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...

[Guest]

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!

[Guest]

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rocket:
[qb]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.. [/qb]

---

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.

[Guest]

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. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif[/img] 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. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] 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? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] 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? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img] Good point!!!

Stu

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

---

Originally posted by stu2630:
[qb]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.[/qb]

---

Stu,

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..

---

-Mark

[Guest]

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!!

[Guest]

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