Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think its an atrocity that this man has spent 6 years in prison?!!?

179 replies

imonthefone · 03/09/2012 15:21

6 years!

6 years!

for being naked

some rapists have done less than that! Angry

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/23/naked-rambler-mental-health-checks

OP posts:
GhostShip · 03/09/2012 18:48

He's a nob for constantly wasting police time. He's got what he wanted now.

valiumredhead · 03/09/2012 18:49

Quite ghost!

Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 19:05

no. I am not comparing him to Rosa Parks Hmm

I never said there was any moral high ground to public nudity

you are having a Straw Person discussion there

OP posts:
spoonsspoonsspoons · 03/09/2012 19:25

Presumably some of the posters here think that events such as the naked bike ride should lead to mass arrests?

World naked bike ride

AndSuetoo · 03/09/2012 19:27

You'll have to explain your comment about your friends breaking the law for moral good then. It rather implies that you think this man is also breaking the law for moral good.

GhostShip · 03/09/2012 19:33

Spoonspoonsspoons obviously not. I don't have to look at them do I? But if there's a naked man strolling around my street everyday being a nuisance it's a bit different. Comparing the two is daft IMO. this man has constantly been warned to go elsewhere in his nakedness or put some clothes on. Each time he's done it again and again. It had to come to and end at some point, we can't just ignore someone who's blatantly taking the piss.

LadyBeagleEyes · 03/09/2012 19:34

The fact is, he knows the consequences if he strips naked as soon as he's released from prison.
Whether the law is right or wrong it is still the law, and he can easily prevent arrest by keeping his clothes on, at least till he get's home.
Then it'll be up to the English courts, who maybe a bit more lenient.
It is entirely up to him, he knows the score but he keeps making that choice.
It wouldn't alarm me at all to see him walking around naked, but TBH I have no desire to see a stranger's penis when I'm out walking the dog, there are a lot of causes worth fighting for, but this isn't one of them.
Does anyone know if there's any country in Europe where this would be accepted as normal?
People have mentioned Sweden, but are there people that really insist on wandering around in public in the nude all the time?

AndSuetoo · 03/09/2012 19:37

No, I think that due process has been followed with regard to Stephen Gough and he is choosing to persist with his behaviour when it is perfectly obvious to him what the consequences are. Therefore, I think the op is being unreasonable to write that his imprisonment is an atrocity.

bobbledunk · 03/09/2012 19:40

yanbu, let him be naked if it means that much to him, he's no threat to anyone. It's so silly that they let murderers, rapists and all sorts of persistent violent offenders out to ruin more innocent lives, yet this man is locked up for his refusal to wear clothes.

What's so terrifying about naked man? What's the worst that can happen from getting a glimpse of his naked body? Getting turned off your food is the most awful thing I can think of but that could be the answer to solving the obesity epidemic - a naked man in every fast food place, around every junk food isle and in every bakery!!! I've solved it...Grin

GhostShip · 03/09/2012 19:42

Bobbledunk someone smoking weed next to me is doing me no harm but it doesn't mean it's right and that they won't get into trouble for it.

Drinking on the streets also isn't illegal, but you see people getting into trouble for that under 'breach of the peace' all the time. This is the same.

The fact is people shouldn't have to look at it. I know my nanna would have been distraught about seeing a naked random man. Just because some of us are more conditioned to not be bothered about it doesn't mean everyone is the same.

SelfRighteousPrissyPants · 03/09/2012 19:42

YANBU, being naked in public is not a crime. The police and courts should be using their resources on real crimes with real victims. If you don't like nudity no one is making you look.

If the man is mentally ill he needs help not harrassment.

Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 19:47

people can act in a moral way and be breaking the law, therefore it seems trite to consider that the law is the moral code

I rearranged the words and does it make more sense now?

OP posts:
GhostShip · 03/09/2012 19:49

That isn't right. We each have different morals that are often effected by different things, environment, religion etc. We need basic laws to have an even keel.

Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 19:51

and i was making the point in response to many posters who think he should be imprisoned because he breaks the law despite having no real objection to his nakedness

OP posts:
Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 19:52

i agree about basic laws ghost we dont need laws that see this man imprisoned for not wearing clothes though

OP posts:
TiggyD · 03/09/2012 19:52

I think the funny thing about him is that he says he does it because he likes the freedom of being naked, but he gets put in prison when he does it. Not very free then.

floradix · 03/09/2012 19:54

Surely it would be cheaper to the public to put him in a car and take him either home or at least to the border?
He stated that he would never wear clothes again so it is a massive catch 22 situation.

I feel that it was wrong to jail him for six years. The media has recently been flooded with Harry's nudity and the consensus was that it was a laugh. Biscuit

ShirleyO · 03/09/2012 19:55

I have an objection to his nakedness, but after the sort of rude attacks the people on "your side" have been making and the fact that you're very, very dismissive of any view that doesn't chime with your own then I really can't be fucked to explain it to you again.

GhostShip · 03/09/2012 19:57

imonthefone it wasn't a law about not wearing clothes though, it was on the basis of persistently disturbing the peace. The police have to decide whether or not he is being a nuisance at time of reporting/being caught. This happened numerous times and it has to come to an end, they can't keep warning him and warning him.

Disturbing the peace is described as 'unsettling the proper order in a public space through ones actions'. Which he did.

AndSuetoo · 03/09/2012 20:04

Either you think Gough is upholding a moral code or you have gone off on a tangent.

Who is being beiigerent?
What moral causes have your friends broken the law for?

The law is basically the rules that society has established need to be followed by everyone in order for it to function properly. Laws are generally passed because there is a consensus of opinion that they are right.

Who arbitrates the moral code you refer to?

Plenty of people have committed the most awful acts in support of their personal moral codes.

Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 20:15

what rude attacks shirley?

OP posts:
Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 20:16

very dismissive of any view that doesn't chime with your own then I really can't be fucked to explain it to you again

oh, ok, missed this bit. Taraa then

OP posts:
Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 20:20

clearly he is not upholding any moral code. It maybe a bit of a tangent...I think its quite relevant to whether it is fair that the man has been imprisoned for 6 years--bit of lateral thinking

What moral causes have your friends broken the law for?
I decline to answer this question, in present company

Who arbitrates the moral code you refer to?
I dont refer to any moral code Confused

Plenty of people have committed the most awful acts in support of their personal moral codes

Yes I agree. Do you think this mans nakedness is an awful act?

OP posts:
ShirleyO · 03/09/2012 20:21

Well done on managing to read my whole post with only 2 tries.

Not, maybe you can read through the thread and wonder why people might not want to respond after being called frothers, Victorian, prudish and mental just for disagreeing that an "atrocity" (BTW, you might want to look that word up, talk about hysterical!) has been committed.

Original poster
imonthefone · 03/09/2012 20:25

yes, multi tasking, I apologise for my sloppy reading

Get over yourself shirley

I think atrocious is quite apt, in the circumstances

OP posts: