Will it be big enough? :o)

How much money has it cost the country in persuing him through the courts? I wonder if he would continue this naked 'campaign' if he didn't have so much publicity. Personally I think I would feel offended if I came 'face to face' (or otherwise) with him. Is he not just seeking publicity? Difficult one to 'handle'...oh yuk!

After years in jail he'll be terrified by an ASBO, NOT.

Socks and boots huh? So only partially naked.

Why doesn't he just get the skimpiest leather g-string possible, thereby still causing maximum offence but staying just within the law.
On another point why aren't all the people on the naked bike ride arrested the minute they get on their bikes? Double standards,maybe paint is classed as attire now.

As he appears to be intent on 'extracting the urine' from the police and the public, I think that he should be given a community order, cleaning public toilets, then see how he likes it when we are taking the P out of him.

A waste of money on a fool who could be equally comfortable in a pair of pants but wants to create this drama, bet he wants clothes in jail..

I notice the article states the police claim that Steve wasted police time - NO - it was the police who wasted their own time by pursuing him relentlessly: just live and let live. 150 years ago, a woman showing her ankles in public was thrown into jail and look how times have changed!

Excellent! It's about time this exhibitionist was given an ultimatum like this. He thinks he has some God-given right to demand the law changes to what he wants - what others want is of no interest to him.

He will doubtless immediately breach the ASBO and will spend more time in prison. Fine by me.

I can imagine somebody being so difficult and going to prison if that person was protesting about an injustice such as the persecution and torture of a particular group of the human race. To spend so much time in prison after conviction or on remand for simply not wearing your clothes is staggering. Of course the full force of the law should be used to prevent him travelling the streets of the UK with no clothes on. What he also needs is medical help because he is plainly suffering from some mental illness. He is not allowed to see his children due to his conduct. He needs help.

I hope we all realise now that an ASBO has been issued, this man is going to be hitting the headlines more and more as he will just breach the ASBO and carry on as always.

The Courts will issue suspended prison sentences several times and we will have to keep reading about him, making his ego even bigger!

The man obviously has no respect for anyone around him, yet alone the Law.

bigfella777 wrote:
Why doesn't he just get the skimpiest leather g-string possible, thereby still causing maximum offence but staying just within the law.
On another point why aren't all the people on the naked bike ride arrested the minute they get on their bikes? Double standards,maybe paint is classed as attire now.

My own view is that all the naked idiots should be arrested and given reason not to offend public decency again, a hefty fine to pay for the policing would help. As far as the cost of puuting this nutter away each time he offends I shoulod point out it costs money to sort out murderers, should we legalise murder as well?

So now we know, its not only genitalia that people find offensive but also buttocks. This chap has spent some years in prison without changing his ways so I don't quite see how the mighty Asbo is going to make any difference. It just a way of getting him into court without discussing the issue as it will be only that he broke the conditions of the Asbo. Let's face it the authorities have no idea of how to handle this type of thing which is basically a form of civil disobedience.

As the Public Order Act has recently been amended to remove "insulting" words and behaviour, I'm really wondering why the Police have continued to take such action.

I would imagine that Mr Gough will now have the right to appeal on the basis of this change in the law which basically means no one else can claim to be insulted by his actions.

If he wants to walk around naked, so be it. People don't have to look at him if they don't want to .. and in this cold weather there probably isn't much to see anyway.

Why can't people stop being prudish or simply ignore him?.

davel_cats wrote:
I notice the article states the police claim that Steve wasted police time - NO - it was the police who wasted their own time by pursuing him relentlessly: just live and let live. 150 years ago, a woman showing her ankles in public was thrown into jail and look how times have changed!

So when this chap walks past a primary school and parents call Police you expect them to do nothing...to "live and let live" as you put it.

I'm sure that if the Police were to leave him and let him go about his business they'd be highly criticised. As usual, damned if they do and damned if they don't. I'm sure those parents don't see it as a waste of time.

eurogordi wrote:
As the Public Order Act has recently been amended to remove "insulting" words and behaviour, I'm really wondering why the Police have continued to take such action.

