On his next release, perhaps the police could helpfully put him in a van, drive him across the border and release him in England. As Mr. Gough lives in Hampshire this would then become an English problem, and we could then decide if continued expense is worthwhile. Scottish fiscal problem solved, which appears to be their only concern in this report.

Of course, I suppose there's nothing to stop him walking back across the border, nude naturally.

In reality, this won't have cost the taxpayer anything like £500K. As ever, people can use statistics however they like, but if he was released, the prison will still be there, the guards still employed, etc. & all that is included in that figure.

I have some sympathy for his point of view & sort of respect anybody who has the strength of character to stand up to the system when it is so obviously intransigent. However, I don't think he is really doing the cause of naturism any particular good right now & is really just enforcing the idea that it's a domain of oddballs.

Sadly, I think this case is no longer about the rights of naturists, but about the needs of Stephen Gough. He could potentially achieve a great deal rather than simply bouncing himself off an immovable legal system.

Expenses are always a fluid statement. As one says a prison has intrinsic costs regardless of being occupied or not and judges and police still have to be paid. These should be classed as extrinsic costs and the only costs that should be quoted are costs that are specifically made by Steve. Perhaps food. Remember that he will not be costing the public anything by being in jail because they will not pay the police to chase him! Offset is the lack of taxes he pays to support said police.
I send him a Christmas card and so support the post office. A cost not factored if he was in Hampshire!
[smiley=angelwings.gif]. My electricity bill for this post could be factored in  😉

I do not justify the good or bad he does to the naturist cause but how unjust that someone should be incarcerated for non sexual nudity.

My penis teaches yoga while attached to my body: my body teaches yoga and it has a penis. The presence or absence of clothes makes no difference. Is the first statement illegal and the second statement legal? Are they not the same? Actually the mind teaches yoga but when one part suffers the whole part suffers. The penis is part of my mind and my mind controls my penis so the above statements work.  😀

On his next release, perhaps the police could helpfully put him in a van, drive him across the border and release him in England.

I agree repatriation is the answer, I wonder why they have not done it before now. As for him wanting to ramble naked, well other people seem to manage it without ending up in the nick.  But that would mean having to change his confrontational attitude.

It has already been suggested to Steve that his friends would collect him from outside the prison walls and move him to uk soil; he has declined this option. He exists for the confrontation.

Naturist rambling takes place without the result of arrest but walks a fine line. I personally walk in the countryside without the risk of being seen by the textile public and would not dream of walking through towns (apart from when on the WNBR). The odd walker met on our walks is easily given a wide berth. When one is naked one does not threaten when in a cow-field but adjacent to a textile in Tescos is likely to feel more threatening. 😎

The immovable object meeting the unstoppable force. It all seems so sad. An inflexible legal situation meeting a stubbon individual. It seems a grotesque penalty for contempt of court and of course the longer it goes on the more "loss of face" becomes important to the players.

Perhaps they could move him to another prison near John O Groats and let him finish his wretched walk after I suppose completion of sentence! It needs a win-win solution.

Davie  😎

The immovable object meeting the unstoppable force. It all seems so sad. An inflexible legal situation meeting a stubbon individual. It seems a grotesque penalty for contempt of court and of course the longer it goes on the more "loss of face" becomes important to the players.

Perhaps they could move him to another prison near John O Groats and let him finish his wretched walk after I suppose completion of sentence! It needs a win-win solution.

Davie  😎

It's not a matter of completing his walk - he has completed the walk twice. The current incarcerations appear to have followed his stripping on a flight from Southampton to Edinburgh in May 2006 and refusing to dress again. What I'm not quite sure about is how come he went from Edinburgh, where the authorities seemed to have some sense, to Perth, where they seem not to. In Edinburgh in April 2007

The ruling judge, Isobel Poole, found that there was no evidence of "actual alarm or disturbance", adding "I can understand this conduct could be considered unpleasant to passers-by had there been any but there is a lack of evidence to that effect." Gough lost his appeal against contempt of court convictions for refusing to wear clothes during his trial.

By June 2009 he was facing Sheriff MacFarlane in Perth.

Cheers,
nib

How about next time he's released, the guards, Police & any other interested party fix a meeting or arrange a conference so that they can just sort of not notice?

In these circumstances, the punishment clearly does not fit the crime & it's obvious he isn't going to give in, so it should be incumbent upon those with power to find a solution to find one.

But then why would I ever expect state & legal system to show common sense?

I can't see how he would apply article 8 of the human rights to his situation.  I'm not sure how he thinks being naked in public has anything to do with his private life or family.  I would have thought article 9 could be used more effectively.

We all know that being naked in England isn't illegal but how many times have we seen articles about naked people being arrested?    How many articles have you read about people being arrested for wearing clothes? 

There are numerous postings about walking naked on here.  How many discuss going to quiet places and covering up for approaching textiles?  Perhaps it's time the approaching textiles took their clothes off so they don't offend the approaching naturists.

History is littered with people who have taken a more aggressive approach to stand up for their rights.  If the Suffragettes hadn't be a thorn in the side of the authorities would women have the vote now?  Steve Gough is sticking to his guns and taking a stand for his rights.  I'm not sure I agree with the way he is doing it but I can't help but admire his strength of character to stand firm.

I really like this quote which agrees with my belief in the balance of life.
How many discuss going to quiet places and covering up for approaching textiles?  Perhaps it's time the approaching textiles took their clothes off so they don't offend the approaching naturists.
Religion allows offence to be given without justification. One has freedom of religious expression. Religion has been called belief. Freedom of expression has also been extended to belief in 'being naked' (?)

For example: Thou shalt not kill. One of the commandments. If you blaspheme God and God tells you to kill the offender you will be acting with divine intent. The court of law dare not go against the will of God. This argument is used by Holy warriors. If  I kill someone without that belief I am committing a sin (??). There is a case on the web of a girl wearing a t- shirt with 'homosexuals will go to hell' (approx) and the school banned it. The mother claimed 'freedom of religious expression'. I am unsure of the outcome.

I claim that Steve is my religious guru and as such claim religious persecution. He stands for the belief that the nude human body is not offensive. Please.... ::)

Losing face is a childish excuse and calls to mind the theory of 'pride of life' which is a sin. Only people who have lost the moral high ground use this excuse. IMHO. The majority of mature people will view the courts backing down as saving money not loss of face (perhaps?) :-/

but the court mustnt back down just because one man wont obey them....if they did every one would ignire them and the rule of law would and society as we know it would cease to exist. 

were already seein this with " travellers or pikeys" or whatever they call themselves..... ignorinig any law that dont suit them.... drivin round in untaxed, uninsured deathtraps.... ignoring plannin law, pinching anythin that aint bolted down..... yet happy to use the court of apeal when it suits them..... by and large plod ignores their continued law breakin cos they just dont take any notice of the courts and the rest of us suffer their attentions in silence cos the moment we get the shotgun out plod arrives ignores the illegal transit full of my goods and chatels and has a hissy fit over my legally held shotgun.....

you either work with (and arround) the law or end up with anarchy... which we aint far from in some places

I claim that Steve is my religious guru and as such claim religious persecution.

In that case you are covered by article 9 of the European Human Rights Convention.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

but the court mustnt back down just because one man wont obey them....if they did every one would ignire them and the rule of law would and society as we know it would cease to exist. 

How many people break the speed limit when driving or use a mobile phone when driving?  People deem laws as insignificant because they aren't important to them or they are just inconvenient.  Ask the parent of a child who has been killed by a speeding motorist if speeding laws are important. Society as you know it is full of people who ignore the law.  Our perfect society isn't that perfect.

If being naked isn't illegal why has he been in prison?  Because they have charged him with a breach of the peace and now contempt of court.  He was instructed to wear clothes in court and not to be naked before the court case.  Has anyone else been instructed how to dress in or out of court?  Will jeans be outlawed.  Will red dresses be banned by conservative judges?  The fashion police really are alive and kicking. 

If it wasn't for similar protest action in England we wouldn't have the freedom we now have to be naked in public.  If someone hadn't had the courage to protest, end up in court and refuse to dress, the courts wouldn't have been forced to address the subject and give a ruling to clarify the situation. The government wouldn't have then tried to introduce the new sex offences act.  After much badgering naturism was specifically excluded from the act.  We would still be in the same situation the Scottish legal system is in now if people hadn't chosen to go up against the legal system.

Every person has the right to protest against anything they see as unjust.  It doesn't matter if they are naked ramblers, suffragettes, travellers, gay rights and the list goes on.  The moment you deny someone that right because you don't agree with them, that is the moment democracy and society as we know it collapses.   

I will get off my soap box now.   😉

but the court mustnt back down just because one man wont obey them....if they did every one would ignire them and the rule of law would and society as we know it would cease to exist. ...

All laws are optional and are obeyed if just. Any unjust law must be challenged. That is the right of every citizen which Steve has opted for. Laws do change with time and does not lead to anarchy.

BTW, please note my last post was cynical. Although I think Steve is making a good point I do not  actually worship him  :-[

What I think of Steve Gough.

I do not care where he walks or what he does, from what I have read about Steve Gough, he’s a totally selfish man who puts himself first and doesn’t consider or care for his family’s needs and what they may feel or how much hurt he has inflicted on them.