Naked rambler cleared by court
 |
| Naked Rambler Steve Gough |
HAMPSHIRE'S Naked Rambler Stephen Gough has been cleared of breaking the law after walking out of a Scottish prison in the nude.
The 47-year-old Eastleigh father of two admitted refusing to dress before being released into Saughton Prison car park in Edinburgh but successfully argued that his naked state had not distressed others.
He had been jailed for four months for stripping off in the toilet of a Flybe plane flying from Southampton to Edinburgh.
Sheriff Isobel Poole ruled that the case was not proven. She said that there was insufficient evidence to show that his state of undress had caused alarm to members of the public, therefore causing a breach of the peace.
Mr Gough, who has eight previous convictions relating to his crusade, is currently awaiting a High Court decision on his appeal against contempt of court convictions for refusing to cover up in the dock.
He has also been convicted of walking into Edinburgh Sheriff Court naked, appearing naked in the dock and of walking in public wearing only boots and a rucksack.
He has twice walked from Land's End to John O'Groats in a bid to raise awareness of his belief that people should be allowed to appear in their natural state.
6:45am Wednesday 11th April 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: no name, Eastleigh on 8:56am Wed 11 Apr 07
This man is a menace. I want him to go away permanently. I think it's disgusting that he can walk about this way and not be put away for it for longer than a pathetic 4 months. He's caused nothing but misery for my family in the past, we've had many run ins with not just himself but his so called "friends" and plenty to tell the police, and yet nothing seems to stop the pillock from behaving like this. I'm sick of hearing about him in the papers and on the news. The publicity he gets makes my blood boil. If the press just ignore him, and the police could be more forceful he would probably stop his ways and be normal. But some people are beyong help. I for one feel sorry for his two little girls.
This man is a menace. I want him to go away permanently. I think it's disgusting that he can walk about this way and not be put away for it for longer than a pathetic 4 months. He's caused nothing but misery for my family in the past, we've had many run ins with not just himself but his so called "friends" and plenty to tell the police, and yet nothing seems to stop the pillock from behaving like this. I'm sick of hearing about him in the papers and on the news. The publicity he gets makes my blood boil. If the press just ignore him, and the police could be more forceful he would probably stop his ways and be normal. But some people are beyong help. I for one feel sorry for his two little girls.
Posted by: normal person, granada on 9:45am Wed 11 Apr 07
Is there something not normal on Stephens body? I cannot even see any tatoos or piercings. If 'no name' thinks the human body is abnormal it is his wife and children we should feel sorry for.
Is there something not normal on Stephens body? I cannot even see any tatoos or piercings. If 'no name' thinks the human body is abnormal it is his wife and children we should feel sorry for.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 11:12am Wed 11 Apr 07
At last, some sense. If he was making inappropriately lewd comments, or was in a "state of arousal", I could understand the concerns of the likes of "no name". However, he is not. There is nothing more natural than the human body. Everybody is naked under their clothes, and the sooner people understood that naked genitals are no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg, the better. This is purely down to conditioning, and maybe "no name" should try visiting a naturist beach (e.g. Studland Knoll beach) to appreciate just how comfortable and beautiful they can be. Grow up.
At last, some sense. If he was making inappropriately lewd comments, or was in a "state of arousal", I could understand the concerns of the likes of "no name". However, he is not. There is nothing more natural than the human body. Everybody is naked under their clothes, and the sooner people understood that naked genitals are no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg, the better. This is purely down to conditioning, and maybe "no name" should try visiting a naturist beach (e.g. Studland Knoll beach) to appreciate just how comfortable and beautiful they can be. Grow up.
Posted by: Norm...Societal Norm on 11:17am Wed 11 Apr 07
Yes yes its all natural and we're all beautiful naked people under our clothes.
But that is not the social norm, and we expect conformity by those who choose to live in mainstream society.
Yes yes its all natural and we're all beautiful naked people under our clothes.
But that is not the social norm, and we expect conformity by those who choose to live in mainstream society.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 11:33am Wed 11 Apr 07
"We expect conformity". Brilliant. Nazi Germany, anyone? Are you one of these people who demands that breast-feeding mothers cover up? Do you demand that topless sunbathers cover up on the beach? These are equally natural, and equally inoffensive. If these people were openly copulating or defecating in open spaces, then you would quite rightly have cause for complaint. However if more people were like Stephen Gough, the world would be a better, more tolerant place.
"We expect conformity". Brilliant. Nazi Germany, anyone? Are you one of these people who demands that breast-feeding mothers cover up? Do you demand that topless sunbathers cover up on the beach? These are equally natural, and equally inoffensive. If these people were openly copulating or defecating in open spaces, then you would quite rightly have cause for complaint. However if more people were like Stephen Gough, the world would be a better, more tolerant place.
Posted by: Norm...Societal Norm on 11:49am Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote]"We expect conformity". Brilliant. Nazi Germany, anyone?[/quote]
Oh don't start that, you just look like a fool and we can't have a decent discussion about anything.
[quote]Are you one of these people who demands that breast-feeding mothers cover up?[/quote]
No, because society has slowly changed to accept that. My daughter was frequently breast fed in public - but in the currently accepted way of being slightly discreet to take account of other's feelings. Not in a "rubbing everyone's face in it" and "look at me and my freedom, how dare you challenge it" type of way.
[quote]Do you demand that topless sunbathers cover up on the beach?[/quote]
No because again, that has become acceptable over time. And I have a choice whether or not to go there.
Neither do I think that men should always wear hats apart from in church. Because this is not the existing convention.
My point is that this man has attempted a massive step change in his behaviour against societal expectations. This is why he will face a back-lash. And why I wouldn't want to come across him naked in a car park.
You can have it the other way though. I'll just do what the **** I want and you can all just put up with it.
"We expect conformity". Brilliant. Nazi Germany, anyone?
Oh don't start that, you just look like a fool and we can't have a decent discussion about anything.
Are you one of these people who demands that breast-feeding mothers cover up?
No, because society has slowly changed to accept that. My daughter was frequently breast fed in public - but in the currently accepted way of being slightly discreet to take account of other's feelings. Not in a "rubbing everyone's face in it" and "look at me and my freedom, how dare you challenge it" type of way.
Do you demand that topless sunbathers cover up on the beach?
No because again, that has become acceptable over time. And I have a choice whether or not to go there.
Neither do I think that men should always wear hats apart from in church. Because this is not the existing convention.
My point is that this man has attempted a massive step change in his behaviour against societal expectations. This is why he will face a back-lash. And why I wouldn't want to come across him naked in a car park.
You can have it the other way though. I'll just do what the **** I want and you can all just put up with it.
Posted by: Freddie Laker, Mile high club on 11:52am Wed 11 Apr 07
[italic]insufficient evidence to show that his state of undress had caused alarm to members of the public[/italic] – That's a bit below the sporan! Still, I bet he had put people off their in-flight chipolata's
insufficient evidence to show that his state of undress had caused alarm to members of the public – That's a bit below the sporan! Still, I bet he had put people off their in-flight chipolata's
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 12:17pm Wed 11 Apr 07
"I'll just do what I want and you can put up with it"... that's hardly my point.
My point is that this man has not broken the law (as demonstrated by his release).
The backlash is caused by narrow-minded "change is not good" types.
However you openly admit that convention has changed to accept things that 20 years ago were frowned upon (breastfeeding, homosexuality etc) - I sincerely hope that the convention of demonising the human body as something sinful, distasteful and sexual is soon forgotten. Maybe one day, it will be replaced by a tolerance and acceptance of the human body as something inoffensive, non-sexual, and to be respected rather than feared.
"I'll just do what I want and you can put up with it"... that's hardly my point.
My point is that this man has not broken the law (as demonstrated by his release).
The backlash is caused by narrow-minded "change is not good" types.
However you openly admit that convention has changed to accept things that 20 years ago were frowned upon (breastfeeding, homosexuality etc) - I sincerely hope that the convention of demonising the human body as something sinful, distasteful and sexual is soon forgotten. Maybe one day, it will be replaced by a tolerance and acceptance of the human body as something inoffensive, non-sexual, and to be respected rather than feared.
Posted by: lake, totton on 12:20pm Wed 11 Apr 07
why can't it ever be a beautiful woman with the perfect body that goes on these crusades. I saw a programme about this guy and he is a complete t**t. Doesn't really bother me either way but I don't agree with the arguments put forward by Talking Sense...walking around everyday life starkers is COMPLETELY different to breast feeding, sunbathing topless etc. As Norm states, these have become socially acceptable. It would be a tad weird if you were in a restaurant and he came in for a meal. I think we would have every right to object
why can't it ever be a beautiful woman with the perfect body that goes on these crusades. I saw a programme about this guy and he is a complete t**t. Doesn't really bother me either way but I don't agree with the arguments put forward by Talking Sense...walking around everyday life starkers is COMPLETELY different to breast feeding, sunbathing topless etc. As Norm states, these have become socially acceptable. It would be a tad weird if you were in a restaurant and he came in for a meal. I think we would have every right to object
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 12:26pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]lake[/bold] wrote:
why can\'t it ever be a beautiful woman with the perfect body that goes on these crusades. I saw a programme about this guy and he is a complete t**t. Doesn\'t really bother me either way but I don\'t agree with the arguments put forward by Talking Sense...walking around everyday life starkers is COMPLETELY different to breast feeding, sunbathing topless etc. As Norm states, these have become socially acceptable. It would be a tad weird if you were in a restaurant and he came in for a meal. I think we would have every right to object[/quote] I would accept your post, if you hadn't started with "why can't it be a beautiful woman", which reduces this topic to a "Carry On Sniggering" playground level.
I doubt any naturist would go into a restaurant naked - the ethos is "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And I don't necessarily agree with Mr Gough's tactics - but I respect him for bringing society's intolerance of the naked body into the public domain. As I've already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating). What I find hard to accept is the belief that the naked human body is offensive in some way, with comments like "change his ways and be normal", and the sniggering "chipolata"-type posts the apparent norm.
lake wrote:
why can\'t it ever be a beautiful woman with the perfect body that goes on these crusades. I saw a programme about this guy and he is a complete t**t. Doesn\'t really bother me either way but I don\'t agree with the arguments put forward by Talking Sense...walking around everyday life starkers is COMPLETELY different to breast feeding, sunbathing topless etc. As Norm states, these have become socially acceptable. It would be a tad weird if you were in a restaurant and he came in for a meal. I think we would have every right to object
I would accept your post, if you hadn't started with "why can't it be a beautiful woman", which reduces this topic to a "Carry On Sniggering" playground level.
I doubt any naturist would go into a restaurant naked - the ethos is "naked when possible, clothed when practical". And I don't necessarily agree with Mr Gough's tactics - but I respect him for bringing society's intolerance of the naked body into the public domain. As I've already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating). What I find hard to accept is the belief that the naked human body is offensive in some way, with comments like "change his ways and be normal", and the sniggering "chipolata"-type posts the apparent norm.
Posted by: lake, totton on 12:37pm Wed 11 Apr 07
And I would accept your post if it wasn't for comments like 'the ethos is "naked when possible, clothed when practical". Mr Gough was naked in prison car park, when on a flybe plane and when in court...Hardly following your lovely little ethos. The fact that he wore clothes onto the plane and then stripped just shows what a t**t he is. My post stands. Accept it.
And I would accept your post if it wasn't for comments like 'the ethos is "naked when possible, clothed when practical". Mr Gough was naked in prison car park, when on a flybe plane and when in court...Hardly following your lovely little ethos. The fact that he wore clothes onto the plane and then stripped just shows what a t**t he is. My post stands. Accept it.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 12:42pm Wed 11 Apr 07
...and read mine again. "I don't necessarily agree with Mr Gough's tactics - but I respect him for bringing society's intolerance of the naked body into the public domain."
"My post stands - accept it"? Once again, a victory for closed-minded intolerance - "I'm right, and anyone whose opinion differs from mine is wrong".
...and read mine again. "I don't necessarily agree with Mr Gough's tactics - but I respect him for bringing society's intolerance of the naked body into the public domain."
"My post stands - accept it"? Once again, a victory for closed-minded intolerance - "I'm right, and anyone whose opinion differs from mine is wrong".
Posted by: lake, totton on 12:53pm Wed 11 Apr 07
I know this can go on all day long but if you insist on picking apart everything people say, if you read my original post it says 'doesn't really bother me either way but I don't agree with the arguments put.....'. You can hardly call that 'closed minded intolerance'. If anyone is displaying the attitude that 'everyone else is wrong' it is you my friend. My comments about my 'post stands' refers to the fact that Mr Gough is a t**t, which you seem to agree with and then 'accept it' is a cheeky referal to your arrogant decision not to accept my post. You are giving naturists a bad name and certainly don't talk much sense. Peace.
I know this can go on all day long but if you insist on picking apart everything people say, if you read my original post it says 'doesn't really bother me either way but I don't agree with the arguments put.....'. You can hardly call that 'closed minded intolerance'. If anyone is displaying the attitude that 'everyone else is wrong' it is you my friend. My comments about my 'post stands' refers to the fact that Mr Gough is a t**t, which you seem to agree with and then 'accept it' is a cheeky referal to your arrogant decision not to accept my post. You are giving naturists a bad name and certainly don't talk much sense. Peace.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 1:00pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Can't agree with you I'm afraid, but each to their own - rock on.
Can't agree with you I'm afraid, but each to their own - rock on.
Posted by: lake, totton on 1:04pm Wed 11 Apr 07
I'm naked right now. Better not say I'm rocking on though. Pleasure having a nice lunchtime debate.
I'm naked right now. Better not say I'm rocking on though. Pleasure having a nice lunchtime debate.
Posted by: Norm...Societal Norm on 1:10pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote]As I've already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating)[/quote]
Why would it be acceptable in a harmless flacid state, but not in its aroused or being used for excreting waste? Where do you get this artificial distinction from? Its all natural.
As I've already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating)
Why would it be acceptable in a harmless flacid state, but not in its aroused or being used for excreting waste? Where do you get this artificial distinction from? Its all natural.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 1:15pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Norm...Societal Norm[/bold] wrote:
[quote]As I\'ve already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating)[/quote] Why would it be acceptable in a harmless flacid state, but not in its aroused or being used for excreting waste? Where do you get this artificial distinction from? Its all natural.[/quote] The distinction is not artificial. In a flaccid state, the penis is just another part of the body, no more offensive than an ear, nose or leg.
Excretion of waste, whilst natural, is distinctly unpleasant, not to mention unhygienic - even (responsible) dog owners clear up faeces behind their pets. Public arousal could be seen as sexually threatening, and is also frowned upon amongst naturists.
There's your distinction. Next question?
Norm...Societal Norm wrote:
As I\'ve already said, a naked penis is no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg (provided it is not in a state of arousal, or publicly urinating)
Why would it be acceptable in a harmless flacid state, but not in its aroused or being used for excreting waste? Where do you get this artificial distinction from? Its all natural.
The distinction is not artificial. In a flaccid state, the penis is just another part of the body, no more offensive than an ear, nose or leg.
Excretion of waste, whilst natural, is distinctly unpleasant, not to mention unhygienic - even (responsible) dog owners clear up faeces behind their pets. Public arousal could be seen as sexually threatening, and is also frowned upon amongst naturists.
There's your distinction. Next question?
Posted by: Norm...Societal Norm on 1:25pm Wed 11 Apr 07
So flaccid good, aroused bad, excretion bad.
Does this mean those randy horses in the New Forest are going to be censored when they are displaying what seems to be a 5th leg in public? Or the dogs in the park cocking their legs are to be given stern and disapproving looks ?
I had wondered where all these relative standards were from: and the answer turns out to be you, "Talking Sense". There's a weight off my mind.
I, for one, welcome my new Internet morality overlord.
So flaccid good, aroused bad, excretion bad.
Does this mean those randy horses in the New Forest are going to be censored when they are displaying what seems to be a 5th leg in public? Or the dogs in the park cocking their legs are to be given stern and disapproving looks ?
I had wondered where all these relative standards were from: and the answer turns out to be you, "Talking Sense". There's a weight off my mind.
I, for one, welcome my new Internet morality overlord.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 1:31pm Wed 11 Apr 07
You sure know how to twist words, don't you? You accuse me of being a "morality overlord" when in your first post carry on about how appalling Mr Gough's public nudity is due to "societal expectations".
Animals have no sense of reason. That's what makes humans different. Animals' owners, however, clear up after their pets for hygiene reasons. Are horses "randy"? Don't make me laugh - they copulate for procreation. If you are going to make comparisons between humans and animals, so can I - animals don't wear clothes either! Do you suggest we put them in nappies/underpants lest we offend people?
Did I say flaccid is "good"? Did I say arousal is "bad"? No - arousal is a wonderful thing - between consenting adults. I made the point that flaccid, the penis is just another body part - aroused, it could be sexually threatening which is legally, socially, and reasonably unacceptable.
You sure know how to twist words, don't you? You accuse me of being a "morality overlord" when in your first post carry on about how appalling Mr Gough's public nudity is due to "societal expectations".
