I heard him interviewed on the radio years ago. Can't remember the details though.
I think it is just about society's attitudes to the body, and nakedness. He thinks they are unhealthy....
But, seeing as he's willing to go to such lengths to protest, I would have expected him to have produced some sort of campaign material that could explain what he's all about.
Another thing that he seems to be completely lacking is supporters. Does people turn up in court to support him - or to protest naked with strategically-placed placards?
attitudes partly stem from practical issues, I think...and it really does get hot there, from what I remember.
When I was a kid my parents took us to Studland Bay, on the nude section....I had my trunks on, but one one day I was incredibly sore from the seasalt etc, so I braved it, and took them off. I was so relieved we were on the nude section...the relief!
So there was a bit of practicality to some nudism.
That is the point, nudism/naturism is all about practicality! The idea of having to wear a specific, and often very over-priced, piece of cloth just to go in to water is a stupid one, especially somewhere like a beach with sand and salt.
My point still stands, perverts will perve whether they are wearing clothes or not. What difference does it make if they are totally naked or just naked under a dirty mac? The reason flashing is effective is due to its surprise/shock effect, if it was normal for people walked around naked then flashing/indecent exposure would become redundant. Don't see how being naked makes inappropriate sexual behaviour any easier or more likely to occur.
Naked under clothes. I guess we all are.
I dont really follow the "logic" of "there will always be perverts so lets not do anything to stop them".
If you allow people to be naked in public, then flashers will simply claim they were not flashing but undressing. Other have claimed there is nothing wrong with seeing erections, so I guess you would buy into the argument of "I had tight trousers and it was more comfortable for me, so I took it out, and there is nothing wrong with erections"
Isn't the term "Indecent exposure"? I certainly wouldn't be happy with this weirdo flashing his bits to my wife.
To all those of you who "don't see anything wrong with the human body": can I ask why you yourselves aren't walking the streets stark naked?
The taboo against public nudity isn't just some recent imposition by David Cameron - it's something firmly established in all civilised societies.
What country in the world are you allowed to walk the streets stark bo11ock naked?
Can I ask why are so many people obsessed with the notion naturists want to walk down streets naked?
As Nancy and I have said, naturism is about the wish to have the opportunity to be naked where appropriate. Is this simple concept really so difficult to understand?
Stephen Gough is not a naturist and does not represent the views of the naturist community.
We have people wanting him sectioned, raped in jail, nakedness equals a perversion or his environment made so uncomfortable it forces him to wear clothes and thinking if we let him go naked to ramble it will be the end of civilised society and the flashers will take over.
Some of the most backwards and puritan opinions I've read. Like something Islamic State would come out with.
Can I ask why are so many people obsessed with the notion naturists want to walk down streets naked?
As Nancy and I have said, naturism is about the wish to have the opportunity to be naked where appropriate. Is this simple concept really so difficult to understand?
Stephen Gough is not a naturist and does not represent the views of the naturist community.
I never mentioned naturists: I mentioned supporters of Mr Gough, who has made it clear that he does indeed wish to walk the streets naked.
Well then, that's society telling you that it isn't considered particularly normal to want to wander about in public with no clothes on.
No, it is a society with a Victorian, backward and ludicrous attitude to the body which veers between lip smacking prurience and over the top prudery.
Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Holland, Slovenia, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark among others have naturism as an accepted norm in beaches, some areas of parks, and in the case of spas, especially in Germany and Holland, they are not 'naturist' just that nudity is seen as the sensible and normal way to use the facilities by both sexes. Indeed, swimwear is rightly banned in German spas.
But they are all wrong in what is normal and acceptable, and we are the only European nation who is 'right'.
No, it is a society with a backward and ludicrous attitude to the body which veers between lip smacking prurience and over the top prudery.
Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Holland, Slovenia, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark among others have naturism as an accepted norm in beaches, some areas of parks, and in the case of spas, especially in Germany and Holland, they are not 'naturist' just that nudity is seen as the sensible and normal way to use the facilities by both sexes.
But they are all wrong in what is normal and acceptable, and we are the only European nation who is right.
Neither right nor wrong. Even amongst the countries you list there is divergence over what is acceptable. Long may the differences between nations continue.
I notice you say "some parks". The "naked rambler" wants all parks, in fact all places.
I would not object to more stretches of coastline being used by people wanting to strip, or indeed it being acceptable to strip in a spa. At first we will need signs up, but perhaps it will slowly become the norm. What I would not want anyone to do is to ruin their life by being continually locked up by getting naked in spas when they have been told not to, that would be stupid.
maybe he likes it in prison...you've go the workshop.......computer games, etc, and a 6 course luxury Christmas meal, once a year....what's not to like..?
I never mentioned naturists: I mentioned supporters of Mr Gough, who has made it clear that he does indeed wish to walk the streets naked.
You never mentioned naturists by name however in your post you did refer to those "who don't see anything wrong with the human body", which by implication would include naturists.
Neither right nor wrong. Even amongst the countries you list there is divergence over what is acceptable. Long may the differences between nations continue.
I notice you say "some parks". The "naked rambler" wants all parks, in fact all places.
I would not object to more stretches of coastline being used by people wanting to strip, or indeed it being acceptable to strip in a spa. At first we will need signs up, but perhaps it will slowly become the norm. What I would not want anyone to do is to ruin their life by being continually locked up by getting naked in spas when they have been told not to, that would be stupid.
I don't think it is divergence in other countries, more a tolerance and acceptance of other peoples views and wishes. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to wear swimming costumes in a sauna, and yet they don't seem to have the same "health and safety" issues so often quoted in the UK about nudity in saunas.
In both Denmark and Spain it is legal to be naked on any beach, although there is an un-written convention in Spain that the most popular tourist beaches tend to be non-nude.
maybe he likes it in prison...you've go the workshop.......computer games, etc, and a 6 course luxury Christmas meal, once a year....what's not to like..?
A friend of mine went on a tour of Gloucester prison after it closed last year and believe me there is plenty not to like! It isn't the "holiday" camp much of the tabloid media would like people to believe it to be.
A friend of mine went on a tour of Gloucester prison after it closed last year and believe me there is plenty not to like! It isn't the "holiday" camp much of the tabloid media would like people to believe it to be.
yes, I was only joking. I'm sure their "Christmas meal" is no better than a microwave TV meal.
Yep, we shouldn't arrest people if there's no point to it.
It makes the law just look like an ass.
For a justice system to be respected, it has to stand for justice. There has to be an aim: rehabilitation, punishment or protection of the public.
In fact, let's go through it piece by piece...
Rehabilitation:
Nope. He's clearly not going to change. After all, many of us don't think he actually should. No gain for rehabilitation.
Punishment:
Nope. Punishing him for what exactly? If the idea of punishment is to 'teach someone a lesson', clearly, it's not working in this case. No gain for punishment.
Protection of the public:
Nope. He's not dangerous to the public. He might offend some people, but so do I. Not a reason to be locked up. No gain for protection.
So, why lock him up... ?
Can you actually give me a reasoned, logical argument as to why he should be continually denied his freedom?
I'm not saying lock him up. I'm saying glue him into a onesie so he is less of an offense to those who don't want to see willies and titties out and about.
The law says you can't expose yourself in public for good reason.
Perhaps you could take the trouble to read previous posts that define the law as it is, and especially this;
[Gough's case is far bigger than a issue of as it happens, legal public nudity. (He is by the way, not a naturist and has never claimed to be one). It should be causing total outrage, but it is being spun as nothing more than one man's pigheaded insistence on being naked when "It's illegal, innit." But that's just it. it isn't.
And it is nothing so trivial as the press portray it. It is nothing short of some low level pen pushers trying to have someone prosecuted because they think he is breaking the law and when it turns out he isn't, not accepting it. Despite Parliament considering the issue of simple public nudity when debating the Sexual Offences Act and deciding not to criminalise it, these bureaucrats reckon it should be illegal nevertheless. So they mangle and abuse the ASBO legislation to get an injunction from some similarly narrow minded, unimaginative and prejudiced magistrates who have no legal training or expertise. Then they nobble the guy for breaching it. Bam! 5 years inside. He was convicted s.5 Public order Act 1986. The judge (magistrates court) refused to listen to the expert evidence regarding the effects of nudity. The Court of Appeal said that that was up to the lower court and that the decision that nudity was disorderly was a finding of fact within the competence of the magistrates court. In other words, no right of appeal. Essentially the imprisonment stems from the attitudes of a single district judge and the law treats that as acceptable.]
There are no laws requiring the wearing of clothes in England and Wales (or even in Scotland if the law is interpreted as written) so your remark is based on a false premise. He did break his ASBO, which is what he has been locked up for. Think about it, he has been acquitted time and again (or charges dropped) for public nudity because it is not an offence. To overcome this someone decided to seek an ASBO to force him to dress. Now we have a situation where if he is naked with somebody else also naked in public, he can go to prison but the other person has not committed an offence. How is that equality before the law?
No one has ever stood up in court and said that they were alarmed and distressed by his nudity. It has always been assumed by the authorities. That is not evidence, let alone proof. The whole thing is a massive abuse of process.
Comments
But, seeing as he's willing to go to such lengths to protest, I would have expected him to have produced some sort of campaign material that could explain what he's all about.
Another thing that he seems to be completely lacking is supporters. Does people turn up in court to support him - or to protest naked with strategically-placed placards?
That is the point, nudism/naturism is all about practicality! The idea of having to wear a specific, and often very over-priced, piece of cloth just to go in to water is a stupid one, especially somewhere like a beach with sand and salt.
I dont really follow the "logic" of "there will always be perverts so lets not do anything to stop them".
If you allow people to be naked in public, then flashers will simply claim they were not flashing but undressing. Other have claimed there is nothing wrong with seeing erections, so I guess you would buy into the argument of "I had tight trousers and it was more comfortable for me, so I took it out, and there is nothing wrong with erections"
Doesn't mean he is one of them.
seems rather "troubled" to me.
Can I ask why are so many people obsessed with the notion naturists want to walk down streets naked?
As Nancy and I have said, naturism is about the wish to have the opportunity to be naked where appropriate. Is this simple concept really so difficult to understand?
Stephen Gough is not a naturist and does not represent the views of the naturist community.
Some of the most backwards and puritan opinions I've read. Like something Islamic State would come out with.
I never mentioned naturists: I mentioned supporters of Mr Gough, who has made it clear that he does indeed wish to walk the streets naked.
No, it is a society with a Victorian, backward and ludicrous attitude to the body which veers between lip smacking prurience and over the top prudery.
Germany, Holland, France, Spain, Holland, Slovenia, Croatia, Sweden, Denmark among others have naturism as an accepted norm in beaches, some areas of parks, and in the case of spas, especially in Germany and Holland, they are not 'naturist' just that nudity is seen as the sensible and normal way to use the facilities by both sexes. Indeed, swimwear is rightly banned in German spas.
But they are all wrong in what is normal and acceptable, and we are the only European nation who is 'right'.
I notice you say "some parks". The "naked rambler" wants all parks, in fact all places.
I would not object to more stretches of coastline being used by people wanting to strip, or indeed it being acceptable to strip in a spa. At first we will need signs up, but perhaps it will slowly become the norm. What I would not want anyone to do is to ruin their life by being continually locked up by getting naked in spas when they have been told not to, that would be stupid.
You never mentioned naturists by name however in your post you did refer to those "who don't see anything wrong with the human body", which by implication would include naturists.
I don't think it is divergence in other countries, more a tolerance and acceptance of other peoples views and wishes. In Germany, for example, it is illegal to wear swimming costumes in a sauna, and yet they don't seem to have the same "health and safety" issues so often quoted in the UK about nudity in saunas.
In both Denmark and Spain it is legal to be naked on any beach, although there is an un-written convention in Spain that the most popular tourist beaches tend to be non-nude.
A friend of mine went on a tour of Gloucester prison after it closed last year and believe me there is plenty not to like! It isn't the "holiday" camp much of the tabloid media would like people to believe it to be.
yes, I was only joking. I'm sure their "Christmas meal" is no better than a microwave TV meal.
I knew you were, but many people in this country believe what they read to be the "truth".
Dangling his balls in public?
There is no law against that. It is not illegal to simply be naked in public in England and Wales.
I'm not saying lock him up. I'm saying glue him into a onesie so he is less of an offense to those who don't want to see willies and titties out and about.
The law says you can't expose yourself in public for good reason.
Would you want him around children?
Children today face far bigger issues than the sight of a naked man, so it would depend in what context you mean.
Some people believe that only men can be pedo's
So people see this naked Rambler man, with his tackle out, so he's viewed as a threat
There are female pedo's
It's not about whether you have a willy, because indecent thoughts come from the brain
Perhaps you could take the trouble to read previous posts that define the law as it is, and especially this;
[Gough's case is far bigger than a issue of as it happens, legal public nudity. (He is by the way, not a naturist and has never claimed to be one). It should be causing total outrage, but it is being spun as nothing more than one man's pigheaded insistence on being naked when "It's illegal, innit." But that's just it. it isn't.
And it is nothing so trivial as the press portray it. It is nothing short of some low level pen pushers trying to have someone prosecuted because they think he is breaking the law and when it turns out he isn't, not accepting it. Despite Parliament considering the issue of simple public nudity when debating the Sexual Offences Act and deciding not to criminalise it, these bureaucrats reckon it should be illegal nevertheless. So they mangle and abuse the ASBO legislation to get an injunction from some similarly narrow minded, unimaginative and prejudiced magistrates who have no legal training or expertise. Then they nobble the guy for breaching it. Bam! 5 years inside. He was convicted s.5 Public order Act 1986. The judge (magistrates court) refused to listen to the expert evidence regarding the effects of nudity. The Court of Appeal said that that was up to the lower court and that the decision that nudity was disorderly was a finding of fact within the competence of the magistrates court. In other words, no right of appeal. Essentially the imprisonment stems from the attitudes of a single district judge and the law treats that as acceptable.]
There are no laws requiring the wearing of clothes in England and Wales (or even in Scotland if the law is interpreted as written) so your remark is based on a false premise. He did break his ASBO, which is what he has been locked up for. Think about it, he has been acquitted time and again (or charges dropped) for public nudity because it is not an offence. To overcome this someone decided to seek an ASBO to force him to dress. Now we have a situation where if he is naked with somebody else also naked in public, he can go to prison but the other person has not committed an offence. How is that equality before the law?
No one has ever stood up in court and said that they were alarmed and distressed by his nudity. It has always been assumed by the authorities. That is not evidence, let alone proof. The whole thing is a massive abuse of process.