I agree with the BN comments. I think this is the case of an immovable object meeting an unstoppable force.

I'm not convinced that Steve Gough is advancing the cause of naturism but I am convinced that the Scotland judicial system is showing itself to be inflexible, prudish and anti-libertarian. This should have invoked a heated response from "Liberty" Perhaps they too have become too "main-stream"

The fact that an individual can spend so much time in prison at our expense for such a comparatively minor infringement of the law (if indeed there has been an infringement) is repulsive.

It seems the only people ever alarmed or distressed when he walks his few feet from prison are Police Officers who one would consider should be a bit more robust.

Magistrates need to have a bit of a pragmatic and common sense approach. I heard what I think is a true story of two magistrates. When sentencing some old lag to a term of imprisonment he let out a string of expletives. One JP asked the chairman why he didn't sentence him to more for contempt of court. The wise chairman replied that they must expect it and part of there job was to allow the defendant to let off a bit of steam and not to take it so personally. Thus it is with Gough, they should allow some individuals the luxury and choice to be an eccentric or at least be different. I would agree with the magistrates in the Gough case if someone was likely to be harmed, but they are not. Why should anyone be alarmed at the sight of a naked human body. We all have one and in general terms know what's underneath a clothed person.

If this wasn't to sad and tragic for all concerned it would be funny. As it is it, isn't

Davie

It would be great if Lord Jenkins view became the accepted norm. Maybe Mr Gough is doing us a favour by highlighting nudity as a lifestyle choice. But he is definetly braver than me. Hope he gets the law to be more accepting of our life style.

...but I am convinced that the Scotland judicial system is showing itself to be inflexible, prudish and anti-libertarian.

That's not how I read it. It seemed as if they were giving him every chance but he insisted on sticking 2 fingers up to the scottish legal system. If you insist on being starkers in the courtroom, how else can you expect them to react?

...but I am convinced that the Scotland judicial system is showing itself to be inflexible, prudish and anti-libertarian.

That's not how I read it. It seemed as if they were giving him every chance but he insisted on sticking 2 fingers up to the scottish legal system. If you insist on being starkers in the courtroom, how else can you expect them to react?

Is the simple act of being naked an offence under scottish law? if it is then they are correct, if however they are using other rules to prove their point then in my opinion they are wrong.

As I understand it, they keep getting him for contempt of court. Whether he should ever have been in court in the first place is a moot point indeed. Had he never been taken to court (as I believe he shouldn't have been), the matter of contempt could not have arisen.

Yes I agree. He keeps being convicted of contempt of court when he should never have been there in the first place (IMO).

It sounds like this this particular "offence" wasn't very much, but I think that some of his protests aren't helpful. Did he not strip off on a plane or something?

I'm not sure what he's actually achieving.

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

Moderators comment
Not moderated but commented on later on in thread.

That's not how I read it. It seemed as if they were giving him every chance but he insisted on sticking 2 fingers up to the scottish legal system. If you insist on being starkers in the courtroom, how else can you expect them to react?

Try this for an alternative perspective...

By insisting that SG had to wear clothes in court for his first appearance, the legal authorities had pre-judged the outcome of the initial charge. They had already decided that being naked is offensive and illegal, despite there being no law to that effect in Scotland (or England and Wales). Perhaps SG's insistence on being naked in court is not so unreasonable when you consider that by dressing he would tacitly have accepted the court's demonstrated prejudice.

It may be that the folks waving two fingers at the world are the judiciary who are making laws to suit their own puritan outlook on the world and then when they can't win that case they fall back on contempt of court to prove they are more powerful than the individual. In any other environment that sort of behaviour is called bullying and is illegal.

  😉

Have fun,

Ian.

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

Ad hominem attacks are frequently the last resort of those who can not win an argument. Perhaps you'd like to exercise some intellect in your discussion rather than producing posts reminiscent of a school year six bully?

I support what Steve is trying to do (although I do not necessarily feel that his approach is going to produce the result he wants). I resent being called a dickhead and ask that you have the good manners to recognise that people can disagree with your opinion and still be deserving of courtesy and respect.

Irrespective of whether you agree with SGs methods or not, his approach is far more likely to gain attention, and possibly produce changes in the status quo, than sitting on your hands and hoping that things will change by themselves. I seem to recall you saying that you would not sunbathe naked in your garden or in public open spaces because you did not wish to inflict your nudity on others. Perhaps, before resorting to insults, you would like to tell us all what you have done to try to make naturism more acceptable. Or do you believe that naturism should be confined to ghettos such as clubs with high hedges and beaches without any facilities or decent access?

Have fun,

Ian.

I'm with Milfmog, concurring with every detail of his last two posts. It was also a pleasure (rare in this forum) to read something so well written, regardless of its content.

strangely enough if you read the post's correctly & not attribute others remaks to me you would see we do use our garden to sunbathe & in public too but we would never force our views or ideals on others , we have very good relations with our neighbours & if they have visitors we do not insult them , they have the right to use there gardens as they wish without offence from others as do the public & my comments still stand

strangely enough if you read the post's correctly & not attribute others remaks to me you would see we do use our garden to sunbathe & in public too but we would never force our views or ideals on others , we have very good relations with our neighbours & if they have visitors we do not insult them , they have the right to use there gardens as they wish without offence from others as do the public & my comments still stand 

Once I was able to search all your posts I did re-read them. You are correct that you have posted that you use your garden naked. You have also posted about the new buildings going up behind your plot and how you may soon have to stop sunbathing naked in your garden. Check my previous post again and you will notice that I wrote that "I seem to recall..." indicating less than total certainty on my part despite that it seems that my assessment of your situation and attitude to public nudity were substantively correct. I find reading and comprehension skills useful, perhaps you could exercise yours sometime?

I further note that you have offered no apology for your previous discourtesy, no supporting argument for the statement to which I replied (beyond the original insult slinging), nor any answer to the questions about how you have contributed to changing the status quo.

We know what SG is doing, you on the other hand remain silent on your contribution although you are prepared to cast unsupported aspersions at somebody who is trying to do something.

Have fun,

Ian.

Re Milfmog:-
Thankyou for these two posts, you have said what i wanted to say but in a more fluent & readable manner.

That's not how I read it. It seemed as if they were giving him every chance but he insisted on sticking 2 fingers up to the scottish legal system. If you insist on being starkers in the courtroom, how else can you expect them to react?

Try this for an alternative perspective...

By insisting that SG had to wear clothes in court for his first appearance, the legal authorities had pre-judged the outcome of the initial charge. They had already decided that being naked is offensive and illegal, despite there being no law to that effect in Scotland (or England and Wales). Perhaps SG's insistence on being naked in court is not so unreasonable when you consider that by dressing he would tacitly have accepted the court's demonstrated prejudice.

It may be that the folks waving two fingers at the world are the judiciary who are making laws to suit their own puritan outlook on the world and then when they can't win that case they fall back on contempt of court to prove they are more powerful than the individual. In any other environment that sort of behaviour is called bullying and is illegal.

  😉

Have fun,

Ian.

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.