong. Al Qaeda kills people in order to bring attention to the evils of Western culture.

"Then the same people compare his case to the appalling situation of blacks in certain states being treated like vermin and denied the most basic human rights and, when they simply protest, they are violently attacked with water canon and police dogs, and even violence against schoolchildren!!"

One of the arguments that Steve Gough and the StopSegregation uses is that they are being denied their most basic human rights by not being allowed to go naked. They even compare it to racism where Blacks once were only allowed to use certain facilities and people were offended by their mere presence.

"There is nothing harmless about causing revulsion and disgust to decent, ordinary people using public places."

And there is no realistic proof that many people even feel that way. Even going with the survey, that would make only 23%. But of course, we don't even know how many of those who answered that survey went with the action, the thought, or both. So that virtually invalidates the survey.

"But we must all be prepared to subjugate our own desires where they conflict with those of the majority - and sometimes even for the benefit of a sizeable minority."

Is 43% a sizable minority? Or rather 40%? c) is a neutral chopice as they suffered only slight discomfort and chose to do nothing.

"You seem to lose sight of the fact that naturists make up around 2% of the population."

That is not quite a realiztic number. Maybe 2% are into organized naturism, but a lot more, I would estimate probably about 25%, maybe more, are home naturists, or are naked at home or around their family. Even more may be just nude beachgoers who do not consider themselves as naturists. And even more may be on our side but do not practice it themselves.

Bob S.

[MikeJB]

That last post about the number of nudists is precisely what I was trying to say more or less to Stu. I am not saying I have any proof that the 2% isnt true BUT I have found surveys and polls in the internet to be largely innaccurate. I mean 2% maybe official naturists, according to us and im sure not every nudist participated nor did every nudist here so that point is basically bogus, I think alot of people are home, beach or closet nudists and either support nudism but dont want the vast textile public to know because of the few people in their community who might chasten them for this and or just are interested but nervous about trying it and need to find out from us or another reliable source what it is all about. I think Stu makes the poll percent so low because 1. he doesnt beleive in public nudity and 2. he doesnt want other people to be nude in public simply because he has psychological issues and cant deal with them like a mature adult or maybe its just how society has conditioned him in general and just needs to keep being persuaded until he sees the light.

[Kari P]

Stu,

Referring to the same points that Mark points at, I would like to ask you to comment on the following points that I see as facts:

1. Your criminal law says nothing about nudity, as in most European countries.

2. Any other laws that could be used against public nudity are extremely vague in that they don't say where and when nudity in a public place is banned.

3. The meaning of those laws simply cannot be that public nudity is categorically banned. If the meaning was that, it would be made clear.

4. If we accept the previous premises, public nudity per se is not against the law. There must be something else in a person's behaviour that makes it a crime.

5. The British courts have had to use such law paragraphs as "breach of peace" and "causing a traffic hazard" to sentence Steve Gough. They do not refer to nudity in an obvious way. Anyone must admit that the paragraphs are primarily for another purposes than for prohibiting public nudity.

It is very clear to me that those paragraphs used against Gough are only pretexts. They had to punish him, they had to find some crime he had committed (in the first hand, not counting breach of bail as a secondary thing), and these paragraphs were the only applicable ones the judges found in the law book. I see that the courts have applied the law wrongly. With this kind of interpretation nearly everything can be seen as a crime. See Mark's post!

"If nudity was legal I'd either resign myself to that fact and try to accustom myself to it, or move to another country where it wasn't."

Then do it. Nudity is legal in your country. It's behaviour that counts.

"His nudity was sufficient!"

... to prove his aim to offend people. No, it wasn't. You say yourself:

"If his conduct is likely to cause alarm or distress to people here then it IS grounds for legal action. The prosecution must prove that to secure a conviction. They have done that successfully with Mr Gough."

It wasn't that simple. There wasn't any problem to prove his nudity. They had to show that alarm or distress had been caused by his conduct. I wonder how they did it: how many eye-witnesses were listened to, what they were asked and what they responded etc.

"I really don't know where you get the idea from that most Europeans are OK with nudity. Trust me - it's a MYTH!"

Simply, it isn't, at least if we replace "most" by "a great part". I'm sorry for the fact in this forum there are so few other Europeans (a Danish naturist and Johny from Latvia being the only ones I have noticed apart from some Britons and me). But if there were writers from, say Germany and France, they would surely give evidence to the opposite of what you say. It's obvious that German and French naturists don't come here because they have their own forums in their native languages.

Kari P

[Rex]

I am not a military type person, but I will use a military type analogy.
Steve Gough has metaphorically gone up over the trenches, in the face of overwhelming firepower [not the British public, Stu, the stupid authorities] and is inevitably suffering as a result.
My preference is to arm myself with an effective weapon, settle myself down comfortably and pick off selected targets.
This is what I did with complete success and I detailed it in "Getting a legal fair deal for nudists" under "Miscellaneous".
When a person clashes with the law, it's wonderful what a letter from the doctor, saying that a person's health is at risk, will do.
Sometimes I wonder whether some people really want, or expect, to win, or just become martyrs to the cause.

Mike

Why do you respond to me as though I was a totally uninformed and illiterate ignoramus? I know EXACTLY what Mr Gough has been charged with and, bearing in mind my profession, I have an in-depth understanding of British law and our legal system (do you?). I'm glad I'm not one of your teachers at your college because if any of my law students challenge my professional knowledge the way you do I would be less than impressed - and most of MY students are already LAW GRADUATES!

Mr Gough has never been arrested, charged or otherwise processed for the offence of 'indecent exposure' either under previous legislation (the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 or the Vagrancy Act 1824), nor the Common Law, nor section 66 of the new Sexual Offences Act 2003. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has suggested he should be. Your point on this is totally irrelevant.

If you do your research you will discover he has been charged, and convicted, of entirely different offences by virtue of his nudity, namely offences that fall under the heading of "public order offences" rather than "sexual offences". Unlike the latter, it is not essential to prove an actual "intention" to cause harassment, alarm or distress", merely a "likelihood" of the same. Short of giving you a lengthy lecture on English Law I hope you will take my word on that.

"Non sexual non threatening nudity is not a big thing stu and youd be surprised how many people dont find it a big issue".

To some people it is and to others it isn't. There are still enough of us who find it offensive to ensure that, in most cases, the police will take action and, in mostr cases, the courts will convict.

"contended that breach of the peace was such a vague charge that it would be entirely possible to commit an offence without being aware of it."

Thepoint you make there is under Scots Law - and tha IS different to English Law in many respects. Nevertheless, you are citing the appellant's grounds for appeal, so the point is entirely one-sided. No doubt the respondent (i.e. the Procurator Fiscal) wil have his own counter-argument, but we haven't seen that, have we?

"I think the law people over there are screwy and need to rethink their laws more carefully".

I agree. There should be a specific law that bans public nudity rather than the police and courts having to rely on public order legislation.

Naturist Mark

"Ahhh, but Steven Gough has never been charged with indecent exposure. That's the genius of the system",

Correct. The same legislation is used against people swearing or openly urinating in the street, or any other behaviour that is generally considered to be unacceptable.

"In Mr. Gough's case he has been convicted of 1. breach of bail, 2, breach of the peace and 3. behavior likely to distract drivers."

That's in Scotland. In his home town of Eastleigh in England he was arrested a couple of times for being naked and subsequently convicted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (disorderly behaviour)!

"Breach of bail means he was required by previous courts to not break the law while free awaiting trial. Walking nude in the British countryside is not illegal".

It is illegal if it is likely to result in persons sufferin "harassment, alarm or distress". It does, so, in effect, it is! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Breach of peace doesn't apply, because Mr. Gough's actions were always peaceful! In particular his nude ramblling is not a breach of peace because his mere nudity is not unlawful or disorderly."

As far as England is concerned, you are probably right. In Scotland, however, the courts have found differently (because they are based on different criteria). That may be appealed and we won't know for certain until we know the outcome.

MikeJB

"Well either way Stu is at fault because he said that it WAS illegal to be nude in the british country side"

Yeah. What do I know? I'm only an English criminal law lecturer at an English university. I mean, a 19 year old American college student is sure to know far more about English law than I do. Right? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I think Stu really oughta get his facts straight before questioning mine or anyone elses and he really shouldnt say nudity is illega if it isnt and he even thinks that the majority of society is against nudity and this is not true at all."

Nudiy isn't illegal per se. But, if you get naked in public in the UK and, in the view of the police and courts, the nudity is LIKELY to cause harassment, alarm or distress, then it is illegal. If you don't believe me then you need to ask yourself why British courts have convicted Mr Gough on several occasions. Are they ALL wrong?

If you look at the survey results you will see that a majority of people in another British city indicated that they would experience negative feelings upon seeing nudity in a public park. So I've got my facts straight - have you?

"Mr Gough shouldve just waited for his trial, given the green light that he wasnt doing anything illegal and then high tailed it outta there as soon as he got out and then they couldnt convict him because it wouldve already been proven that his actions were not illegal."

He did have a trial and was found guilty. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Bob S.

"He is not a terrorist".

I didn't say he was a terrorist. I simply said there were parrallels between his attitude and the attitude of terrorists.

"The difference between Steve Gough and Al Qaeda is that Steve Gough is violating the very law that he feels is wrong. Al Qaeda kills people in order to bring attention to the evils of Western culture."

But he isn't just walking to keep fit, or to win a bet. 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.

"One of the arguments that Steve Gough and the StopSegregation uses is that they are being denied their most basic human rights by not being allowed to go naked".

Who says it's a 'basic human right'? I might assume that it's my 'basic human right' to take a shortcut across your garden every day because your garden is just a piece of planet earth and who says that you can stop me walking where the heck I want on this planet? Who says that YOUR garden is YOUR garden? And wo gave them the ight to decide that?

"Is 43% a sizable minority? Or rather 40%? c) is a neutral chopice as they suffered only slight discomfort and chose to do nothing."

Where I work men outnumber women by about two to one. Some years ago everyone was informally polled about whether or not a certain callendar should be permitted to remain on display in a common room. The callendar displayed attractive women in various states of dress but never even partially naked - ranging from ballgowns to mini-skirts etc. Numerically, the majoriy of people were neutral about whether it should remain there and two people were keen that it should stay. About seven or eight women found it highly offensive. So it was removed. The will of the neutral majority could be discounted because they couldn't care less. But the opponents outnumbered the proponents so it had to go.

The survey showed that most people reacted negatively to the suggested situation. That should be good enough. 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.

"That is not quite a realiztic number. Maybe 2% are into organized naturism, but a lot more, I would estimate probably about 25%, maybe more, are home naturists, or are naked at home or around their family".

Sorry, Bob, but that doesn't count. 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.

MikeJB

"I think Stu makes the poll percent so low because 1. he doesnt beleive in public nudity"

I didn't come up with the 2% figure - that was arrived at from a poll commissioned by naturists!

"...and 2. he doesnt want other people to be nude in public simply because he has psychological issues and cant deal with them like a mature adult or maybe its just how society has conditioned him in general and just needs to keep being persuaded until he sees the light."

There is no light to see, Mike. I am not a nudist. I don't like and don't want to encounter nudity - so I keep away from nudist places. Everybody has heard of naturism and they know what it means. They know there are nudist beaches and venues. Nevertheless they CHOOSE not to go to them. Ask yourself why they don't. What you are advocating is that there shouldn't be any nudist places because you should be allowed to be nude wherever and whenever you like. That's unreasonable and disregards the will of the majority.

Kari P

"1. Your criminal law says nothing about nudity, as in most European countries."

With regard to nudity, our laws are designed to take account of the likely OUTCOME of the behaviour rather than dogmatically outlawing the behaviour itself. If you ban public nudity you encompass situations that would offend no-one - e.g. someone changing their shorts in a park believing they are out of sight of others. Our laws are based on much older laws and principles that are intended to be flexible rather than rigid - to take account of the foreseeable effects of behaviour rather than decontextualising the behaviour itself.

"2. Any other laws that could be used against public nudity are extremely vague in that they don't say where and when nudity in a public place is banned."

Public nudity has not been a legal issue until very recent times. Anyone found nude in the street in Victorian times would have been put i prison with hard labour! There hasn't been a need for a specific law. Perhaps there is now.

"3. The meaning of those laws simply cannot be that public nudity is categorically banned. If the meaning was that, it would be made clear."

No. That's not how our public order laws have ever worked. They have always been vague for the reasons I explained.

"4. If we accept the previous premises, public nudity per se is not against the law. There must be something else in a person's behaviour that makes it a crime".

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

"5. The British courts have had to use such law paragraphs as "breach of peace" and "causing a traffic hazard" to sentence Steve Gough. They do not refer to nudity in an obvious way. Anyone must admit that the paragraphs are primarily for another purposes than for prohibiting public nudity."

Breach of the Peace is an extremely old law and goes back to the times when anything that might make arouse discomfort in any well-bred Lord or Lady was deemed unseemly "Under the King's Peace". So nudity would certainly have qualified for that. Indeed, the old Common Law crime of "Outraging public decency" was the normal crime charged for inappropriate nudity. The sentence for that offence was life imprisonment!

(If nudity was legal I'd either resign myself to that fact and try to accustom myself to it),

"Then do it. Nudity is legal in your country."

Effectively, it isn't legal. That's why Mr Gough is still in prison and why he has a total of five convictions in both Scotland and England.

"It wasn't that simple. There wasn't any problem to prove his nudity. They had to show that alarm or distress had been caused by his conduct. I wonder how they did it: how many eye-witnesses were listened to, what they were asked and what they responded etc."

Presumably you are talking about his previous convictio in Southampton. They only need to show the 'likelihood' of causing alarm or distress. If they can show that it was actually caused then that's a bonus. Of course, a policeman can say that HE was the one who experienced the alarm or distress and that's good enough.

Stu

[MikeJB]

Mike

Why do you respond to me as though I was a totally uninformed and illiterate ignoramus? I know EXACTLY what Mr Gough has been charged with and, bearing in mind my profession, I have an in-depth understanding of British law and our legal system (do you?). I'm glad I'm not one of your teachers at your college because if any of my law students challenge my professional knowledge the way you do I would be less than impressed - and most of MY students are already LAW GRADUATES!
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah and I bet those same graduates are going to screw up the nudity laws the same way you would. I just say your an ignoramus basically because just because youve probably memorized all the laws and know the legal system doesnt mean anything really. People who are professionals still make mistakes, granted they do it much less than people who are unfamiliar with the law. Also I wouldnt want to be a student in your class even if I was into law because your policies *as far as nudity are concerned* are bogus, I dont need to be some major or professional to know that, its been clearly stated here by people who understand the law about as much as you do *professionally wise* and also a teacher wouldnt necessarily say that what he/she says is necessarily right or absoulute, my english teacher said never to take anything at face value and question and debate things that are perceived as being normal and I agree with him because hes good at what he does and he liked me being in his class and he liked how I debated and dealt with certain issues. I think for the most part stu you understand the laws BUT I dont really agree with you on this nudity and Gough thing and several people here dont either and theyve given facts, its not my fault I dont understand this stuff im just talking from a point of view of what I beleive in and I havent really seen any reason to think that nudity is in anyway immoral or indecent in and of itself. 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.


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

If you do your research you will discover he has been charged, and convicted, of entirely different offences by virtue of his nudity, namely offences that fall under the heading of "public order offences" rather than "sexual offences". Unlike the latter, it is not essential to prove an actual "intention" to cause harassment, alarm or distress", merely a "likelihood" of the same. Short of giving you a lengthy lecture on English Law I hope you will take my word on that.
-------------------------------------------------

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, theyd have to prove that he actually caused some offense and its not the nudity that was on trial but the offense that they decided he did, which personally 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 so that basically throws out your whole "upseting the majority of people". Im sure most people are offended by this guy by what the media says about him which is often times in their favor and convulted so people are annoyed out of sheer ignorance and they areint getting the real story on this guy.


-------------------------------------------------
To some people it is and to others it isn't. There are still enough of us who find it offensive to ensure that, in most cases, the police will take action and, in mostr cases, the courts will convict.
-------------------------------------------------

Well out in public they do because most are unsure about nudity or dont want to be seen that they support it because then it would affect their lives because people that actually DO find it offensive would look down on these people merely because they support nudity, I think it mostly has to do with the shame the media puts on people's bodies and nudity that is to blame. 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.

-------------------------------------------------
Thepoint you make there is under Scots Law - and tha IS different to English Law in many respects. Nevertheless, you are citing the appellant's grounds for appeal, so the point is entirely one-sided. No doubt the respondent (i.e. the Procurator Fiscal) wil have his own counter-argument, but we haven't seen that, have we?
-------------------------------------------------

I think that some of the people in the court just wanted to find some offense to place on this guy since they couldnt use nudity they use some vague law that is hard to interpret just because they dont like the guy and want to see him convicted weither he did something wrong or not. I dont think they wanted to admit that what he was doing wasnt wrong.


------------------------------------------------
I agree. There should be a specific law that bans public nudity rather than the police and courts having to rely on public order legislation.
------------------------------------------------

I think until that happens though that they should just let people be nude whereever they want because there is no actual law against it, they just use some vague offense law that could mean anything. 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 because they have much more important laws to deal with with actual people who have intended to and actually hurt the public widespread. 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.
Naturist Mark

------------------------------------------------
Correct. The same legislation is used against people swearing or openly urinating in the street, or any other behaviour that is generally considered to be unacceptable.
-------------------------------------------------

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, im sure its different there but I just thought id mention that difference and yes we do have a no peeing in public law here but I still see people do it and the police unless they get a complaint largely ignore it. Besides people swearing is just wrong and unecesary, there is no conflict there and peeing in public is just unhealthy to most, although I dont see why, animals pee in the dirt all the time and dont get cited and our pee isnt much different so I dont get what the big deal is, it definitely saves you time if you cant get to a bathroom. Anyways you could use alot of reasons to fight those issues, nudity however isnt so clear cut becausepeople debate it endlessly and even over here there isnt a law stricly prohibiting it, just municipal codes in various areas , although the police generally use the public offense or indecent exposure here too, most people over here are too nutty to worry about such things, although most people I deal with *like at school* are hardcore liberals so that doesnt surprise me. I just never see how something so natural as the human body can be found to be indecent, you can be decent when youre naked, its your actions more than anything else that should determine your decency and thus if you do something illegal while naked then I could see the police arresting the person, then again it would be for their crime not the nudity, although it seems the media and the courts center on the nudity more than the crime and thus the person just gets off with a fine or warning and just goes and does some crime again. I dont know about too many people here that have gotten put in jail for any long length of time for being nude unless theyve done it several times, although I have heard of them getting fined and getting warned by the judge. Then again they focus on the nudity which really is usually a lesser offence to them than the crime which really demands a more serious punishment but the courts are so nuts about nudity they totally forget that.

-------------------------------------------------
That's in Scotland. In his home town of Eastleigh in England he was arrested a couple of times for being naked and subsequently convicted under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (disorderly behaviour)!
-------------------------------------------------

I dont see what is disorderly about being naked. Most people can be quite sane and orderly when naked. So I really dont see any reason why he shouldve been conviced even for the stuff in scottland because that had to do more with the person's reaction to his nudity and most mature people can control their reactions so that really doesnt hold any water. The person driving shouldve kept his/her eyes on the road and if they decide to get distracted that easily then its their fault because they chose to take their eyes off the road, its not something that happens automatically and instantaniously, people drive nuts even when there isnt any nudity involved, so mr Gough cant be responsible for the driver's actions.


-------------------------------------------------
It is illegal if it is likely to result in persons sufferin "harassment, alarm or distress". It does, so, in effect, it is!
-------------------------------------------------

Well weither it is legal or not is irrelevant because the judge ordered him NOT to do it till after his trial and he CHOSE to disobey that order, so that was HIS fault and in that case I can see why they arrested him. He shoulve just waited till the trial, been found innocent and then went along his merry nude way.


-------------------------------------------------
As far as England is concerned, you are probably right. In Scotland, however, the courts have found differently (because they are based on different criteria). That may be appealed and we won't know for certain until we know the outcome.
-------------------------------------------------

Im sure the only reason he was rambling is because he was arrested unjustly so 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.


MikeJB
------------------------------------------------
Yeah. What do I know? I'm only an English criminal law lecturer at an English university. I mean, a 19 year old American college student is sure to know far more about English law than I do. Right?
-------------------------------------------------

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, thats why their teen pregancy rate and other crime rates are down. I never said I knew all the details of the law, im just saying from all of what ive heard im just making the asumption that its legal because I havent really heard otherwise, not one person really ever said it was illegal here except you. So I mean thats just how I feel. 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. Thats all im saying. I mean its obvious you dont like nudity so youre not just gonna come out and say "Hey nudity is legal over here" because then thered be more of it, youd be exposed to it and geez we cant have that cuz it might "shock" you beyond all help.


-------------------------------------------------
Nudiy isn't illegal per se. But, if you get naked in public in the UK and, in the view of the police and courts, the nudity is LIKELY to cause harassment, alarm or distress, then it is illegal. If you don't believe me then you need to ask yourself why British courts have convicted Mr Gough on several occasions. Are they ALL wrong?
-------------------------------------------------

Fact is they had to try to find some way to say he cause alarm and distress, that right there says that something is fishy because if it really was illegal or illegal in the eyes of the public then they wouldve found somerthing to convict him for sooner, dont ya think? I think the court WANTED him in jail weither he did anything wrong or not. Im sure most people who saw him didnt get any permemant memory loss or any sort of phsychological harm just by seeing him naked, they just didnt like it and that in and of itself isnt enough to convict because you could apply the public offense law to anything in that sense.

------------------------------------------------
If you look at the survey results you will see that a majority of people in another British city indicated that they would experience negative feelings upon seeing nudity in a public park. So I've got my facts straight - have you?
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but honestly one British city's opinion cant decide the law for the whole country. Besides im sure that not every single person in that city posted on that poll and you dont know how many posted several times or how many of them were just trying to cause harm and really dont understand nudity. Just because people dont like it, doesnt mean its wrong. 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 so obviously we need to teach the public to accept nudity because im sure alot of them would if they have their facts straight. I know that the media doesnt tell people that nudist resorts are "good and wholesome" and most of their stories show only the bad things that happen there and thus with only that to go on, plus societies general hatred and misunderstanding of nudity they just see it as wrog because all the limited facts they have gotten have been from a negative viewpoint. I think people should know the whole story, the GOOD and BAD things about nudity, THEN they sould be able to make a decision, most peoiple dont have those facts so they cant consciously make a decsion.


------------------------------------------------
He did have a trial and was found guilty.
------------------------------------------------

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.


------------------------------------------------
I didn't say he was a terrorist. I simply said there were parrallels between his attitude and the attitude of terrorists.
------------------------------------------------

Terrorists kill people and want to show how bad our civilization is through fear and destruction and killing of innocent people. Mr Gough on the other hand had legitimate peaceful goals he was trying to acheieve and how did he get thanked for it, he got put away like a petty criminal when all he wanted to do was get the public to see the true nature of nudity. Besides shouldnt the courts be spending time on the terrorists and less on peaceful individuals like Mr Gough?


------------------------------------------------
But he isn't just walking to keep fit, or to win a bet. 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.
------------------------------------------------

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. Besides how is exercising nude/winning a bet nude any different than making a political statement nude? Seems like it wouldnt matter to the courts because they dont like his nudity and thus tried endlessly to find something to convict him of. Besides even though Gough is basically trying to do the same thing as Al Queda, he is doing it on a much smaller scale and is doing it peacefully, if Al Queda would just do this, we wouldnt have a problem with them, but they resort to violence and evil methods to meet their goal, whereas Gough has a peaceful message in mind and doesnt want to harm the public. His intentions are Good, thus the law doesnt apply to him.


------------------------------------------------
Who says it's a 'basic human right'? I might assume that it's my 'basic human right' to take a shortcut across your garden every day because your garden is just a piece of planet earth and who says that you can stop me walking where the heck I want on this planet? Who says that YOUR garden is YOUR garden? And wo gave them the ight to decide that?
-------------------------------------------------

The difference between that is is that we have official laws on the books governing private/public property and those are usually very clear 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. Im sure most people if they wanted to take a shortcut across someones yard they could ask the person's permission first. 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. I mean if someone isnt offended by a naked baby, why would or should they be offended by a naked 30 year old, only difference is they are taller, bigger and have more hair but otherwise have all the same parts that a baby does and we dont immediately run to clothe a baby and we think its cute when they run around naked and in fact they TRY to run around naked and take their pants off as much as they can because its the human's basic desire to be naked, its just that society is against it and people just play along so they dont get arrested 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, unless it was cold or something but then youd just use common sense because clothes were designed originally for climate control and not much else.

------------------------------------------------
Where I work men outnumber women by about two to one. Some years ago everyone was informally polled about whether or not a certain callendar should be permitted to remain on display in a common room. The callendar displayed attractive women in various states of dress but never even partially naked - ranging from ballgowns to mini-skirts etc. Numerically, the majoriy of people were neutral about whether it should remain there and two people were keen that it should stay. About seven or eight women found it highly offensive. So it was removed. The will of the neutral majority could be discounted because they couldn't care less. But the opponents outnumbered the proponents so it had to go.
------------------------------------------------

I think those who didnt care shouldve just said that it could stay and the poll shouldve specified either it stays or it goes and not have this neutral choice because that messes up the poll. I think honestly that the number of people who dont mind nudity outweighted the number who did so your statement really goes to show that nudity isnt that bad, even though in that circumstance they used the neutral choice against them.

------------------------------------------------
The survey showed that most people reacted negatively to the suggested situation. That should be good enough. 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.
-------------------------------------------------

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. My feelings about the poll is that it shouldve been done again, everyone shouldve had to pick either stay or go and told to just be honest and that your choice is anonymous so no one would kno which one you picked anyways. Im not saying that id want to take the poll again just so that the nudity would win, but just merely for the fact that it wouldve been more fair and they couldve really decided who liked the calendar and who didnt. I just really want to be a fair and resonable person and thus I dont think that simple public nudity should result in arrest so long as the person does not cause any harm to the general public or do anything illegal per se. I know youll probably say that the nudity IS causing harm but I think you know what I mean, if people would just accept nudity then the nudist people would give back to those who dont prefer to see their nudity by keeping away from them and being discreet about their actions. I mean if youre staring at someone's genitals then already your eyes are in the wrong place and if you chose to look down there then thats your fault, so long as u avoid looking down there excessively then the nudity would just become second nature to you. Thats how it works for me.

------------------------------------------------
Sorry, Bob, but that doesn't count. 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.
------------------------------------------------

I dont think theyd be mortified per se but also they wouldnt want to openly admit that they support nudism because society in general still questions it and even if its right it the fact that you support it can hurt you in the eyes of those who dont, like say your manager . Whereas if you say you dont support nudity or merely feel neutral about it then people wont bother you as much, even if you feel contrary to that fact. 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.



------------------------------------------------
I didn't come up with the 2% figure - that was arrived at from a poll commissioned by naturists!
-------------------------------------------------

Yeah but its been proven by several here that the real poll result isnt necessarily true of the majority of society. These internet polls are for the most part, not acurate of the mass society's viewpoint but just of those few who do vote and sometimes they do it more than once just to up the poll in their favor. So honestly I think you just agree with the 2% to once again try to prove that nudity other than in private isnt a good idea.

