The idiot face of Scottish justice.

I've always admired Scottish practicalities , wit and humor....until now.

I agree. Gough should be naked if he wants to be naked, not subject to the childish spite of pompous Presbyterians.

Sorry, pompous Presbyterian ********s.

 

I agree with the courts.

I don't want naked people in my public environment - nor do millions of others. This man wants to force the law to change to accommodate him and his exhibitionist friends and he is using his own imprisonment as a kind of blackmail. He is given chance after chance to get dressed and go home - or wherever he likes - but he is determined to take on the law. Who voted for him to govern the country or make the laws?

Let him rot as a lesson to others.

EB

 

Argh - Noo , dont be te hard on the lad.

He should have done it in winter - reaching JohnO'Groats in January with icicles on his balls.

Meanwhile in prison, he'll be VERY well received by other convicts .


bOOM-BOOM -

HAHAHAHA .

 

Putting this man behind bars for such long periods does bring the law into disrepute.

There's a man here in my city who has a habit of walking around without clothes, only in summer mind you. Nobody really takes any notice. The police wont do anything unless anyone actually takes offense and reports it and even then I doubt they actually do anything as it would have a low priority. I'm not sure the sense behind the law when pornographic magazine covers are allowed in public view. I guess people have just gotten used to that so its OK.

His campagn certainly has a winning formula if it catches on.

 

it is a bit long, but he can freely walk nude indoors / designated area's.

 

He spends his time in isolation.

 

Last time he did it in winter. It was so cold, his gonads shrank up to his knees.

 

He's no Katy Perry.

_

 

No he isn't.

(Excuse my ignorance, but who the heck is Katy Perry?)

EB

 

Nope........not pompous Scottish Presbyterian ********s. Just ordinary people who object to someone walking around naked in public front of them and their children. Why should the human right of one man to be a complete tosser be considered over the human rights of the majority who don't want to come across him in their local streets?

Could you kindly explain to me the difference you perceive between him and a flasher? Or do you think that flashers have the right to display their member to anyone just because they want to as well...and the law is being spiteful when it says that way of behaving is unacceptable?

 

G'day, Oddie, I thought you'd have something to say on this one.

Yes, I believe that people should be able to go naked in public as a matter of right. Few would, as a matter of practicalities, but eccentrics and nudists should not be criminalized. Bare breasts were common in the mid-1960's- it was fashionable. Society didn't collapse .

 

Sorry Moon, but no.

Bare breasts were not common in the 60s. Excepting some hippie communes or festivals.

I think the man has a case, and i appreciate your point about eccentrics but there is no acknowledgement of eccentricity in the law right now. And until the law is changed he is required to follow it. He has made his point, time for him to move on.

I suspect this is his cause d'etre (?).

 

The majority of others adhere to almost all laws.. and if they don't they face the consequences. It doesn't matter how trivial the law appears. If the law needs changed, then there are good ways to set that in motion, but simply breaking the law doesn't cut it.

Whilst I think it's a waste of resources, the law is the law.
This guy is a frickin idiot... he must like jail or something?


I mean it's not like he's really protesting or standing up for the rights of a large group of people. There isn't really a huge support backing him naked.

 

Isn't that the point?

If it's a bit long, he would prefer to walk nude outdoors.

 

Even these guys have enough sense to cover their privates .

 

moon

I don't believe people have any such right. I do believe, however, that people have a right to use and enjoy public places free from behaviour which is considered offensive in their culture. That's why it's illegal to shout obscene language in public, or display pornographic images, or racist abuse. You want to do these things in private - fine - but not in public.

Beevee

There are naturist walks where someone can do just that. Gough isn't a naturist - he has stated that. He calls himself a "public nudity activist" and his "mission" is to force society to abandon their sensibilities in respect of nudity. Who gave him a mandate to mess around with our sensibilities that way? What gives him the right to force us all to change, and the law to change, just to accommodate his ideology.

Gough said: "What I am doing is based on my belief about what I am and what I am is not indecent. Ordinary people have prejudices and intolerances."

So all that matters is his "belief" - our beliefs don't count, apparently. And we are just "ordinary people", so we "have prejudices and intolerances" - whereas he is the great enlightened one on some God-given mission to educate us all. This isn't about a man suffering for his convictions - it is about an egomaniac trying to impose his will upon the rest of us.

EB

 

I had the mixed fortune to be a frequent London tube traveler in the mid-1960's and I can assure you that abundance of bare breasts turned a 90 minute crushed and hellish trek into a voyage through paradise for a young teen . The fashion was , of course, even more prevalent in the evenings and at parties and public events. Fashions change and I'd very much like to see the return of that one. Those girls didn't have a 'right ' , as far as I can recall, but the law acted in a level and sensible manner. If this ex-marine wants to show his equipment then by all means let him. People were supportive enough of him when he was sent to have his balls shot off.

 

I fail to see the connection between someone joining the Marines and them having some kind of "right" to expose their genitals in the street. Does it only apply to Marines? What about RAF pilots? How about firemen? Or psychiatric nurses? This argument is crass. Either we, as a society, are prepared to allow grown men to expose their genitals in public, or they are not, whether they are ex-marines or retired dentists is immaterial. I vote we should not accept such behaviour because I find it offensive - as do many other people.

EB

 

I'd imagine he'd suffer a much more severe punishment in an Islamic-majority country.

 

Ouch ! - you mean like loosing his - wotsits ?

 

There isn't a ' connection ' in terms of cause . I mention that he was a marine in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the law, and the public, in allowing him to die for them but not allowing him nudity, for himself.

 

So could you kindly explain to me the difference you perceive between him and a flasher? Or do you think that flashers have the right to display their member to anyone just because they want to as well...and the law is being spiteful when it says that way of behaving is unacceptable?

 

Shanking his sheikh, as it were.

 

I think they meant he`d be gang raped.

Once i went out with a girl who`d only had sex twice. Once with the football teams, & once with the spectators.

 

Oh yes, i'd really like our little girl to be standing on the street next to some moron with his johnson hanging out.....not.

He has no right to dictate when and where people have to be exposed to nudity, escpecially kids, (*)(*)(*)(*) knows we cram enough bullcrap into their heads these days. (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot.