Naked Rambler Jailed (yet) Again

Naked Rambler Jailed (yet) Again

67
SHARE

Naked Rambler jan 13

At the start of another year, a familiar headline – Stephen Gough, the Naked Rambler, is back behind bars having been found guilty on 6th January 2014 or breaching his ASBO, and being sentenced to 16 months imprisonment.

Mr Gough had been made the subject, of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) by Southampton Magistrates’ Court last year. We don’t have the exact terms, but presumably something along the lines of ‘don’t walk around with your genitalia or buttocks uncovered’.

It seems here that there was no dispute as to the facts ‘Gough breached [the ASBO] on 15 August when he was seen wearing only socks and boots and carrying a rucksack.‘ Police attended and offered Mr Gough some clothes, but he declined, saying ‘‘No, thank you, it is too hot.

So he was arrested and prosecuted. It seems that he did not have a lawyer and, as he refused to wear cloths in Court, the trial proceeded without him. In those circumstances, the verdict was pretty inevitable (absent a bit of jury nullification, which would not be impossible in a case like this) and the jury duly convicted him in a matter of minutes.

Last time, he got 11 months in prison. This time it was 16 months. This is no surprise as Judges normally increase the sentences for repeat offenders.

There are sentencing guidelines for the offence. The sentence of the Judge puts it in the higher category which requires “Serious harassment, alarm or distress [to be] caused or where such harm was intended“.

It seems from the news reports that the police officer stated :””We were opposite the county hospital and a number of people were waiting at the bus stop outside. He would definitely have appeared naked in front of those passersby.” It is noteworthy that the police officer did not say that any of those people were caused any harassment, alarm or distress.

However, the reason that the sentence is so high is that, as the Judge said ‘“I’m afraid there is going to be a revolving door in and out of prison, because you are intent on flouting these orders and there is absolutely no way you are going to comply with them.”

And that is the crux of it. Mr Gough isn’t going to back down and neither will the police. In this case, he had only been out of prison for a day or so (possibly less) before being arrested. What’s going to happen? To date, Mr Gough has spent a total of 7 years in prison for asserting his right to be nude in public. If things carry on, then he will end up spending more time in prison than many murderers.

Is that a good use of public money? I maintain my view that maybe we should hold fire on the prosecuting of Mr Gough, at least unless he is genuinely causing people harassment, alarm and distress.

SHARE
Dan is a barrister at 2 Dr. Johnson’s Buildings practising in crime.

67 COMMENTS

  1. My solution to this particular offence is to bring back the birch, clearly custodial sentences aren’t resonating with this person I have no doubt tough love will.

        • Hey, it offends me to see women and girls dressed as men and boys. Really. It is hard for me to hold doors and other politenesses for trouser-wearing women. I do it just to be decent.
          But transvestism is now socially acceptable for women, though men transvestites still offend the general public. So I just have to avert my eyes.

  2. Steve Gough has been ignored by most people, amused some, annoyed a very few and harmed no one. He is not a threat to anyone. His incarceration in reality is because he has defied Authority in the shape of police and judges who feel they can impose their own institutionally prudish moral compass on a society which has never been consulted.
    Nudity is not a problem. Judges who think they can make The Law up as they go along to suit themselves are more than a problem, they are undermining democracy and freedom.

    • Public nakedness is no problem as long as he/she wears shoes or sandals and has a towel or other cloth to sit on. He’d better not ejaculate on or at me, though.
      Sure solves the concealed weapon “problem”!

  3. Hi there just me your little troll trip trapping over the bridge… Duncan is a wanker with small penis by the way. Anyhow talking of little pricks. Naked Rambler should be flogged in each and every place he turns up naked when it is inhabited by others who do not wish to see his naked body, in all it’s glory, presented to them. Several goes with the birch in a 12 month period I believe will seek to get the message across more succinctly then at present. Yours in trollhood whoops SISTERHOOD. Slides back under the bridge BOOYAH

      • All internet usage can be traced, with the right resources, but those resources are usually only employed by police in the case of serious crime investigations (e.g. murder. child abuse). Simply saying stupid or rude things on the internet is not a crime, but such trolling does provide a useful way of judging the person saying them. The usual threshold for prosecuting trolling is when the items posted include threats or encouragement to suicide, though the recent twitter case seems to have lowered this slightly. The police do look in to some of the very tasteless posts, such as abusive comments about recently deceased people, when there is a complaint, but this rarely leads to prosecution. The publicity alone is usually enough to punish the perpetrators, and the knowledge that trolls can be (and are) traced is usually enough to deter people for a while. But there were always idiots in the world and always will be. For them the best response is ‘stick & stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me’, whilst allowing them the freedom to destroy their own arguments and credibility with their rants.
        In summary, though I don’t agree with Sisterhood’s (and her other names) trolling, I support her right to make a fool of herself, up to the point where she does or threatens harm, which I don’t think she has yet.

  4. Prior to being given the ASBO, Mr Gough had been repeatedly arrested in England, held in police cells and then released without charge, or held in prison awaiting trial and then been released when the charges were dropped on the morning of the trial. He was not breaking any law.
    The ASBO was a ruse by the authorities to get round the will of Parliament (In debates on Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Government made it clear it was not intended to criminalise “Naturism or streaking”). ASBO’s were never intended to prevent people doing things which weren’t unlawful.
    Mr Gough did not break any law in England prior to being given the ASBO.

    The use of ASBOs to persecute people who are not breaking any law is much akin to the use of Mental Hospitals to incarcerate undesirables as is done in many Totalitarian regimes. (In fact this was tried in Scotland, but the doctors wouldn’t go along with the attempts of the Court to find Mr Gough mentally ill)

    Law is meant to be made by Parliament, not by the police and the Courts.

    • In the USA we have “conspiracy to conspire” and “arrested for resisting arrest.” Of course there is the catch-all “disorderly conduct.”

    • “Prior to being given the ASBO, Mr Gough had been repeatedly arrested in England, held in police cells and then released without charge, or held in prison awaiting trial and then been released when the charges were dropped on the morning of the trial. He was not breaking any law.”
      This tactic is commonly used in the USA against those who are exercising their constitutional right to drive their own motor vehicles (MANY state and federal high court rulings easily found via Google, Yahoo and other search engines) without the permission of the state. The state commissioners of motor vehicles lie when they write in the Driver’s Manuals that “Driving is a PRIVILEGE that must be EARNED, not a right” or similar bullcrap.
      The driver is arrested, jailed, made to pay a bondsman or put up bond, or just languish in jail, his/her car impounded and held for ransom, then, if the persecutor realizes that the victim of the highwaymen knows his/her law and how to present her/his case in court, the charges are dropped “in the interests of justice,” “in the interest of economy,” or some such.
      This wouldn’t apply in the UK as the roads are the private property of the Queen, the supreme landlady of the UK. All must have her (her ministers’) permission to drive their motor vehicles on the Queen’s highways, byways, roads and streets. If UK subjects don’t like it they can get off her island.

  5. Judge made law then illegal? No-one except a few weirdos want to see this guy naked. If he puts his clothes on he can join the rest of us civilised people. If he insists on offending public decency then the law will continue to deal with him. It really is that simple.

    • If he was “offending public decency” he should be tried for that.
      I think your assumption that wearing clothes makes one “civilised” is open to question. Greece is often thought of as the “cradle of civilisation”; Don’t forget that it was normal for athletes at the Olympic Games to compete naked.
      Mr Gough is a gentle man. not at all vitriolic and abusive as you are.
      By the way I believe you have committed a civil offence and possibly a criminal offence in the comments you have made about Mr Heenan. Your posts certainly “offend public decency” and they might be construed as “incitement to violence” a serious criminal offence.

      • Walking around naked does offend public decency it offends me and other decent minded people. Why do we have to contend with this idiot who has issues. If the Naked Rambler doesn’t like it he can find a remote island somewhere and wander around naked to his hearts content. His behaviour is nothing more then attention seeking and no doubt it is also done aggressively as is the way with men who flash their bits in public. I and the majority of other decent minded people have no interest or desire in seeing this man naked and if he doesn’t like that well tough as mentioned he can hop off somewhere uninhabited and strut his stuff there.

        Moving now to the tiny pricked wanker who you deferentially refer to as Mr Heenan. If he decides he wishes to insult and pick on me because I have a view which differs from his one which he is unable to silence I will respond in kind. If he doesn’t like it, my advice is if you can’t take it then don’t dish it out.

        And YOUR statement is defamatory (be silent woman) because much as my wildest dreams (unstated) might involve violence against tiny pricked wankers. I have not suggested anything of the sort. Get your facts straight and or report me to the thought police. Happy to help. Yours in Sisterhood.

        • Be silent woman!

          P.s. If you are a woman, you shouldn’t be offended as. Feel free to report me tothe thought police.

        • “Offends public decency?” How about “Hooters” billboards? They proffer artificially shaped female breasts as a COMMERCIAL attraction. They indecently exploit women for PROFIT. How about splaying young, scantily attired women across car hoods to attract men to hopefully buy the car? They indecently exploit women for PROFIT. Tantamount to PROSTITUTION, which “Liberals,” Progressives, leading Feminists, and some Libertarians want to decriminalize and regulate rather than continuing as at present. The State has taken over the Numbers Racket (State Lottery, Powerball, etc.) not to endorse gambling but to regulate it and tax it. Many States have taken over the hard liquor market also not to endorse boozing but to regulate it and tax it.
          While annoying, this guy harms no one as long as he doesn’t put his butt down on public seats without a towel or cushion. Children don’t care beyond pointing and giggling. Small children are natural streakers. And this guy isn’t streaking, just walking around from place to place.
          At worst he is mentally off and not in a way harmful to others or to himself (sunburn; frostbite). With all the real crime that does harm people, how does our criminal (in)justice system have the time and money to waste arresting, jailing and persecuting this man? Spitting on the sidewalk is more harmful.

    • Simple, if you don’t want to see his privates DON’T LOOK!
      I don’t want to see the pricks who run our country on TV but when they come on I turn away. No one is forcing you to look!!!!

      • Mildly off-topic but unforgettable: the batch of Ainsley Harriott tinned sausages which were marketed with a picture of Mr H shovelling one into his gob and the text under it PRICK WITH A FORK – well, there’s many a true word spoken in jest!

  6. I’ve found this story an odd one over the years and in all my years, I have never seen a naked man or woman in public, the sheltered little thing I am. So I cannot say whether I find it offensive or not. I find men who go out in public with vests on or nothing covering their torso’s. It’s not an attractive sight. Equally, I find the exposure of too much flesh from shall we say a “larger” woman offensive. Grey bra straps, muffin tops, I could go on. I also detest when people forget to remove the stickers from the soles of their shoes.

    By all accounts, he’s harmless. I’m sure Mumsnet would see this differently were he parading around in front of children. Or indeed many other “groups” out there. If people were shouting & screaming, then I perhaps could see the offensive side. Mr Gough doesn’t strike me as a man who is abusive or offensive. His actions however are that he is not compliant with orders, judges, police is what lands him in hot water… Police can say anything and what is said is not often (Yes, I have seen it with my own eyes) what is presented to a court.

    Is it a waste of public money? Of course it is. Were I come to across him in all his glory, would I call the police and make a complaint? No. Would I shield a child’s eyes from his nakedness? Likely yes – would I steer my mother in the other direction, yes. Only because she’d be more offensive in telling to have some decency and rant at him in a highly offensive manner.

    He’s a naked man and in the presence of public decency (I wear clothes not because of public decency but I don’t think that the public have an overwhelming desire to see me naked) decency is in the eye of the beholder. What is one person’s pleasure is another’s horror.. Mr Gough is defending a right he believes is his. Who am I to argue his belief? Erica Roe was given a standing ovation for her nakedness lest us not forget…

    Nice to see Sisterhood and her spectacular use of the English language. Happy New Year, Sisterhood et al.

  7. I am extremely concerned that people might think all women feel as these 2 little prudes do! Most women are totally unconcerned about nudity and so are children. There is NO evidence that nudity harms anyone, and plenty of evidence that prudish attitudes to the body do harm. It is ridiculous that Steve Gough has been imprisoned for longer than murderers and terrorists for his beliefs and because he won’t give in, and because of the narrow prejudices of some police officers and judges.

    • Name calling isn’t going to change anything, I’m not a prude I simply don’t want to see Roger Gough naked and neither does anyone else but a few weirdos. That’s the message Roger put some clothes on for god’s sake.

  8. While coming home with my child in the car one evening, I rounded a corner in my quiet suburban neighbourhood, there on the corner was man with his trousers and pants dropped he was bent completely over grasping his ankles and exposing his bottom and anus for the world to which at that moment in time was myself and my child. He stayed there motionless despite hearing the noise of my approaching car. Imagine being confronted with that sight, and supposed I had been on foot complete with child in tow. When I stopped and reversed intending to ask him if he was unwell. At the sound of my car reversing he pulled up his trousers and took off full sprint up the road. Where were my rights not to be frightened, intimidated and or confronted with such madness.

    • Mad legal system where thugs causing physical harm on others just get a caution and Steve G gets puts away. The law is an ass and the woman who says give him the birch has little intelligence as this man has caused no harm to anyone. If you don’t want to see his privates don’t look.

  9. I don’t want to see Roger Gough naked, but I struggle with the concept of this tribe of ours forcing an individual to wear clothes. We were delivered here in a nude state and for an undefined length of time nudity is accepted by most adults.

    Would there be a case if he wore only a cod piece ? A 6″x3″ piece of fabric ! I suggest that would be totally acceptable and I’d encourage him to wear one when in public and do as he wishes in private.

  10. The British have a strange relationship with nudity. There’s plenty of people I don’t want to see naked. I don’t see it as being “prudish” I simply don’t want to see people naked walking around in public.Similarly, just as much as I don’t want to sit in the same room as someone who chews their food in a sloppy manner. Mr Gough is harmless and should not be locked up. He is locked up for defying his orders. The more he defies authority, the more he is going to be locked up. I think this is clear from the pattern over the last seven years. Which is ridiculous and a complete waste of money and time. This case is an example of how silly the CJS can be.

    Most women? I think if you placed a poll out there for most women – they wouldn’t want to see naked people in public.

    It’s not about having an issue with nudity, it’s about people being exposed to nakedness as a matter of public decency. Two very different angles.

    For once, I can agree with Sisterhood here – apart from the public flogging. Her sentiment in that she has no wish to see Mr Gough naked while strolling around a town/city centre, I have no wish to see him, or any other adult human being showing me their nakedness.

    • Do you think everyone who is, or does things you ‘don’t want’; should be locked up, just because you don’t want them. This sounds like extreme intolerance and arrogance. Are you a Judge perhaps?

  11. I understand that Stephen Gough chooses to wear a pair of sensible walking shoes. He certainly didn’t come into the world wearing them, unless anyone else knows differently, therefore clearly he accepts there is a need for clothing and the born naked argument falls on this point or is there is a caveat except for footwear.

    • Perhaps sisterhood could explain to us exactly what is offensive about the human body? “If you are offended by the human body, you are offended by God’s greatest creation”
      I am offended by obese people, people who smoke, people who let there dog’s run free and many more people in our society. Would Sisterhood accept that all these people should be in prison?
      Perhaps Sisterhood would also like to provide some evidence that (non-sexual, non-aggressive) nudity causes harm to anyone. The police and prosecution against Mr Gough have failed to provide any evidence in Court to harm caused by nudity. I am sure if there was any such evidence they would have made it available. The reason that they have not produced such evidence is very simple; there isn’t any!
      A free society can only exist if we are tolerant of the foibles of others.
      The way the police, CPS and Courts have abused the law to persecute Mr Gough is an affront to Justice in a Free Society. They have deliberately ignored the only legislation on the statute book which deals with nudity (actually exposure of the genitals) Section 66 Sexual Offences Act (2003) because they are aware that they couldn’t get a conviction under that Act.

      • Let’s stick to Gough walking around naked as the day he was born except for his shoes which it is safe to say he was not born with and in public. What gives him the right to impose his nakedness on others? Nothing. We do not wish it and it is not acceptable why does his wish to be naked trump that of the majority who do not wish to see him like that. Explain? We could argue many if not all bodily functions are created by god that does not mean there is not a time, place or context for these things. Same applies in this case and who gets to define what is or isn’t aggressive the naked rambler and his supporters or those who he wishes to inflict himself upon.

          • Oh, majority rule I suppose. But majority rule is what both the “unwritten” UK constitution and the written USA constitution are designed to curtail. Democracy is condemned by the great political thinkers of the past (Thomans Jefferson for example) and today. What both the UK and the USA are supposed to have is “representative democracy,” not direct. This is intended to allay the blowing, shifting winds of public opinion, and at its worst, mob rule.
            “The People” of neither the UK nor the USA had direct input in framing or shaping their respective constitutions. Representatives conferred, compromised, dealt, considered each provision of the constitutions. “The People” are composed of ALL citizens (USA) and subjects (UK) from birth to death, both sexes, all ages, complexions, excepting those from whom certain rights have been withheld due to incapacity or criminality. But only qualified electors (voters) are permitted to have a say (vote) in selecting the representatives.

    • Smokers can do their smoking thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Dog-owners can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Children can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Old people can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Obese people can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Blacks can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Ugly people can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Gays can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Women can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Muslims can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.
      Christians can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.

      Perhaps it would just be easier if the bigots did their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.

      • Oh you’ve moved away from the we are all god’s creations and come into the world naked I see. Here’s the thing any weirdo’s, and those who support them, who want to wander around naked can do so as long as they do it away from civilised decent people that’s the message. Why doesn’t Mr Gough do so and spare us all this charade.

        • The main difference is that there are laws making most of your suggestions unlawful, but the actions suggested by you, but there are no laws making the actions I suggest unlawful, nor is their a law against being naked in a public place.

          As for you comments on the reaction of civilised decent people; The comments you made about Mr Heenan didn’t appear to be decent so I hope you don’t include yourself among the decent people. Civilisation has nothing to do with “state of dress” but about behaviour.

          The phobia about nudity of a small proportion of the population is something which is learnt, not something which is innate either to the human species or to civilisation. Nudity was commonplace in most early civilisations and there is very little phobia about nudity in most European cultures today.

          Having said that Mr Gough’s actions have very little to do with nudity, but much more to do with a protest about the actions of an authoritarian “Justice” system which is abusing the law because they disapprove of the concept of “Freedom”. I don’t know how old you are, but if you are my age you would have noticed how the Government and the police want to control the population in a way which would have been unthinkable when I was a youngster.

          I’m pleased that you have now started to use argument rather than vitriol to support your case.

      • “Smokers can do their smoking thing away from people who don’t want to see them.”

        Mainly inhale their excretions. Smokers are so generous. They share, at their expense, their disgusting addiction with all downwind.
        People who donate food to the needy don’t eat it first. That’s real generosity.

        “Muslims can do their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.”

        Um, if they really would they would be OK I suppose but Muslims, or a very large and dangerous minority of them, want to murder the rest of us. For all the invective against the “goyim” (gentiles; non-Jews) by the Jews, they keep it to themselves. If you don’t want to see or hear it, stay out of their synagogues and don’t read their filthy books, or go to their own country, Israel. But the Muslims, or that dangerous minority among them, won’t keep it to themselves in private once they attain around 5% of a country’s population.

  12. People can make love in public they choose no matter who doesn’t wish to see them
    people can urinate wherever they please no matter who doesn’t wish them to do this
    People can defecate where they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this
    People can spit wherever they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this
    People can vomit wherever they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this
    People can masturbate where they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this

    and I mean anywhere schools, shops, restaurants, peoples homes we’re all god’s creatures and all natural functions and therefore no risks or offence can be caused by god’s creature doing as god intended them to.

    Should anyone object perhaps it would just be easier if the bigots did their thing away from people who don’t want to see them.

    That’s your argument back at you.

    Yours in sisterhood

    • The points listed have been evaluated against invalid criteria. What matters is harm and benefit, not personal likes and dislikes. The welfare of people, particularly children and young adults, must take precedence over personal prejudice. The only way to ensure that that happens is by objective consideration of the objective evidence.

      The points listed can be split into two groups.
      1. Urination, defecation, spitting, vomit. They can result in serious harm due to the spread of disease. Hence the intervention of the law can be justified, within limits.
      2. For sexual activity the evidence is a lot less clear. However part of that confusion is also due to the application of invalid critereria. Far too many studies, policies, and too much of the law, fails to distinguish what is shown or seen from the context in which it is shown or seen. I am not saying that it should not be illegal, I am saying that at the very least the evidence must show that making it illegal does not result in significantly more harm than benefit.

      Where nudity and the related body attitudes are concerned the evidence is strong. It is no coincidence that prudish western countries have appalling outcomes for body-attitude related indicators compared to those with more wholesome body attitudes. The correlations are near perfect, the causal mechanisms well understood, and the effects enormous. The imprisonment of Mr Gough is encouraging those harmful attitudes and people die as a result if those attitudes. NB it is not just the international comparisons that show the correlations, the same patterns can be seen when comparing regions within the UK. More prudish, worse outcomes, often enormously so.

      • Malcolm, It was the bigoted weirdo’s, those who would labelled theses views differ from theirs as prudish and bigoted (so I have now have my own label for them), who suggested that all things created by God were entirely natural and therefore can be inflicted on others. As I have evidenced this is not the case so we’ll put that point to one side for now. Moving on then, only actions which cause physical harm matter is that what I’m hearing? Distress and offensiveness is irrelevant. I’m afraid not. People do not exist in a vacuum where they separate their physical selves from their mental self. Offensiveness causes harm or it would not be offensive. If I were to walk around naked having urinated or defecated in private and believe I cleaned up but I haven’t any physical harm I might do is ONLY minimal therefore it’s negligible? Suppose I’m naked and I start to menstruate I can’t get to a bathroom before menstrual blood seeps out of my body is that okay? Suppose I’ve left a teeny tiny trace of urine on my body and a child runs (as children do) smack bang into me at genital level at the same time into contact with or any other bodily fluid it is that okay? How about if I have herpes and the same things happens no lesions visible at that time but nicely infectious all this is okay and the risks are negligible anyhow all of these are only what if scenarios.

        The point is you fail to acknowledge that there is risk, there is harm in all its guises plus contending with the aggressiveness of men who insist on wandering around naked. Therefore If anyone wishes to do so they need to take themselves away from civilised decent minded people and do it amongst those who aren’t bothered or some other uninhabited place.

        • That is one of recurring themes in attempts to justify prejudice throughout history. Homosexuality is even today extremely offensive to many people. Does that excuse the way in which Turing and many others were?

          “Aggressiveness”, “civilised, decent minded”. The assumptions underlying the choice of those words are breathtaking and deeply disturbing.

    • “People can make love in public they choose no matter who doesn’t wish to see them”

      You’re opposed to public kissing? Handholding? This will get even the homosexuals out against you.

      “people can urinate wherever they please no matter who doesn’t wish them to do this”

      Urine soon stinks and becomes a health hazard. Animals spread theirs out over the landscape while humans tend to do it in concentrated spots. But if someone has to urinate and every place has a “No Public Restrooms” sign, for them to find a shielded spot and urinate is better than wetting their clothes.
      Of course Mr. Gough doesn’t have that problem. Why, if he carries a urinal bottle in his pack, and doesn’t flaunt himself at people, that works. I mean, most people cover their mouths when they sneeze, cough or belch, and say, “Pardon me” (UK) or “Excuse me” (USA). Empty the bottle down a storm sewer and all is well.

      “People can defecate where they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this”

      Feces are an immediate disease problem, you know it, and it stinks powerfully. Urine and feces impose themselves on other people and in a harmful way. The sight of Mr. Gough’s penis sprouting from its bush doesn’t even make others’ eyes burn like the scent of urine and feces does.

      “People can spit wherever they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this”

      Same thing but to a lesser extent. Sputum and saliva are deposited wherever they hit. The light rays emanating from Mr. Gough’s genitals don’t harm anyone or anything.

      “People can vomit wherever they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this”

      Vomiting is usually due to illness and is not intentional nor deliberate. If a sick person makes a reasonable effort to avoid vomiting on others, or where it will stink and putrefy (health hazard), no one holds that person accountable, except to clean it up if they are able.

      “People can masturbate where they wish no matter who doesn’t wish to see this”

      Women already can do this without anyone knowing they’re doing it, except for the panting and the rolling of the eyes when she comes. If you don’t already know how, I’m not telling. Find out for yourself.

      Have you petitioned your MP (UK) or state and federal Congressman and Senators (USA) to outlaw farting in public? Perhaps that’s attainable. Then many new jails will be needed, providing employment in this depressed economy.

  13. Brian Johnson I shall repeat again in case you didn’t understand it the first time. As and when Duncan Heenan, aka the tiny pricked wanker, attacks me I shall, if I choose, respond in kind, I see nowhere were you have told him about his choice of words towards me so don’t you bother lecturing me about vitriol it’s hypocrisy.

    • Brian, you are defeated. You opponents have unleashed the Argumentum Ad Hominem weapon against you. This is the Nuclear Bomb of logic and reason. Give it up. When the AAH-Bomb is detonated your opponents have shown that no amount of carefully reasoned apology will cause them to admit defeat or even to back off and display their talents elsewhere.
      If that isn’t enough, the STFU nerve gas attack may be forthcoming. And on YOUR blog at that.

  14. Brian, your second-hand Pastor Niemöller talk fools nobody. Due respect for one another is one of the glues which holds our species together, and Mr Gough – whatever his reason – is not showing that due respect. Sisterhood has proved that by her analogies.

    What to do about it I have no idea at all. Corporal punishment, which sisterhood suggests, has been abandoned even in such uncivilised places as Texas and China where they still execute people. Imprisonment is achieving nothing. I just don’t know.

    Yours, if I may so sign myself, in siblinghood.

    • Some very strong views have been aired, but will this airing ever satisfy these entrenched battlers ?
      Entrenchment .. Now that’s been done before… Oh yes, and aren’t those twice hammered now leading Europe? …that same clever race which European history reveals as claimants to the long enjoyed benefit-of-nudity passion.
      If We all accept, as seemingly only Malcolm presently appears to, that there are valid alternate views… then congratulations Naked Rambler – for surely now it’s time for the Law to at last define some nudity-specific regulations so as to positively direct the many who want to enjoy their lives without fear of bullying from such as Sisterhood’s mind-control anguish-raising vitriol.

    • Respect is one of the most abused words in the English language. It is used by those in authority to mean “Do What I Say”. Mr Cameron talking about the Mark Duggan case said we must respect the decision of the Coroners Court. I assume what he meant was that we should accept the decision of the Courts.
      I was a teacher for 25 years. I don’t think I had any right to demand respect. In my position I had a right to demand obedience. Respect is something which needs to be earned and I hope I earned the respect of some of my students.
      I do think Mr Gough is wrong not to accept the ruling of the Courts.However I cannot see any way that he should respect the police, CPS and Courts who are all abusing the law.
      Those who want Mr Gough to respect their views don’t seem to realise respect works both ways; they are showing no respect for the views of Mr Gough.
      Sisterhood has proved nothing, she (or he) has put forward an argument which is a personal opinion which she believes is held by the majority of the public. The evidence from Public Opinion Polls and from the enthusiastic support of naked riders at events such as the World Naked Bike Ride and nudity on the 4th Plinth in Trafalgar Square and from streakers at sporting events is that very few people are upset by nudity.
      The nudity is actually rather irrelevant to the legal process, the main reason that Mr Gough is in prison is because he will not bow down to the authorities.

      ps Why are those who are condemning Mr Gough on this forum hiding behind pseudonyms?

      • Pseudonyms is what trolls do. My guess is it is because they know they express outrageous views or make mischievous statements, and fear any real comeback. They live in a virtual world disconnected from reality, and they like to feel safe and smug. It is a form of cowardice and dishonesty.

  15. I use my first name but not my surname because the latter is unusual and I consider myself entitled to my privacy. Does that make me a troll, Duncan?

    • Not in my book, because your views are not outrageous or statements mischievous. And you argue your case properly, giving me respect for your views, even when I do not agree with them.
      All trolls are anonymous, but not all anonymous posters are trolls.

  16. The Brotherhood and their need to control the Universe and in particular women, women MUST be subjugated, under control, by any means. Lies, threats, name calling, all the tricks of the abuser in order to gain the upperhand. I must totally control this bitch. She shall not be allowed an opinion, but if allowed, it shall not differ from the Brotherhood. Where does that leave us. Thank you Ms Davidson et al we is at the sweet liberation of being a woman with an opinion who won’t and can’t be brought to heel. Who am I, want to know my name why, wanna be best friends – not until hell freezes over. If I want you to know my name n you already know it. Want control you’ve lost. You’ve lost.

        • Why would anyone care, as long as she wasn’t smoking where they have to breathe it? Women don’t even have a big, nasty, threatening, dangling (or worse, standing-at-attention p***s) to offend with. Their genitals are concealed unless they shave, and then not much, just a little peek. Unless a woman is excited, or frightened, or cold, or hot, her foreskin (usually called a “hood”) conceals the glans of her clitoris. Forget the erect, swollen nipples. They are not genitals. They are baby-feeding spigots. Women can reproduce just as well with no nipples or breasts. They are no more erogenous zones than earlobes, noses, tongues, lips and practically every other square inch of skin.
          The Greeks thought it obscene to have an erection in public, exposing the glans (a semi-internal organ like the tongue). As long as dangling was the penis’ attitude it was acceptable.
          Pre-Christian Judaism circumcision removed “only” a small ring at the very end of the foreskin. Grecian Jews, wanting to appear as customary among the Greeks, had foreskin stretching specialists to make their penises conform to the norm. So the conservative rabbis introduced total circumcision, removing the entire foreskin past the corona, making it difficult to stretch. So this is the origin of the radical circumcision of today.

  17. Whatever his motive, somebody should inform him of the FREEMAN concept as in the likes of http://WWW.TPUC.ORG our rights are being reduced day by day, at least his boundaries aren’t being taken. FAIR PLAY to all that make a stand for freedom. To make a comment or judgement on another, is unjust as to know me is to walk in my footsteps. Peace to all.

  18. I find this very distressing.
    Nothing gives me a greater sense of freedom and well-being than just doing normal things naked. Unfortunately, I feel I can only do them in my own home or in naturist places.
    My view of Stephen Gough, from watching the TV programme, is that he is a principled individual who continues to make a stand despite overwhelming bigotry from all quarters.
    Thank you Stephen for having the stamina to persevere, in a world which is becoming more restrictive of personal freedom and tolerance.

LEAVE A REPLY