Naked Rambler gaoled again

Couldn't they just release him in the winter time in Scotland? That might discourage him for the awhile and then when it warms up in the spring time they can re-arrest him.
 
If the Scottish summer isn't enough, I doubt winter will do the trick.
And we have midges in summer.
 
I'm sure they have. You can't fart in public these days without being sent for psychiatric counselling.

The guy has a bee in his bonnet. He seems completely harmless, if a bit daft on this single issue. If he was the Duke of somewhere, he'd be a renowned eccentric and on breakfast tv. Locking him up is a waste of public money and yet another example of the dislocation between the Scottish Justice System and reality.

Locking up a whole load of lawyers would be a more rational act.
 
Soapy Sam said:
If the Scottish summer isn't enough, I doubt winter will do the trick.
And we have midges in summer.
Click to expand...

Well in winter maybe it would matter less since presumably the problematic elements of his anatomy would be less prominent so even if winter wasn't a complete fix there might be some mitigation of the problem.

They could also just drop him off in San Francisco some place. It might be awhile before anybody noticed another wacky homeless person and by then the British authorities could be long gone and it would be San Francisco's problem.
 
I don't see anything disagreeable with what he is saying. It does seem that it should be his human right to go without clothes. However, in a society, one must think of others. So I think he is right, but he is also wrong.

Yesterday I mentioned to a friend my dismay on missing a topless protest, women protesting that men can go without shirts but they cannot. He told me that in New York it is legal for a woman to walk around topless. I was delighted to hear it; now I have another reason to convince me to visit beyond the Met.
 
MoeFaux said:
I don't see anything disagreeable with what he is saying. It does seem that it should be his human right to go without clothes. However, in a society, one must think of others. So I think he is right, but he is also wrong.

Yesterday I mentioned to a friend my dismay on missing a topless protest, women protesting that men can go without shirts but they cannot. He told me that in New York it is legal for a woman to walk around topless. I was delighted to hear it; now I have another reason to convince me to visit beyond the Met.
Click to expand...

Meh, they might be allowed, but they don't, and likely the ones that would, aren't the ones you want to do it anyway.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Meh, they might be allowed, but they don't, and likely the ones that would, aren't the ones you want to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

Yep--that's the Naturist Paradox: people who want to be nudists aren't necessarily the same people you want to see naked.

It's interesting that all societies in temperate climates that have evolved beyond hunter-gatherer have also invented clothing, although these societies throughout history seem to have varying tolerances about those who choose (on occasion) not to wear them. Ours is extremely insistent that people wear clothing at all times. While outside in public, people can smoke with impunity, be drunk and obnoxious, make lots of noise, or even harangue passers-by without attracting too much unwanted attention, but the moment a guy removes his clothes the police are called the guy's hauled away.

There was a thread here last year about a man who was arrested for being naked at home. (The charges were later dropped.) What a mixed-up set of social norms.
 
I love public nudity, I just don't like the weirdos following me.


That's what the cover of darkness is for. Night streaking is where it's at.
 
I'm not wierd. I had a perfectly respectable reason for being there.


There was this nude chick...
 
Soapy Sam said:
How are you with ugly people?
Click to expand...

Look at my pic, i am one of them. lol

Nobody is saying you don't have the right to exist, ugly or no, but i have the right not to see ones package, a right every civilized country i can think of has agreed upon.
 
Blue Mountain said:
Yep--that's the Naturist Paradox: people who want to be nudists aren't necessarily the same people you want to see naked.

It's interesting that all societies in temperate climates that have evolved beyond hunter-gatherer have also invented clothing, although these societies throughout history seem to have varying tolerances about those who choose (on occasion) not to wear them. Ours is extremely insistent that people wear clothing at all times. While outside in public, people can smoke with impunity, be drunk and obnoxious, make lots of noise, or even harangue passers-by without attracting too much unwanted attention, but the moment a guy removes his clothes the police are called the guy's hauled away.

There was a thread here last year about a man who was arrested for being naked at home. (The charges were later dropped.) What a mixed-up set of social norms.
Click to expand...

Don't know the last time you smoked, drank or acted like a knob, but as someone who does, i can say your summation is wrong.

I can not smoke anywhere near th entrance of any building, even one designed to soley sell tobacco. I cannot drink except in my own home, or an establishment with a license, and even then will be kicked out for being drunk. And should i be walking down the street causing ruckus, regardless of how small, chances are i will be stopped by police especially in a residential neighborhood. I cannot listen to my music too loud, and hell, even certain jewelry items are grounds for being hassled and having them confiscated. ( any spike over 4 inches is illegal where i am, as an example)

With all these other laws, the one against having to see someones wagler, does not seem out of place. And with good cause, do you really want me walking around your neighbourhood, with a huge stogie, wearing nothing but 5 inch roofing nail bracelets, drinking a bottle of jagermeister, and blaring gwar from an 80's style ghetto blaster?

Didn't think so.
 
sadhatter said:
...
With all these other laws, the one against having to see someones wagler, does not seem out of place. And with good cause, do you really want me walking around your neighbourhood, with a huge stogie, wearing nothing but 5 inch roofing nail bracelets, drinking a bottle of jagermeister, and blaring gwar from an 80's style ghetto blaster?

Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd like to see that. I think it would be awesome.
 
MoeFaux said:
I love public nudity, I just don't like the weirdos following me.


That's what the cover of darkness is for. Night streaking is where it's at.
Click to expand...
.
I don't remember ever going to Spain,,,
 

Attachments

  • PrettyWoman-08.jpg
    PrettyWoman-08.jpg
    46.2 KB · Views: 16
  • PrettyWoman-09jpg.jpg
    PrettyWoman-09jpg.jpg
    29.1 KB · Views: 5
Last edited:
sadhatter said:
Don't know the last time you smoked, drank or acted like a knob, but as someone who does, i can say your summation is wrong.

I can not smoke anywhere near th entrance of any building, even one designed to soley sell tobacco. I cannot drink except in my own home, or an establishment with a license, and even then will be kicked out for being drunk.
Click to expand...
Maybe your law enforcement is better. In Winnipeg it's illegal to smoke within 15 or 20 feet of a doorway, but everyone ignores that bylaw with impunity.

And should i be walking down the street causing ruckus, regardless of how small, chances are i will be stopped by police especially in a residential neighborhood. I cannot listen to my music too loud
Click to expand...
Neat! Can I get you visit here and harass the bikers who run their motorcycles so loud they can induce hearing damage if you're beside them? From my apartment I can hear these idjits for a quarter mile or more.

and hell, even certain jewelry items are grounds for being hassled and having them confiscated. ( any spike over 4 inches is illegal where i am, as an example) With all these other laws, the one against having to see someones wagler, does not seem out of place. And with good cause, do you really want me walking around your neighbourhood, with a huge stogie, wearing nothing but 5 inch roofing nail bracelets, drinking a bottle of jagermeister, and blaring gwar from an 80's style ghetto blaster?
Click to expand...
I didn't say drinking in public, I said drunk. Two different things.

Overly loud music is one of my huge beefs with modern society. I can't close my ears, but if I see something I don't like I usually have the option of not looking at it. Is that so difficult to do?
 
I'm no lawyer, but I wonder if there actually is a law anywhere protecting someone's right not to see someone else naked?
So far as I'm aware , laws against "public indecency" simply ban the act of being naked or indecent in public places. The assumption behind that is that "indecency" exists and can be absolutely defined within one society.

In these days of multiculturalism, I don't see how that's possible.

Absolute nudity is one end of the spectrum and might be objectively measurable, but the level of scantiness in clothing which might offend a Wahabbi Muslim might not bother me in the least.
Question is, do we define "indecency" by the views of the most sensitive, the least sensitive, or somewhere in between?
 
MoeFaux said:
Actually, I'd like to see that. I think it would be awesome.
Click to expand...

I call this "hippy logic" or, if one is offended by that " punk logic" to take a jab at my own golden calf.

Just because you can deal with or are not effected by some crappy thing, doesn't mean that it is something people would want, and certainly doesn't mean that it is a point in an argument. The same kind of logic that leads people to say things like " I don't mind grafitti on buildings, i live in the country." , " A local bar closing isn't a big deal, i don't go there." and " Who cares if downtown is a dangerous place, i never go there."

The internet just makes this worse, because there is no ability to make one put their money where there mouth is. Even if i take at face value, that someone blind drunk wandering through your neighbourhood, doesn't make you a bit worried about your property, children, or wellbeing ( and i don't, to make it clear.) you have to take a step back and realize your opinion is not anywhere near the common thought on the matter. And furthermore that the common thought is based on facts, such as the actions of drunk folks.

Or , in short, some folks don't mind being kicked in the balls, doesn't mean that we should make it not a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom