I do feel that I have lost track of how many times Steve has been arrested, on what charges, and appeared in court and been released into captivity. Is there a reasonably detailed history somewhere? I'm sure I linked to a Facebook page a litle while ago but I can't find it now, maybe it's been deleted in the way of Facebook and anything to do with nudity.

Cheers,
nib

I'm always willing to consider an alternative perspective. Indeed, I have one of my own which I will now put forward.

If SG, or any defendant in any case, appeared in court wearing a clown outfit and makeup (perfectly legal apparel everywhere) the outcome would be the same. The court would reasonably conclude he was taking the mickey.

It is also perfectly legal to address people as "mate". I'm sure we've all been called mate many a time by people we've never met before. But address the judge that way and you'll find yourself in trouble.

What is perfectly legal is often not acceptable. And in the courtroom, acceptability is determined by the judge or magistrate.

I'm not sure that's true, but it is also immaterial since, unless the original charge related to being dressed as a clown, there is no inherent prejudgement of the case in barring the wearing of a clown outfit. The problem in this case is that the nudity for which he was originally charged was not eventually held to have been a criminal act (I'm struggling to find the details at present but I believe that the charge was dismissed on appeal), however SG has been imprisoned on sequential contempt and breach of the peace charges.

I certainly find it hard to believe that any judge would lock a defendant up for wearing a clown outfit, much less for referring to the judge as "mate". (A barrister who called the judge "mate" might reasonably expect to be reminded of the correct form of address and chastised for failing to use it, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.)

While I agree that what is acceptable in a courtroom is determined by the judge (less true of magistrates, who are not usually legally qualified but have legal advice available from the Clerk) their decisions have to stand up to scrutiny if appealed against. The clown example would probably be held as bringing the judicial system into disrepute. I do not believe that the pre-judgement of SG's case has been raised in an appeal by an experienced QC as SG has apparently turned down representation. (Don't ask me why he turned down legal help as I can't answer that; I simply do not know.)

Have fun,

Ian.

I do feel that I have lost track of how many times Steve has been arrested, on what charges, and appeared in court and been released into captivity. Is there a reasonably detailed history somewhere? I'm sure I linked to a Facebook page a litle while ago but I can't find it now, maybe it's been deleted in the way of Facebook and anything to do with nudity.

Cheers,
nib

I was looking for a definitive timeline the other day and could not find one. I have put a post on the Nakedwalk yahoo group that was set up to follow Steve's progress and will see if anyone there can point us in the right direction. If I get an answer I will post it here.

Have fun,

Ian.

Thought this might help (it seems he has an official websi); how it is kepto upto date while he is banged up though I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

If SG, or any defendant in any case, appeared in court wearing a clown outfit and makeup (perfectly legal apparel everywhere) the outcome would be the same. The court would reasonably conclude he was taking the mickey.

Another thought that just occurred to me is that had the clown outfit been the reason for the initial arrest it would also be the single most important piece of physical evidence in the case. The court would not be able to prevent it being introduced as evidence if the decency or other characteristics of the outfit were the subject of the case. In SG's case, his outfit was precisely what he tried to wear in court...

Just thinking out loud.

Have fun,

Ian.

Thought this might help (it seems he has an official websi); how it is kepto upto date while he is banged up though I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

Thanks. I had found that, but it is very incomplete (hence the "stub" designation applied by Wikipedia).

I will continue my attempt to compile a definitive timeline of the second Lands End to John O'Groats walk and the subsequent legal shenanigans. I have had an offer of files from Bob Janes (H&E Staff Writer who followed the case until he retired in 2009) and have contacted a couple of other SG friends and assistants for more up to date information. There is also a Scottish legal website that has been following the case, if I can find it again (unfortunately I lost all my bookmarks in a catastrophic system failure a few months ago, they were the one thing I could not restore successfully from my backups).

Have fun,

Ian.

Edited to close a bracketed comment - Ian.

While i support SG in many ways, I do feel he is his own worst enemy, in my opinion he should have taken the legal assistance offered, however i'm not SG & only he can decide on his actions. I hope there is a successful outcome to it all but i'm not holding my breath.

Does anyone know what he's actually trying to achieve?

He seems to have been arrested for being naked outside the prison but it never gets decided as to whether that's illegal in itself or not, or when being naked actually counts as a breach of the peace or any of the legal points I'd like to see clarified.

But no, he goes to prison for contempt of court and the "real" issues (IMO) go unclarified. He goes to court naked in the full knowledge he'll be jailed for it. Why? Is he campaigning for the right to wear whatever you want in court?

Steve

Does anyone know what he's actually trying to achieve?

He seems to have been arrested for being naked outside the prison but it never gets decided as to whether that's illegal in itself or not, or when being naked actually counts as a breach of the peace or any of the legal points I'd like to see clarified.

But no, he goes to prison for contempt of court and the "real" issues (IMO) go unclarified. He goes to court naked in the full knowledge he'll be jailed for it. Why? Is he campaigning for the right to wear whatever you want in court?

Steve

From my earlier post, you'll see that I support his cause, which seems to be that of leading society to a point when public nakedness becomes unremarkable, if not commonplace (British - particularly Scottish - weather is too cold for that). I'm sure many of us here would say yes to that idea.

However, I have to agree with you that he seems to be his own worst enemy and is not getting nearly enough general publicity to achieve any kind of objective at all.

In his position, I would give in to the court's demands in order to regain my freedom and march out of Scotland in a blaze of publicity, dressed in the most outrageously silly cover-all clothing I could muster. Then, safely in exile in a marginally more just country (England), I would mercilessly attack the Scottish judicial system until people sat up and took notice.

Are you reading this, Steve?

Thought this might help (it seems he has an official websi); how it is kepto upto date while he is banged up though I am not sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough

Thanks. I had found that, but it is very incomplete (hence the "stub" designation applied by Wikipedia).

I will continue my attempt to compile a definitive timeline of the second Lands End to John O'Groats walk and the subsequent legal shenanigans. I have had an offer of files from Bob Janes (H&E Staff Writer who followed the case until he retired in 2009) and have contacted a couple of other SG friends and assistants for more up to date information. There is also a Scottish legal website that has been following the case, if I can find it again (unfortunately I lost all my bookmarks in a catastrophic system failure a few months ago, they were the one thing I could not restore successfully from my backups).

Have fun,

Ian.

Edited to close a bracketed comment - Ian.

I have had the same problem with losing my favourites.  If you use Mozilla Firefox as your browser there is the option to save your favourites.  Which is very useful, this facility may also be available on other browsers, but I don't use them so can't comment.

Steve Gough certainly raises the hackles of us all. His approach is far more likely to gain attention, and possibly produce changes in the status quo-Milfmog quote. So by that effect he has done good for the cause. He has us talking as a unified group against a common enemy. Support him or do not support him, he has made a mark on society. He is a history which I cannot lay claim to. His Lands End to John O Groats walks have been immortalised at Lands End on a plaque and he still incites debate.

Oh! should I die, before I  can also raise my flag to that claim!Proud to be called a dickhead , not for the intended insult, but I take it as a compliment that I support Steve Gough.

that bloke is a total dickhead & so are others that support him he helps no-one and only serve's to get us all labeled as perverts

Calling Steve Gough and others dickheads shows lack of respect for yourself and others. Others will not respect you for such opinions so by your own words you are judged.

If you feel that you will be labelled as a pervert because of Steve Gough's activities I feel you have a very low opinion of yourself. I do no fear that the general public considers Steve Gough a pervert but an eccentric. Naturism is classed as the ultimate eccentricity.

As long as you persist in placing a sexual agenda where there is none, you do yourself and other naturists no favours.

He has us talking as a unified group against a common enemy.

From what I have read on this forum, far from having us talking as a unified group, he has created deep division and aroused great hostility, most of it against him.

And who exactly are "the enemy" meant to be? Is that really how you think of those who would rather we wore clothes?

"From what I have read on this forum, far from having us talking as a unified group,he has created deep division and aroused great hostility, most of it against him."

i dont think that is the situation at all. theres very few that have posted  hostile reactions either to sg himself or other members.

never having met the bloke, im reluctant to jump to conclusions about him, what we read in the press is probably the usual drivel based on the reporters imagination as much as fact. the headlines never make it clear to the masses who dont read the small print why hes been locked up again.

i dont think theres many of the general public that think hes a typical naturist so hes neither helping or hindering "our cause" whatever that may be

When SG did his last LEJOG walk, with his girlfriend, Mel, there was a short documentary of the trip on TV. I videoed it at the time but have since lost the recording. From what I recall, SG came across as quite ordinary and sane, just with a bee in his bonnet about having the freedom to go naked if he wanted, which seemed no more of a bee than the average train spotter or computer geek has about his hobby. In the course of the programme the cameras followed him through a large chunk of England, showed him going into supermarkets and village shops and evincing no more than smiles and the occasional titter from onlookers - debatable whether the presence of a naked Mel and/or the cameras had any influence on that. Only one adverse reaction was shown, when a walker at, I think, a coastal site took exception and gave angry chase, though they seem to have vented their anger at the camera rather than Steve, leading to some whirling film of sky/grass/bushes/sky!!

My recollection of SG's overall experience is that on his first (solo) LEJOG walk he had a few run ins with the law through England, and on one occasion was beaten up, then had trouble in Scotland which somehow was eventually resolved, allowing him to finish his walk, arriving in John O'Groats in the fog. The second trip, with Mel, was pretty well uninterrupted through England, but came to a grinding halt in Scotland where he's been stuck ever since.

As an aside, before his first walk he was due to be interviewed by John Peel on his Saturday morning Radio 4 show (Home Truths). SG apparently managed to negotiate Plymouth without clothes, but was refused access to the studio by a BBC doorman who wouldn't let him in naked.

Ian - a timeline for SG's court record can probably be gleaned from the local paper's archive as they seem to have reported all his appearances, including at least one comment piece on the spiralling cost of trying and imprisoning him.

Peter