Naked Rambler Lock him up or let him roam free?
- Thread starter Jock
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
- Status
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
EdS
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
BOD
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I am careful never to do my bushcraft in the nude 
Being a part Finn I do dash into rivers without anything on though
Being a part Finn I do dash into rivers without anything on though
Afaik this fellow's the only one 
The veil thing is I 'think' more cultural than religious.
The biggest issue for most people is that we are expressive creatures. Our facial expressions are as much a part of humanity as speech. By covering their faces they become, for the most part, not only unrecognisible, but uncommunicative.
My brother lives in Australia; he and his children cover up almost all the time, his youngest daughter is as fair and inclined to freckle as I am
Skinny dipping is a right of passage in a country with thousands of lochs
cheers,
Toddy
The veil thing is I 'think' more cultural than religious.
The biggest issue for most people is that we are expressive creatures. Our facial expressions are as much a part of humanity as speech. By covering their faces they become, for the most part, not only unrecognisible, but uncommunicative.
My brother lives in Australia; he and his children cover up almost all the time, his youngest daughter is as fair and inclined to freckle as I am
Skinny dipping is a right of passage in a country with thousands of lochs
cheers,
Toddy
Sorry if anything I say here has been said before but I haven't time to read it all now but I do know a little of this guy that is worth knowing. First off he has so many breaches of peace and other things yet to be served against him that when he leaves prison he could be re-arrested and sent straight back. The other thing is he is a creep. I have been reliably informed by people who have professionally met him who were uncomfortable being around with him. There was a feeling he was not well in the head if you know what I mean. Also the way he sat there naked implied it was all about a certain part of his anatomy. Reading between the lines the opinion of people who have met or dealt with him is he's a pervert. And finally he has quite some female fans surprisingly since I've heard that most females who meet him felt uncomfortable in his presence. There are natural gaits and ways of standing / sitting and there are unnatural ones that emphasise parts of your naked anatomy if you get my meaning (he's all about the *****!!).
If anyone says that they have no problem with him being naked if he wants to and all that about free will they should know that I agree with free will if it doesn't affect others negatively. What he is doing is not quite as harmless as free will from what I have heard from a few different and independent sources.
If anyone says that they have no problem with him being naked if he wants to and all that about free will they should know that I agree with free will if it doesn't affect others negatively. What he is doing is not quite as harmless as free will from what I have heard from a few different and independent sources.
my sister lives in fort william and goes out a lot hill walking with her daughter they went to a place called the lower falls its always busy with people she went down to the water and there was a guy lying on some rocks in the buff when he seen
my sister and her daughter he got up and walked over to his clothes, my sister thought he was going to cover up as there was kids around....nope he put on a hat!!....lol...they couldnt stop laughing....haha
my sister and her daughter he got up and walked over to his clothes, my sister thought he was going to cover up as there was kids around....nope he put on a hat!!....lol...they couldnt stop laughing....haha
Only in this case it was the opinions of police officers who were around the station when he was arrested (one was involved in the arrest IIRC) and without going into details (which they couldn't) it was quite clearly implied that his focus was inappropriate. It was generally considered that he was a pervert who's attentions were inappropriate (in the opinions of the female officers he came into contact with and male colleagues too). One phrase I heard was that he was all about his penis. Now perhaps that counts as not being ok in the head or not I really don't know but his behaviour was offensive to a lot of people and is not generally considered as acceptable to society as a whole. Freedoms are well and good but this guy is not completely about freedoms and should not be considered as such. He does and will continue to make people uncomfortable in his naked presence and that is not fair IMHO. Whilst I have never met him I do know these people who have and trust them in their opinions on people. If what they have clearly implied and said to me is true then I think there is a perversion in his actions and I don't believe you should be free to follow your perversions in public if that negatively affects others like his does. And before anyone goes into the argument about being a naturist not being a perversion I agree it is not, but it is how you behave when naked than can allow the interpretation of perversion.
Mate I haven't met the guy and I doubt you have neither but the people I know who have said it was him that was about it. Do I have to spell it out he posed and sat in a way that gave it prominence, he liked seeing women in particular reacting to him (often in disgust) and generally was outside of the behaviour most in society as a whole would accept and I'm sure the naturist component of society would agree with that if they knew the guy.
I appreciate personal freedom is important to you but we are all a component of society and have to comply to at least part of it's conventions to get on. IMHO one's personal freedoms should not interfere with others. In addition to that it is not a freedom being exercised if it causes excessive offence but something else. If one man is enjoying his freedom but others find it offensive or are put out in some way by that freedom then one side has to lose. Is it the one or the many? What is important to a society defines the rules. The rules defines the laws. The laws are what this guy ends up in trouble over. If you see this as a test case for naturist rights and freedoms then personally I think you have a questionable character at the heart of it and I'd look elsewhere to make naturism more acceptable to society as a whole than this guy.
I appreciate personal freedom is important to you but we are all a component of society and have to comply to at least part of it's conventions to get on. IMHO one's personal freedoms should not interfere with others. In addition to that it is not a freedom being exercised if it causes excessive offence but something else. If one man is enjoying his freedom but others find it offensive or are put out in some way by that freedom then one side has to lose. Is it the one or the many? What is important to a society defines the rules. The rules defines the laws. The laws are what this guy ends up in trouble over. If you see this as a test case for naturist rights and freedoms then personally I think you have a questionable character at the heart of it and I'd look elsewhere to make naturism more acceptable to society as a whole than this guy.
Hang on, when did this become about me wanting a test case for nudist\naturist\nekd dudes rights? im more interested in how a group inforces its view of whats wrong onto another group, and weather that is the right thing to do in all cases the two groups being one generation and the next, don't get defensive because im asking questions, stories from a mate often have there own feelings enhanced for the purposes of story telling, this includes police, did he just sit with his legs open, or was he on a table emulating a helicopter, theres a difference, was it that he was totally at ease with being naked in other peoples company or was he pushing up against the female officers, in which case he would be charged with sexual assault not just breach of the peace, Im only asking, im not arguing or trying anything on,
First let me say that I'm not defending what he's doing. His motives are definitely unclear and in any case his actions (in a public venue) probably not acceptable to most of us. Certainly they're not acceptable to me.
But having said that, it must be remembered that in society such as we in the Western world are accustomed to, laws exist for a dual purpose. First as you infer, to protect the majority from harm by individuals; but also to protect individuals from harm (through prejudice or whatever) by society at large.
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I have met the guy, he spent 2 days in our village about 4 years ago when doing the Lands end to John O Groats walk. There was certainly no penis fixation, he acted exactly as a normal clothed person would, relaxed, chatty. He stopped and talked about some oak benches I had outside the workshop as folk do. I can imagine his manner may have changed when confronted by folk there to enforce laws he does not agree with.
I remember taking a walk in the woods around Cheltenham ten or so years ago. It was a chilly day and rightly so I was wearing my three layers plus windproof.
All of a sudden, I spotted a guy coming towards me, completely naked but for a small nutsak erm.... rucksak. He walked straight past me and kept on going. Apart from some shrivelling he seemed oblivious to the cold.
It didn't bother me in the least. If I had children with me it would not bother me, they would have giggled.
All of a sudden, I spotted a guy coming towards me, completely naked but for a small nutsak erm.... rucksak. He walked straight past me and kept on going. Apart from some shrivelling he seemed oblivious to the cold.
It didn't bother me in the least. If I had children with me it would not bother me, they would have giggled.
First off Southey, I re-read what I typed in that last paragraph it does sound like I was meaning you about test case. It came out wrong. I meant from different sources I got told that he came across the way I described above and as such that meant he was not a good case to promote naturism. I never meant it as you directly however when he was arrested and taken to the station people I know are based he had a group of people with him who were in various states nakedness who were supporting what they saw as a person campaigning for acceptance of naturism. It is the likes of those and anyone else who believes people should have the freedom to be in public naked if they wish. I tend to agree with my friends in their assessment that he was not of a good character to promote anything. Didn't mean to direct that bit directly at you. Was posting at work and had no opportunity to re-read and correct it before posting.
As far as what he was like I can't remember the exact words my friends used to describe the contact they had with him but I do remember the general feeling and that was of pervert. They are actually quite liberal types who have no problem with naturism but they all got the same impression about him that he was a creep and was not really behaving in an acceptable manner. The naturism was not the issue with him they had but it was something about him. In fact they told me that the coppers there really didn't want to arrest him and his friends. Whilst they were in the hills walking they told me they could see no problem. Even round the villages there. However they had complaints from many people and that meant the arrests (and the paperwork too which was another reason they had to not stop them). From what I heard the rest of the group put their clothes back on when they caused offence he was less inclined to do so. IIRC he was later released and continued on his walk later.
Robin - Perhaps authority could have changed his manner but it wasn't that he wasn't a sociable kind of guy who happened to be naked or his attitude to authority that put them off him. I'm only commenting on the impression people who have met him had. That impression did involve the feeling that he was pleased with his anatomy and I think in our probably over prudish country people would find their eyes drawn to the parts we keep covered in public. It was that he noticed that and a sense of pleasure in that was detected. I don't know if he's always like that was always like that or became like that. I don't know what effect the situation he got into affected his behaviour. All I was commenting on is that the people who met him that I knew independently came to a negative opinion on him and his behaviour.
Santaman - Agree with you about laws protecting all, individuals and majority equally. But with this guy the law has come down so many times against this individual. it must be obvious that he has lost his argument enough times to suggest that his actions won't be protected by law as it is not acceptable to the law and to others. The law is carried out by police, CPS and the rest of the judicial system which determines if laws have been breached and prosecutes accordingly without prejudice (well you have to assume that). It has to be said that the law has been used by these institutions in the public interest to incarcerate this guy numerous times. As far as laws protecting majority and individuals it is true but who makes the laws in the first place? Lawmakers representing society, politicians. The laws are not totally blind, there is an element of majority interest involved over individual interest I'd wager. Perhaps that is being cynical.
As far as what he was like I can't remember the exact words my friends used to describe the contact they had with him but I do remember the general feeling and that was of pervert. They are actually quite liberal types who have no problem with naturism but they all got the same impression about him that he was a creep and was not really behaving in an acceptable manner. The naturism was not the issue with him they had but it was something about him. In fact they told me that the coppers there really didn't want to arrest him and his friends. Whilst they were in the hills walking they told me they could see no problem. Even round the villages there. However they had complaints from many people and that meant the arrests (and the paperwork too which was another reason they had to not stop them). From what I heard the rest of the group put their clothes back on when they caused offence he was less inclined to do so. IIRC he was later released and continued on his walk later.
Robin - Perhaps authority could have changed his manner but it wasn't that he wasn't a sociable kind of guy who happened to be naked or his attitude to authority that put them off him. I'm only commenting on the impression people who have met him had. That impression did involve the feeling that he was pleased with his anatomy and I think in our probably over prudish country people would find their eyes drawn to the parts we keep covered in public. It was that he noticed that and a sense of pleasure in that was detected. I don't know if he's always like that was always like that or became like that. I don't know what effect the situation he got into affected his behaviour. All I was commenting on is that the people who met him that I knew independently came to a negative opinion on him and his behaviour.
Santaman - Agree with you about laws protecting all, individuals and majority equally. But with this guy the law has come down so many times against this individual. it must be obvious that he has lost his argument enough times to suggest that his actions won't be protected by law as it is not acceptable to the law and to others. The law is carried out by police, CPS and the rest of the judicial system which determines if laws have been breached and prosecutes accordingly without prejudice (well you have to assume that). It has to be said that the law has been used by these institutions in the public interest to incarcerate this guy numerous times. As far as laws protecting majority and individuals it is true but who makes the laws in the first place? Lawmakers representing society, politicians. The laws are not totally blind, there is an element of majority interest involved over individual interest I'd wager. Perhaps that is being cynical.
- Status