------------------------------------------------
There is no light to see, Mike. I am not a nudist. I don't like and don't want to encounter nudity - so I keep away from nudist places. Everybody has heard of naturism and they know what it means. They know there are nudist beaches and venues. Nevertheless they CHOOSE not to go to them. Ask yourself why they don't. What you are advocating is that there shouldn't be any nudist places because you should be allowed to be nude wherever and whenever you like. That's unreasonable and disregards the will of the majority.
-------------------------------------------------

Honestly Stu just because you dont beleive in nudity yourself, you shouldnt deny others the chance to be nude in public. I honestly dont think that even IF it was legal that alot of people would do it at first, the 1992 decision to allow topfreedom in NY over here says clearly that the topless body of a woman by itself isnt illegal but yet almost no women want to try it because of fear of how the society will react, although some do actually participate in it and even if that small minority does, thats their right and even if only one person did it, they still should be able to do it, they cant be responsible for the actions of others. Same goes for nudity, even IF public nudity was officially declared legal, most people wouldnt try it or at least they wouldnt at first so really Stu the chances of you encountering a fully nude person out in public would be slim, but still they deserve that right, even if only 1 would participate, that one man/woman deserves that right and if not that many people did it then there wouldnt be that many harming society so it wouldnt be a big deal. As far as the nudist beaches/resorts go, like I said, most people chose not to go to them because they either a) dont like them b) cant find or afford them or c) dont know alot about them and the stuff they do know is usually not the real truth about them *i.e the media's response to them* so really that doesnt mean per se that people DONT like nudity or necessarly dont want to go there, it just means that they might not be able to or dont know enough about them to really encourage them to go. Most of these nudists places are secluded anyways, so itd be hard to find them and ive heard some people have had a lot of trouble concerning that. If nudity was allowed in public, these resorts and beaches would be unecessary and people could go about their business nude for free which would help alot of people who want to be nude but cant afford to get to or get in a pricey resort or beach. I just see alot of sense in this and I hope you do sometime too. Besides if you live around people who are against going nude then what do you have to worry about seeing a nude person anyways??????

-------------------------------------------------
With regard to nudity, our laws are designed to take account of the likely OUTCOME of the behaviour rather than dogmatically outlawing the behaviour itself. If you ban public nudity you encompass situations that would offend no-one - e.g. someone changing their shorts in a park believing they are out of sight of others. Our laws are based on much older laws and principles that are intended to be flexible rather than rigid - to take account of the foreseeable effects of behaviour rather than decontextualising the behaviour itself.
------------------------------------------------

Yeah but that can be interpreted vague as best and can result in alot of people getting arrested for things they didnt even do but the police somehow thoughtd they do it but they didnt and probably never even had any intention of doing. Its like with a person robbing a store, unless they tell you theyre gonna rob it then you cant just arrest them because you think they might, unless you have reasonable cause beyond a doubt that they are gonna do something. 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 because there are alot of good people out there who would be nude simply for the enjoyment of it and wouldnt harm a fly. 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. These people were just doing things for practical reasons and were being discreet and didnt intend any harm on anyone so it wouldnt be right to arrest them or even do anything to them.

-------------------------------------------------
Public nudity has not been a legal issue until very recent times. Anyone found nude in the street in Victorian times would have been put i prison with hard labour! There hasn't been a need for a specific law. Perhaps there is now.
-------------------------------------------------

That boggles my mind. I was always under the impression that the victorians were pretty open about the human body, I must be thinking of another time period but I remmeber something around that time where people could walk nude freely in the streets and not be arrested and it was just something people did, not all people but some did do it and it wasnt seen as offensive. Just arresting someone because they are in their natural state seems rather foolish to me.

-------------------------------------------------
No. That's not how our public order laws have ever worked. They have always been vague for the reasons I explained.
-------------------------------------------------

Yes so I guess that would mean that public nudity is legal unless it actually causes alarm or distress, which in most places except more developed cities it usually isnt considered a big deal.

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

Yeah so I mean that if youre nude and someone complains, that person should have to explain exactly what about you and your nudity alarmed them besides the nudity itself because im sure any police officer could just explain to the person that the other person was nude because they were just trying to relax and be comfortable and go on with their lives and that the person wasnt going to cause any harm. I think if the police just explained this to the person then most likely they would understand and not be so alarmed. My reasoning in this is that people = nudity with sex and crime and think that nude people are nothing more than mere criminals or someone out for good sex and that just simply isnt true and instead of arresting innocent bystanders because they are nude, instead this fact about nudity should be explained to the person who was alarmed and say that unless the person is causing some sort of scene or doing something illegal that the police officer cant take any action against them. I mean I know some people are just against nudity and nothing will convince them otherwise but the point is is that if police would just try to explain the nature of why these people are naked and can prove that their intentions are not bad then that would be a better result than arresting the person and causing a bigger scene than one that needs to happen, I mean im just trying to see how you could solve this sort of situation in a more discreet way so as to not upset the public any more than they have to because if someone is arrested merely for being nude then people will connect the nudity with criminals and see it in a negative way and not even support those who wish to do it in private because they will see the nudity as being wrong and not the actions of the individual.


------------------------------------------------
Breach of the Peace is an extremely old law and goes back to the times when anything that might make arouse discomfort in any well-bred Lord or Lady was deemed unseemly "Under the King's Peace". So nudity would certainly have qualified for that. Indeed, the old Common Law crime of "Outraging public decency" was the normal crime charged for inappropriate nudity. The sentence for that offence was life imprisonment!
-------------------------------------------------

That law is too vague though and even if there isnt a law per se against nudity there should be one that explains in better detail the things that must be going on in order for the police to take action. I mean I know you guys use your vague laws to make it more open to decide what is right and wrong but I think there needs to be a clearer law on the nudity issue so people will realize that mere nudity is not inherently bad.


-------------------------------------------------
Effectively, it isn't legal. That's why Mr Gough is still in prison and why he has a total of five convictions in both Scotland and England.
-------------------------------------------------

NO!, nudity IS legal but the courts just used other means to meet their end, the chance to prove Gough is guilty of causing some "offense" and throw him in jail. Geez I wonder what these courts would do if they didnt have these "Public Offense" laws to fall back on, I guess theyd have to declare him innocent then, unfortunately for them, because if they cant find a law then theyd have nothing to prosecute him for and obviously even though they found a law it didnt really have anything to do with his nudity because people in courts usually understand that nudity in and of itself isnt offensive and thats the only thing they could find about him to be offensive so honestly I dont really think they had a case but they obviously found some loophole which they could convict him for, although im sure if they took him to a higher court, theyd throw out the trial right away because they couldnt find anything wrong in his actions.

------------------------------------------------
Presumably you are talking about his previous convictio in Southampton. They only need to show the 'likelihood' of causing alarm or distress. If they can show that it was actually caused then that's a bonus. Of course, a policeman can say that HE was the one who experienced the alarm or distress and that's good enough.
------------------------------------------------

Im sure they made alot of that up. Simply being nude and walking isnt "likely to cause offense" in most judges and courts eyes. If this happened over here im sure they wouldve thrown his case out before it even got started. People over here might be against the human body but they are reasonable people and wouldnt convict him for something so stupid.
Stu

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.

"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'.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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'.

"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 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.

"...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.

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

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

"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.

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"!

"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 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.

"Besides people swearing is just wrong and unecesary,"

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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).

"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.

"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.

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

If it's in public it means exactly that.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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!

"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.

"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.

"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.

" 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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"I was always under the impression that the victorians were pretty open about the human body,"

WHAT???? They even used to cover table legs with fabric to prevent people getting dirty thoughts about bare legs! LOL

"Yes so I guess that would mean that public nudity is legal unless it actually causes alarm or distress, which in most places except more developed cities it usually isnt considered a big deal."

Most places in public in the UK there would be a real risk of causing offence if you were nude in public. So, practically speaking, it means nudity in public is generally illegal.

"Yeah so I mean that if youre nude and someone complains, that person should have to explain exactly what about you and your nudity alarmed them besides the nudity itself because im sure any police officer could just explain to the person that the other person was nude because they were just trying to relax and be comfortable and go on with their lives and that the person wasnt going to cause any harm."

The offended person wouldn't have to explain anything. Regardless of the reasons for the nudity the fact remains that being in that state in public is likely to cause alarm or distress and the offence is committed. The police wouldn't bother to explain anything.

"unless the person is causing some sort of scene or doing something illegal that the police officer cant take any action against them".

They are doing something illegal as I have explained. That's why Mr Gough has been arrested so many times.

"if someone is arrested merely for being nude then people will connect the nudity with criminals and see it in a negative way and not even support those who wish to do it in private because they will see the nudity as being wrong and not the actions of the individual."

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! This is what I have been saying all along. It is one of the main reasons why I am so opposed to what Mr Gough is doing. The public will tar all naturists with the same brush as Mr Gough - an eccentric, troublesome fanatic who defies the law and authority generally and is quite accustomed to being arrested and familiar with the inside of a prison.

"I mean I know you guys use your vague laws to make it more open to decide what is right and wrong but I think there needs to be a clearer law on the nudity issue so people will realize that mere nudity is not inherently bad."

There needs to be a clearer law that states that public exposure of certain parts of the body in, into or from a public place is unlawful other than in certain, specified circumstances.

"NO!, nudity IS legal but the courts just used other means to meet their end, the chance to prove Gough is guilty of causing some "offense" and throw him in jail".

That doesn't make any sense. The courts ultimately decide what is and is not legal within their interpretation of the law. If they say that being nude in public amounts to "disorderly conduct" then that is exactly what it does. The only people who can alter that are the higher courts on appeal, or Parliament. If and until theydo, then the court's decision IS the law.

"although im sure if they took him to a higher court, theyd throw out the trial right away because they couldnt find anything wrong in his actions".

Yeah, Right! I can just see our crusty old Appeal Court judges declaring that being nude in public was just hunky dory! LOL /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Most of the one's I have met would lock him up and throw away the key!

"Simply being nude and walking isnt "likely to cause offense" in most judges and courts eyes."

Tell me, how many members of the British judiciary do you know?

"People over here might be against the human body but they are reasonable people and wouldnt convict him for something so stupid".

I see. So then you would be perfectly happy that you could walk stark naked through any American city, say Kansas or Bakersville or Pittsburgh and the cops would leave you alone or the judge would throw the case out. Hey, why not try it?

Stu

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Naturist:
MikeJB and Jochanaan: Excellent posts. And concise. You have shown that it's possible to say a lot in a few words.

Gary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you.

[Kari P]

Stu,

"The courts ultimately decide what is and is not legal within their interpretation of the law. If they say that being nude in public amounts to "disorderly conduct" then that is exactly what it does. The only people who can alter that are the higher courts on appeal, or Parliament. If and until theydo, then the court's decision IS the law."

I believe that laws should be written clearly so that everyone reading them knows what they mean. This is not always possible, but one thing that always helps in the interpretation is the purpose of the law. In Finland the prework done on a new law becomes part of the legislation in that it guides the interpretation of the law in courts.

As a legislator or a judge I wouldn't count much on vague laws whose purpose was not made clear either. Such laws would be soon be effectively invalidated in higher courts and amended then if not sooner.

We have in use the concept of prejudice you mentioned. I believe (only believe, I don't know of any real case) that if a public nudity case was drawn to the highest court, its decision would with high probability be such that the existent laws - we have a paragraph of indecent public exposure in the criminal law and we have a fresh public order law - could not be used to sentence for simple nonsexual nudity.

There are some things that support my belief: First, the current level of acceptance of nudity. My previous posts give some examples of it. One more is the Spencer Tunick nude shot in the centre of Helsinki August 2002. In my knowledge no special permission was needed for it because of public nudity. The happening was legal with no doubt.

Second, when the government gave the new public order law to our parliament the prework of the law contained a mention (noticed with satisfaction by Finnish naturists) something like this: "Nudity in public places is not a thing of great concern to public order. The paragraph of indecent public exposure in the criminal law is sufficient, there is no need to handle nudity in this law."

I really wish that the Gough cases will be handled in higher courts and that they find either that the lowest court interpreted the law improperly or that the laws used in the case should be clarified in order to be applicable against nudity at all - then your government and parliament should take action to amend them.

Kari P

Kari

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.

I agree that our laws would benefit from clarification in respect of nudity so that it would remove any doubt that it was criminally unlawful here. Our present laws usually work, as shown by the Steve Gough case, but not always and they impose unnecessary evidential burdens on the police.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that, if it were put to a vote, both the government as a whole and the majority of our Members of Parliament would agree that public nudity was generally unacceptable. Even a Home Office minister recognised, in such a way that indicated his approval, that the police were using and would no doubt continue to use, public order legislation to counter inappropriate non-sexual nudity in public places. In other words, as far as those in power are concerned, public nudity is, and should continue to be, an criminal offence.

Stu

[MikeJB]

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.
-----------------------------------------------
"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!
------------------------------------------------
"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.
------------------------------------------------
"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.
-------------------------------------------------
"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.
-------------------------------------------------
" 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.
-------------------------------------------------
"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.
-------------------------------------------------
"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.
------------------------------------------------
"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.
------------------------------------------------
"I was always under the impression that the victorians were pretty open about the human body,"

WHAT???? They even used to cover table legs with fabric to prevent people getting dirty thoughts about bare legs! LOL
-----------------------------------------------
"Yes so I guess that would mean that public nudity is legal unless it actually causes alarm or distress, which in most places except more developed cities it usually isnt considered a big deal."

Most places in public in the UK there would be a real risk of causing offence if you were nude in public. So, practically speaking, it means nudity in public is generally illegal.
-------------------------------------------------
"Yeah so I mean that if youre nude and someone complains, that person should have to explain exactly what about you and your nudity alarmed them besides the nudity itself because im sure any police officer could just explain to the person that the other person was nude because they were just trying to relax and be comfortable and go on with their lives and that the person wasnt going to cause any harm."

The offended person wouldn't have to explain anything. Regardless of the reasons for the nudity the fact remains that being in that state in public is likely to cause alarm or distress and the offence is committed. The police wouldn't bother to explain anything.
-------------------------------------------------
"unless the person is causing some sort of scene or doing something illegal that the police officer cant take any action against them".

They are doing something illegal as I have explained. That's why Mr Gough has been arrested so many times.
------------------------------------------------
"if someone is arrested merely for being nude then people will connect the nudity with criminals and see it in a negative way and not even support those who wish to do it in private because they will see the nudity as being wrong and not the actions of the individual."

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! This is what I have been saying all along. It is one of the main reasons why I am so opposed to what Mr Gough is doing. The public will tar all naturists with the same brush as Mr Gough - an eccentric, troublesome fanatic who defies the law and authority generally and is quite accustomed to being arrested and familiar with the inside of a prison.
------------------------------------------------
"I mean I know you guys use your vague laws to make it more open to decide what is right and wrong but I think there needs to be a clearer law on the nudity issue so people will realize that mere nudity is not inherently bad."

There needs to be a clearer law that states that public exposure of certain parts of the body in, into or from a public place is unlawful other than in certain, specified circumstances.
-------------------------------------------------
"NO!, nudity IS legal but the courts just used other means to meet their end, the chance to prove Gough is guilty of causing some "offense" and throw him in jail".

That doesn't make any sense. The courts ultimately decide what is and is not legal within their interpretation of the law. If they say that being nude in public amounts to "disorderly conduct" then that is exactly what it does. The only people who can alter that are the higher courts on appeal, or Parliament. If and until theydo, then the court's decision IS the law.
-------------------------------------------------
"although im sure if they took him to a higher court, theyd throw out the trial right away because they couldnt find anything wrong in his actions".

Yeah, Right! I can just see our crusty old Appeal Court judges declaring that being nude in public was just hunky dory! LOL

Most of the one's I have met would lock him up and throw away the key!
-------------------------------------------------
"Simply being nude and walking isnt "likely to cause offense" in most judges and courts eyes."

Tell me, how many members of the British judiciary do you know?
-------------------------------------------------
"People over here might be against the human body but they are reasonable people and wouldnt convict him for something so stupid".

I see. So then you would be perfectly happy that you could walk stark naked through any American city, say Kansas or Bakersville or Pittsburgh and the cops would leave you alone or the judge would throw the case out. Hey, why not try it?

Stu

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

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stu2630:
Kari

I can't comment on Finnish law because I know nothing about it.

Stu <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why not? You've certainly commented more than enough about social nudism, and you know absolutely NOTHING about it--except that you don't like it (but can't come up with a good reason why) and think all other non-nudists agree with you.