Animals have no sense of reason. That's what makes humans different. Animals' owners, however, clear up after their pets for hygiene reasons. Are horses "randy"? Don't make me laugh - they copulate for procreation. If you are going to make comparisons between humans and animals, so can I - animals don't wear clothes either! Do you suggest we put them in nappies/underpants lest we offend people?
Did I say flaccid is "good"? Did I say arousal is "bad"? No - arousal is a wonderful thing - between consenting adults. I made the point that flaccid, the penis is just another body part - aroused, it could be sexually threatening which is legally, socially, and reasonably unacceptable.
Posted by: Darren Brewn on 1:55pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote]I made the point that flaccid, the penis is just another body part - aroused, it could be sexually threatening which is legally, socially, and reasonably unacceptable.[/quote]
Ah truely spoken like a female humanities graduate in her late 20s working in the public sector who is left-leaning (reads the Independent occasionally).
I made the point that flaccid, the penis is just another body part - aroused, it could be sexually threatening which is legally, socially, and reasonably unacceptable.
Ah truely spoken like a female humanities graduate in her late 20s working in the public sector who is left-leaning (reads the Independent occasionally).
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 1:59pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Actually, a male non-graduate (educated to A-level) in mid-30s, working in private financial services. You're right, though - I am a left-leaning, Independent/Guardian-reading naturist who finds this belief that the naked human body is in some way "disgusting", "unnatural" or "abnormal" absolutely astounding. From your rather scathing riposte, do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?
Actually, a male non-graduate (educated to A-level) in mid-30s, working in private financial services. You're right, though - I am a left-leaning, Independent/Guardian-reading naturist who finds this belief that the naked human body is in some way "disgusting", "unnatural" or "abnormal" absolutely astounding. From your rather scathing riposte, do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?
Posted by: Darren Brewn on 2:16pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote]do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?[/quote]
People do so all the time, but in a mental state of arousal without the socially unacceptable physical signs. Which highlights the fact that the physical expressions are some what irrelevant and the distinction between them and unaroused naturism are artificial. They are currently inseparable in many minds, and perhaps this is why the 'naked rambler' is unacceptable and shocking to many.
do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?
People do so all the time, but in a mental state of arousal without the socially unacceptable physical signs. Which highlights the fact that the physical expressions are some what irrelevant and the distinction between them and unaroused naturism are artificial. They are currently inseparable in many minds, and perhaps this is why the 'naked rambler' is unacceptable and shocking to many.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 2:21pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Darren Brewn[/bold] wrote:
[quote]do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?[/quote] People do so all the time, but in a mental state of arousal without the socially unacceptable physical signs. Which highlights the fact that the physical expressions are some what irrelevant and the distinction between them and unaroused naturism are artificial. They are currently inseparable in many minds, and perhaps this is why the 'naked rambler' is unacceptable and shocking to many.[/quote] Do they really? I don't think I do...
Unaroused naturism is a wonderful, sensual, liberating (but not sexually exciting) experience. "Naturists" who are aroused have obviously been titillated to the point of sexual excitement, and are not, in fact, naturists at all. There is a big distinction between the two experiences.
The naked rambler is shocking to many is because of people's misconception that nakedness has to be sexual which is completely wrong.
Darren Brewn wrote:
do I take it that you think it's acceptable, then, for people to wander around in a state of sexual arousal?
People do so all the time, but in a mental state of arousal without the socially unacceptable physical signs. Which highlights the fact that the physical expressions are some what irrelevant and the distinction between them and unaroused naturism are artificial. They are currently inseparable in many minds, and perhaps this is why the 'naked rambler' is unacceptable and shocking to many.
Do they really? I don't think I do...
Unaroused naturism is a wonderful, sensual, liberating (but not sexually exciting) experience. "Naturists" who are aroused have obviously been titillated to the point of sexual excitement, and are not, in fact, naturists at all. There is a big distinction between the two experiences.
The naked rambler is shocking to many is because of people's misconception that nakedness has to be sexual which is completely wrong.
Posted by: Robert, Regent's Park, So'ton on 4:21pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Good old Stephen! He's made a lot of people think and (in some cases even taught them things they didn't know before!)
If I were him I'd give it a rest for a bit now though. The ravages of time are starting to show all too clearly.
You can get the same message across in other ways. Or, if he's adamant that nothing but a direct demonstration will do, he should enlist the services of somebody who's actually good to look at. He could keep his girlfriend in the act
because she's still a pretty sight.
Good old Stephen! He's made a lot of people think and (in some cases even taught them things they didn't know before!)
If I were him I'd give it a rest for a bit now though. The ravages of time are starting to show all too clearly.
You can get the same message across in other ways. Or, if he's adamant that nothing but a direct demonstration will do, he should enlist the services of somebody who's actually good to look at. He could keep his girlfriend in the act
because she's still a pretty sight.
Posted by: Tamara, Whiteley on 5:08pm Wed 11 Apr 07
We arrive in this world naked!
I admire Mr Gough for standing up for his beliefs.
It boils down to the nature/nurture and why/who decides debates!
We arrive in this world naked!
I admire Mr Gough for standing up for his beliefs.
It boils down to the nature/nurture and why/who decides debates!
Posted by: echo reader on 6:29pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Talking Sense[/bold] wrote:
At last, some sense. If he was making inappropriately lewd comments, or was in a "state of arousal", I could understand the concerns of the likes of "no name". However, he is not. There is nothing more natural than the human body. Everybody is naked under their clothes, and the sooner people understood that naked genitals are no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg, the better. This is purely down to conditioning, and maybe "no name" should try visiting a naturist beach (e.g. Studland Knoll beach) to appreciate just how comfortable and beautiful they can be. Grow up.[/quote] I think you have got your advice the wrong way round. It is this attention seeking weirdo who should go to the nudist beach, but then I guess there would be no publicity then would there?
Talking Sense wrote:
At last, some sense. If he was making inappropriately lewd comments, or was in a "state of arousal", I could understand the concerns of the likes of "no name". However, he is not. There is nothing more natural than the human body. Everybody is naked under their clothes, and the sooner people understood that naked genitals are no more offensive than a naked ear, nose or leg, the better. This is purely down to conditioning, and maybe "no name" should try visiting a naturist beach (e.g. Studland Knoll beach) to appreciate just how comfortable and beautiful they can be. Grow up.
I think you have got your advice the wrong way round. It is this attention seeking weirdo who should go to the nudist beach, but then I guess there would be no publicity then would there?
Posted by: Ivor Biggin on 8:07pm Wed 11 Apr 07
This idiot is mentally disturbed
Who does he think he is walking around like that in front of kids
I live in Eastleigh and if he walked past me and my daughter naked I would punch his lights out
A pervert
This idiot is mentally disturbed
Who does he think he is walking around like that in front of kids
I live in Eastleigh and if he walked past me and my daughter naked I would punch his lights out
A pervert
Posted by: Holy Land Saint, Israel on 8:11pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Fair Play to Mr Gough. He is obviously a Man that is truly intent to succeed in his crusade!
I find absolutely nothing offensive in what he is doing.
Fair Play to Mr Gough. He is obviously a Man that is truly intent to succeed in his crusade!
I find absolutely nothing offensive in what he is doing.
Posted by: jean page, bishopstoke on 10:36pm Wed 11 Apr 07
WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
Posted by: Jean no heart on 10:58pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote:
WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE [/quote] Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
jean page wrote:
WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
Posted by: jean page, bishopstoke on 11:03pm Wed 11 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Jean no heart[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE [/quote] Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?![/quote] NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL
Jean no heart wrote:
jean page wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL
Posted by: Jean not seen mine on 1:37am Thu 12 Apr 07
[quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Jean no heart[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE [/quote] Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?![/quote] NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL [/quote] Don't think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone's you have seen.
jean page wrote:
Jean no heart wrote: jean page wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL
Don't think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone's you have seen.
Posted by: David, Devon on 1:41am Thu 12 Apr 07
In the West Country at least, Steve Gough was generally welcomed on his walk and cheered on his way. The Police here realised that he was no bother and kept an eye out for him, possibly for his protection as he got duffed up on his first walk.
With the "children" argument, I was a natural naturist as a child and my parents had difficulty getting me to keep my clothes on.
The freedom I experience as a naturist is precicely the separation of nudity from sex. You don't even have to be a naturist to appreciate that the absence of clothes is not linked to sex or that sexual arousal is not dependant on nudity.
To those unfortunate enough to have hangups about naked bodies - just don't look.
In the West Country at least, Steve Gough was generally welcomed on his walk and cheered on his way. The Police here realised that he was no bother and kept an eye out for him, possibly for his protection as he got duffed up on his first walk.
With the "children" argument, I was a natural naturist as a child and my parents had difficulty getting me to keep my clothes on.
The freedom I experience as a naturist is precicely the separation of nudity from sex. You don't even have to be a naturist to appreciate that the absence of clothes is not linked to sex or that sexual arousal is not dependant on nudity.
To those unfortunate enough to have hangups about naked bodies - just don't look.
Posted by: Robert on 2:29am Thu 12 Apr 07
You're too violent, Mr Bigun. Hand your head (or something) in shame!
You're too violent, Mr Bigun. Hand your head (or something) in shame!
Posted by: Mr W, Eastleigh on 9:15am Thu 12 Apr 07
I saw steve recently on one of his naked rambles. Not apretty sight.
Please Protect us from this Ecentric, and give the man a intinsive Psyciatric eveluation.
Its Just not right
I saw steve recently on one of his naked rambles. Not apretty sight.
Please Protect us from this Ecentric, and give the man a intinsive Psyciatric eveluation.
Its Just not right
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 9:38am Thu 12 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Mr W[/bold] wrote:
I saw steve recently on one of his naked rambles. Not apretty sight. Please Protect us from this Ecentric, and give the man a intinsive Psyciatric eveluation. Its Just not right [/quote] It's just not right? Why not? Have you not read any of the previous posts?
How can the sight of a naked body be "not right"? Since when has "eccentricity" required psyciatric eveluation (presumably psychiatric evaluation)...
Mr W wrote:
I saw steve recently on one of his naked rambles. Not apretty sight. Please Protect us from this Ecentric, and give the man a intinsive Psyciatric eveluation. Its Just not right
It's just not right? Why not? Have you not read any of the previous posts?
How can the sight of a naked body be "not right"? Since when has "eccentricity" required psyciatric eveluation (presumably psychiatric evaluation)...
Posted by: MR w2, Eastleigh on 11:10am Thu 12 Apr 07
Talking sense. posting 11 times does not make you right!
I am entilted to my opinion.
It is in line with those I spoke to after Steve strolled past 'Au Natural' or whatever you call it.
Talking sense. posting 11 times does not make you right!
I am entilted to my opinion.
It is in line with those I spoke to after Steve strolled past 'Au Natural' or whatever you call it.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 11:12am Thu 12 Apr 07
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly!
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly!
Posted by: lake, totton on 11:58am Thu 12 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Talking Sense[/bold] wrote:
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly![/quote] still arguing with everybody then?...If you feel so strongly about it why don't you stop posting on here, get your clothes off and walk past Ivor Biggin so he can do us all a favour.
Talking Sense wrote:
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly!
still arguing with everybody then?...If you feel so strongly about it why don't you stop posting on here, get your clothes off and walk past Ivor Biggin so he can do us all a favour.
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 12:21pm Thu 12 Apr 07
[quote][bold]lake[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Talking Sense[/bold] wrote: You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly![/quote] still arguing with everybody then?...If you feel so strongly about it why don't you stop posting on here, get your clothes off and walk past Ivor Biggin so he can do us all a favour. [/quote] Childish, and totally uncalled for. By remaining polite and simply debating a point, you have taken it upon yourself to police this board against comments with which you do not agree. Shame.
lake wrote:
Talking Sense wrote: You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion - as am I to mine - I just find it quite incredulous that people are so appalled by the naked human body. "Ivor Biggin" suggests that he would "punch" anyone who walked past his child naked - nudity does not make someone a pervert, and it is this ridiculous assertion that nudity=sex which makes this whole situation so silly!
still arguing with everybody then?...If you feel so strongly about it why don't you stop posting on here, get your clothes off and walk past Ivor Biggin so he can do us all a favour.
Childish, and totally uncalled for. By remaining polite and simply debating a point, you have taken it upon yourself to police this board against comments with which you do not agree. Shame.
Posted by: jean page, bishopstoke on 12:30pm Thu 12 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Jean not seen mine[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Jean no heart[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]jean page[/bold] wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE [/quote] Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?![/quote] NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL [/quote] Don\'t think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone\'s you have seen.[/quote] THERE'S NO GOOD HAVING A BIG HAMMER IF YOU CANT HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
Jean not seen mine wrote:
jean page wrote: Jean no heart wrote: jean page wrote: WHEN I SAW IT IN THE ECHO TONIGHT I THOUGHT OH NO NOT HIM AGAIN CANT THEY FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WRITE ABOUT THAN THIS.I KNOW WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED BUT THE SIGHT OF A LOVELY NAKED BABY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN SOME PRAT WALKING AROUND A BUSY TOWN JUST TO BE THE CENTRE OF ATTENTION IF THEY DIDNT GIVE HIM SO MUCH PUBLICITY HE WOULD MOST LIKELY GO AWAY WELL I HOPE SO!!HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO REGARD FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO IM SURE ARE RIDICULED AT SCHOOL ECT,SO I THINK HE SHOULD BE SHIPPED OFF TO SOME DESERT ISLAND WHERE HE CAN WALK ABOUT IN THE BUFF AND NOBODY WOULD CARE
Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL
Don\'t think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone\'s you have seen.
THERE'S NO GOOD HAVING A BIG HAMMER IF YOU CANT HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
Posted by: lake, totton on 1:08pm Thu 12 Apr 07
I'm sorry, it was just all getting a bit too serious. Nothing personal. I did actually enjoy our debate yesterday. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on something other than nakedness ;-)
I'm sorry, it was just all getting a bit too serious. Nothing personal. I did actually enjoy our debate yesterday. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on something other than nakedness ;-)
Posted by: normal person on 5:13pm Thu 12 Apr 07
I, being of advanced age, am also not a pretty sight. Does that mean I should cover my face when in public?
I, being of advanced age, am also not a pretty sight. Does that mean I should cover my face when in public?
Posted by: Graham Targett, Eastleigh, Hampshire on 9:01pm Thu 12 Apr 07
this guy is a menace, i agree with ivor biggin, if h walked infront of me, i would kick the **** out of him, i have no probalem with seeing naked bodies, but there is a time and a place, he lives opposite a school, now that isn't right surely? flashing his tiny tackle infront of little girls and boys, and how can u avoid being aroused whilst in a naked state, sometimes it can not be controlled, especially if a **** hot woman is stood infront of u lol, i can see people being starkers in public in time to come, just not now, small steps at a time
this guy is a menace, i agree with ivor biggin, if h walked infront of me, i would kick the **** out of him, i have no probalem with seeing naked bodies, but there is a time and a place, he lives opposite a school, now that isn't right surely? flashing his tiny tackle infront of little girls and boys, and how can u avoid being aroused whilst in a naked state, sometimes it can not be controlled, especially if a **** hot woman is stood infront of u lol, i can see people being starkers in public in time to come, just not now, small steps at a time
Posted by: King Mush, Woolston on 12:48am Fri 13 Apr 07
I guess the evidence didn't stand up in court?
I guess the evidence didn't stand up in court?
Posted by: Talking Sense, Hampshire on 7:50am Fri 13 Apr 07
[quote][bold]Graham Targett[/bold] wrote:
this guy is a menace, i agree with ivor biggin, if h walked infront of me, i would kick the **** out of him, i have no probalem with seeing naked bodies, but there is a time and a place, he lives opposite a school, now that isn't right surely? flashing his tiny tackle infront of little girls and boys, and how can u avoid being aroused whilst in a naked state, sometimes it can not be controlled, especially if a **** hot woman is stood infront of u lol, i can see people being starkers in public in time to come, just not now, small steps at a time[/quote] Once again - nudity = sex. No it doesn't. Why do we have this idea that children seeing naked bodies is wrong? Have you ever tried to tell a toddler to keep its clothes [bold]on[/bold]?!
If you are unable to control your arousal when dressed, I find that extremely disturbing - and these constant threats of violence against a man who has remained peaceful throughout are sickening.
Graham Targett wrote:
this guy is a menace, i agree with ivor biggin, if h walked infront of me, i would kick the **** out of him, i have no probalem with seeing naked bodies, but there is a time and a place, he lives opposite a school, now that isn't right surely? flashing his tiny tackle infront of little girls and boys, and how can u avoid being aroused whilst in a naked state, sometimes it can not be controlled, especially if a **** hot woman is stood infront of u lol, i can see people being starkers in public in time to come, just not now, small steps at a time
Once again - nudity = sex. No it doesn't. Why do we have this idea that children seeing naked bodies is wrong? Have you ever tried to tell a toddler to keep its clothes
on?!
If you are unable to control your arousal when dressed, I find that extremely disturbing - and these constant threats of violence against a man who has remained peaceful throughout are sickening.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
