Toggle sidebar

Naked Rambler Lock him up or let him roam free?

  • Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem has become, "Does the law stand, or can it be varied?"
If it's the latter, then send the blighter in a panelled van back home...........but will he stay there ? because on his past record he decided to do it all a second time because he felt he'd compromised his principles...........then it becomes who's principles ?

It's all very stupid.
From it's earliest illustrations, humanity has never gone 'naked', there's always been some form of socially acceptable personal adornment. In our present society that adornment means appropriate clothing at appropriate time and place.

I agree, if he'd live in peace in tipi glen, fine, but I suspect he'd consider that also a breach of his principles :sigh:

All he has to do is be clothed long enough to get out of the jail and back home. He says he won't do that, even though he won't go naked once he is back home.........he said he won't need to. So it's only about him proving a point.
One wonders what point he's trying to prove now ?
He's only kept seperate from others because he won't put clothes on. Instead everyone in the prison has to work around
'his' need to be naked and safe.
He shouldn't be there, but he is, and he constantly gets himself put back there.
Basically he's using society's courtesy against it and in doing so he's masochistically ruining his own life to no good purpose.

Life's too short :sigh:
cheers,
Mary
 
Last edited:
They should have let the idiot out at the last Winter Solstice.....he said he wears clothes at night; fine then let him walk naked for the shortest bit of the days and get out of folks way and away back home to England.........where he says he won't go naked ever again :rolleyes:
I'm sceptical, and I'll believe it only when he no longer courts controversy.

Toddy
 
I believe if he wipes the juice of some of the hotter chillis on himself - every little area of skin, it may act as a cure for the irritating little blighter ;)

(it won't do a thing for midges though....and don't try this at home!)
 
How is being naked courting controversy?

He just wants to right to wear what he wants. Why should there be a law saying the sight of the human body is so offensive it outrages public decency. Bugging murder victims voice mails, price fixing petrol to the point of extortion, top coppers using super injunctions to cover what happened a party, bankers conduct etc, is far more offensive and no-one ever gets charged or risks spending a decade in prison for.
 
xylaria said:
How is being naked courting controversy?

He just wants to right to wear what he wants. Why should there be a law saying the sight of the human body is so offensive it outrages public decency...
Click to expand...

I think you may have answered your own question here. It doesn't outrage public decency because there's a law; rather there's a law because it outrages public deceny.
 
It's simple; he offends too many people.

As a nation, we do not go naked in public. When someone does it causes controversy, public annoyance, nuisance, breach of the peace.

He refuses to put clothes on except under 'his' conditions, and (insert sweary words of choice) to everyone else.

Those who have met him seriously think he has egotistical issues.

Personally I think he needs to get over himself and stop being a damned nuisance. It's not just his world/country. It has to be shared with a lot of people, and his behaviour disturbs a lot of them.


In Scots law, breach of the peace is...(quickly quoted from Wikipedia)
The Scots Law definition of a breach of the peace is "conduct severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people and threaten serious disturbance to the community.[SUP][9][/SUP]"
A constable may arrest any person, without warrant, who commits a breach of the peace. A member of the public may not arrest a person for behaviour which amounts to no more than a breach of the peace (i.e. an arrest is not always for the offence for which someone is eventually prosecuted but can be for a more serious crime that appears to be occurring).
Breach of the peace can include, but is not limited to, any riotous behaviours (which includes 'rowdiness' or 'brawling') and any disorderly behaviour. This behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include 'Peeping Tom'-type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

Basically, he's an iijit :rolleyes:

M
 
Can't say as anyone that knows me could call me a prude, but it's not right that folks can walk around naked.
If they want to do that there are camps and beaches around the world.

If i was out walking with the kids and he walked by then he'd be knocked into the next field.

It's not hygienic and it's not socially acceptable in the UK.
 
I am all for freedom, but tolerance extends in both directions, I don't see what is so difficult about putting a pair of shorts on, or even a loin cloth a la Tarzan when it is obvious that his dangly bits are offending other people.
 
You would use physical violence to oppress another humans rights infront of your children?

cbr6fs said:
Can't say as anyone that knows me could call me a prude, but it's not right that folks can walk around naked.
If they want to do that there are camps and beaches around the world.

If i was out walking with the kids and he walked by then he'd be knocked into the next field.

It's not hygienic and it's not socially acceptable in the UK.
Click to expand...
 
southey said:
You would use physical violence to oppress another humans rights infront of your children?
Click to expand...

Sorry if i did not make myself clear.


If a naked bloke walked towards my 11 year old kids while we were out hiking in a public area and continued towards them after not heeding my warnings then i would physically assault him, yes.

The guy obviously has serious mental health issues, so to allow someone like that near my kids would be a dereliction of my responsibilities as a parent.


He has absolutely no social or moral right to walk around naked, it's unhygienic and unacceptable in our society.


With regards to the "human rights"crap.
I like to shoot guns and drive fast.
As a responsible adult i do not carry out these hobbies on public roads or on public land, only an idiot or a lawyer likely to get rich would change that to be having my human right curtailed.

There are millions of things that we cannot morally do if we have a ounce of social responsibility, so for anyone to hark on about this guys "human rights" tough ****.

He has a right to walk around home naked, he has absolutely no right to waggle his penis around anywhere near my kids.
 
The naked rambler does not offend me, nor I suspect would he offend my children. They'd probably think him a bit odd wandering down the street starkers. He might even elicit a giggle. But they wouldn't be scarred for life or anything like that.

I have 4 children aged from 7 years to 6 months. While I don't strut around nude, the kids walk in on me changing often enough to know what a naked man looks like.

The nudity is not the problem. The problem is (as always) the intent behind his actions. And I do not believe he has any ill intent.

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.
 
Last edited:
southey said:
Has he waggled his penis at childdren?
Click to expand...

Could you please point our where i said he did?


Although logically speaking if he was walking towards my kids naked then unless he's not much of a man and it's a cold day things are going to waggle.
Just basic physics.


Absolutely no idea if you enjoy seeing naked blokes walk towards you.
If you do then all the power to you, not my cuppa but as long as you carry out you preferences behind closed doors and your not hurting anyone good on ya for having he balls to come out.


It does strike me as odd that you think it's ok to let grown bottom naked blokes to approach young children when out on a public footpath though.
Just to clarify your opinion here, if a naked bloke walked towards you, and you had young kids with you then you'd happily let him approach them?

For me he can bitch and moan about his human rights right after he's regained conciousness and my kids are out the way.
 
Last edited:
Wook said:
The problem is (as always) the intent behind his actions. And I do not believe he has any ill intent.
Click to expand...

And who knows his intent.

For me my first priority is my kids, if there is a small chance of a mentally ill person like him bringing harm to them then i simply will not take a even a 1% chance.

As a say he can argue about his human rights after i've got my kids away.
 
You said he had no right to waggle his penis around anywhere near your kids, as far as I can gather he is protesting his right to not wear clothes, not to waggle his penis. It has very different connotations, and your efforts to be insulting just because you have been questioned are very funny :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE
Top Bottom