Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The 'Naked Rambler' jailed for 22 months, following arrest within 60 seconds of his release!

You don't see streakers at sporting events much anymore. What was all that about? I have a hazy recollection of it happening quite a bit in the 80s but was too young to appreciate what it was all about other than attention seeking.
It was indeed an 80s thing, Erica Roe probably made a living from it for a while. :D

Streaker%20Erica%20Roe-784636
 
According to Wiki streaking was named as such in 1973,I personally think that's wrong as a drunken four person streak around Wellington is still burned in my memory and I'd left NZ by 1973.(Wikipedia.en is notorious for being UScentric of course).It seemed everybody and their dog was doing it in the early/mid seventies.
 
does anyone really think that it should be illegal to be naked?
sounds so insane to me.

your natural state is some how unacceptable, and you have to cover parts of yourself in cloth.

That's a bit simplistic really. When I lived in Reading my house was opposite a primary school, I had to call the police once because there was a bloke hiding in the bushes near the school with no clothes on. He may have just had a prank played on him but he could easily have been a wrong un, the fact is he had no business being there and could cause great worry to the teachers / parents and the police should have powers to address that.

There is a context to everything and as numerous people on this thread have said if you want to walk around with your knackers out there is plenty of opportunity to do so, but this guy's cause seems as much to be challenging the police and courts, there will only be one winner in that situation.
 
I've probably missed something but I didn't hear him say anything substantive about why he's doing what he does. He was asked a couple of times but said something about 'freedom' and not much else. Does he have a 'cause'? The reason I commented about his mental health wasn't because of what he's doing per se, more that there seemed to be no reason for it. By the end of the programme I was none the wiser as to his motivation tbh
 
A good bit at the end of the Guardian review:

Is he just an exhibitionist and a flasher? Does he have mental health issues (he refuses psychiatric assessment)? If the answer to either is yes, then this probably should never have been made.
 
well clearly he isn't a flasher. By definition a flasher keeps his bits covered until he can 'flash' them at his victim. So you can't be an exhibitionist AND a flasher. Poor show, guardian
 
Naked rambler Stephen Gough loses human rights case
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29800016
The so-called naked rambler Stephen Gough has lost his case at the European Court of Human Rights after claiming he suffered repression over his nudity.
Mr Gough, 55, complained about his repeated convictions and imprisonment.
Since 2003 he has been arrested dozens of times in Scotland and England for being naked in public.
He was convicted a number of times for breach of the peace, with his sentences increased with each offence and was often rearrested as he left prison.
Between May 2006 and October 2012 he enjoyed a total of seven days' liberty and spent most of his detention in segregation because he refused to wear clothes.

Amazing, between May 2006 and Oct 2012 he enjoyed a total of seven days liberty!!
 
Are there still streakers nowadays at sporting events etc? I remember it being a popular pastime in the 70s and 80s. Was there a political message behind it that I was too young to appreciate or was it just exhibitionism? Erika someone or other springs to mind. I'm sure I've asked this before but can't remember the response. I hope it wasn't on this thread. :facepalm:
 
Are there still streakers nowadays at sporting events etc? I remember it being a popular pastime in the 70s and 80s. Was there a political message behind it that I was too young to appreciate or was it just exhibitionism? Erika someone or other springs to mind. I'm sure I've asked this before but can't remember the response. I hope it wasn't on this thread. :facepalm:
See the top of this page :)
 
'Morally and otherwise offensive to other, unwarned members of the public' said the judgement.

If his body offends you to the point you feel he should be imprisoned then you have a serious problem.
It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.
 
Last edited:
It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.
FFS! :facepalm: This is somethign previously discussed at length and in full on this very thread. Do me a favour and go back and read it, before I say somehting wwhich I'm defintiely going to regret but not as much as you will!
 
It's not that simple, is it? Rightly or wrongly we're collectively socially conditioned into decency in public which involves wearing clothes. So someone not conforming to that can be confusing/scary to children. Flashing is also the first game that men who go on to assault women also play so it feeds into that narrative aswell. If he's the only person gaining anything from it, it's an incredibly anti social thing to impose on everyone else and only the wooliest of liberals would defend it.

How sad we live in an age where not wearing clothes as a personal choice is deemed as a sexual misdemeanour.
 
FFS! :facepalm: This is somethign previously discussed at length and in full on this very thread. Do me a favour and go back and read it, before I say somehting wwhich I'm defintiely going to regret but not as much as you will!
That's my view. I don't need to read the entire thread in order to make it more palatable for you. Besides, I've responded before so obviously read it before. I don't agree with him being jailed over this at all but neither do I think someone's right to wear no clothes ranks above others' right to not want to see that person naked.
 
How sad we live in an age where not wearing clothes as a personal choice is deemed as a sexual misdemeanour.
I acknowledged that point when I said 'rightly or wrongly'. It's fucking anti social though if you're doing something that everyone else would rather you didn't.
 
I acknowledged that point when I said 'rightly or wrongly'. It's fucking anti social though if you're doing something that everyone else would rather you didn't.

It depends on the relative merits of the act, and there are merits to both sides of the argument here - there is a tension between the duty of tolerance and the duty to try and rub along smoothly with others* for the most part.

* - God, the filth - you people really depress me sometimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom