/ update on the naked rambler

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
dale1968 - on 18 Jul 2012
BruceWee - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: I love the fact that at his last trial the judge was getting all upset, saying that Gough had cost the taxpayers several hundred thousand in prosecutions.

Well stop trying to lock him up you stupid tw*t.
Dave Perry - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

657 days in prison???? For walking around naked?

I'm not too sure I'd like to see too many folk going around starkers... but locking him/them up for that long???
birdie num num - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:
He's not naked, he's got a hat on.
Bob Hughes - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to birdie num num: "Stay naked is the word" That would look good tattoed round the frank and beans.
dale1968 - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Dave Perry: no not for being naked, but for contempt of court
Wiley Coyote - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

By sheer chance I once saw this guy and an equally naked female friend get arrested near Skipton. I think they were doing the Pennine Way or something. Anyway nobody but the police seemed to be at all bothered so far as I could see. People were just standing round chuckling and the women in the Co-op said it had really brightened their day. Only the police seemed at all bothered tho I suppose someone may have phoned and complained to get a car out to a spot like Gargrave.
Scarab9 - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

so he's not seen his family in years and has lived behind bars for most of the last decade.....

maybe get over yourself and put some clothes on?!
BruceWee - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to dale1968)
>
> so he's not seen his family in years and has lived behind bars for most of the last decade.....
>
> maybe get over yourself and put some clothes on?!

And get a proper job, a mortgage, and two weeks in centre parcs a year while you're at it!

Respect to the guy. It's obviously something he feels passionate about. Just because I don't share his passion doesn't mean I won't support him.

If the government decided to ban rock climbing wouldn't you carry on doing it regardless and risk jail time? I know I would.
nightmonkeyuk - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Bob Hughes:
And there's me thinking the bird was the word.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: I personally have no wish to walk around naked....... not even when I was younger and a bit buff. However....... I CAN see the man's point. It really is utterly absurd if you give it a moment's thought that the state can have a say in whether or not you wear clothes!!!

dale1968 - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane: he is mainly rambling, not hanging round school gates, or been a nuisance, live and let live,there's more deserving individuals for prison and fully clothed.
Wiley Coyote - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I CAN see the man's point.

Hmmm. Care to re-phrase that?
Howard J - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: His right to "free expression" should also be balanced by consideration for other people around him. It's obvious that this behaviour is going to upset some people, although probably fewer than you might think. But 6 years in jug seems excessive.
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Howard J:
> (In reply to dale1968) His right to "free expression" should also be balanced by consideration for other people around him. It's obvious that this behaviour is going to upset some people, although probably fewer than you might think. But 6 years in jug seems excessive.

I actually disagree on this. He is not being intimidating or infringing on anyone else's rights. Quite the reverse really. He's having other people's social conventions enforced on him.
Helnorris - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: cant believe he got 6 years for it. Crazy when you think that some thieves etc only get a couple of years. Madness
Eric9Points - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Spending six years in prison for such a cause seems like a waste of life to me.

His call though.
PeterM - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to nightmonkeyuk:
> (In reply to Bob Hughes)
> And there's me thinking the bird was the word.
Everybody know's about the bird...

Scarab9 - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to Scarab9)
> [...]
>
> And get a proper job, a mortgage, and two weeks in centre parcs a year while you're at it!
>
> Respect to the guy. It's obviously something he feels passionate about. Just because I don't share his passion doesn't mean I won't support him.
>
> If the government decided to ban rock climbing wouldn't you carry on doing it regardless and risk jail time? I know I would.


I think his priorities are wrong if he thinks it's important enough to spend that long away from his family and put them through it. He's not fighting a tyrannical dictatorship here, he just wants to not wear clothes which isn't socially acceptable.

I do also think it's wrong that the punishment is so severe in comparison to other crimes though, however as he's so persistent about it I guess they didn't know what else to do.

also as someone mentioned above they saw him in Skipton in the co-op...that's different from being out in the middle of nowhere where you could argue it's less offensive to others
PeterM - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to Howard J)
> [...]
>
> He's having other people's social conventions enforced on him.

Utter pish! or are you really serious that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.."

ads.ukclimbing.com
victorclimber - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: round our way we would say he was a Wanker,but thats probably infringing his Human Rights .....
a lakeland climber on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Scarab9:

In the 1980s there was a bloke who drank in The Golden Rule who walked naked on the fells though when near habitation he would reclothe. I don't remember there being any public order complaints about him. He probably did most of his fell walking during the week.

ALC
Wonko The Sane - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to PeterM:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Utter pish! or are you really serious that "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.."

That is not what I said.
The law is the law and has to be obeyed (or at least, if you break it, don't whine about the consequences)

BUT, if you really look at it, whether you like it or not, the only real reason to ban nakedness is prudishness.

I am not saying I particularly want to see it, or be naked myself.... but looked at purely objectively I can't see why there should be laws making a person wear clothes unless it's an asbo because they have done something to make themselves an actual nuissance.

So yes, I think he is being forced by social convention which in turn is enforced by laws.

A law existing doesn't mean it HAS to exist or that it's RIGHT for it to exist.
Scarab9 - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
> (In reply to PeterM)
> [...]
>
> That is not what I said.
> The law is the law and has to be obeyed (or at least, if you break it, don't whine about the consequences)
>
> BUT, if you really look at it, whether you like it or not, the only real reason to ban nakedness is prudishness.
>
> I am not saying I particularly want to see it, or be naked myself.... but looked at purely objectively I can't see why there should be laws making a person wear clothes unless it's an asbo because they have done something to make themselves an actual nuissance.
>
> So yes, I think he is being forced by social convention which in turn is enforced by laws.
>
> A law existing doesn't mean it HAS to exist or that it's RIGHT for it to exist.

the same could be said for racist behaviour. The only problem is it causes offence due to the way the listener interprets it. Just as the viewer may be offended by a naked bloke out in public.

there's plenty of ways to enjoy being naked without breaking any laws and as someone above has said they knew of a guy who used to ramble naked but get dressed when he got to villages/towns.

this guy is paying a huge price for being very stubborn

Wonko The Sane - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> the same could be said for racist behaviour. The only problem is it causes offence due to the way the listener interprets it. Just as the viewer may be offended by a naked bloke out in public.
>
> there's plenty of ways to enjoy being naked without breaking any laws and as someone above has said they knew of a guy who used to ramble naked but get dressed when he got to villages/towns.
>

Hey, I really don't care one way orthe other. I've no intention of taking up his cause...... I just see his point.

Re equating it to racism....... I simply cannot see that link at all.

Being racist toward a person is deliberately trying to suggest you are superior to that person and have rights over them by virtue of their genetics.

Wanting to go about naked is a perfectly natural (if maybe not 'normal') thing which some people take umbrage at because they have had a prudish upbringing.

Can't see any similarity at all.

> this guy is paying a huge price for being very stubborn

True. But he seems willing to pay this price so.... hey, as they say in America, you've thr ight to bear arms and the right to arm bears.

Crack on, have fun and so long as it isn't deliberately hurting someone else..... do whatever floats your boat is my motto.

abcdefg - on 18 Jul 2012
More background at

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison

for anybody interested.

Personally, I find the reaction of the authorities troubling in this case, and I will pleased if some more reasonable accommodation has now been found.
Enty - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to Scarab9)
>
> In the 1980s there was a bloke who drank in The Golden Rule who walked naked on the fells though when near habitation he would reclothe. I don't remember there being any public order complaints about him. He probably did most of his fell walking during the week.
>
> ALC

Exactly - so why can't this tit compromise a little like we all have to do at some time during our life?

I don't want to walk on the fells with my 6 year old girl and see this wanker walk past with his meat and two veg waving in the wind. (and i'm the least prudish person you'll probably meet)

E
dissonance - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Helnorris:
> (In reply to dale1968) cant believe he got 6 years for it. Crazy when you think that some thieves etc only get a couple of years.

he didnt get six years for any one offence. He kept reoffending every time a sentence ended.
Just a bhoy - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:
It would appear there is more than one....

We encountered a NR in Knoydart during that heat wave at the end of May, had walked into Inverie from Barrisdale. People in Inverie didn't seem to give a toss. Passed him a couple of days later as we came down the bath to Mam Barrisdale but he was fully clothed this time.
Enty - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dissonance:
> (In reply to Helnorris)
> [...]
>
> he didnt get six years for any one offence. He kept reoffending every time a sentence ended.

Quite a few people finding this simple fact hard to understand.

E
Hat Dude on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Enty:

Maybe a long stretch would deter him ;-)
BruceWee - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to abcdefg:
> More background at
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison
>
> for anybody interested.
>
> Personally, I find the reaction of the authorities troubling in this case, and I will pleased if some more reasonable accommodation has now been found.

Interesting article. To me this is the most worrying part though:

"In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of fear, alarm or annoyance". The prosecution has very rarely managed to rustle up witnesses to claim Gough's nakedness has had any of these effects on them. What is keeping him in prison is simply the theoretical idea that it could. "

I don't like the idea of locking people up because someone MAY get offended.
tistimetogo on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

There are some causes that need to be fought. This is not one of them. The man is an idiot.
PeterM - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

This has always been the catch-all offence for the cops. Raise your voice, use a bad word, even gesture wildly and it has been used to arrest people. The guy is a colossal cock (pun intended!) for wasting 6 years for the sake of a pair of speedo's. Probably thinks himself a revolutionary of some sort
Dave Williams - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to abcdefg)
> [...]
>
> Interesting article. To me this is the most worrying part though:
>
> "In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of fear, alarm or annoyance". The prosecution has very rarely managed to rustle up witnesses to claim Gough's nakedness has had any of these effects on them. What is keeping him in prison is simply the theoretical idea that it could. "
>
> I don't like the idea of locking people up because someone MAY get offended.

Yes, this is the main issue here.

Whether one agrees/sympathises/empathises with his actions, or not, is of secondary importance. Personally, I can't understand why he does it, nor would I support his "right" as an individual to behave in such a manner.

I understand that there are major differences between English law and Scots law with respect to dealing with breach of the peace; unlike England and Wales where criminal penalties apply to the behaviour leading to or liable to cause a breach of the peace, it is a specific criminal offence in Scotland. Despite this, I too am very troubled by the response of the authorities in this case.

Retrospect is a wonderous thing I know, but perhaps he'd have been wiser to have turned back at Hadrian's Wall.

Dave


speekingleesh - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Dave Williams:
> I understand that there are major differences between English law and Scots law with respect to dealing with breach of the peace; unlike England and Wales where criminal penalties apply to the behaviour leading to or liable to cause a breach of the peace, it is a specific criminal offence in Scotland. Despite this, I too am very troubled by the response of the authorities in this case.
>

The problem I've got with it is how subjective it all is. He was tried for the same thing in Edinburgh and the two sheriffs threw it out on the basis it wasn't illegal, and then the police arrested him again as he was leaving court.
ceri - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Enty:
>
> I don't want to walk on the fells with my 6 year old girl and see this wanker walk past with his meat and two veg waving in the wind. (and i'm the least prudish person you'll probably meet)
>
> E

But why? What's wrong with seeing a naked person? When i was little and we went places with just dad, i had to go into the men's loos. There were men with their "meat and 2 veg" out. I can't say i was scarred by it.
When I went to a scout and guide international camp in Sweden age 14, we were shocked by the locals, they swam in the sea naked, showered in public etc. They didn't give a rats arse about being naked, because they weren't brought up to see it as "wrong".
When we went to Glastonbury as teenagers, there were some naked people. The police kept making them cover up. Again, only really the police seemed to care.
Maybe we should just lighten up about seeing peoples skin?

risby - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Scarab9:
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> the same could be said for racist behaviour.

I don't think this is a like for like comparison. Racist behaviour is offensive. It's meant to be. It's saying "You are different so I hate you".

The naked rambler isn't setting out to offend anyone. He is challenging social convention and so a better comparison would be with artists who also challenge conventions and are often a bit risque. American photographer Spencer Tunick springs to mind.
Dave Perry - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to risby:

But he is offending some people - and he's had clear messages from the courts that he is doing so He therefore is doing this deliberately.

Although we all have different view on nudity, what he and us cannot avoid is that breaking the law is an offence and you'll suffer the consequences.

Breaking the law does not alter it. It's cost him, his wife and his poor kids six years. Has he complained to his MP or done anything more constructive than bang his thick head against the cell wall?

All he's achieved is alowing a few more places for midges and mozzies to bite.
John_Hat - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

I tend to agree. I can think of lots of reasons for throwing a lot of people in prison, but wandering around starkers isn't one of them.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Enty - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to Dave Perry:
> (In reply to risby)
>
> But he is offending some people - and he's had clear messages from the courts that he is doing so He therefore is doing this deliberately.
>
> Although we all have different view on nudity, what he and us cannot avoid is that breaking the law is an offence and you'll suffer the consequences.
>
> Breaking the law does not alter it. It's cost him, his wife and his poor kids six years. Has he complained to his MP or done anything more constructive than bang his thick head against the cell wall?
>
> All he's achieved is alowing a few more places for midges and mozzies to bite.

Brilliant ^^^^^^^

E
Dauphin - on 18 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

Pretty moving interview with the bloke in the Guardian from earlier this year which explains his stance and that of the Scottish polis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/23/naked-rambler-prison

Not sure whether I agree with him or not but he surely has more minerals that most to live a life this way.


D

dale1968 - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to Dauphin: great article
Howard J - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: Basically, he's being selfish. He's demanding that his rights to be an individual should take priority over the views of other people around him. When you live in a community, you have to make compromises and take account of other people, whether its over shouting and screaming at 2am, pissing in the street, playing loud music, or going naked. We all have to modfiy our behaviour out of consideration for others, and hope that they do the same out of consideration for us.

He knows its going to provoke a reaction, which is precisely why he does it. He admits that when he returns to Eastbourne he'll wear clothes because he "doesn't have to".

I think the police are being heavy-handed in that they seem to be taking offence on behalf of people who haven't complained, and the courts seem to have been particularly heavy-handed, especially when you consider the sentences given to people who have committed real crimes. But that doesn't mean he should have a right to do what he does.

It's his attitude rather than his nudity which I object to.
BruceWee - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to Howard J: Do you have the same opinion about people who wear fur? It seems from the lack of complaints from the general public that most people are not particularly offended by him being naked.

Clearly there are far more people who are offended to the point of anger by people wearing fur and yet the law sees no need to intervene.

Everyone offends someone at some point.
Offwidth - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:

We live in an amazingly strange country when it come to public morals: really nasty porn freely available to almost anyone on the internet and we lock someone up just because he was naked, might have upset someone, yet without formal witnessed public complaint. I do think he should be putting his clothes on when he gets back from the hills but can no-one in the judiciary think of a more imaginative and cheaper way of dealing with the problem of repeat contempt? Maybe clearing nettles in the local community??

As you rightly point out some forms of mass upset where complaints are very strongly made dont get state approval. I'd add that areas that are state supported often lack practical support: like for example turning a blind eye to public racism.
lone - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: Its a shame he just can't be left to go as he pleases, its all to do with Society.
Wesley Orvis - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:

I don't really see how it bothers anyone else if you don't like it don't look, simple, but wasting tax payers money on sending him to jail for six years, that does bother me.
mkean - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to Offwidth:
We live in an amazingly strange country when it come to public morals: really nasty porn freely available to almost anyone on the internet and we lock someone up just because he was naked, might have upset someone, yet without formal witnessed public complaint.

I suspect the arguement behind this is that it is fairly well known that hardcore pornography is available on the internet if you go looking for it, whereas common practice is to wear clothes in a public place so you aren't expecting to encounter nudity. Hence naturist beaches are acceptable and filling the BBC site with links to fisting sites isn't?
Enty - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to mkean:
>
>
> I suspect the arguement behind this is that it is fairly well known that hardcore pornography is available on the internet if you go looking for it, whereas common practice is to wear clothes in a public place so you aren't expecting to encounter nudity. Hence naturist beaches are acceptable and filling the BBC site with links to fisting sites isn't?

Not that hard to understand is it?

E
Mike Stretford - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee:
> (In reply to abcdefg)
> [...]
>
>
>
> "In Scotland, breach of the peace is partly defined as "conduct which does, or could, cause the lieges [public] to be placed in a state of fear, alarm or annoyance". The prosecution has very rarely managed to rustle up witnesses to claim Gough's nakedness has had any of these effects on them. What is keeping him in prison is simply the theoretical idea that it could. "
>
> I don't like the idea of locking people up because someone MAY get offended.

There was originally a complaint in Scotalnd, that's where it all began. He then finished his walk then returned form Southampton (clothed) to Edinbrugh (naked) to have this tussle with the judiciary were he got most trouble.
birdie num num - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968:
If Num Num were to take up naked rambling as a hobby (which he might) most folk would probably be lost in admiration for his handsomely hung penis and plump tezzies. However, he would most probably be jailed for the disgustingly sorry state of his bottom.
dale1968 - on 19 Jul 2012
In reply to birdie num num: haha
Offwidth - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to mkean:

Except it's not like that in reality. Porn also turns up when you are not looking for it and does so pretty often (usually on an innocent search for something else) unlike our very rare friend turning up unexpectedly in the village supermarket. I think one is common and potentially very serious (depending on the audience) but the other is a unique and probably harmless plonker: yet he seems to raise more legal concern (6 years in jail ffs!? Compare with the sentences for serious internet porn offenders). I do find this disproportionate action (and some brits attitudes to nudity) pretty strange.
Mike Stretford - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to Offwidth:
> (In reply to mkean)
>
> I do find this disproportionate action (and some brits attitudes to nudity) pretty strange.

To be fair, he's walked much of Britian without getting locked up. Seems to be when he gets north of Edinbrugh he gets in trouble. I recentley went to a wedding at a Free Church of Scotland.... they did strike me as less free and easy than most.
Padraig on 20 Jul 2012
dale1968 - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to Padraig: "I am not going to give up. Stay naked is the word." class....
MG - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to Padraig: Where is the nearest prison to the border. Wouldn't it be fairest to put him there?
zebidee - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to Padraig:

That's really quite sad. How depressing that the police couldn't just turn a blind eye.
Blizzard - on 20 Jul 2012
In reply to zebidee:

A lot of relevant points all round. Personally I cant see what the big deal is. Who is he really hurting. Himself so it seems. Its about time he was left alone, which he must really feel already. Our society is so sick in so many ways and this story does tend to highlight the absurdity of this country at times.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Chris H - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: I can see how some people might find the sudden unexpected appearance of a naked man intimidating - particularly women - as if you were both alone in a remote location you wouldn't know whether his motives were sexual or not. Finding someone naked in a town would probably be much less threatening.
deepsoup - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to Chris H:
> as if you were both alone in a remote location you wouldn't know whether his motives were sexual or not.
There might be a clue.
dale1968 - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to Chris H: people don't have sexual motives when dressed?
Chris H - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to deepsoup: Could have ED!
Rick Ashton - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: rock out with your c0ck out
Rick Ashton - on 21 Jul 2012
In reply to dale1968: hang out with your wang out
The Newt - on 23 Jul 2012
In reply to BruceWee: Spot on Bruce. So it's ok and legal to steal billions from you and me by tax avoidance, with this government's blessing, but not ok to ramble starkers? The law is an ass.
kinley2 - on 23 Jul 2012
Don't really care if he does walk naked or not.

But the bloke is costing a fortune being kept in Scottish jails.

We should just hire a couple of school-leavers on minimum wage to walk with him with a couple of big screens to John o Groats and them tip him back over the Border.

Much cheaper. :)
MonkeyPuzzle - on 23 Jul 2012
In reply to Rick Ashton:

Stroll out with your pole out.
dale1968 - on 10 Aug 2012
Scott - on 10 Aug 2012
In reply to Rick Ashton:
Walk about with your stalk out
dale1968 - on 06 Oct 2012
jonathan shepherd - on 06 Oct 2012
In reply to dale1968: I can't see what the problem is, if he wants to walk naked then let him. If they're worried about him leaving prison with no clothes on then maybe if they could time his release with one of the coldest scottish winter days he might be tempted to wear some. :)
Fat Bumbly2 - on 06 Oct 2012
In reply to jonathan shepherd: He was sighted at Leadburn heading towards Peebles - lunchtime Saturday.
dale1968 - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:on his way to ratho?
ChrisJD on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to dale1968:

"Gough's attitude has also hardened...."

The cold weather should sort that out
Goucho on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to ChrisJD: The man is a wanker.

Not because he wants to walk around naked, but because he has prioritised this pathetic 'cause' over his responsibilities as a father - it's not as if he's fighting for any kind of important far reaching principal - and that is nothing more than pathetic selfishness.

David Martin - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to Goucho:

Perhaps if the law was a bit less of a wanker his cause wouldn't need to take priority over his family.

When it comes to activism unfortunately, family often does need to come second. Many a great man/woman revered by those they fought for could be seen to be remiss in their home duties - Aung San Su Kyi and Gandhi spring to mind, but probably most religious figures.
tlm - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to Dave Perry:
> (In reply to risby)
>
> But he is offending some people - and he's had clear messages from the courts that he is doing so He therefore is doing this deliberately.

They don't seem to have been able to rustle up any 'offended people'. The man on the plane with him fell asleep, he was so 'offended'. They just think that he might offend someone at some point in time.
Bimble on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to tlm:
> (In reply to Dave Perry)
> [...]
>
> They don't seem to have been able to rustle up any 'offended people'. The man on the plane with him fell asleep, he was so 'offended'. They just think that he might offend someone at some point in time.


Nobody has the right to not be offended anyway. It's not as if being offended hurts or harms you. Just tut & get on with your day.
tlm - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to Howard J:
> (In reply to dale1968) Basically, he's being selfish. He's demanding that his rights to be an individual should take priority over the views of other people around him.

That isn't how I read it. I read it as him being very unselfish. He believes that people are good, and so how can nudity be bad? He is fighting for all of our rights, not just his own. He thinks that the law should be changed for all people, that being naked shouldn't be a criminal activity as it doesn't do any harm. He isn't that bothered about being naked himself - he just doesn't see that he should be treated as a criminal for being human.

We are all naked underneath our clothes. Nakedness doesn't equal sexuality - it is just a normal and natural state to be in.
tlm - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to MG:
> (In reply to Padraig) Where is the nearest prison to the border. Wouldn't it be fairest to put him there?

they've suggested taking him home, or putting him in an english prison, but he has refused on principle. He wants them to not treat him as a criminal for being naked.
dissonance - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to tlm:

> They don't seem to have been able to rustle up any 'offended people'. The man on the plane with him fell asleep, he was so 'offended'. They just think that he might offend someone at some point in time.

I thought the last time he had got released they had opted for taking no action until a complaint was raised.
Which after a couple of days of him walking towards the border it was.
i suspect the cops might be tempted to "accidently" delaying their response to any complaints this time that or get confused where they were looking.
dmhigg - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to dissonance: I passed him today in the middle of a mtb orienteering event (me, not him): one naked rambler, three press cars and assorted hangers on. He'd just walked past a row of cottages, and was heading up to Innerleithen. I thought to myself, would I want my kids meeting him? No, definitely not. If he's politically motivated, he's wasting his time because as far as the press is concerned, his k**b gets in the way. If he likes the breeze in his goolies, why doesn't he just get hold of a kilt. It all seemed a bit sad, really.
zebidee - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to dmhigg:
> ... I thought to myself, would I want my kids meeting him? No, definitely not. ...

I guess that's the point though isn't it ... precisely why wouldn't you want your kids meeting him?

Personally I don't know how I'd feel about me, the wife and daughter "bumping" into him. My daughter's only 23 months old so would probably be more fixated on his bellybutton (since those are the funniest things in the world at the moment) than anything else.

Thinking about the scenario makes me a bit puzzled because of they point he's trying to make; that there's nothing about the human body to be ashamed of so why are we all so horrified if someone is naked in public?

It appears to be okay to look at *pictures* of 99.9% naked people in magazines and newspapers so just why are we all so horrified if it's someone in the street?

Everyone (except the blind obviously ;) has seen at least one naked person; so why is it so terrible to see another naked person?

It's not like he's getting some kind of cheap thrills out of his nudity.

lowersharpnose - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to dmhigg:

would I want my kids meeting him?

Do you you mean meet as in have a chat or just see him?

My kids have met various different people, religious, drunk, daft, mentally unwell, barefoot, loudly dressed, politicians. I don't think this guy is any different and would feel sure I could talk to my kids about him.



tom_in_edinburgh - on 07 Oct 2012
In reply to dale1968:

The best part of the BBC report:

"In 2007, Sheriff Isobel Poole ruled there was insufficient evidence to show that his state of undress had caused alarm to members of the public."

That must have hurt: standing there nude in the dock to get yourself jailed and the lady sheriff lets you off for insufficient evidence.

dale1968 - on 08 Oct 2012
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: lol
dmhigg - on 08 Oct 2012
In reply to lowersharpnose: "I don't think this guy is any different and would feel sure I could talk to my kids about him."

I agree, but having encountered him myself, I'm not sure how clear his "message" is. He's not completely naked: he's naked from neck to ankles, and he's carrying a large backpack. That combination (and the posing for photographs) seems potentially confusing to me. I'm happy to talk to my kids about him, and even meet him, but I'd rather I was there, if just to explain what this confusing man is doing. I feel the same applies to most of the "various different people" in your list!

lowersharpnose - on 08 Oct 2012
In reply to dmhigg:

Yep. Also, this guy is so well known now that he is not a random naked bloke, he is 'The Naked Rambler' and as such easy to discuss.
Hardonicus - on 08 Oct 2012
In reply to Scott: Get your roam on with your bone on...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.