The Naked Rambler arrested on release from Prison

[Bushnud2]

--- In [email protected], Bob Janes wrote:

I've just received a letter from Steve.

He says he was released on 19 July, having served his sentence for the plane
strip, and as previously happened, he was re-arrested outside the prison
gate when he refused to dress.

The gate opens onto the prison car park. It was 7.30 in the morning, and
only the police were present, so there was no one else there to be alarmed,
distressed, or whatever, or make a complaint.

This is becoming more and more an unbelievably gross abuse of the legal
process. Why on earth he wants to bother with such a benighted country as
Scotland I've no idea.

He's been remanded in custody until trial on 24 August.

So there's plenty of time to send a letter or card of support - or indeed
question his motives. There was a flurry of posts here when he stripped on
the plane, but if you write to the man himself you'll get a polite and
considered response straight from the horse's mouth.

Write to:

Stephen Gough
Segregation Wing
HMP Edinburgh
33 Stenhouse Road
Edinburgh
EH11 3LN


Bob
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naked-walk/

[Bushnud2]

--- In [email protected], Bob Janes wrote:

I've just received a letter from Steve.

He says he was released on 19 July, having served his sentence for the plane
strip, and as previously happened, he was re-arrested outside the prison
gate when he refused to dress.

The gate opens onto the prison car park. It was 7.30 in the morning, and
only the police were present, so there was no one else there to be alarmed,
distressed, or whatever, or make a complaint.

This is becoming more and more an unbelievably gross abuse of the legal
process. Why on earth he wants to bother with such a benighted country as
Scotland I've no idea.

He's been remanded in custody until trial on 24 August.

So there's plenty of time to send a letter or card of support - or indeed
question his motives. There was a flurry of posts here when he stripped on
the plane, but if you write to the man himself you'll get a polite and
considered response straight from the horse's mouth.

Write to:

Stephen Gough
Segregation Wing
HMP Edinburgh
33 Stenhouse Road
Edinburgh
EH11 3LN


Bob
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naked-walk/

[nudeM]

Personally, I believe Steve has a mental problem. It's obvious he doesn't wear clothes, but not for the sake of pure nudism. He has really taken this 'nakedness' to the extremes.

[Petrus]

Whilst I believe that everybody should be free to go around nude if they don’t behave in a provocative manner, I feel that in Steve Gough’s case nudity is just a means of expressing some personal issue. The documentary shown on the BBC gave me the impression that he wanted to force others to comply with his will regardless of their own feelings. I haven’t expressed this very clearly, but it is difficult to articulate –rather like the crew's problem in the Caine Mutiny!

[John Spooner]

It would seem a good idea for the prisons to install a revolving door especially for the gentleman.

[Pete Knight]

Thanks for the update Bushie, I'm a little out of touch with Steve's antics since I fell out with RC, and gave up the job as moderator of Naked Walk, I did mean to write to Steve again, its been a while, and he always replies.
Steve is a really decent guy, not at all like the image portrayed in the BBC documentry, and as for mental problems, he's had a check up, from the neck up, and got the all clear.
If ever you get the chance to meet Steve, I'd urge you to take it, he really is an interesting chap.

The court room, and aircraft antics have lost him a lot of support, but he won't give in, thats the whole point of his campaign for the "Freedom to be Yourself".

Pete Knight

[nimrod]

I am all for nudist rights, but, as nudeM said, I do not think that what he is doing now is for the sake of pure nudism. His cause has become an obsession.

[NakedGary]

Steve Gouth is a detriment to naturists and nudists world wide.

As I and others have mentioned in the past in these forums, Steve should be directed towards and for mental evaluation, and rehabilitation.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

Steve Gouth (sic) is a detriment to naturists and nudists world wide.

Steve Gough is unfailingly peaceful and polite. He is just very insistent on behaving peacefully in a manner that is not against the law. He has yet to be charged with any offense of "nudity" since that is not an offense. That is why he is always charged with "breach of peace" - his breach being his refusal to follow orders that have no legal basis. Got that ... he isn't being charged for his nudity - which isn't illegal - but he wouldn't be charged if he wasn't nude. Who's crazy?

As I understand it a proper "breach of peace" charge in the UK requires an element of violence or unruliness - behavior which can only properly be ascribed to the authorities who persecute him.

I suppose anyone who is willing to suffer punishment and persecution in order to stand up for what they think is right can be considered soft in the head. But do you really want to put Steve in the same category of nutcases as King, Ghandhi, and the founding fathers? Personally I'd say he is more like Lenny Bruce - except Lenny actually did break some (really stupid unconstitutional) laws, while Steve is standing up for his right to NOT break the law in the manner he sees fit.

In America we have a crazy patch quilt of laws about nudity. In most places non-sexual nudity is legal so long as we take reasonable care to avoid allowing the unsuspecting to see us. Yet we always risk arrest or citation, even when we are clearly in the right because authorities are often willing to charge us with what they want to the law to be rather than what it is, or count on us to be meek and take the easy way out rather than stand up to authority.

Remember how many people, including nudists condemned the Moravia 4 for doing something that had been declared legal for over 15 years? They could have paid a small fine and walked away - were they "soft in the head" for standing up to the misuse of authority, even though they could have paid dearly if they hadn't prevailed in court? We all know the vaguaries of small town justice, they took a big risk, arguably a stupid risk. Does that make them crazy or wrong?

Steve Gough has yet to harm a single person with his free to be human campaign. The legal authorities have made fools of themselves over and over again by treating him as a threat to the public order, when the only threat has been their own behavior. Steve has the courage to suffer for his beliefs, and the authorities have the lack of sense to recognize what is and isn't a threat to the peace. Who is crazy?

-Mark

[NakedGary]

So he was told to dress and refused. Is this breach of the peace?

Was a police woman or man offended by his nudity?

.

[Jason Lee]

what happen to Melanie Roberts ? (Steve Gough's girlfriend/partner)

[Petrus]

The following is a quote from “Liberty” –a human rights organisation
“There is no offence of breach of the peace. But if a police officer sees a breach of the peace or reasonably believes that a breach of the peace is about to start, he or she may arrest, disperse or detain those causing the problem and, if necessary, take them before a Magistrates' Court to be bound over.

There is a breach of the peace whenever a person causes harm or appears likely to cause harm to persons or property, or acts in a manner, the natural consequence of which, is to provoke others to violence.

If a breach of the peace occurs, one or more of the public order offences of threatening behaviour, disorderly conduct, assault or criminal damage is likely to have been committed. In such a case, the police can choose whether to charge an offence or go before the magistrates for a bind-over order.”

It will be seen that it very subjective as it is based on the opinion of a police officer. There is a similar “ catch all” offence in the Royal Air Force. “Conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Royal Air Force”.

[Naturist Mark]

quote:

There is a breach of the peace whenever a person causes harm or appears likely to cause harm to persons or property, or acts in a manner, the natural consequence of which, is to provoke others to violence.

Nudity does not cause damage, and can only incite violence among those with extremely severe prejudice or anti-social disorders. In other words, if nudity constitutes a "breach of peace" in Britain, then so does being Arab.

-Mark

[Nude in the North]

quote:

So he was told to dress and refused. Is this breach of the peace?

So if a police officer gives a command for no reason, are you wrong for not obeying or is he wrong for Abusing his authority.
Let's say your chewing gum, (or any other Legal activity) and a police officer tells you to stop. Is it a crime to refuse to stop? Or is the officer breaking the law by overstepping his authority.

Was a police woman or man offended by his nudity?

Since nudity isn't against the law, Nobody has the right to be offended by it. What happens if a group of people decide they are offended by people that drive cars. Will the police start arresting drivers? What if someone is offended by people that wear Red Hats? Should the police have the power to make you take it off, or arrest you for not complying with their orders.

I knew a man that was offended by people that made their gum Crackle while they chewed it. He had the right to ask them to stop, but he didn'thave the right to force them to stop. The police can't arrest you for popping your gum.

It's a shame that the police have to respond to a complaint by making up charges that don't relate to the complaint. If someone complains that they saw a nude man the police should simply say, Being nude isn't against the law, is he doing anything that he couldn't do Clothed?

Steve

[Petrus]

Unfortunately, as I said, it is very subjective, but normally magistrates will tend to back up the police. If a police officer tells you to get dressed and you refuse e.g. Vincent Bethell & Steve Gough, you can be arrested- I don’t know what would happen if your clothes were not at hand. Vincent Bethell was arrested and charged, but he elected to be tried in the Crown Court (instead of the Magistrates Court) and the jury found him not guilty-it is a risky strategy as the Crown Court judge can give a greater sentence than the lower court and you could have to pay both sides costs. Our democracy loving Government keeps suggesting that the right of trial by jury should be abolished for lesser offences-it would certainly increase the conviction rate, even if justice was not served. If you feel that the police officer acted unlawfully I imagine your only course would be to lodge an official complaint (which would not endear your to the police and you could find life difficult) or sue in the Civil Court for damages for unlawful arrest- it would cost you a fortune and, of course, the police would have unlimited tax-payers money to spend: if you lost you could be liable for both sides costs and if you won the judge might decide that you brought it upon yourself and award derisory damages and order both sides to bear their own costs- win or lose you could be bankrupted-but that’s justice!!