Send pictures to us
Send us your pictures and video by text, email or by uploading. Click here to find out how. »
|
|
|
|
Naked rambler cleared by court
6:45am Wednesday 11th April 2007
Comments (46)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.
Your Say YourThis is Hampshire
normal person, granada says...
9:45am Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
11:12am Wed 11 Apr 07
Norm...Societal Norm, says...
11:17am Wed 11 Apr 07
But that is not the social norm, and we expect conformity by those who choose to live in mainstream society.
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
11:33am Wed 11 Apr 07
Norm...Societal Norm, says...
11:49am Wed 11 Apr 07
"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.
Freddie Laker, Mile high club says...
11:52am Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
12:17pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
lake, totton says...
12:20pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
12:26pm Wed 11 Apr 07
lake wrote: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.
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 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, totton says...
12:37pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
12:42pm Wed 11 Apr 07
"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".
lake, totton says...
12:53pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
1:00pm Wed 11 Apr 07
lake, totton says...
1:04pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Norm...Societal Norm, says...
1:10pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
1:15pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Norm...Societal Norm wrote: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.
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.
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, says...
1:25pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
1:31pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
Darren Brewn, says...
1:55pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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).
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
1:59pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Darren Brewn, says...
2:16pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
2:21pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Darren Brewn wrote:Do they really? I don't think I do...
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.
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.
Robert, Regent's Park, So'ton says...
4:21pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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.
Tamara, Whiteley says...
5:08pm Wed 11 Apr 07
I admire Mr Gough for standing up for his beliefs.
It boils down to the nature/nurture and why/who decides debates!
echo reader, says...
6:29pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Talking Sense wrote: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?
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.
Ivor Biggin, says...
8:07pm Wed 11 Apr 07
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
Holy Land Saint, Israel says...
8:11pm Wed 11 Apr 07
I find absolutely nothing offensive in what he is doing.
jean page, bishopstoke says...
10:36pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Jean no heart, says...
10:58pm Wed 11 Apr 07
jean page wrote:Scared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
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
jean page, bishopstoke says...
11:03pm Wed 11 Apr 07
Jean no heart wrote:NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALL
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 CAREScared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
Jean not seen mine, says...
1:37am Thu 12 Apr 07
jean page wrote:Don't think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone's you have seen.
Jean no heart wrote:NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALLjean 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 CAREScared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
David, Devon says...
1:41am Thu 12 Apr 07
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.
Robert, says...
2:29am Thu 12 Apr 07
Mr W, Eastleigh says...
9:15am Thu 12 Apr 07
Please Protect us from this Ecentric, and give the man a intinsive Psyciatric eveluation.
Its Just not right
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
9:38am Thu 12 Apr 07
Mr W wrote:It's just not right? Why not? Have you not read any of the previous posts?
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
How can the sight of a naked body be "not right"? Since when has "eccentricity" required psyciatric eveluation (presumably psychiatric evaluation)...
MR w2, Eastleigh says...
11:10am Thu 12 Apr 07
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, Hampshire says...
11:12am Thu 12 Apr 07
lake, totton says...
11:58am Thu 12 Apr 07
Talking Sense wrote: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.
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!
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
12:21pm Thu 12 Apr 07
lake wrote: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.
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.
jean page, bishopstoke says...
12:30pm Thu 12 Apr 07
Jean not seen mine wrote:THERE'S NO GOOD HAVING A BIG HAMMER IF YOU CANT HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD
jean page wrote:Don\'t think so, bet mine is bigger than anyone\'s you have seen.Jean no heart wrote:NOT AT ALL SEEN ONE SEEN THEM ALLjean 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 CAREScared of seeing a bit of meat and two veg are we?!
lake, totton says...
1:08pm Thu 12 Apr 07
normal person, says...
5:13pm Thu 12 Apr 07
Graham Targett, Eastleigh, Hampshire says...
9:01pm Thu 12 Apr 07
King Mush, Woolston says...
12:48am Fri 13 Apr 07
Talking Sense, Hampshire says...
7:50am Fri 13 Apr 07
Graham Targett wrote: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?!
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
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.
Naked Rambler Steve Gough
In this section
- SHAMEFUL : An insult to our heroes
- Agency chairman claimed £1,000 a week on transport
- Oh-dour! Waft can the matter be . . ?
- Man due in court charged with jewels robbery
- Park yourself up for Ashes cricket
- No lazy, hazy days of summer at Lido
- Heading for the Wildern 'hop'
- Tots’ fair
- Girls' tribute to Michael Jackson, King of Pop
- Taxi driver mugged by gang
Sponsored Links
|
|
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
no name, Eastleigh says...
8:56am Wed 11 Apr 07