I would imagine that Mr Gough will now have the right to appeal on the basis of this change in the law which basically means no one else can claim to be insulted by his actions.

If he wants to walk around naked, so be it. People don't have to look at him if they don't want to .. and in this cold weather there probably isn't much to see anyway.

Why can't people stop being prudish or simply ignore him?.

It's not about being prudish. There is a time and place for being naked. If the majority of folk don't want an old wrinkly penis being wafted in their face then they have the right to say so.

You may not bother about some dirty looking man being naked in front of you, but others will find it grossly offensive.

I would have no issue with him going to a nudist beach or a nudest club or whatever, just cover up whilst on the way is all people are asking for.

eurogordi wrote:
As the Public Order Act has recently been amended to remove "insulting" words and behaviour, I'm really wondering why the Police have continued to take such action.

I would imagine that Mr Gough will now have the right to appeal on the basis of this change in the law which basically means no one else can claim to be insulted by his actions.

If he wants to walk around naked, so be it. People don't have to look at him if they don't want to .. and in this cold weather there probably isn't much to see anyway.

Why can't people stop being prudish or simply ignore him?.

The Public Order hasn't been amended yet. When it is, the removal of the "insulting" provision will not affect situations like that of Mr Gough, because the section still mentions "disorderly" behaviour, which was considered in 2002 when the Sexual Offences Bill was discussed by the Home Affairs Select Committee. The committee decided that the "disorderly" provision would enable the police to deal with inappropriate public nudity if they removed the proposed "likely" (to cause harassment, alarm or distress) provision in the newly formulated offence of indecent exposure (now sec. 66 of the SOA 2003).

This change is irrelevant in this case. Mr Gough now has an ASBO - this is a civil order and nothing to do with section 5.

Him walking around exposing himself does annoy and upset people - it would me, especially if my kids saw him. I am delighted that he has been served with an ASBO. Let him rot in prison until he learns to show consideration for others.

Lost northern bird wrote:
How much money has it cost the country in persuing him through the courts? I wonder if he would continue this naked 'campaign' if he didn't have so much publicity. Personally I think I would feel offended if I came 'face to face' (or otherwise) with him. Is he not just seeking publicity? Difficult one to 'handle'...oh yuk!

Why would you feel offended? He is not harming anyone and appears to not have any sinister reason for being naked, though I agree it is inappropriate, but hey, each to his own. I would rather see him strolling naked down the street than come face to face with some depraved twisted sex offender who is fully clothed, yet has vile motives. An asbo will not stop him and I do not think he is doing this for the publicity. I do think though that he is being unreasonable by not at least covering his privates.

Keep it up Stephen, I'm right behind you!

Actually that did not sound right but in any case keep up the good fight to have to right to appear as god created or as the mammals we are (delete as applcable)

How anyone can be offended by a nude form beats me - do we expect Michelangelo's David to put on a thong?

solomum wrote:

Lost northern bird wrote:
How much money has it cost the country in persuing him through the courts? I wonder if he would continue this naked 'campaign' if he didn't have so much publicity. Personally I think I would feel offended if I came 'face to face' (or otherwise) with him. Is he not just seeking publicity? Difficult one to 'handle'...oh yuk!

Why would you feel offended? He is not harming anyone and appears to not have any sinister reason for being naked, though I agree it is inappropriate, but hey, each to his own. I would rather see him strolling naked down the street than come face to face with some depraved twisted sex offender who is fully clothed, yet has vile motives. An asbo will not stop him and I do not think he is doing this for the publicity. I do think though that he is being unreasonable by not at least covering his privates.

I feel you're sitting on the fence here ;-)

In one sentence you say why feel offended and then you say I wish he'd cover up.

If you're not offended why ask him to cover up if his actions are perfectly acceptable to you?

This isn't a dig at you, just asking why you feel this way. You feel he is being inappropriate for not covering his weiner, but if he's not harming you or causing you concern, why should he, like you stated.

Brock_and_Roll wrote:
Keep it up Stephen, I'm right behind you!

