[Closed] He's at it again...

the world is mad.

he gets 11 months for being naked.

a famous tv presenter gets 13 months for abusing girls as young as nine.

warton - Member
the world is mad.

he gets 11 months for being naked.

a famous tv presenter gets 13 months for abusing girls as young as nine.

This.

edit. actually he's spent nearly 6 years in jail according to that link so apparently his crime is 6x as bad. Utter madness.

Is there a free him petition yet?

A "naked rambler" has been jailed for flouting an anti-social behaviour order (Asbo) banning him from being naked in public.

Stephen Gough, 54, denied breaching the order minutes after it was imposed by Southampton magistrates, by leaving court wearing only boots and socks.

I cant help thinking that this is an irrestable force verses immovable object scenario.

Court ordered surgery? Just turn him into a Ken doll.

Is there a free him petition yet?

I think there's a members bill.

He didn't get "11 months for being naked". He was given an anti-social behaviour order for that.

I cant help thinking that this is an irrestable force verses immovable object scenario.

I wouldnt say irresistable, he looks a bit of a tramp IMO

Thats trampist! Show some compassion.

he looks a bit of a tramp IMO

Perhaps that's why he does it, he's hobosexual.

Perhaps that's why he does it, he's hobosexual.

He's gay and has a cold? No wonder, what with not wrapping up on brisk mornings.

Society should leave this fella be. He is just a naked bloke. He is not lewd or anything. I thing society in general and the Law in particular is victimising him. We should not be ashamed of the naked human form.

Why does he have to cover his buttocks? We've all got them.

Also, if you walk down Wigan high street on a Friday night, many young ladies will have their sex bits pretty much on show. Buy 'em a pint and you'll have 'em in your face thank you.

Wasn't it John Lennon who said our society would arrest you for publically making love but worship you for starting war? Not that it's relevant to this conversation.

I thing society in general and the Law in particular is victimising him.

That would be true if everyone else was allowed to stroll around in public stark bollock naked, and it was only him who was being denied that right.

On the contrary, he appears to believe that he has special rights to do as he pleases.

Whilst the comparison with Hall is understandable, his is (I'm assuming) the first time he has been convicted of that type of offence, whereas Gough has almost 30 convictions for the same or similar offences, which is why his punishments have escalated to this level. If Hall was on his 30th conviction for kiddy fiddling he'd have got way way more than 30 months, and way more than Gough will ever get for strolling about in the buff.

Dont be daft, you should be able to walk round naked for years and not get close to the penalty for a first offence sexual abuse, they're not even close.

I've packed my bag and in heading for Wigan high street. Bye!

On my left is an apple on the right is an orange - they are not comparable. His sentence is for repeatedly breaking the law & conditions of being released.
In the end he's just trying to make a point that he thinks he is right and can do what he likes. Other people have asked him not to and not to be naked in certain places. He doesn't agree so rather than avoid those places or put some clothes on while walking out of court he gets locked up.
One of the things you learn when you grow up is that life isn't fair and sometimes you have to respect other people rules.

Cougar - Moderator

I think there's a members bill.

Nice. 8)

TroutWrestler - Member

Society should leave this fella be. He is just a naked bloke.

Bingo.
Not doing any harm to anyone.

Dont be daft, you should be able to walk round naked for years and not get close to the penalty for a first offence sexual abuse, they're not even close.

You should bother to read the Judge's remarks on the Hall Case and it would probably make more sense.

if you want a quicker summary then this is pretty good: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/stuart-halls-sentencing-historic-sexual-offences-context

Now, YOU may or may not think it is OK to wander about naked, but the law says its not (or not in some circumstances), but how do you expect the courts to deal with people who consistently and repeatedly break their orders, including in the court itself? Actually the legal system went out of its way NOT to bang him up for a while, but he seems to be determined to wind up those responsible for enforcing the laws that parliament have created.

typical attention seeking selfish weirdo...

no need to be naked, laws says you can't be, why persist?

I think there's a members bill.

Surely a [u]private[/u] members bill?

no need to be naked, laws says you can't be, why persist?

