181 replies to this topic

[Tom]

I fail to see how simply not having clothes on can be a breach of the peace, unless someone actually made a complaint.

The definition of a breach of the peace is putting the members of the public into a state of fear or alarm, a naked male walking down the street with his tadger waving about, and kids playing in the street or going to the shops etc, definatly falls into the category.

[bensonby]

The definition of a breach of the peace is putting the members of the public into a state of fear or alarm, a naked male walking down the street with his tadger waving about, and kids playing in the street or going to the shops etc, definatly falls into the category.

Is a goth Breaching the Peace then if their dark make-up and violent-looking clothes alarms my grandmother?

Is a flamboyantly homosexual man Breaching the Peace if he alarms a strict muslim or catholic?

Is a transvestite Breaching th Peace if they alarm a religious person?

Is a hooded youth Breaching the Peace if they alarm elderly people?




I'm not being flippant, but if a flamboyantly homosexual man walks through a muslim neigbourhood arguably they could potentially incite a BoP, as would a hooded youth sitting next to the bowling green in the park. Its a question as to where are the bounderys of us being able to lead our lives how we want and when they affect other people. There is nothing *wrong* with the human body and logically why can't he walk around nude.... but it upsets (many) people's sensibilites.

I, for one, don't want to look at a naked bloke (or woman) on the street - but I can't really logically justify it...

[Yeti]

The definition of a breach of the peace is putting the members of the public into a state of fear or alarm, a naked male walking down the street with his tadger waving about, and kids playing in the street or going to the shops etc, definatly falls into the category.

But you can't just nick someone IN CASE it does, there has to be someone to be placed in this 'state of fear and alarm'.

Besides, maybe it's not big enough to wave about...

[DrMax]

So from a policing perspective what does it take for this man to be arrested? Does someone have to appeal to an officer that they are disturbed to the point of BoP, or would he be arrested simply for being naked?

As an aside, I was in Barcelona a couple of months ago, walking down Las Ramblas (v. touristy) and a stark rubbish naked man walked straight through the crowd. No one battered and eyelid. Both the fact that this man did/does this and that no one seemed to mind surprised me. I don't have a problem with people being naked, just wish the people who do were better looking

[andyhmv]

I'm not 100% sure about what exactly constitutes a Breach of the Peace in E&W, but I'm pretty sure it's not exactly the same as a Breach in Scotland (cue somebody copying and pasting rafts of legislation). Basically up north a BoP is when someone conducts themselves in a riotous or disorderly manner, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the "lieges" (fancy word for other people). Obviously it's pretty vague and broad so it's used a lot, sort of like the Public Order Act in E&W. So I don't understand how walking around in public naked COULDN'T consitute a Breach. Unless people were walking past without batting an eyelid and nobody phoned to complain (v. doubtful) then that's it.

Is a goth Breaching the Peace then if their dark make-up and violent-looking clothes alarms my grandmother?

Is a flamboyantly homosexual man Breaching the Peace if he alarms a strict muslim or catholic?

Is a transvestite Breaching the Peace if they alarm a religious person?

Is a hooded youth Breaching the Peace if they alarm elderly people?

The answer to all of these questions is, fairly obviously, no. In the case of the goths and hoodies it would take more than just clothes to alarm someone. Maybe clothes coupled with behaviour, demeanor etc. As for transvestites and members of the gay community, some people, especially from certain religious groups, may not agree with their lifestyles and sexual orientation (like it's any of their business what other people get up to in private), but I doubt they would be alarmed by it. Anyway, in each of these cases there's no element of rioutous or disorderly behaviour.

Its a question as to where are the bounderys of us being able to lead our lives how we want and when they affect other people. There is nothing *wrong* with the human body and logically why can't he walk around nude.... but it upsets (many) people's sensibilites.

Very true. You could say the same about obeying laws. At what point should my right to bomb up a busy street at 100mph be restricted on the grounds that it affects others? Fact is, when you're in public most of the things you do have some sort of bearing on other people. And yes, for some reason in our society there is something wrong with displaying the human body. At some point in time along society's development it's become unacceptable to show your naked body in public. Strange, but that's just the way it is i'm afraid! Sorry nudists.

Edited by andyhmv, 05 September 2007 - 09:26 PM.

[Tom]

Naked Rambler refuses to dress for court.. again
KIRTSY URQUHART

THE Naked Rambler refused to put clothes on for a court appearance again today, a day after senior judges ruled human rights law did not entitle him to appear naked in court.

Stephen Gough was not brought into the dock from cells at Edinburgh Sheriff Court because he would not get dressed.

It was left to his defence agent John Goode to enter a not guilty plea in advance of his trial next week.

Gough, of Eastleigh in Hampshire, is charged with committing a breach of the peace by being naked in a public place at St Leonards Hill in Edinburgh on October 15.

On Wednesday, five judges at the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh rejected Gough’s appeal against contempt findings.

Gough, 47, claimed he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent tribunal after sheriffs held him in contempt of court for appearing naked in court.

He also maintained that to appear naked in court was a right guaranteed under freedom of expression according to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Gill, said: “If he seeks to express the view that an individual has the right to be naked at all times and in all places, there is nothing to prevent his doing so orally or in writing while remaining properly dressed.

“The court is entitled to enforce standards of decency and decorum in the dress and demeanour of those who appear before it, whether as witnesses, lawyers, jurors or accused.”

Ex-Royal Marine Gough has twice walked naked from Lands’ End to John O’Groats, but his progress was interrupted by a series of arrests.

He was found guilty of contempt of court by four different sheriffs at Edinburgh Sheriff Court after either appearing naked or refusing to come into court dressed. Two of the sheriffs jailed him for three months and two months respectively and the other two cases have still to be sentenced. He is appealing the sentences.

His defence counsel told appeal judges that being naked in public was a fundamental freedom and said appearing in court in the nude was not an act calculated to “offend the authority and dignity of the court”.

[Giraffe]

What an absolute waste of taxpayers cash.

[Leon1]

What an absolute waste of taxpayers cash.

Makes checking him for prohibited items on entry a lot more straightforward, at least.

[matt_w]

Will he be allowed to go naked in prison? He will end up just doing more and more time won't he? Is prison the best punishment for him I wonder?

[askdave]

I think he would not want to go naked in prison...No SANE person would!!

Anyway where would he keep his phone card and cigs?

[SBG]

Why has he not be 136'ed?

[Tom]

Why has he not be 136'ed?

i assume thats a mental health thing he is perfectly sane just trying to prove a point sadly its getting smaller with winter comming in when he gets released im sure he will have clothes on.


oh its his point thats getting smaller nothing else before some witty person jumps on

[Giraffe]

Why has he not be 136'ed?

That would make sense to me. If he were deemed sane by doctors then simply throw him in prison to prevent a breach of the peace until he gives up (mags can lock you up for up to six months at a time for this I beleive).

[Tom]

That would make sense to me. If he were deemed sane by doctors then simply throw him in prison to prevent a breach of the peace until he gives up (mags can lock you up for up to six months at a time for this I beleive).

i am pretty sure he has been seen by the doctors and been declaired sane he has been in saughton for a fair old time now becase he continues to go naked each time he leaves the prison then he attempts to go naked to court and gets another sentance for contempt, and to cap it all the court off appeal decided he was not permitted to go naked to court or anywhere else in public with no clothes on,

[Whopper MacBig]

Hand's up who is actually bothered by the sight of this bloke and his dangling tadger?

[Tom]

Hand's up who is actually bothered by the sight of this bloke and his dangling tadger?

have you seen him whopper because all the young kids around the houses of saughton did thats why he was nicked for the umpteenth time. he doesnt bother me just the fact he keeps breaking the law.


they should transfer him down south where he is from and then see how long before he gets knicked again. after all it is warmer down south

[Leon1]

i am pretty sure he has been seen by the doctors and been declaired sane he has been in saughton for a fair old time now becase he continues to go naked each time he leaves the prison then he attempts to go naked to court and gets another sentance for contempt, and to cap it all the court off appeal decided he was not permitted to go naked to court or anywhere else in public with no clothes on,

He's probably sane.

This may all be a clever protest against Third World clothing factory sweatshops...

[Tom]

He's probably sane.

This may all be a clever protest against Third World clothing factory sweatshops...

im not sure but he must be well on his way to have a year in the pokey under his belt

[Hades]

Why has he not be 136'ed?

Is he a threat to himself or others?

[Whopper MacBig]

Why has he not be 136'ed?

I think you mean a 118.

[Yeti]

im not sure but he must be well on his way to have a year in the pokey under his belt

I'm pretty sure he's done more than that now!

[MattD]

I think you mean a 118.

Got your number

[En Garde]

I have to say that i cannot undertand what problem people have with nudity? As long as its not done in order to delibertly cause offence or alarm then i really cant see the problem in being in your natural state.

Not for me, but each to their own .

[Tom]

Naked rambler forces court to move to cells
Evening News


A SHERIFF was forced to conduct a hearing in the holding cells at court when the Naked Rambler refused to put his clothes on – again.

Stephen Gough – who has now spent 20 months in jail – was found guilty of another breach of the peace and now faces a further four months behind bars.

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court yesterday, Sheriff Raymond McMenamin said it was "out of the question" to have him give evidence in the nude.

He said: "To avoid the public spectacle in court we will have to hear the evidence in the cells."

Earlier, the court heard Gough was taken into custody in January after walking free from court naked after a sheriff gave him the chance to end his "vicious circle".

PC Darrin Borthwick said: "We asked him to put his clothes on and the only alternative to arresting him was to let him walk around a busy part of town."

The ex-marine took just six steps of freedom before police took him into the back of a van and re-arrested him.

Yesterday's sentencing was his 13th straight breach of the peace – all for appearing nude in public.

His solicitor said Gough would rather just be left alone until people come round to his way of thinking and sees the court appearances as a pain.

Gough, who originally comes from Hampshire, was originally arrested during a trek the length of Britain.

[Godfather]

Why is the human body offensive? If he is doing this for a sexual kick and is walking round with a stonking hard-on I would agree but its much more likely this guy is just wanting to swing free and live his life how he feels. I find many things that are perfectly legal offensive, I couldn't care less if people walked round naked and wonder if we have this all a bit wrong.

Of course you have to have rules, but to what extent, is the crime really a crime?

Or do we have a mental health issue with this guy, has that been looked into?