Actually that did not sound right but in any case keep up the good fight to have to right to appear as god created or as the mammals we are (delete as applcable)

How anyone can be offended by a nude form beats me - do we expect Michelangelo's David to put on a thong?

Not a problem. I take it you wouldn't mind then if you and your children/niece/nephe
w/friends children met him in the street. I can just imagine you rushing up to him and your young charges standing there, terrified, whilst you patted him good old Steve on the back.
What a sight.
What a weirdo.
What a weirdo.

Is it my computer or have The Echo put this as main news and top article?

If so they're having a laugh and are underpaid!

Next time he is remanded during winter put him in a cell with no heating, no windows and no clothes. See how he likes to be naked then!

Just get this off the news section. A by-Election is taking place a young lad has been found dead, yet you choose this as a major headline as a priority? Someone is sick in the head!

IronLady2010 wrote:
Just get this off the news section. A by-Election is taking place a young lad has been found dead, yet you choose this as a major headline as a priority? Someone is sick in the head!

As well as the twisted rambler you mean?

bigfella777 wrote:
Why doesn't he just get the skimpiest leather g-string possible, thereby still causing maximum offence but staying just within the law.
On another point why aren't all the people on the naked bike ride arrested the minute they get on their bikes? Double standards,maybe paint is classed as attire now.

How about a mankini? Even more offensive.

steps wrote:
A waste of money on a fool who could be equally comfortable in a pair of pants but wants to create this drama, bet he wants clothes in jail..

He doesn't. He's been in prison before, and remained naked.

IronLady2010 wrote:

solomum wrote:

Lost northern bird wrote:
How much money has it cost the country in persuing him through the courts? I wonder if he would continue this naked 'campaign' if he didn't have so much publicity. Personally I think I would feel offended if I came 'face to face' (or otherwise) with him. Is he not just seeking publicity? Difficult one to 'handle'...oh yuk!

Why would you feel offended? He is not harming anyone and appears to not have any sinister reason for being naked, though I agree it is inappropriate, but hey, each to his own. I would rather see him strolling naked down the street than come face to face with some depraved twisted sex offender who is fully clothed, yet has vile motives. An asbo will not stop him and I do not think he is doing this for the publicity. I do think though that he is being unreasonable by not at least covering his privates.

I feel you're sitting on the fence here ;-)

In one sentence you say why feel offended and then you say I wish he'd cover up.

If you're not offended why ask him to cover up if his actions are perfectly acceptable to you?

This isn't a dig at you, just asking why you feel this way. You feel he is being inappropriate for not covering his weiner, but if he's not harming you or causing you concern, why should he, like you stated.

I do think it is inappropriate to be walking around with this dangly bit on show, but personally I would not be offended by it. I do not think it is acceptable, but then again I do not think smoking is acceptable yet it is still allowed. I detest walking through town and being forced to breath in other peoples smoke. Walking through town and passing a naked man would not affect my health in anyway. In fact it would probably improve it as laughter is good for the soul. Seriously though, it is inappropriate to walk around with privates on show and a request to cover them up is reasonable, but this guy obviously wishes to completely embrace his nudity.

He is either mentally unstable or has a complete diregard of the law, as he has completely ignored the Asbo placed on him and has been arrested again and now could be getting a custodial sentence.

I can't believe so much attention is paid to this man and so much public money is wasted persuing him and imprisoning him. I don't agree with it personally but he's obviously very determined and I don't think he does it to cause offence so as long as he's not hanging around (excuse the pun!) schools or shops etc - just let him be and ignore him. I'd love to know how he keeps warm though ;)

I can't believe so much attention is paid to this man and so much public money is wasted persuing him and imprisoning him. I don't agree with it personally but he's obviously very determined and I don't think he does it to cause offence so as long as he's not hanging around (excuse the pun!) schools or shops etc - just let him be and ignore him. I'd love to know how he keeps warm though ;)

Inform Al wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why doesn't he just get the skimpiest leather g-string possible, thereby still causing maximum offence but staying just within the law.
On another point why aren't all the people on the naked bike ride arrested the minute they get on their bikes? Double standards,maybe paint is classed as attire now.

My own view is that all the naked idiots should be arrested and given reason not to offend public decency again, a hefty fine to pay for the policing would help. As far as the cost of puuting this nutter away each time he offends I shoulod point out it costs money to sort out murderers, should we legalise murder as well?

At least you don't have to worry about him carrying a concealed weapon, with which to commit murder...

indy75 wrote:
I can't believe so much attention is paid to this man and so much public money is wasted persuing him and imprisoning him. I don't agree with it personally but he's obviously very determined and I don't think he does it to cause offence so as long as he's not hanging around (excuse the pun!) schools or shops etc - just let him be and ignore him. I'd love to know how he keeps warm though ;)

Firstly, he has a following of creepy exhibitionists who are watching the proceedings and waiting for the authorities to cave in and let him do as he likes. That will then be their green light to do the same.

Secondly, he IS doing it to cause offence. His stated aim is to "confront" people's attitudes to nudity - in other words, he is going to make sure we all get a good look at his private parts.

Thirdly, I agree he is "very determined" to get his own way. Is taht any reason why we should not be equally determined to stop him? What mandate does he have to mess with everyone else's sensibilities and make them conform to what he thinks they should be? What right does he have to try to change the legal status of nudity?

Mr Gough is a public nuisance. It should be made abundantly clear to him (and his friends) that his behaviour will not be tolerated and, if he persists, he will find himself in prison - and that the law will not surrender to his blackmail.

I still want an answer as to why people on the Naked bike rides up and down the country are getting away with it but he cant, it's like saying one person is allowed to steal but another isn't.
The law should mean the law.

The judge said "I can clearly see your nuts" just before sentencing him to community service to **** up litter and put it where the sun don't shine.
The big question is Willy be ared to conform?

bigfella777 wrote:
I still want an answer as to why people on the Naked bike rides up and down the country are getting away with it but he cant, it's like saying one person is allowed to steal but another isn't.
The law should mean the law.

I mentioned it in the previous thread QUOTE: "Technically, there is no law against being nude in public in the United Kingdom. Simple nudity is not illegal. However,using nudity to "harass, alarm or distress" others is an offence against the Public Order Act of 1986".

There is your answer, if someone deems it distressing they have the right to bring in the authorities.

bisonstrangler wrote:

indy75 wrote:
I can't believe so much attention is paid to this man and so much public money is wasted persuing him and imprisoning him. I don't agree with it personally but he's obviously very determined and I don't think he does it to cause offence so as long as he's not hanging around (excuse the pun!) schools or shops etc - just let him be and ignore him. I'd love to know how he keeps warm though ;)

Firstly, he has a following of creepy exhibitionists who are watching the proceedings and waiting for the authorities to cave in and let him do as he likes. That will then be their green light to do the same.

Secondly, he IS doing it to cause offence. His stated aim is to "confront" people's attitudes to nudity - in other words, he is going to make sure we all get a good look at his private parts.

Thirdly, I agree he is "very determined" to get his own way. Is taht any reason why we should not be equally determined to stop him? What mandate does he have to mess with everyone else's sensibilities and make them conform to what he thinks they should be? What right does he have to try to change the legal status of nudity?

Mr Gough is a public nuisance. It should be made abundantly clear to him (and his friends) that his behaviour will not be tolerated and, if he persists, he will find himself in prison - and that the law will not surrender to his blackmail.

Thankfully, he is now on remand till the 25th March. If I wilfully ignored the law for as long as he has, I would deserve punishment. The Scottish place him in prison for a long time and still he didn't care. Well he will have to have a bit more education on the rights and wrongs of what he is doing. Now he is inside, a true picture of his mental health should be made and a descision on the future based on this report should be forthcoming. If he is sane, enjoy your chokey. If he is not sane, erm, what do they do with him? him for a long time i

That was rubbish. Ignore "him for a long time i" Please read around the other poor use of The Queens English. Tut tut.