Because it's harming noone, and really, given the absence of zero serious crime rates, the Justice system has plenty better things to be doing. Not in the public interest, I think is the phrase used.

What's this claim 'he's harming no one' based on ? Presumably someone could use this defence if caught ****ing on the top deck of a bus, "it's natural, I was harming no one, blah, blah" ?

Personally I think he has been repeatedly treated unduly leniently. Last year for example, despite all his previous convictions, he only got five months after being caught indecently exposing himself near a swing park where children were playing.

And I don't know how he gets away so lightly with his contempt of court either. His insistence on turning up to court naked is clearly taking the piss in exactly the same way as turning up in your pyjamas or dressed as Donald Duck would be. I believe that making a mockery of the justice system and trying to undermine it with idiotic "protests" is [i]harmful[/i] to society, well at least if the culprits are allowed to get away with it.

Shagging in public isn't harming anyone but in general folk would probably rather you wouldn't. There's lots of things you could do that, whilst "not harming anyone" society in general would rather you didn't. So if folk would rather you didn't walk round naked be a good chap and don't. Have some consideration for others, not difficult really. Go find a naturist area.

Dont be daft

I'm not being daft, I'm explaining something. If you think his punishments are daft, fair enough, but there's nothing daft about giving a correct explanation.

We should send him to a penal colony........

saw 2 tramps having sex on a park bench in kensington once, was a really hot sunny lunchtime, everyone just ignored them, the bloke kept his can of cider upright at all times

which has nothing to do with this guy
whom I feel sorry for but he must be aware that his nakedness offends some people (personally i wouldnt be bothered (though if he sat next to me on the bus i might be a bit uncomfortable) so he should go and live on a naturist camp/join critical mass

What's this claim 'he's harming no one' based on ? Presumably someone could use this defence if caught **** on the top deck of a bus, "it's natural, I was harming no one, blah, blah" ?

Nice slippery slope logical fallacy there.

Personally I think he has been repeatedly treated unduly leniently. Last year for example, despite all his previous convictions, he only got five months after being caught indecently exposing himself near a swing park where children were playing.

I hope you've written a strongly worded letter to the Daily Mail about it.

He could just go rambling in Germany instead, problem sorted.

I hope you've written a strongly worded letter to the Daily Mail about it.

Ha ha ha, how hilarious 🙄

You might think that a strange man exposing his genitalia to children is funny, but most people, not just Daily Mail readers, probably don't.

This is what the Sheriff who gave him a 5 month sentence last year said to him :

[i] "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 playpark 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"[/i]

I think most people would agree that offering him a lift in a police van so that he could continue his stark bollock naked walk, without offending children, is more accommodating than he deserves, even possibly some Guardian readers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9541335/Naked-Rambler-Stephen-Gough-jailed-again-after-refusing-to-get-dressed.html

You might think that a strange man exposing his genitalia to children is funny, but most people, not just Daily Mail readers, probably don't.

Has there ever been any suggestion that there is a sexual motive behind his behaviour? If so you might have a point - otherwise, so bloody what if some kids see a naked man. We are ludicrously prudish in this country - it's really rather sad.

Has there ever been any suggestion that there is a sexual motive behind his behaviour?

And you think the "motive" for exposing his genitalia makes the slightest difference to children concerned? ffs

And you think the "motive" for exposing his genitalia makes the slightest difference to children concerned? ffs

What is it you think is so threatening/disturbing to children about a naked human being? I imagine most children would probably find it funny, unless they'd been whipped up into a panic by their hysterical, prudish parents.

Should parents avoid getting changed in front of their kids in case they are 'offended'? 😆

I'm not sure I'd want to sit on a bus seat after a naked bloke...

grum - Member

😆

So funny. We're talking about a complete stranger here, not family or friends. I certainly don't think children should be taught that it is acceptable for strange men to expose their private parts to them.

And different children react differently. I am reliably informed that some children can find the sight of a strange men's genitalia deeply upsetting and distressing, some possibly wouldn't. I doubt whether "motive" comes into it, so the claim "well officer there was no sexual motive, I'm just hugely proud of my penis and thought the children playing in the park should have the opportunity to see this thing of great beauty" or whatever other justification is used, holds little water.

Most people accept that children should be protected from intimidating situations of a sexual nature, and a stranger standing before them naked can be very intimidating to some children/people. In the same way as children should be protected from porn, assuming of course that witnessing natural sexual acts isn't completely "harmless" to children.

Have to say grum for someone who gets all politically correct over words, freely labeling them as racist or sexist, and emphasising their alleged offensiveness, you are remarkably insistent that people shouldn't be offended by things which are so clearly offensive.

Presumably you would pull me up if I claimed that I was "popping down to the ****shop", but you would defend my right to saunter into the shop stark naked giving other customers and staff an eyeful, insisting that they shouldn't be shocked or offended.

.

What is it you think is so threatening/disturbing to children about a naked human being?

Tell you what grum, if you don't know the answer to that question why don't post a graphic picture of Stephen Gough as he would like the world to see him - proudly displaying his genitals ? After all, you won't get warned or banned, 'cause there's nothing wrong with it, is there ?

And you think the "motive" for exposing his genitalia makes the slightest difference to children concerned? ffs

I certainly don't think children should be taught that it is acceptable for strange men to expose their private parts to them

I am reliably informed that some children can find the sight of a strange men's genitalia deeply upsetting

I doubt whether "motive" comes into it, so the claim "well officer there was no sexual motive, I'm just hugely proud of my penis and thought the children playing in the park should have the opportunity to see this thing of great beauty" or whatever other justification is used, holds little water.

Have to say grum for someone who gets all politically correct over words, freely labeling them as racist or sexist, and emphasising their alleged offensiveness, you are remarkably insistent that people shouldn't be offended by things which are so clearly offensive.

After all, you won't get warned or banned, 'cause there's nothing wrong with it, is there ?

TBH we are so prudish about nudity and thinking nakedness is "disgusting" or somehow overtly sexual - I would say you can dress in highly provocative clothes that are far more sexual than just being naked tbh

I remember being on holiday in France at a small pool two couples and a family with young kids [ French and never met them]. Middle aged man turns up on the far side strips naked and jumps into the pool where the kids are playing. It was perhaps about 20 foot circle with three kids in it. Nothing said nothing happened nobody was shocked. In this country he would have been battered I
I don't get why he keeps doing this tbh given what will happen nor do I get why so many think nudity is either sexual or offensive.

I suppose it's about accepted norms, like the bloke on Cheers.

I don't have any problems whatsoever if people want to want to wander around naked, and it always baffles me that a bit of bare flesh is, dependent on context, taboo in either a positive or negative way. Many people obviously want to see some flesh, or the Sun wouldn't make the first page you open in their comic a pair of well-presented boobies. Yet there's still almost a stigma in actually admitting that.

However, society dictates behaviour, and in our society it's considered bad form to wander around with the last chicken in Lidl on show. So the minority are required to conform to the majority, rightly or wrongly.

This chap clearly believes it's "wrongly," and I applaud him for making a stance about something he believes in. Perhaps at some point we'll be less repressed as a nation and none of this will matter, in the same way that TV shows can now use the F-word with impunity and are tentatively dipping their toes into careful application of the C-bomb, something which would've been imaginable a few decades ago.

However, he appears to be somewhat militant with it and going out of his way to be awkward - the post earlier where he opted to be arrested rather than avoid walking past a school is a good example. Make a stand sure, but pick your battles; or you're not a protester or a revolutionary, you're just a berk who likes getting his willy out.

in the same way that TV shows can now use the F-word with impunity and are tentatively dipping their toes into careful application of the C-bomb, something which would've been imaginable a few decades ago.

Make a stand sure, but pick your battles; or you're not a protester or a revolutionary, you're just a berk who likes getting his willy out.

Samuri "We should send him to a penal colony........"

Winner.

[/thread]

<Tangential cycling link>

I once saw him (from behind) while I was riding up Fleet Moss. He had very well toned glutes.

</Tangential cycling link>

I am just pleased that we managed to get him over the border,took us what, 6 years? mind. People were starting to think he was Scottish. Obviously from Yorkshire, too tight to buy clothes.

Junkyard - lazarus

I certainly don't think children should be taught that it is acceptable for strange men to expose their private parts to them

Yes they need to be taught only relatives can do that

I am reliably informed that some children can find the sight of a strange men's genitalia deeply upsetting

Did they find your questioning of them normal?

I doubt whether "motive" comes into it, so the claim "well officer there was no sexual motive, I'm just hugely proud of my penis and thought the children playing in the park should have the opportunity to see this thing of great beauty" or whatever other justification is used, holds little water.

Indeed that argument holds no water it is a terrible straw man even by your standards

Have to say grum for someone who gets all politically correct over words, freely labeling them as racist or sexist, and emphasising their alleged offensiveness, you are remarkably insistent that people shouldn't be offended by things which are so clearly offensive.

Well your goad is far better than you straw man

After all, you won't get warned or banned, 'cause there's nothing wrong with it, is there ?

I am sure the moderators are pleased you think they are infallible

TBH we are so prudish about nudity and thinking nakedness is "disgusting" or somehow overtly sexual - I would say you can dress in highly provocative clothes that are far more sexual than just being naked tbh

I remember being on holiday in France at a small pool two couples and a family with young kids [ French and never met them]. Middle aged man turns up on the far side strips naked and jumps into the pool where the kids are playing. It was perhaps about 20 foot circle with three kids in it. Nothing said nothing happened nobody was shocked. In this country he would have been battered I
I don't get why he keeps doing this tbh given what will happen nor do I get why so many think nudity is either sexual or offensive.

Thank you for your thoughtful forensic dissection of my post Junkyard. I believe this is a first for me.

I was starting to think that perhaps I wasn't worthy of the "Junkyard Treatment".

I wish I could say it was the first time I had received the "ernie " treatment from you. I would quite like to say it was the last as well but hey ho this is the risk anyone runs when they comment on your posts

Still I suppose trading childish insults makes more sense than debating the issue or points raised 😕

Yes ernie clearly we should teach children to be afraid of the human body, and that nakedness is always to be associated with sexual activity. 😕

And yeah racism and nudity are totally equivalent - well done. 😕

Still I suppose trading childish insults makes more sense than debating the issue or points raised

From Ernie's perspective, usually, it seems... 😕

Isn't he just one of those guys who quite likes being in prison?

Three square meals and all that.

I can see why he gets sympathy in here, how the keyboard warriors empathise with his dedication to believing he is right despite overbearing actions of the [s]moderators[/s] law trying to stifle him for their own evil knob hiding purposes.

Forget the wandering around swinging in the wind part and go back to the "If you do that again I'm going to lock you up"

Most people accept that children should be protected from intimidating situations of a sexual nature

And intimidating? Has this bloke ever been intimidating, sexually or otherwise?

Not suggesting he shouldn't be punished for taking the piss out of the legal system but at what point do we consider rethinking our position on this?

*wigan high street on Saturday night excluded

If you do that again I'm going to lock you up"

I can see why he gets sympathy in here, how the keyboard warriors empathise with his dedication to believing he is right despite overbearing actions of the moderators law trying to stifle him for their own evil knob hiding purposes.

Is that directed at me?

Not sure how I could've been much more balanced, TBH, and I'm not best pleased at the 'keyboard warrior' crack.

[quote=Cougar ]
Is that directed at me?
Not sure how I could've been much more balanced, TBH, and I'm not best pleased at the 'keyboard warrior' crack.

No it's not, it's more at those who argue to the death then complain that they got banned for simply arguing to the death with anyone who happens to ask a questions such as "what helmet for my 3 year old"

It was genuinely more about the guys who had been batting about personal abuse/fun on the issue who seemed to delight in just having an argument with each other regardless of the topic.

I prefer the current state of play without some of the big ******** who just ended up trolling or getting trolled. I have the personal opinion that the guy in trouble could either be one of them or fit in fine with them 🙂

So when he is in prison, does he wander around naked?

So when he is in prison, does he wander around naked?

Good question, I feel there could be a FOIA request on the Prison Service in there somewhere. That'd show them.

I want to know if he uses sunscreen on the *ahem* 'sensitive parts'?

No it's not,

Fair enough then. As you were. (-: