Naked Rambler walks free from prison - and walks away nude

[Stu2630]

Mosquito_Bait

No. It is the government authorities who have made the decision to waste public funds with their pointless prosecution of Stephen Gough.

He was breaking the law - and openly defying the law.

Any country which does not respond to this is giving in to lawbreaker - anyone can thus change any law they dislike simply by a tactic of attrition - by continually breaking it and wearing down the authorities until they throw in the towel. If I came to visit the US and decided I didn't one of your laws, so I just kept on defying it until your judges or legislature decided they'd had enough and changed it, would that be OK? Maybe if someone didn't like nudist beaches and visited a beach and continually annoyed naturists by photographing them, that would be OK, would it?

Nobody elected Gough to make or change Scots law - he appointed himself to do that.

nimrod

People will encounter things they find obscene and/or distressing, it happens no matter how many laws that they pass against it offences are still there. .

No, something is only offensive in law if it can be predicted to cause offence. Wearing a purple hat might offend one or perhaps even two people, but they are untypical and their offence is not foreseeable. Nudity, however, strikes at people's core values and is certainly known to cause offence.

Being offended is a choice and learned behaviour, it can be un-learned

The person who is affected by the sight of a purple hat has an aberrant and untypical sensitivity and they can certainly be expected to unlearn it. Sensitivity to nudity is both commonplace and linked to cultural and social values, and the millions of people who feel this way should not have to recalibrate their sensibilities to accommodate one selfish and arrogant exhibitionist.

he is not forcing anyone to look at his penis, he is not going up to people grabbing their heads and forcing it into his crotch. He is walking, seeing his penis is incidental.

Nonsense. Nobody objects to seeing his knees, his hands or his shoulderblades. The difference between acceptable nudity (i.e. the near nudity of wearing shorts) and complete nudity is that, with the latter, the sex organs are exposed. He makes it his business to ensure that, no matter what, his penis is visible to all.

Nobody objects to seeing the top of his head or his feet, but he can somehow manage to wear a hat and socks and boots. In other words, he can wear clothing for his own comfort, but he can't don a pair of shorts for a few minutes while walking through a village, along a busy rod or past a children's play area, for the sake of others' comfort.

He has said that this is his intention - to force people to (his words) confront their own "skin phobia". Nobody asked him to do that. The public didn't say to him "please cure us of our skin phobia, Mr Gough". Quite the reverse - they don't want it, which is why h has many complaints and has spent six years in prison at taxpayers' expense.

Stu

[nudeyooper]

Time to get real, Stu. There are hundreds if not thousands of laws that are on the books that go unenforced. Some are archaic, written in a different time for different reasons, but never repealed. Others were written to provide a popularity boost for a politician among special interest groups, and still others go unenforced simply because there are not the resources to be vigilant. Steven Gough is on his own crusade and the media and law are playing right into his hands. Leave him alone and stop publishing what he has done, and even if he does not go away, he certainly will have lost the attention he is seeking.

I do agree with you on the one point. If he can wear a hat and shoes, and carry a backpack, he could wear a shirt and shorts and would probably be even more comfortable.

[Sanslines]

People will encounter things they find obscene and/or distressing, it happens no matter how many laws that they pass against it offences are still there. Being offended is a choice and learned behaviour, it can be un-learned.



What a bunch of crap, he is not forcing anyone to look at his penis, he is not going up to people grabbing their heads and forcing it into his crotch. He is walking, seeing his penis is incidental.

It's actually worse then a bunch of crap. It is downright dishonest to say that Gough is forcing people to look at his penis. He is actually not forcing people to see any part of him. People can just look away. It is sad when some people resort to dishonest hyteria in a desperate attempt to demonize Gough. I knew that some will strongly object to the article that Gary posted. The article depicts Gough as a harmless eccentric who is doing nothing more that walking around the countryside naked. The article humanizes Gough and shows that he is really a rather benign man. Yet, those who strongly object to his nudity can't stand this and so they must reply with hysterically demonizing statements about Gough - as if Gough is some kind of mass murderer. I don't believe that the public as a whole really cares anymore whether Gough walks around naked. They have more important things to be worried about.

[Sanslines]

Stu,

Can't you refrain from being such a kill joy and let everyone enjoy a nice article about a gentile man that you obviosly so thoroughly despise? We all know what you think about Gough. Why not (for a change) respect our rights to enjoy such a nice article about him. You most certainly would want to set a proper example by not trampling upon our rights.

[Stu2630]

Time to get real, Stu. There are hundreds if not thousands of laws that are on the books that go unenforced. Some are archaic, written in a different time for different reasons, but never repealed. Others were written to provide a popularity boost for a politician among special interest groups, and still others go unenforced simply because there are not the resources to be vigilant. Steven Gough is on his own crusade and the media and law are playing right into his hands.

To be fair, he is not being accused of some obscure nobody has heard about, but of public order laws that are used by the police and courts every day, and usually following complaints from members of the public.

eave him alone and stop publishing what he has done, and even if he does not go away, he certainly will have lost the attention he is seeking.

I do agree with you on the one point. If he can wear a hat and shoes, and carry a backpack, he could wear a shirt and shorts and would probably be even more comfortable.

I think the danger of leaving him alone is that some rather unpleasant people who are closely watching his case have been waiting for the authorities to cave in and they will regard that as a signal that they can behave in the same way. This time, he has been walking mainly through a pretty desolate national park heading for the English border, so it looks as though he will be crossing it any time soon and in a completely different legal juristiction.

Sanslines

It is downright dishonest to say that Gough is forcing people to look at his penis. He is actually not forcing people to see any part of him. People can just look away.

That's too late by then. You could say exactly the same about a man masturbating in public - "just look away". Sorry, I don't accept that.

The article depicts Gough as a harmless eccentric who is doing nothing more that walking around the countryside naked.

Now you are being dishonest. Gough WANTS to be seen. That is his purpose. The innocent bystander is the object of his nakedness - he has consistently said as much. Read his manifesto!

as if Gough is some kind of mass murderer

No, just a selfish, arrogant, scrounging public nuisance.

Why not (for a change) respect our rights to enjoy such a nice article about him. You most certainly would want to set a proper example by not trampling upon our rights.

Sorry, I forgot. He didn't really abandon his kids and his elderly mother and go to another country where he became a public nuisance by exposing his genitals to strangers and that has cost the hard up Scottish taxpayer vast sums of money at a time when they are making nurses and teachers redundant because of the recession.

Mr Gough is really a cuddly old eccentric who is misunderstood because he loves kittens and has spent his life finding a cure for nasty diseases.

Just kidding.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

Here you go again...........not interested in understanding that there is a difference between a person who is merely nude and a person who is deliberately distorting his body to bring attention to a specific part of his body (in this case his penis). In a locker room, a naked man who is merely walking towards the shower has no intention of bringing any attention to any part of his body anymore than Gough has any intention to bring attention to any specific part of his body.

You seem to be hung up on what you consider to be private parts such as penis, female breasts, anus, and vagina. Others know what these parts look like and take no further notice of them.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

not interested in understanding that there is a difference between a person who is merely nude and a person who is deliberately distorting his body to bring attention to a specific part of his body

He's not "merely nude" - he is nude in circumstances which upset people. I suspect you don't willfully upset people when you go nude - but he does. Why are you defending him?

I am not accusing him of "deliberately distorting his body to bring attention to a specific part of his body", but he doesn't have to do that to cause offence.

You seem to be hung up on what you consider to be private parts such as penis, female breasts, anus, and vagina. Others know what these parts look like and take no further notice of them.

Some aren't bothered by the sight of intimate parts of the body - but others are very much bothered by it and find it offensive outside of certain limited circumstances, or else strongly object to people exposing those parts to their children. Gough knows this and he is intent upon other people seeing these parts whether they like it or not.

Any time soon, he will be crossing the border into England, where the law is different. That will probably work in his favour because the English breach of the peace is different and does not fit Gough's behaviour, so they will have to rely upon section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 - and to get a secure conviction for that, they will need a statement of complaint from a member of the public. If Gough has any sense (which i doubt) he will use this and stay away from inhabited areas and busy roads and get himself home as discreetly as he can. No doubt he will then claim some kind of "victory", while having achieved nothing much beyond derision and contempt, including from decent and responsible British naturists whose cause he has harmed.

Stu

[nimrod]

No, something is only offensive in law if it can be predicted to cause offence. Wearing a purple hat might offend one or perhaps even two people, but they are untypical and their offence is not foreseeable. Nudity, however, strikes at people's core values and is certainly known to cause offence.

That will still not stop people from trying. The excuse is always "core values" or some variation of, like "family values", "moral values", or "what about the children?". People were trying to make laws against wearing pants below the butt because of being offended using the excuse of "core values".

The person who is affected by the sight of a purple hat has an aberrant and untypical sensitivity and they can certainly be expected to unlearn it. Sensitivity to nudity is both commonplace and linked to cultural and social values, and the millions of people who feel this way should not have to recalibrate their sensibilities to accommodate one selfish and arrogant exhibitionist.

People that are offended by nudity have an aberrant and untiypical sensitivity and like any phobia that behaviour can be treated, most people are not offended by nudity but were taught that it should not be seen in public and to have a negative reaction to nudity in certain situation. It is nothing more then social conditioning, like religion.

Wanting to be seen as normal is not forcing people to look.

[Mosquito_Bait]

...
He was breaking the law - and openly defying the law.
...

Stephen Gough was prosecuted for "Breach of the Peace", a nebulous catchall law for whatever the authorities decide they want to treat as illegal.

[NakedGary]

Not another naked rambler! Naturist vows to continue his walks after judge overturns conviction for causing distress to woman dog walker

• Nigel Keerwas arrested by PC Mark Buxton who said he saw a woman appear 'distressed' when she saw Mr Keer rambling naked
  
• A judge dismissed the charge because a panel considered it unlikely that he had caused any alarm
• He said the rambling wasn't near a school or a street in a town centre but took place on moorland in broad daylight
• Conviction is overturned just two days after The Naked Rambler was released from his latest prison sentence
  

By Emily Allen
PUBLISHED: 06:51 EST, 9 October 2012 | UPDATED: 08:45 EST, 9 October 2012

A naked rambler has won a long battle to overturn his conviction for causing distress to a female dog walker who said she saw his genitals.

Naturist Nigel Keer, 42, will now be continuing his nude hiking - once the weather warms up - after a panel of judges gave a list of reasons to quash his conviction.

Mr Keer appealed after magistrates found him guilty of the public order offence of causing distress to the woman as she walked her dog at a beauty spot called Otley Chevin, West Yorkshire, last October.

Overturned: Naturist Nigel Keer, 42, will now be continuing his nude hiking - once the weather warms up - after a panel of judges gave a list of reasons to quash his conviction for causing distress to a female dog walker


The decision comes just two days after a man known as The Naked Rambler was released from serving his latest prison sentence.

Stephen Gough celebrated his freedom by taking a hike in his birthday suit through nearby Peebles.
More...

• He's out... and they're off. Naked Rambler freed from jail and back to his old tricks

The 53-year-old was jailed for five months after he was arrested in July for being naked near a play-park in Dunfermline.

Meanwhile, a judge at Leeds Crown Court told Mr Keer that his charge would be dismissed because the panel considered it unlikely that Mr Keer’s naked walk had caused any alarm.

The court had heard that Mr Keer was arrested by off-duty police officer PC Mark Buxton, who said he saw a woman appear 'distressed' when she had noticed Mr Keer rambling in just his hiking boots on October 2 last year.


Relieved: Bus driver Mr Keer, of Leeds, West Yorkshire, had denied the distress claims, and said naturism 'is about body freedom'


Sitting with two justices on Monday, Judge Guy Kearl said PC Buxton, who said he had been shocked by the incident, would not have been able to determine if the woman was distressed.

Dismissing the charges, he added: 'This behaviour was not carried out in front of a school or in the street in a town centre. It took place on moorland in broad daylight.
'In view of the location of this incident, the time of day and the reaction of others as we have found it to be, we do not consider that anyone was likely to be harassed by this behaviour or intimidated or distressed.'

The judge said there were no sexual motives behind the incident, adding: 'He was not deliberately flaunting himself or seeking attention or jumping out and doing what is colloquially called flashing.'

He said that the police officer’s reaction to seeing Mr Keer could also be considered 'extreme given his experience.'

Bus driver Mr Keer, of Leeds, West Yorkshire, had denied the claims, and said naturism 'is about body freedom and in a way it is a mild protest against the expected social norms of wearing clothes every day'.

Speaking after the case, Mr Keer said that he was delighted to have finally fought off the charge, which had kept him out of work for a number of months.

He added: 'I’ve kept up the naturism, but I’ve been a bit more careful now. It’s a bit cold to be doing anything at the moment, but once the weather warms up, I’ll be back out there.'

Mr Keer has previously taken part in three naked world bike rides alongside other naturists.
He had first become interested after being sent a letter from British Naturism in 2004.

He initially thought it was a prank but he went on a naked swim anyway, leading to his love affair. He has even put it on his CV as an interest.

Naked: Stephen Gough was jailed for five months after he was arrested in July for being naked near a play park


When the case first came to court last October, he said: 'I must admit that I was surprised when it came to court.

'I don’t feel I have committed an offence or distressed anyone. People are a lot more accepting now than they were five or six years ago. On the whole, most people are quite happy with it.

'I love walking about naked. It’s the feeling of being at one with nature and a feeling of liberation. If you are free of clothes you are free of worries.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz28vpHdz3V

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook