All fair enough points Paul. And well taken. Again, I'm not defending him at all. It was just that your earlier post wasn't as well stated as this last one.
Naked Rambler Lock him up or let him roam free?
- Thread starter Jock
- Start date
- Status
From what I've heard and read about this guy, his virtually continuous convictions etc and refusal to make any compromise whatsoever, it seems that he has a mental problem, and its very sad. I have no problems about nudity (other than my own, obviously - there are some things that are better covered up for the good of humanity!), but at the end of the day, he's the one thats suffering from his own irrational behaviour. This is just another form of self-harm, although I gather psychiatric help has been tried unsuccessfully. I hesitate to suggest PTSD, but it seems to have all the classic symptoms.
Laws are laws - if you don't like them, do something to change them. Get 100,000 signatures to get the topic debated in Parliament for example. Start an action group, get on TV (with his background that shouldn't be difficult). This self-inflicted martyrdom is doing no-one any good. The more I think about it, the more tragic it becomes.
Laws are laws - if you don't like them, do something to change them. Get 100,000 signatures to get the topic debated in Parliament for example. Start an action group, get on TV (with his background that shouldn't be difficult). This self-inflicted martyrdom is doing no-one any good. The more I think about it, the more tragic it becomes.
I know. Couldn't be helped as I started it during my lunch at work and had to stop to do something work related before I could finish it so I only got back to it after my lunch. I should have been working so couldn't review it before posting. I'm not a good debater as I do struggle to put my point out there and when rushed come across unclear. I hope the later post (also sneakily done when should have been working, but noone was in the office then) cleared it up ok.
This is a divisive topic in some ways as it is a case of your personal view. People can have totally different views on nakedness and the application of laws relating to it. Also this guy does not do himself any favours I reckon. If one freedom negatively affects your other freedoms (plural) then how sensible is it to go for that freedom so single-minded? Just how important is being naked to him? Couldn't he compromise somehow to avoid conflict? If he was naked in the hills I reckon he'd be OK IF he got dressed when he came off or hit more populated areas. Say if walking through villages and farms in lowland parts of the country wear clothes, if walking in the wilds of Scottish mountains then I'm pretty sure he could be naked as nature made us. He gets his freedom to be naked, fewer people can take offence with it because fewer see him and as a result the police are less likely to be called in. I think it is likely to take more than a few complaints before the police will act on it and in more remote or upland areas like the Lakes, Snowdonia, highlands, etc. then most people there will probably be less likely to complain perhaps. I know plenty of places you can walk even in the Lakes where you might do a whole day's walk and can count the number of people outside your group with one hand. I think he is harming his own interests personally. Also what I have been told about him don't make me feel much good will to him neither.
However it is totally possible that nakedness with some people does have a sexual element. If not then why do you get flashers? You can't know for sure what someone is thinking when he is like this guy is. Something that is innocent if you did it could be less than innocent to another. A flasher is more obviously wrong but an obsessive naturist like this guy is this??? Where is the line on this?
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I find the repeated insinuations that the chap is a pervert on the basis of second hand information is not helping any sort of objective discussion of the original topic. I am absolutely sure that if there were any question of him being guilty of sexual crime he would be charged with more than the comparatively minor charges that see him locked up. I have in the past been involved in civil disobedience on various issues. It can be a very effective tool and was responsible for achieving many of the freedoms we enjoy today, eg women's vote, mass trespass on Kinder Scout etc. I suspect this chap feels he is fighting his cause just like the chaps who went to jail for not wearing crash helmets on motorbikes, or whatever other cause. Should we have told Mandela or Gandhi they should take a less confrontational approach. My personal experience is that police do not cope well with anyone who openly flagrantly disobeys the law in this way and take it as a major personal affront, as such I would take with a pinch of salt the reports of post 66 "he is a creep" "he was not well in the head if you know what I mean""most females who meet him felt uncomfortable in his presence""he's all about the *****!!"
post 72 "It was generally considered that he was a pervert ""he was all about his penis""I think there is a perversion in his actions"
I do find the British attitude to nudity frustrating. I like the fact when I go to Sweden I can get changed on the beach without having to do contortions behind a towel. I like the fact some folk choose not to bother with swimwear and it has no sexual meaning. I also notice that there is a lack of sexually provocative advertising hoardings and that teenage kids do not dress in adult sexualised manner.
Thanks Robin. This post make it easier to express something about law and personal freedom. I have made seemingly contrary posts. One of my earlier posts stated that an individual cain't expect society to conform to him/her but rather he/she would have to conform to society (at least to a minimum standard) or should try to move to another society where they better fit in. He/she would certainly be happier that way than fighting a losing battle trying to convert an unwilling mass.
In a later post I stated that laws are there to protect individuals from being bullied by society. Those two posts probably seem contradictory but I stand by them both. The fact is he does have the freedom to move to Sweden or anywhere else where he might better fit in. And the law protects him from mob retaliation. Instead it would seem that he has deliberately chosen to be a martyr.
You mentioned Gandhi and Mandela. I would add Martin Luther King, Jr. to their ranks but I would hardly compare him to men of their stature. They chose their fates (in MLK's case the result was his death) for a much larger cause. The right to be nude in public is very pale in comparison to the injustices that they struggled against; the right of their people to determine their own fates! Their rights to live as equals! Their very right to be considered as men! It's hardly the same.
Though he did at least excuse himself somewhat by explaining that within the animal kingdom we are all cousins.
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
But why isn't it the same? do you gauge its importance by the amount of people following a cause? why cant you compare him to your three important movement figure heads, he is a human as were\are they, he is standing up for something he belives in as did\do they, he (judging by his unwillingness to stop geting butt nekked) willing to continue to fight his corner in the face of overwhelming opposition and massive negativity from the majority,
robin wood
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
I would totally agree, I was trying to understand his actions and imagined that he felt he was on a similar campaign against unjust laws. The folk who fought crash helmet law, one of whom died in prison were equally passionate about something that really was not that important. I do like this country though, I like it for the fact we have slightly bonkers eccentrics that do this sort of thing and for the way we deal with it coolly calmly by the rule of law. I find his particular case a bit frustrating in the amount of taxpayers dosh it costs to keep him but I am not sure how we could deal with it better.
As someone who tried naturism (to see for myself) for the first time on Studland beach recently it would seem that the line is drawn at a point where nudity becomes sexual. I realise that is a fairly obvious statement, but naturists generally are not naked for any sexual reason whereas one would assume that the flasher is exposing him or herself for reasons of sexual gratification.
As nakedness is intrinsic to sex many people mistakenly (or through their own personal tittiliation) lump the two together, which clearly makes it difficult for the law to distinguish between the two. It always baffles me how uptight us Brits are about the human body, totally different on the continent. It is fairly bizarre that Madame Manacles and myself had to drive 80 miles to reach a beach where we could legally sunbathe without swimsuits.
As an afterthought on naturism, on the day, I found the whole thing rather overrated
The suggestion that he moves to Sweden where they are more accepting of nudity is a red herring. He insists on going naked everywhere, and that would be no more acceptable in Sweden than it is here. Fine in the bush, or at home, or on nudist beaches etc - but in city centres? He would eventually find himself in prison there too.
No, not by the "number" of people following the cause. Rather the comparison of the causes themselves. And to an extent the very make-up of the people. He is being punished for breaking a law as were they. However in their case the law/laws they were breaking had to do with keeping them more or less subjugated as less than full citizens. Further their punishments were far more severe (including beatings) and they were often denied the protection of the law when attacked by mobs. As stated, MLK paid with his life. Gandhi and Mandela faced that same risk whereas he faces prison (relatively short sentences were there not so many) which as has been stated just might be his real goal anyway.
All this injustice not because of something they chose, but simply because of who they were; the color they were born. Something totally beyond their control whereas he has total control over his choices.
Last edited:
Thanks. This statement helps me answer southeys question better as well.
Perhaps he really is making a statement about something he fervently believes in (that debate will continue here I'm sure but for the sake of this answer I'll assume it's the case) But the level of injustice just isn't the same between the Rambler on the one side and Mandela, MLK, & Gandhi on the other. On the first side it's more a matter of being inappropriate and inconvenient whereas the second is truly a case of social injustice.
His cause is not on the same par as ghandi etc now but in 50 years when everyones naked maybe his struggle will be viewed as on par with ghandi etc.
- Status