Naked Rambler Lock him up or let him roam free?

[Wook]

You see there has to be a line drawn in the side as to what we consider acceptable behaviour.

Indeed. And the point I personally have been trying to make (I don't know about others) is that line is currently drawn in the wrong place.

The correct place for that line is that the law should only regulate behaviour that causes harm to another person or their property. The examples of bad behaviour you cite fall under that definition of illegality. The naked rambler does not.

 

[Retired Member southey]

Yup, I wild say that SEXUAL deviancy as prescribed by the masses should be where the law steps in, I do not think being naked is a sexual act in its self. I feel that your reaction of saying you would visit violence on a person just because they are following the same path, just in the opposite direction to you and your family to be abhorrent, perhapse it should be you who should leave the path to so the naked person can pass unharmed and safe.

 

[cbr6fs]

Indeed. And the point I personally have been trying to make (I don't know about others) is that line is currently drawn in the wrong place.

The correct place for that line is that the law should only regulate behaviour that causes harm to another person or their property. The examples of bad behaviour you cite fall under that definition of illegality. The naked rambler does not.

Ok so lets say the law is passed and everyone is allowed to walk around naked in public.

You said previously

And I do not believe he has any ill intent.

How do you know that every other person walking around naked in public has the same innocent intentions?


Do you honestly believe that if this is allowed, that sick twisted individuals are not going to come crawling out and start pushing these boundaries?
How many sick scumbags do you think would think it's their dreams answered to walk past a school naked?


So i hear you say, you won't be allowed to walk past a school naked.
Ok good rule, what if if the scumbag says they didn't know a school was there, or that the school was in their path.


How about the restaurant scenario, would be happy to be sat with your kids eating your Sunday dinner in a restaurant with naked folks sat around you?


For me it's a can of worms that don't need to be opened.

If not being allowed to walk around naked in public is deemed as a repression to a person "human rights" then i'm happy as larry about that.

 

[Wook]

If not being allowed to walk around naked in public is deemed as a repression to a person "human rights" then i'm happy as larry about that.

If, as you say, you are "pro-repression" - then I do not believe I will be able to convince you to change your position.

I believe (politically at least) individual freedom and liberty to be the very highest ideals. The only function of government in my view is to step in and punish those who violate the freedom of others (by attacking them, stealing from them etc.), thereby enhancing freedom rather than impinging upon it.

Whereas you seem to believe the governments role is to force a value system on society at large, fuelled simply by the belief that it is the right one. It is a common enough view, one largely shared by most politicians.

It is not one I hold.

 

[cbr6fs]

Yup, I wild say that SEXUAL deviancy as prescribed by the masses should be where the law steps in, I do not think being naked is a sexual act in its self. I feel that your reaction of saying you would visit violence on a person just because they are following the same path, just in the opposite direction to you and your family to be abhorrent, perhapse it should be you who should leave the path to so the naked person can pass unharmed and safe.

The problem is, when a line is drawn THAT close to sexual deviancy and social acceptance then it's extremely difficult for the powers that be to regulate those laws.


Right now if a guy walks past a school naked someone would call the cops and he'd be jailed for indecency.

If we take on your opinions (those that are all for it in general) then that safety net is gone.
In that world the person would have to show some just cause of sexual deviancy before they were arrested.

In my world just walking past a school naked should be classed as illegal, i'd vote for that with a smile on my face.


Violence would not be my first an only response.
I would warn him, tell him to step away from my kids or cover up, if he didn't then i'd prepare myself as best a 13 stone 42 year old bloke could to reduce him being risk to my kids.
If he started approaching them and got close enough for me to take violent action then i would try my best to remove the threat.

The outcome is not set in stone, it might well be me that comes to the most harm, i'd certainly try my best to remove the risk though.


Call me a optimist but i don't think there is a court in Europe that'd see me guilty of anything but trying to protect my kids.
Why do i believe that?

Because i believe that the vast vast vast majority of people would see walking round on a public footpath naked as weird at best sexually deviant at worst.

 

[cbr6fs]

If, as you say, you are "pro-repression" - then I do not believe I will be able to convince you to change your position.

I believe (politically at least) individual freedom and liberty to be the very highest ideals. The only function of government in my view is to step in and punish those who violate the freedom of others (by attacking them, stealing from them etc.), thereby enhancing freedom rather than impinging upon it.

Whereas you seem to believe the governments role is to force a value system on society at large, fuelled simply by the belief that it is the right one. It is a common enough view, one largely shared by most politicians.

It is not one I hold.

I think there is a vast difference between "pro-repression" and having logical and sensible laws guarding our kids and population.

You didn't answer my question about the restaurant scenario, would that be acceptable to you?


The problem i see with you opinion (as much as i've seen) is that there HAS to be boundaries.

Couple of questions please:
1/ Do you believe class A drugs (heroin, cocaine etc) should be heavily restricted and/or illegal?
2/ Should convicted paedophiles be restricted from going anywhere near schools?

 

[Retired Member southey]

You keep mentioning schools? What's to stop a true deviant walking past them clothed and getting the same pleasure? Its the behaviour as a whole that should be judged not just one facet of a persona,

But I don't feel there is any way we are going to agree on rights issues. Its been nice chatting, I'm off to bed now

 

[santaman2000]

...
Couple of questions please:...
2/ Should convicted paedophiles be restricted from going anywhere near schools?

They are in Florida (and most states) Restricted from living near schools, playgrounds, nurseries, or generally anywhere kids would congregate. They also have their residences posted on the local sheriff's webpage of sexual offenders.

In reality it's not that fair though. A person can be convicted of pedophelic crimes by having sex with an underaged minor. That means that a teenager (18 years and a few days old) can be convicted for having sex with his longtime girlfriend who is 17 years and 28 days old.

Texas is a bit fairer; they allow it as a positive defense (shifts the burden of proof to the defendent) that he/she is no more than 2 years older than the minor.

The above examples are oversimplified but you get the idea.

 

[cbr6fs]

You keep mentioning schools?

I bought schools into the chat because my main concern with people like the naked rambler guy was the welfare of my kids.

What's to stop a true deviant walking past them clothed and getting the same pleasure?

There are certain types of sexual deviants that get a sexual pleasure from exposing themselves to people.
To them self exposure is not an innocent "human rights" things it's sexual predation.

Think of a flasher that no longer has to wear clothes any more and you get the idea.

Its the behaviour as a whole that should be judged not just one facet of a persona,

That is an extremely naive statement.

People are and should be judged on their actions.
I have known what i consider good honest people make stupid mistakes, mistakes that seemed stupid at the time but had consequences that dramatically affected other peoples lives.
Those people were judged on those mistakes.
Sure their life and value to society was taken into account at sentencing, but still they were convicted on their actions at that precise moment in time, not an average over their lives.

Exactly how it should be, people should be held accountable for their actions and be responsible for their actions.

But I don't feel there is any way we are going to agree on rights issues. Its been nice chatting, I'm off to bed now

Still interesting way to pass a few mins, don't let the bed bugs bite

 

[cbr6fs]

They are in Florida (and most states) Restricted from living near schools, playgrounds, nurseries, or generally anywhere kids would congregate. They also have their residences posted on the local sheriff's webpage of sexual offenders.

In reality it's not that fair though. A person can be convicted of pedophelic crimes by having sex with an underaged minor. That means that a teenager (18 years and a few days old) can be convicted for having sex with his longtime girlfriend who is 17 years and 28 days old.

Texas is a bit fairer; they allow it as a positive defense (shifts the burden of proof to the defendent) that he/she is no more than 2 years older than the minor.

The above examples are oversimplified but you get the idea.

It's extremely difficult to have a system of law in place that's 100% fair.

In the case of the 18 year old having "relations" with his GF that's only a few months younger, sure maybe it may seem a bit harsh that they are not allowed to live near schools.
What's that though 1 in 50?

If it means that 1 in 50 people are kept away from our kids unnecessarily, just to keep the other 49 sexual predators away then i'm happy with that.
Chances are it might be tough for them, especially if they have kids later in life, small price to pay in my book though.


Sure some whinging lawyer that gets rich off the case might harp on about human rights.
But we as a society need to put the rights of a few over the safety of the majority.

That's why we have laws in the first place.

I enjoy speed, but as i'm a socially responsible adult i try not to speed on public roads.
It's not as enjoyable for me to drive or ride within the speed limit but i accept the restrictions put on me as a price to keep the kids safe when they're out near the road.

We ALL make sacrifices in our lives and we all do it because we believe that our sacrifice will do a greater good.

If i have to drive within the speed limit then why shouldn't this guy slip on a pair of shorts?

That's a mild one.
How about a MS sufferer, if they can avoid taking illegal but helpful medication like say cannabis, why can't this guy just slip on a pair of shorts.

It's nothing really and in the whole context of things we as a society are not really asking much are we?

I mean we as tax payers have been paying his dole before he went inside, and we kept him in bed, loggings and food while he was in jail.
So it's not much to ask a guy we've been feeding and keeping to slip on a pair of shorts is it?

 

[santaman2000]

It's extremely difficult to have a system of law in place that's 100% fair.

In the case of the 18 year old having "relations" with his GF that's only a few months younger, sure maybe it may seem a bit harsh that they are not allowed to live near schools.
What's that though 1 in 50?

If it means that 1 in 50 people are kept away from our kids unnecessarily, just to keep the other 49 sexual predators away then i'm happy with that.
Chances are it might be tough for them, especially if they have kids later in life, small price to pay in my book though.


Sure some whinging lawyer that gets rich off the case might harp on about human rights...

Many don't have expensive lawyers but rather one appointed by the court who will accept what the public defender's office will pay.

FWIW, I don't have a great deal of sympathy with the Naked Rambler either. It's just that I wouldn't feel comfortable getting too Draconian in restricting him.

 

[sandbender]

"...This whole business about arresting him, then re-arresting him is government brutality at its worst. If the law says he is a criminal, then the law is wrong..."

Just to clarify, in Scotland it is not an offense to be naked in a public place. There is (as has been mentioned previously) and offense of 'breach of the peace'. This is a catch all offense which allows your police officers to arrest or detain anyone who is causing alarm or distress to the public.

If he wanted to walk on the Cairngorm plateau he'd probably be fine, walking down Perth High Street he'd probably alarm someone, and that is why he was arrested.

The logic of constantly re-arresting him for so many years is perhaps flawed, they have perhaps realised that now, however he will soon cross into region run by Lothian & Borders police and they may decide to lock him up again.

 

[Toddy]

He doesn't keep getting locked up because he's naked, he 'keeps' getting locked up because he will not obey the law.

The first breach of the peace started the ball rolling, but he's the idiot who keeps it in play.........and no, that's not a pun.

Afaik no one has accused him of targeting children or schools; just of being both incredibly rude to the sensibilites of the majority, and thrawn

The sooner he gets himself back home, and stays there, the better.

M

 

[boatman]

Glad he has been released, has the bloke who kept sentencing him resigned in protest or embarrassment at realising what a waste of time and money it has been? One of our children once reported in a loud ringing voice that there were two naked people in Savernake Forest having wandered off a bit but it didn't scar him for life. incidentally I believe that the first breach of the peace was anticipatory rather than real thus his offences have all been in the mind of the police and judiciary.

Breast-feeding was brought up as another instance and I can say where I drew the line on that issue. I ran a library near a Women's protest camp and they frequently came in to check Acts of Parliament etc. I had no problem with breast-feeding on one of our easy chairs but did object to the woman sitting my side of the Enquiry Desk. Made it damn awkward to reach the phone for a start.

I read somewhere an illustration of our twisted morality. To show a pillow being arranged to add to the pleasure of consensual sex would be heavily censored on television but not so if the same pillow is used to stifle someone where it will be accompanied by suitably dramatic music.

 

[andybysea]

Toddy,have to say(with a bit of lightheartedness the first line of your last post sounded a bit judge dread)

''He doesn't keep getting locked up because he's naked, he 'keeps' getting locked up because he will not obey the law''

Having watched a programme about this guy,a good few years ago, i think he'd originally started this particular trip with his Girlfriend of the time(who was also naked but did slighty cover up in certain public places) he did'nt come across as some sort of pervert as some have suggested,more eccentric,and stubborn but in my view harmless to others, if i was walking along with my kids and he walked towards me my kids would say something like ''dad that mans got no clothes on'' to which id say nope bet hes cold or something jokey like that depending on the weather conditions, they have a giggle as kids do and walk on, dont think it would scar them mentally for life.

 

[Retired Member southey]

He walks down a high street and someone gasps in alarm, rings the sheriff, causes a fuss, isn't it themselves and their prudish sensibilities that have caused a breach of the peace? He is just walking, albeit in the buff

 

[Mike Bowler]

for me if it floats his boat let him do it we all know what hangs down there even kids do so leave him

 

[Andy BB]

Ah - the old "human rights" debate. THe fall-back that "I" have human rights to do whatever the heck I want to do, regardless of how it upsets or irritates or discommodes anyone else. Which of course ignores someone elses "human rights" not to be irritated or upset or discommoded.

Which was, of course, why a series of laws and, more informally, "civil behaviour/norms" came about, so that society could continue with as little friction as possible. Over the years, "norms" change, and with it what is considered "acceptable" in society. We are where we are, and this idiot doesn't want to fit in. Which is fair enough if he removes himself from the society whose current "standards" he rejects, but he doesn't. Yet he still expects and demands his rights (the dole - lets face it, his career opportunities are somewhat limited by his decision to go naked, protection by the police from those wanting to give him a good slapping, food in jail etc etc etc) from the society he is clearly out to score points against.

Why does he do it? Mentally unstable, political activist, "flasher" thrill, weird superstitious belief? Dunno. And if I was with my young kids and he appeared walking towards them, I'd certainly make sure I was blocking his physical access to them, precisely because he was acting in an unstable (by current norms) manner - its what parents do. And I'd be astonished if any actual parent said differently - you don't gamble with your kids safety.

 

[Toddy]

My own kids would have giggled and I would have encouraged them just to ignore the poor soul and I'd make damned certain he didn't get near enough to even talk to my children; but the local lads would have given him dog's abuse and aggro. That's breach of the peace, but who's the root cause of that ?........glad I'm no sheriff

Personally I reckon he's an idiot who should get himself home and stay there and give us all peace and quiet..................bet you he doesn't though, he's an exhibitionist whose 'rights' and 'principles' have been 'compromised'

How come 'his' rights and principles should take precedence over those of the majority ?

Do you think if everyone just ignored him, totally, completely blanked him, he'd still do it ? I don't think so.

M

 

[Retired Member southey]

My own kids would have giggled and I would have encouraged them just to ignore the poor soul and I'd make damned certain he didn't get near enough to even talk to my children; but the local lads would have given him dog's abuse and aggro. That's breach of the peace, but who's the root cause of that ?........glad I'm no sheriff

Personally I reckon he's an idiot who should get himself home and stay there and give us all peace and quiet..................bet you he doesn't though, he's an exhibitionist whose 'rights' and 'principles' have been 'compromised'

How come 'his' rights and principles should take precedence over those of the majority ?

Do you think if everyone just ignored him, totally, completely blanked him, he'd still do it ? I don't think so.

M

Schrödinger's Nudist?