[size=18pt]Unclothed rambler Stephen Gough warned he could spend rest of his life in prison if he refuses to wear clothes[/size]

Unclothed rambler Stephen Gough is set to spend the rest of his life behind bars - unless he puts on a pair of trousers.

Gough, who has become notorious for trying to walk around Britain unclothed, was arrested within seconds of being freed from Perth prison on December 17.

Yesterday, he was found guilty of breaching the peace by walking unclothed in the street and refusing a request by police to put some clothes on in public.

The ex-lorry driver was warned that he would continue to be jailed every time he stepped out of prison without clothes on.

On the past two occasions when he has been freed from jail, officers from Tayside Police were waiting at the jail gates to rearrest him.

The 50-year-old, who has spent most of the past seven years in jail for identical crimes, turned down an offer to walk free yesterday on condition that he get dressed.

Perth sheriff Lindsay Foulis told Gough he would consider granting him bail to go back to his "warmer" home in Eastleigh, Hampshire, if he agreed to put clothes on. But he refused.

The sheriff added: "When the day comes for you to be released, you will be apprehended and the same process gone through again.

"If I impose a custodial sentence, that is a scenario which is likely to arise again and again and again."

Gough conducted his own defence in court while completely unclothed.

The sheriff said he would consider whether that was a contempt of court when he is sentencing.

He remanded Gough in custody and warned him he could be jailed for upwards of 18 months.

Gough said he accepted he could "potentially" remain in jail forever.

He said: "This is about individual freedom."

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/01/12/naked-rambler-stephen-gough-warned-he-could-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-prison-if-he-refuses-to-wear-clothes-86908-21960890/

Errm Saga how does this concern nigerian politics

So oyinbo's can send someone to jail and even threaten to lock them up for life because they are disgusted by the actions that harms no one?

This guy is born unclothed (undisputable fact) and has not harmed anyone, so why are they locking him up?  

But when people apply jail sentence to homosexuality in Africa, they scream discrimination, backwardness and not acceptable in the modern world even though most find it disgusting.  

And this are the same countries that banned polygamy because it disgust them, despite it not harming anyone and is between consenting and loving adults.

Logic fails the average man. The pro-gays argument is not valid.

I repeat, society forms law based on 2 premise:

1) Harm

2) Disgust

Don't let some stu.pid West dictate our life.

asha 80:

Errm Saga how does this concern nigerian politics

Big Bros, our law formulation.

Why are we expending resources on locking up some loon, when murderers and paedophiles go free every day? It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that it’s because he is cocking a snook at the law, and that will not be tolerated…

“…he walked naked from Perth prison in December…”

In December? He can’t have had much to ‘offend public decency’ with, can he?!

The man, Gough, got it wrong. And so have you, Sagamite. Nudism is a fundamental human right. You can stay unclothed inside your house, or in the presence of like minds - that is why you have nudist resorts, nudist beaches, hotels, etc. By going unclothed on the road, he was set to cause "harm" by hurting the sensibilities of people who do not subscribe his chosen lifestyle. He was infringing on the rights of others.

Comparing this act to homosexuality is misguided. Whatever I think of homosexuality, the state has no right, whatsoever, to interfere in what two consenting adults (yeah, you've heard that before!) choose to do in private. However, when homosexuals choose to go out of the closet and walk into Ikoyi Registry to get married, it becomes a public act comparable to Mr Gough's action. Most African societies are not prepared to handle that and people are likely to be harmed from the amount of hurt they will feel from seeing two men getting married and openly practising homosexuality. It would be understandable if the state intervenes in this case. If the state chooses to concern itself with what adults do in private, Big Brother will only promote intolerance and mass-hysteria.

Here is the Picture of the Guy

MyJoe:

The man, Gough, got it wrong. And so have you, Sagamite. Nudism is a fundamental human right. You can stay unclothed inside your house, or in the presence of like minds - that is why you have nudist resorts, nudist beaches, hotels, etc. By going unclothed on the road, he was set to cause "harm" by hurting the sensibilities of people who do not subscribe his chosen lifestyle. He was infringing on the rights of others.

Comparing this act to homosexuality is misguided. Whatever I think of homosexuality, the state has no right, whatsoever, to interfere in what two consenting adults (yeah, you've heard that before!) choose to do in private. However, when homosexuals choose to go out of the closet and walk into Ikoyi Registry to get married, it becomes a public act comparable to Mr Gough's action. Most African societies are not prepared to handle that and people are likely to be harmed from the amount of hurt they will feel from seeing two men getting married and openly practising homosexuality. It would be understandable if the state intervenes in this case. If the state chooses to concern itself with what adults do in private, Big Brother will only promote intolerance and mass-hysteria.

Mate, if it can be proven that one commited an homosexual act then one have hurt the sensibilities.

So it is OK for 2 consenting adults blah blah blah to do whatever, they should just make sure it is not proveable.

It is not a crime to be homo, it is the act that is against the law.

So we agree to some levels.

r231:

In December? He can’t have had much to ‘offend public decency’ with, can he?!

I don't understand this.

'I have nothing but contempt for morons'

Sagamite:

Mate, if it can be proven that you commited an homosexual act then you have hurt the sensibilities.

So it is OK for 2 consenting adults blah blah blah to do whatever, they should just make sure it is not proveable.

It is not a crime to be homo, it is the act that is against the law.

So we agree to some levels.

It is not about provability, Mr Sagamite. The state has no business interfering in homosexuality. Those whose sensibilities are hurt that homosexual acts are being committed in private are meddlesome and intolerant. They will grow out of it just as whites in Paradise City, Fla, have grown out of having their sensibilities hurt by the presence of a black man in their paradise, or folks in Alabama by the sight of people of different races getting married.

Sagamite:

I don't understand this.

all i am saying is that the guys is not affecting nobody the police are just wasting public funds on d guy

they should leave the guy alone jare. he shouldn't do this around kids though.

^^^ Kids use the streets, Bawo.

MyJoe:

^^^ Kids use the streets, Bawo.

that's why he should carry his butt to a segregated colony

bawomolo:

that's why he should carry his butt to a segregated colony

Why, did he harm anybody? He wants to live his life the way he was born, what is wrong with that?

MyJoe:

It is not about provability, Mr Sagamite. The state has no business interfering in homosexuality. Those whose sensibilities are hurt that homosexual acts are being committed in private are meddlesome and intolerant. They will grow out of it just as whites in Paradise City, Fla, have grown out of having their sensibilities hurt by the presence of a black man in their paradise, or folks in Alabama by the sight of people of different races getting married.

Although I can live by this, the state has a business in interfering in whatever offends the people or they find unnatural.

If a man takes a pig into the bedroom to shaina to (fire) its arse, the state can interfere based on offense, unnaturality and disgust.

But if they can not prove such took place, then you can practice your stuff.

Sagamite:

Why, did he harm anybody? He wants to live his life the way he was born, what is wrong with that? 

the last thing i want is junior and patience playing in the park being blessed with such an image  .
they have nudist colonies for his kind.

bawomolo:

the last thing i want is junior and patience playing in the park being blessed with such an image  .
they have nudist colonies for his kind.

Just like, it is the last thing most of us want for junior to see two men walking hand-in-hand in park, looking lovingly in each others eyes and then kissing affectionate OR be taught in school that it is a form of family unit.

I will recommend a segregation colony for those too, Haiti and Montserrat.

Sagamite:

Just like, it is the last thing most of us want for junior to see two men walking hand-in-hand in park, looking lovingly in each others eyes and then kissing affectionate OR be taught in school that it is a form of family unit.

I will recommend a segregation colony for those too, Haiti and Montserrat.

are you saying homosexuality is indecent exposure? I see nothing wrong with homosexuals hanging out hand in hand. What's wrong with such display of love and affection? Lewd display from either heterosexuals or homosexuals should be shunned in public.

why can't it be taught in school that same-sex households are a form of family unit? Ha that's a debate for another thread.

hey why not deport them to San-Francisco

bawomolo:

are you saying homosexuality is indecent exposure?  I see nothing wrong with homosexuals hanging out hand in hand. What's wrong with such display of love and affection? Lewd display from either heterosexuals or homosexuals should be shunned in public. 

why can't it be taught in school that same-sex households are a form of family unit? Ha that's a debate for another thread.

hey why not deport them to San-Francisco 

I am saying homo acts are indecent and unacceptable especially in public and should be banned, just like the 'progressives' that want to 'correct' Africa deem it fit to ban what disgust them. It proves my point I always made that laws are made on disgust factor, which was something pro-gay were saying is not right if the act was not harming anyone, a counter argument I always said was not valid. Gays kissing in public is as disgusting as anyone walking unclothed. Heteros kissing? Nothing wrong with that, we like to see it on TV and in public. On TV make the guy even lift up her skirt and Hakuma matata for all I care. 

San Francisco? Anywhere jor as long as they are not free to do it at my homeland where I want to live. Make they give dem asylum.