Naked Rambler walks free from prison - and walks away nude

[NakedGary]

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The Naked Rambler is gone in a flash



Streaking out ... Stephen Gough makes his way to England

Exclusive
By KENNY ANGOVE

Published: 22 hrs ago

Strolling starkers is worth £½m bill’

DEFIANT Stephen Gough last night insisted the £500,000 bill for his naked antics has been worth every penny.
The Naked Rambler said he hopes he has been an inspiration to fans who have followed his hikes across the country in the buff.

Last night he vowed: “If Scotland and its society becomes even one bit freer because of my actions then it’s money well spent.”

The Scottish Sun told how Gough had cost taxpayers more than half a million pounds after being in jail for six years for refusing to wear clothes in public, court or prison.

He has notched up 18 convictions since he hit the headlines in 2003 as he walked from Land’s End to John O’Groats without a stitch on.

It costs around £35,000 a year to keep the average prisoner — but Gough has spent most of his time behind bars in segregation, which is more expensive.

The total bill is also made up of legal aid, court costs and wasted police time.

A spokesman for the TaxPayers’ Alliance said last night: “Whatever side of the border he is on, his refusal to comply with the law of the land is costing taxpayers a huge amount of money.
“This has been a long-running debacle.

“We can’t have this bill continuing at a time when every penny counts.”


NAKED Rambler Stephen Gough headed off into an English sunset last night after finally crossing the border — six years after he arrived starkers in Scotland.

Naturist Gough, 53, was homeward bound after marching all the way from Edinburgh in the buff without being arrested.

Since coming here on a plane in 2006 Gough has been behind bars almost constantly after racking up an amazing 18 convictions related to his nudity.

But his persistence paid off when he was freed from Edinburgh’s Saughton nick on Friday and cops turned a blind eye.

As he jubilantly stepped over into England last night he beamed: “I have a lot of great memories of Scotland and its people that will stay with me as long as I live.”

Gough warned his freedom was still not guaranteed, saying: “I might get arrested in England.” But the oddball couldn’t hide his grin as, surrounded by sheep, he popped open a bottle of champagne and sprayed it around in glee.

The Scottish Sun is the only paper to have followed Gough on the opening leg of his mighty trek home — and we sent him on his way with a hamper of local treats.

Holding our basket — filled to the brim with porridge, Irn-Bru and Tunnock’s tea cakes — Gough offered us his thanks.

He added: “I only found out I liked porridge while I was in prison. I like it the Scottish way — with salt.” We have been with Gough every step of the way as he’s strolled naked through towns and cities on his way to the border — and set up camp each night in a tent.

Gough said: “If I’d asked God for five days of perfect weather walking through Scotland, I couldn’t have had better.”

But the dad-of-two has been getting SUNBURNT despite daytime temperatures only peaking at 10°C (50°F) and plunging to -4°C (25°F) at night. After trekking over the windswept Pentland Hills, Gough started yesterday’s walk near St Boswells. Several hours later he stepped across the border on remote moorland on the Cheviot Hills.

He now hopes to walk the rest of his mammoth 400 mile trek to Eastleigh, Hants, without drawing the attention of the English police.

And he is already dreaming of a reunion with his ex Melanie Roberts, 41 — who accompanied him on a naked walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats in 2005. Gough has enjoyed several phone chats with the hairdresser, who lives and works near Birmingham, since his release from prison.

She had been writing to the former Marine in jail and has previously backed him to carry on living life in the buff.
Now, the naturists could be joining forces once more. Gough said: “We’re going to meet up and hopefully she’ll be able to walk with me for a while. She has been training. I don’t know if she’ll do it naked. I’m not bothered — that’s up to her. As for our relationship, I don’t know what will happen. It would be nice to meet up with her without any expectations.”

In an interview with The Scottish Sun last year, Melanie, who split from Gough in 2006, hailed him her hero.
She said at the time: “I back Steve to the hilt — 100 per cent.” Gough’s most recent five-month prison sentence followed his arrest in July for being naked near a playpark in Dunfermline.

The Scottish Sun was with him when he was nicked just three days after being freed from another stretch behind bars in Perth Prison.


Cops claimed they had received complaints and warned he would cause “fear and alarm” unless he covered up. When he refused, they slung him in jail — just 25 miles into his trip. Gough always denies the charges against him, claiming courts ordering him to wear clothes are a breach of his rights. He has been banged up repeatedly since he was arrested after stripping on a plane to Edinburgh from Southampton in May 2006.

Last night a spokesman for the Scottish branch of British Naturists branded Gough’s departure a “good riddance”.
They said: “The sight of a naked person can cause alarm and embarrassment and it is not something that should be rammed down people's throats.”

kenny.angove@the-sun.co.uk

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...#ixzz28w7b07sf

[NakedGary]

• Daily Echo »
• News »

News RSS Feed

Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler back in England

12:02pm Wednesday 10th October 2012 in News By Jon Reeve, Education Reporter

Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler





THE naked rambler is back in England for the first time in six years, as he makes his way back home to Hampshire.
Stephen Gough is walking the 430 miles south to Eastleigh, where he hopes to be re-united with his children.
The 53-year-old reportedly made it across the border from Scotland on remote moorland in the Cheviot hills last night, having been released early from Saughton prison in Edinburgh on Friday.

It is the first time the nudity campaigner has made it out of the country since 2006, when he was first jailed for refusing to put clothes on.


Mr Gough has been convicted 18 times in total for various breach of the peace charges over his public nakedness.
The last of those came in September, when he was locked up for five months after telling a court he would not co-operate with social workers tasked with assessing his mental health, having been arrested as he walked near a children's play park in Dunfermline on July 20.

That came three days after he had been released from prison in Perth.

But it appears Scottish police have turned a blind eye to his public nudity as he again attempts the long walk back to Eastleigh to see his family, including his elderly mother.


After his release last week Lothian and Borders Police said they were willing to exercise discretion in his case “if circumstances permit”.

Mr Gough has said he is hopeful of being reunited with his children - Yarin, 14, and 16-year-old Kiana.
He has spoken to the teenagers on the phone since his release, although their mum Alison Ward has said a meeting in person will only happen if he is willing to put clothes on.

The former Marine is also expecting to be joined for part of the walk by ex-girlfriend Melanie Roberts, who trekked naked with him from Land's End to John O'Groats in 2005.

The 41-year-old hairdresser, who now lives in Birmingham, split with Mr Gough in 2006 but has been writing to him in prison.

And she has been in training to join him for at least part of his long walk south, although it is not clear if she plans to do so naked.

[NakedGary]

• Scottish News

• By Dailyrecord.co.uk
• 10 Oct 2012 00:01

Naked rambler leaves Scotland behind as he heads for England

STEPHEN GOUGH, plans to head south to Southampton wearing nothing but his trademark backpack, socks, hate and walking boots.

Naked Rambler Stephen Gough

THE naked rambler left Scotland yesterday for the first time since being locked up for refusing to wear clothes in public.

Just days after being released from Saughton Prison in Edinburgh, Stephen Gough trekked across the Border near the village of Upper Hindhope.

With nothing but his trademark backpack and socks, a hat and walking boots to protect him from the October chill, he headed into Northumberland National Park.

Gough plans to head south to Southampton to visit his mother.

He said: “I’m really happy to be out of jail and visiting my mum – but all I can think about at the moment
is food. I’m very hungry.”

Gough has 18 convictions for breach of the peace and contempt of court for refusing to wear clothes in front of a sheriff.

He has been in prison almost without a break since May 2006.

He has twice walked naked from Land’s End to John O’Groats - in 2003-04 and 2005-06.

Gough’s most recent conviction was five months ago when he was arrested for being naked near a playpark in Dunfermline.

He has become used to being arrested almost immediately after he has been released from jail.

[Sanslines]

Thanks Gary for the charming story that even Stu can not ruin for us.

[Stu2630]

Thanks Gary for the charming story that even Stu can not ruin for us.

Following your appeal to me, I haven't commented on this for the last couple of days. Now you drag me back into this. Why have you done that? Why couldn't you just appreciate that I was leaving the story alone for you to "enjoy your moment"?

I will agree that Gough has achieved something wonderful in Scotland. Prior 2006, Scots law was a bit ambivalent about public nudity; they hadn't really experienced it and so it hadn't become necessary to take a position on it. Thanks to Steve Gough, we now know exactly what the position is - it gets you sent to prison.

I like this bit:

Last night a spokesman for the Scottish branch of British Naturists branded Gough’s departure a “good riddance”.

They said: “The sight of a naked person can cause alarm and embarrassment and it is not something that should be rammed down people's throats.”

The spokesman has seen what Gough has achieved and he is dead right!

With regard to the Keer case, this was an appeal to the Crown Court against conviction on the facts (i.e. the evidence) not to the High Court on a point of law: that means it sets no legal precedent. In other words, he was claiming that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that anyone present was caused "harassment, alarm or distress". The evidence was a bit flaky from the start because it hinged upon an off duty constable's claim that some woman, whose identity has never been established (or even existence proved), made a facial expression which led the officer to believe that she was distressed about something (no actual evidence of what). The appeal panel didn't buy it - fair enough. In spite of winning his appeal, the case will have cost Mr Keer a substantial amount of time and stress - and he will no doubt have been made aware that he was fortunate. Had the woman come forward (if she existed) and made a statement saying she was distressed, the outcome would have been very different and his appeal would almost certainly have failed. So in spite of his bravado, I think Mr Keer will think twice in future because he won't want to go through all that again - and risk a different outcome.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Stu,

I didn't make any appeal to you about anything. It's just that I know how you feel about Gough and others like him. You need to demonize him in order to support your claims. As other's have said, if everyone would just ignore Gough, he would eventually get tired and settle down. Ignoring him would certainly be a far better sentence than any prison term.

What is all of this talk about "alarm or distress"? Are people today so fragile that they can't stand the sight of certain things? Yet those very same people have no hesitation to send young men and women off to fight in wars. If war causes alarm and distress (and it does) should not war mongers also be sent off to prison for causing such alarm or distress? Perhaps the laws are unjust and unfair and focus on the benign and harmless and ignore the real causes of alarm and distress that have far worse consequences (death and injury to soldiers).

In the USA, making porno fiilms is illegal in all but two states. Prostitution is also illegal. Prostitution, as you know, is basically paying money to someone for a purely physical service. There are no emotions, feelings, attachements involved and the act is a highly dehumanizing one. Once the act is done, the sex worker is sent on their way. Yet, we openly allow work prostitution where a person is hired to do a job and the employer offers no commitment, emotion, feeling, attachment to the worker. When the job is done, and money is paid for services rendered, the worker is sent on their way - basically thrown away - just as the prostitute is. Tell me why is one illegal and the other open allowed??? Both treat the worker in the same way.

The purpose of the above example is to hopefully get you to think and to question the rationality of visciously comdemming the rambler for his actions and yet be openly tolerant of other actions that are far worse in their effects upon society. Let's not automatically defend or condemn actions of any individual. Let's open our minds and question the rampant hypocrisy and double standards that exist in our society today and put things in their proper perspective.

[Stu2630]

Stu,...I know how you feel about Gough and others like him. You need to demonize him in order to support your claims. As other's have said, if everyone would just ignore Gough, he would eventually get tired and settle down. Ignoring him would certainly be a far better sentence than any prison term.

Ignore him? I think the authorities will try to ignore him, but if he upsets people, then they are obliged to act.

What is all of this talk about "alarm or distress"? Are people today so fragile that they can't stand the sight of certain things?

They shouldn't have to put up with indecent behaviour in public places - and modern western culture dictates that nudity, like sex and certain other behaviours, are indecent in public.

Yet those very same people have no hesitation to send young men and women off to fight in wars.

It's governments that send people to war, not local people. Maybe if locals saw the injuries caused, they would be more hostile to wars conducted in their name.

In the USA, making porno fiilms is illegal in all but two states. Prostitution is also illegal. Prostitution, as you know, is basically paying money to someone for a purely physical service. There are no emotions, feelings, attachements involved and the act is a highly dehumanizing one. Once the act is done, the sex worker is sent on their way. Yet, we openly allow work prostitution where a person is hired to do a job and the employer offers no commitment, emotion, feeling, attachment to the worker. When the job is done, and money is paid for services rendered, the worker is sent on their way - basically thrown away - just as the prostitute is. Tell me why is one illegal and the other open allowed??? Both treat the worker in the same way.

Porn and prostitution are consensual - the actors and viewers in porn do it because they want to. The prostitute and her client both consent to what they are doing. The public who Gough affronts have not consented to that.

Gough's last arrest shows his character. He was approaching a children's play area. A policeman asked him to cover himself as he passed it. He refused. He was asked then to take an alternative way around. He refused. He was then offered a lift in the police car to get past the play area. He refused. One can only assume he was not merely totally intransigent, but he actually wanted children to see him naked, even if their own parents and teachers found it objectionable.

What kind of person behaves like that? You wouldn't do that - nor would others here.

Stu

[Sanslines]

Ignore him? I think the authorities will try to ignore him, but if he upsets people, then they are obliged to act.

Many things upset people and the police do not act on every little upset and complain that is codefied in the law to be illegal. You of all people should know that the law is unfair and unjust. Why do you think that the lady of justice in the USA is blindfolded?

They shouldn't have to put up with indecent behaviour in public places - and modern western culture dictates that nudity, like sex and certain other behaviours, are indecent in public.

There are many indecent behaviors in public that are ignored each and every day. When the day comes when the police arrest each and every person for every illegal indecent behavior, then your argument may have a basis. Until that day arrives, nothing will change in a system that picks and choses who they wish to make an example of.

It's governments that send people to war, not local people. Maybe if locals saw the injuries caused, they would be more hostile to wars conducted in their name.

I hear this argument each and every day........."It's the government that does this or that" as if people have no say in how a country is run. The government IS the people and yet so many apathetic people have ceeded control and decision making to corportations who own governments. If people wake up and want the government back, they know what to do. War today is a strange thing.............most people do not know or care what really goes in in a war and don't seem to care if the US engages in one war after another. The burden of war is now left up to those who are paid to fight. It has become more about money then about any ideals or beliefs about the necessity of war.

Porn and prostitution are consensual - the actors and viewers in porn do it because they want to. The prostitute and her client both consent to what they are doing. The public who Gough affronts have not consented to that.

As the articles have shown, many in the public don't really care what Gough is doing. They have other things to be concerned about and the sight of a naked man passing by is insignificant to all but a few who have nothing better to do in life then to be concerned about something so insignificant.

Gough's last arrest shows his character. He was approaching a children's play area. A policeman asked him to cover himself as he passed it. He refused. He was asked then to take an alternative way around. He refused. He was then offered a lift in the police car to get past the play area. He refused. One can only assume he was not merely totally intransigent, but he actually wanted children to see him naked, even if their own parents and teachers found it objectionable.

What kind of person behaves like that? You wouldn't do that - nor would others here.

Stu

Firstly I don't believe that you are spinning the article against Gough (as is to be expected). Second, if he is such a menace to the public (as you claim) then as least in the USA he would be arrested, registered as a sex offender, and told that if he goes within a certain distance of children, he will be arrested again and spend serious time in jail. The fact that he is in and out of jail leads a person to believe that what he did is not as you described and / or the police really do not take him as anything more then a nuisance.

[Stu2630]

Sanslines

Many things upset people and the police do not act on every little upset and complain that is codefied in the law to be illegal.

They have to make judgments - my judgment is that Gough's behaviour is grossly offensive, not a "little upset". He had the chance to stop doing it and he defied the police.

You of all people should know that the law is unfair and unjust.

In this case, the law is correct.

Why do you think that the lady of justice in the USA is blindfolded?

Presumably to illustrate that the law treats everyone the same, no matter how exalted their position in society.

There are many indecent behaviors in public that are ignored each and every day.

That is not generally my experience - and certainly not if someone complains - and especially not if the behaviour is persistent and in open defiance of the police and courts.

As the articles have shown, many in the public don't really care what Gough is doing.

And very many do care. Look at the articles on Gough in The Scotsman and the Daily Mail - and the readers' comments and the support for those who heavily critical of Gough.

Firstly I don't believe that you are spinning the article against Gough (as is to be expected).

I don't understand this.

Second, if he is such a menace to the public (as you claim) then as least in the USA he would be arrested, registered as a sex offender, and told that if he goes within a certain distance of children, he will be arrested again and spend serious time in jail. The fact that he is in and out of jail leads a person to believe that what he did is not as you described and / or the police really do not take him as anything more then a nuisance.

OK - here is your proof:

Proceeding to sentencing, Sheriff James Williamson said: ''The police officers who arrested you told you that if you carried on your journey you would pass a playground occupied by children.''You were given three options — one: change direction, two: cover your private parts, or three: enter a police van which would take you around the play park and release you on your way at the other side.''Despite that, you refused, which showed disregard for other members of the public, in particular children who have the right not to see naked men. It shows arrogance and that self-indulgence carries on today.''

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fif...k-in-jail.html

Now tell me those were the actions of a decent and responsible person!

Stu

[Sanslines]

[COLOR=#333333]Sanslines



They have to make judgments - my judgment is that Gough's behaviour is grossly offensive, not a "little upset". He had the chance to stop doing it and he defied the police.

Of course they have to make judgements but you NEVER mentioned this before. You were always adamant that a law was being broken and the law must be upheld. Never mind what countless people have repeated over and over again and that is that the law that is being applied is a catch all kind of law that can and is used for anything that other laws do not apply to. Given now that you admit that some kind of judgement must be made, those who are making the judgements could just have easily ignored the problem as they do countless other problems. They could have encouraged the rambler to ramble back to England where the matter as far as Scotland is concerned is no longer their problem. Yet they chose to keep locking up this man and wasting loads of money on a lost cause.

In this case, the law is correct.

This is your opinion and of course you will say this. What else can you say????..........that the law is incorrect?

Presumably to illustrate that the law treats everyone the same, no matter how exalted their position in society.

More likely that the law is not about fairness or real justice...........it is more like a game with serous consequences for many individuals that attorneys play with each other.

That is not generally my experience - and certainly not if someone complains - and especially not if the behaviour is persistent and in open defiance of the police and courts.

Never heard of very loud music being played during a party?

And very many do care. Look at the articles on Gough in The Scotsman and the Daily Mail - and the readers' comments and the support for those who heavily critical of Gough.

And very many do not care judging by the responses given in the article.

OK - here is your proof:

Proceeding to sentencing, Sheriff James Williamson said: ''The police officers who arrested you told you that if you carried on your journey you would pass a playground occupied by children.''You were given three options — one: change direction, two: cover your private parts, or three: enter a police van which would take you around the play park and release you on your way at the other side.''Despite that, you refused, which showed disregard for other members of the public, in particular children who have the right not to see naked men. It shows arrogance and that self-indulgence carries on today.''

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fif...k-in-jail.html

Now tell me those were the actions of a decent and responsible person!

Since when is arrogance a crime. If it was, then 90 percent of the male population would be locked up.