Although I think Steve is making a good point I do not  actually worship him

SSssshhh... don't tell the judge that.   😉

what I have read about Steve Gough,

I don't always believe what I read about people.  Just look at Diana Princess of Wales.  While she was alive the press weren't very complimentary towards her.  Once she died she suddenly turned into a saint.  Which version of the news and gossip is the truth?  What happened to all the mud slinging after Michael Jackson died?

im not suggesting removing the right to protest..... but getting slung in jail for years doesnt achieve anything...... i learnt along time ago that when yer head hurts its time to stop banging it against the wall.... either find the door or get a bulldozer

as i see it steve gough has achieved nothing positive for naturism (or any other cause) by getting repeatedly slung in a scottish jail.... and is not likely to achieve anything in the foreseeable future..... surely must be time to change tactics....

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.

I just wonder how this applies to the lady who chained herself to the railings (was it Pankhurst?) Did she consider the effect her protest had on her family. Nelson Mandela was only in jail for a political opinion. If you feel for your family you should not be naked or wear denim jeans; our families understand. I recall a female mountaineer who died leaving a young family. The press claimed as a young mother she should not have gone. Her children said "she was our Mum and we would expect no different from her". All soldiers have this dilemma.

Many people know the name of Steve Gough or the naked rambler. There is even a plaque dedicated to him at Lands End. If you believe that you are only as important as those who remember your name; No-one knows me-help ::)

The point you make about people making sacrifices for causes is valid, although if I'm honest I kind of think the right to not be judged, abused, beaten or imprisoned for the colour of your skin trumps the right to show it off around Perth.

The question is though, is he doing it for "the cause", in which case he is probably not really helping (unlike the Mandelas & Pankhursts of the world), or is he doing it for Steve Gough in which case I'm with Eva in that he probably is just selfish. I don't know the guy though, so I can only speculate!

I believe he's on record as saying he's doing it for himself/the cause of personal freedom, and owes no allegiance the the "naturist cause". Such niceties won't mean anything to the textile world, of course - naked is naked.

peter

RB wrote,
I just wonder how this applies to the lady who chained herself to the railings (was it Pankhurst?) Did she consider the effect her protest had on her family. Nelson Mandela was only in jail for a political opinion. If you feel for your family you should not be naked or wear denim jeans; our families understand. I recall a female mountaineer who died leaving a young family.

In my opinion it does not apply,

Emmeline Pankhurst, Nelson Mandela and the female mountaineer cannot be put in the same category as that Steve gough.
Eva

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.

He is doing what he does because he sincerely believes in what he is doing.  Many men and a smaller proportion of women are very selfish in the pursuit of personal ambitions (eg climbing Everest) but when fighting for a cause they believe in, it is not just selfishness.

In any case, I have little idea from what I have read what anguish he may be causing his family.  I only know that his ex-girlfriend Melanie is very supportive of his stand.

m not suggesting removing the right to protest..... but getting slung in jail for years doesnt achieve anything...... i learnt along time ago that when yer head hurts its time to stop banging it against the wall.... either find the door or get a bulldozer

What about Nelson Mandela, Ghandi, suffragettes and many less grand causes?

Ok, the cause may not be as popular or the sufferings comparable, but what is undeniable is that a principled stand will draw attention and eventually support, if people can be won over by the argument.  The law already accepts it, just the law enforcers and some of the public can still take advantage of a vague law (BoP) to enforce their prejudices.

We are not asking for the law to back down in applying the law, only to back down in their particular and over-zealous interpretation of a vague law which has relevance to all of us.

Emmeline Pankhurst, Nelson Mandela and the female mountaineer cannot be put in the same category as that Steve gough.

"People who do something remarkable in order to make a point" is one category into which all of these people can be put, therefore your statement is untrue.

When it comes to public interest or influence, on the other hand, I, like most people, would rank Emmeline Pankhurst and Nelson Mandela top of this set (though I'm not sure in which order) and Steve Gough third, but quite a long way down. The achievement of the female mountaineer, whose name I can't remember, was considerable but it was hardly world-changing, so she has to come 4th, for me, in this particular list.

We are not asking for the law to back down in applying the law, only to back down in their particular and over-zealous interpretation of a vague law which has relevance to all of us.

The question of "backing down" should not even arise. As far as I know*, there was no evidence to suggest that Steve had broken any law when he first appeared in court. Therefore, he was wrongfully arrested and maliciously prosecuted. Had he not unjustly been brought to court, the "contempt" offences for which is repeatedly imprisoned could not have arisen in the first place. So add unlawful imprisonment to the counter charges.

Having nailed my colours (for justice) to the mast, I nevertheless agree with those who say he is wasting his life to no good effect. If I were campaigning for the reform of this aspect of the Scottish justice system, I would do so from the relative safety and comfort of a nearby marginally more naturist-friendly country, such as England or Wales. (Ireland would be a bad idea, and I'm not sure about the Isle of Man  :-/ )

*To the ex-policemen and others here who know much more about the law than I do: I welcome your comments and am happy to have my misapprehensions corrected!

How about the bible which clearly says in Acts 5:29
We ought to obey God rather than man
This clearly implies that laws are made by man and I claim it is my duty to God that I do not obey an unjust law. It is Godly to be naked wheras those who suffer from the textile delusions of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life which the naturist has conquered continue in the sins of said textile. Slightly tongue in cheek but I firmly believe that my nudity is a religious expression.  Steve clearly states that he believes his nudity is a right since there is nothing obscene about the naked body (a slightly different take)[smiley=angelwings.gif]
I am currently reading about a man called Pascal(French). He was disabled so his sister was his nurse. His sister wished to enter a nunnery to gain her freedom but her father refused since it was her duty to care for him(the father). When he(the father) died she entered the convent and left the disabled brother who lost his carer. How strange for a lady to consider entering a convent as a means to freedom that was not available to a young lady in 17 century France (Aristocrat). The Suffragettes were noted (and some died) for liberating women. The vote was a small part of the movement. Freedoms have to be fought for lest they are not valued. Only when you lose freedom do we worry.

What a sad story, that poor young woman.

May I ask, did you do English literature or something similar at university, you do write well even if I do not agree with you when it comes to Steve Gough.

Do please correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I read somewhere on here that Steve Gough was arrested for taking his clothes off and refused to put them back on while travelling by plane.
I am sure he would have been refused to board the plane had he been naked at the time and that means he planned it and boarded the plane clothed and then to antagonise the authorities stripped once the plane had taken off. 

This isn’t about naturism, it is all and only about Steve Gough. >:(

But then that’s only my opinion. 🙂

What a sad story, that poor young woman.

...as a side-note Pascal suffered from a disease caused marasmus (protein deficiency) and Vitamen D deficiency-historical medical diagnosis from written records. Apparently when on breast; child OK. As soon as breast feeding stopped diet was appalling. Malnutrition was result.

May I ask, did you do English literature or something similar at university, you do write well...

shucks [smiley=angelwings.gif]I love you too [smiley=panda.gif]...you deserve some vinegar cake.
'fraid not. I took English language O level and had to retake it three times; then I received a B. Just passed English Literature with Twelfth night  ;D (If music be the food of love, then play on and giving surfeit of it I may perish and so die...kinda: and I still feel Hedonism rules!!!)

even if I do not agree with you when it comes to Steve Gough.

If we all agreed the world would be rather 'tea-with-vicar'. You need to study the whole story of Steve. He courts confrontation in order to thrust the need to make a decision. This is a militant method of forcing society to confront their fears over nudity. The longer it goes on the more ridiculous it looks to incarcerate a man for the simple act of nudity. The Pankhurt girl was jailed in similar mode; did she also protest about corsets and breast feeding? Many thought she was militant and very amoral at the time. A woman allowed to vote; they do not have the brain power and are too emotional for that (not my words!!!).
Steve Gough in similar mode suggests that a penis is not an offensive weapon.

Do please correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I read somewhere on here that Steve Gough was arrested for taking his clothes off and refused to put them back on while travelling by plane.
...
This isn’t about naturism, it is all and only about Steve Gough. >:(

The original offence is media seeking as mentioned before. Forcing us (them!) to face our insecurities over nudity. He wishes to present his defence naked which again forces the courts to face their prejudices.
...only about Steve Gough...same can be said of Churchill. Many claim he was a good prime minister. Others claim he was a warmonger (same said of Thatcher).

My stance is I still cannot accept that any person remains in jail for the simple act of nudity which, in itself, is not an offence in England. Look at all the naked women on TV and in poster adds (big brother has shown the penis several times {once in blue} and shaved); makes me blush ;D

It is a good exercise to reflect on Steve's case by reading his history of activism. At the same time research others in our history (best to keep to UK) which is good bedtime reading.

Just as a sideline. I met Steve Gough a long time ago and as a result of the impression he left on me I became a naturist. I think that is a good point others may feel it bad  :). I am a Cornishman and I heard of his Lands End walk a long time ago... :-/

I presume you are a girl 😮
You may be surprised to hear that naturist men do not have their brains in their penis and that naturist girls who desire to please us men adhere to the "bring food and arrive naked" ideal   :-[:D

Steve was protesting what he sees as an unnecessary rule that defines genitals as offensive. The airline are of course within their rights to enforce a reasonable dress code for the 'benefit' of their other passengers, although it is doubtful whether they ever canvass their passengers on this subject.  It is also Steve's right to protest what he sees as a restriction of freedom.  If he were to cause a disturbance which in any way threatens the safety of the flight, no doubt there are aviation laws broken and these should be applied.  Otherwise, it is simply a breach of airline rules on decorum and the most reasonable sanction would be to ban him from their flights. Arrest and prison for a breach of rules on decorum is inappropriate.

I understand that most airlines insist on passengers wearing shoes - for what purpose entirely escapes me and it is ironic as you are generally required to remove shoes when going through security checks. Would it be right for me to be arrested and imprisoned for going on a flight without shoes or for removing them and refusing to put them back on? I use this analogy as many people for some reason seem to find naked feet offensive, and because again there is no clear justification for the airline rules, although other passengers might think it 'inappropriate', a pure prejudice on their part.

I understand that most airlines insist on passengers wearing shoes

Off topic, but I suspect this has something to do with safety. When scrambling out of a burning or sinking plane, the last thing we need is someone blocking the aisle, clutching his broken toes and howling! Of course, the rule doesn't apply to many women's pointy heels, which are an encumbrance and must be discarded - at the latest - before jumping onto an inflatable slide, or raft!