I read with despair the BBC’s report about Stephen Gough, known as the Naked Rambler, embarking on yet another prison sentence. He was sentenced to 11 months in Hampshire yesterday, having spent six years in prison in Scotland as well. His crime? Refusing to wear clothes in public. He’s not harming anyone. He’s just walking.
I also thought that people were remanded in custody before trial only for the most serious offences, if they were likely to jump bail or be a danger to the public.
I first wrote about him a couple of years ago on my own blog.
Public nudity isn’t my bag, which is something I’m sure you’ll all be very relieved to hear, but in the end of the day it’s not going to harm me or anyone else to see a naked man walking up the street minding his own business. If he was harassing people, well, that’s clearly a different matter, but I think we’d still have to ask if prison was the right place for him.
I feel saddened that we are behaving in such an uptight way. It just doesn’t seem necessary. Are we actually going to keep him in prison for the rest of his life? Simply because he doesn’t want to wear clothes? Really?
And if he’s kept in solitary because of other prisoners’ sensibilities, or for his own protection, I really can’t see how that’s doing him any good – and there’s a fairly major chance it’s harming him.
In a week where serious sexual assaults against 9 children merited only 15 months in jail, how can it be right that Gough has spent the better part of the last decade in solitary confinement?
I raised the issue of his imprisonment in Scotland at a civil liberties fringe meeting at Federal Conference last year. The panel, which included Greg Foxsmith, Anthony Hook and Julian Huppert all said that the situation in England was likely to be just as bad these days. Previously, he’d been left to his own devices there and it was only in Scotland that he’d felt the force of the law. The way I understand it, he could spend the next two decades being arrested and re-arrested for breaching his ASBO every time he’s released. Is this the most efficient use of our scarce resources and police time
There will be some who will say that we can’t allow someone to be in persistent contempt of court. Surely the law has to be proportionate, though? Locking people up indefinitely for something like this does not fit easily into the proportionate category as far as I am concerned.
This brings to mind the immortal words of Harry Willcock, I’m a liberal and I am against this sort of thing.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Read more by Caron Lindsay or more about anthony hook, greg foxsmith, julian huppert, naked rambler or stephen gough.
This entry was posted in News.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Despotism Renewed? Lord Hewart Unburied by Neil Hickman
Conference moves on to Harrogate
Getting things done - Victoria Park #dundeewestend
Welsh Labour's half empty echo chamber
Mid Suffolk Town and Parish Councillors meet
David Symonds
Geoff Reid
Nigel Jones
David Garlick
Marco
36 Comments
The Burkha damages society and offends me infinitely more than some bloke walking around naked yet that is allowed. The law is an ass!
There is another view one might take. He could simply stop behaving like this.
It’s OK to say no-one is hurt by his actions, but some people will be offended and even traumatized by this man’s behavior. Some perfectly ordinary people don’t like nudity. They also have the right not to be offended.
I support the John Stewart Mill principle of freedom of action unless it harms others. The mans behavior one might have considered just eccentric if he walked around naked once or twice or streaked across a games pitch. He’s now doing it at all times and that makes it unacceptable.
“They also have the right not to be offended.”
No, they don’t. Nobody has the right to not encounter things that they are offended by, and such a right would be directly in conflict with any right to free expression.
Has anyone attempted to help him appeal to a higher court? I’d like to see this one go all the way up, if necessary.
Whilst I accept that there may be the very occasional person who is offended by nudity I do not accept that most, or even some, people are. Everyone sees at least one naked body every day – their own – without being offended. As for traumatised by seeing another persons parts, I suggest that if anyone is affected by seeing something so natural then they were traumatised by some earlier life event.
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity.”
Certainly surprised by your assertion, mickft, that people “have a right to be not offended”. Where did that come from? I don’t think any human rights legislation contains that. As liberals, we would be very slow to adopt such a proposition!
Well of cours e the courts have a very strange idea of what is contempt of court. Try getting anywhere complaining about the behaviour of someone elses solicitor and you will hit a brick wall, annoy a Judge and you will be in trouble.
Locking him up It is absurd waste of resouces and has probabbly made the problem far worse. I wish he would stop, for his own good, but more than that I wish the Courts made better judgements.
mickft
There is no right not to be offended and nor should there be in the future. If there had been, a good portion of British TV, stage and radio comedy would have had legal action against the broadcasters and writers by now!
He was remanded in custody, rather than bailed, because the court had substantial grounds for believing he would commit an offence on bail, if given bail. That is, he would continue to breach his ASBO by walking around without clothes. That is the law. Second, he has been jailed for breaching his ASBO. An ASBO is a form of injunction forbidding a certain course of action. It is a court order the meaning and consequences of which would have been explained when it was imposed. That is also the law. Personally, I could not care less if he walks around naked, but I do care about the rule of law. Gough has wilfully and knowingly flouted court orders – he thinks he is above the law. He is not, and if he continues he will spend more time in prison – that is his decision.
The legal framework for ASBO’s was always a bit dubious. No crime need be committed to have an ASBO but, if the terms were not followed, then you are in breach of the law. Locking this person up for, potentially, the rest of his life over a minor offence surely must count as cruel and unusual punishment.
He may be eccentric but he does not harm anyone. If he walks past me and I feel offended by his nakedness, I promise to look the other way.
Yet a naked cycle ride took place in Canterbury last week and the police didn’t stop that
I agree with Anthony Hawkes over Frank Furter; the very point of ASBOs is that they allow people to be locked up without committing a criminal offense, by giving penal powers to arbitrary prohibitions. I see no problem with somebody thinking they’re above the law, if the law is a bad law – and ASBOs are bad law.
As a political party we should be most concerned with whether the law needs to be changed.
I’m unclear whether in this case it’s any of the Public Order Act (even if it’s simply misapplied), contempt of court, or (in Scotland) breach of the peace. Maybe the blame lies solely with ASBOs: that – as Anthony says – he’s never committed a crime but the power to give ASBOs for almost anything has ultimately led to years in prison. So given that the government is hoping to replace ASBOs, perhaps <a href="http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/antisocialbehaviourcrimeandpolicingbill.html"the bill that's currently going through the Commons is a chance for Lib Dems to improve the law.
Instead, it sounds like the draft bill will open up this sort of treatment to any behaviour “capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person” or anything that the particular magistrates deem “antisocial behaviour”.
The ‘Naturist Action Group’ believes “the potential for a miscarriage of justice is higher with this new flawed bill than is currently endured by naturists. […] We contend that this bill is bad law in the making, and would urge readers to inform their MPs of the need for amendment.”
Hmm. As a liberal, I wouldn’t defend shouting “Fire” in a crowded cinema. I wouldn’t disagree that there should be an offence of behaviour liable to cause a breach of the peace. I would think that a three-year-old walking down the street might well be very upset to come face-to-face with a big swinging whatnot. So might a woman who had been assaulted by somebody else.
I think the police should only arrest if they have actual evidence that someone has been seriously upset. But if they do have that evidence, should they not act upon it?
Good article. This has a lot of similarities with the arguments over gay people kissing in public. Not so long ago it would get you arrested, on the grounds that people were “offended” by it. We are rightly now moving to a position whereby those “offended” by it are told to stop being so bigoted. In time, the same will occur with nudity. We should be speaking up for the Naked Rambler for exactly this reason. Be on the right side of history.
Both the article & comment thread contain a good deal of insulting & irrelevant comment. I am deeply bothered by public nudity, not offended, disturbed, hurt. That gives me the right to object whether my feelings are the result of childhood traumas or not, unless I am to be judged insane. People have the right to say to others “stop that, youre hurting me” & sometimes society has to judge whos being most unreasonable.
This man can gain his (relative) freedom anytime by simply agreeing to keep some of his cothes on in public.
I agree with Paul Barker. These extreme liberals who think the police don’t need to intervene when someone walks around naked are putting people off the party.
To those who say it is out of proportion: well, what is the point in letting him out if he says he is just going to do it again? The public doesn’t want unrepentant and unrehabilitated criminals walking around the street and the sooner liberals learn that the better.
I know that laws aren’t always ethical and the label criminal or terrorist isn’t always the right one, but this is not like the requirement to keep your clothes on in public is an extreme or oppressive law,where defying it could be ethically permissible.
Paul, you might not like public nudity but I’m not sure I understand how exactly a middle aged man going on his way and minding his own business is actually harming you. Can you explain, please?
And do you really think that it’s proportionate to keep him deprived of liberty indefinitely because of it – and, like I say, most of it in solitary which really can’t be good for him.
One of our dogs is bothered by people wearing hats. Should we be bringing in a ban on them?
The sad reality is that this is not about him being naked, it’s about him not subjugating himself to the authorities, to the state, and to the victorian-esque mob that would rather everyone conforms to their sensibilities. This guy has been punished for being different yet harmless, something that would shame someone with less conviction and bravery, and has decided that he will keep on doing it anyway. There is no reason for the ongoing persecution he finds himself under other than it being an attempt by those around him in a position of power trying again and again to enforce their will and dominance.
It reminds me of the story of the women walking topless in New York finally being told that cops will no longer arrest them for public indecency (given guys aren’t subject to such arrests for the same level of undress). There is only one reason for society to stand by and say what people can and can’t dress like, and that is to enforce order and to put people in to their correct position in life. It’s horrible, and this is honestly one of the most disgusting pieces of legal action against a person in some time from my perspective. An utter affront to liberal values.
What Lee Griffin said.
It’s easier to keep him locked up because be is a one- off e centric.
But what if there were a group action – lets say a charity walk with 1000 participants- would anyone advocate locking them all up? It’s a waste of time and money imprisoning someone for nudity
Ultimately that is the pernicious aspect of the AS BO. It results in people being imprisoned for behaviour which is, of itself, unimprisonable.
Example one – the alcoholic “park drinker” given an asbo not to have alcohol in a public place, inevitably breaches, locked up.
Example 2 – a prostitute given ASBO not to “loiter” does so anyway maybe forced to by pimp, locked up for breach
Our prisons are increasingly full of drunks and prostitutes, that even the sanctimonious Victorians would not have imprisoned. ( loitering under vagrancy act carried a fine not imprisonment)
If public nudity were legal, how could indecent exposure – which can be an unpleasant offence especially where children are involved – still be dealt with?
Public nudity is legal, otherwise the artist who gets hundreds of people at a time to undress and pose for his photographs would not get so many volunteers. Amazing how they don’t get charged. This is just more British uptight rubbish being paraded as public morality.
Jailing the ” naked rambler” or anyone else who is not a dangerously violent criminal is a gross waste of “scarce” public money. Jailing someone costs about £1000 per day, so imprisoning this man must of cost taxpayers £millions.
How many hospital operations could have been carried out with that money? How many lives could have been saved?
I note also the case of the teacher who eloped with a 15 year old pupil has also come to court, another gross waste of public money and an insult to the victims of genuine child abuse and abduction.
These people should be doing community service or be fined in some way
One of the problems faced is that he seems unwilling to compromise. For example this was reported from an earlier hearing in Scotland.
“The police officers who arrested you told you that if you carried on your journey you would pass a playground occupied by children. You were given three options – one, change direction; two, cover your private parts; or three, enter a police van which would take you around the playpark and release you on your way at the other side.
“Despite that, you refused, which showed disregard for other members of the public, in particular children who have the right not to see naked men.”
Would it really have infringed his liberties to have avoided the school ?????? With rights come responsibilities and I would say the police offered three options one of which did not change his right to be naked in public at all…
Perhaps the “Naked Rambler” could define his activity as a religion.
He could then go to the European court of human rights, get his convictions quashed and get millions in compensation from all the characters that have pursued him. He could then go of and retire on a tropical island where he could pursue his religion in peace with lots of pretty girls to keep him company.
children who have the right not to see naked men
What an absolutely bizarre comment!
No wonder our kids are so screwed up.
@MBoy
Whether or not you agree with the comments of the Scottish Judge, there was a compromise available that would have allowed him to continue to ramble naked and the sensitivities of others to be considered. Would it really have hurt to walk around ?
So Page 3 is Bad, Miss England is Bad, but a man parading his meat and two veg in public (including outside children’s playgrounds) is fine.
Those who say there is “no right to not be offended” are factually wrong. They may disagree with it, but the right does exist in certain circumstances – that is the way our society is ordered at the moment.
I think that those making excuses for this foolish man are not doing him any favours at all. A man who, in the circumstances Steve Way describes, chooses incarceration over freedom clearly has a major problem. Telling him that he is right and should just carry on doing it (which many posters here are doing) is the worst possible advice.
Personally I think the answer is in his own hands and he and his supporters should stop blaming the law for his problems.
Caron, you’re absolutely right.
Thoughtful article and some superb comments. I regularly send Naked Rambler Stephen Gough press articles and blogs about himself while he is on the inside serving his time. I’m sure he’ll really enjoy reading all this. He’ll certainly have some time on his hands. In a recent blog by a Scottish Conservative MSP, he referred to Stephen Gough by way of a question, “is this the most selfish man in Britain?” We’ll no, just a man who is the product of the baby boomer generation, not quite old enough to have been a hippy in the sixties, having a mid-life crisis. A great deal of ex soldiers like Stephen Gough, who served 5 years in the Royal Marines and saw a tour of duty in Northern Ireland during the troubles (probably hated by some, the IRA supporters and loved by others, the protestants) find it difficult to fit back into society. Lots commit suicide, become homeless or end up in prison for whatever reason. It’s unlikely Mr Gough, having been regimented by the armed forces in Britain and serenaded by “The Moonies” in Thailand, will ever compromise his position and set out to wear clothes in public spaces ever again, so yes, the English authorities will have to lock him up for the rest of his life or follow Scotland’s route and let him walk free and naked after keeping him in solitary confinement for over six years. The answer to Mr Gough’s troubles lie with the philosophers of the past. He’s haunted by them. John Stuart Mill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to name but a few. Perhaps in the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson he’s trying to become the most perfect man that ever lived, a transcendentalist, “You will see by this sketch that there is no such thing as a transcendental party; that there is no pure transcendentalist; that we know of no one but prophets and heralds of such a philosophy; that all who by strong bias of nature have leaned to the spiritual side in doctrine, have stopped short of their goal. We have had many harbingers and forerunners; but of a purely spiritual life, history has afforded no example. I mean, we have yet no man who has leaned entirely on his character, and eaten angels’ food; who, trusting to his sentiments, found life made of miracles; who, working for universal aims, found himself fed, he knew not how; clothed, sheltered, and weaponed, he knew not how, and yet it was done by his own hands. …Shall we say, then, that transcendentalism is the Saturnalia or excess of Faith; the presentiment of a faith proper to man in his integrity, excessive only when his imperfect obedience hinders the satisfaction of his wish.” To my mind, Stephen Gough should be given some land by the state, free land to do with what he wishes and let him live there as a latter day Henry David Thoreau and see how he gets on. Just a liberal idea. His very own Garden of Eden, probably somewhere in the Kingdom of Fife.
@George
Great post – one of the funniest parodies of liberalism I’ve ever read.
Caron Lindsay
Paul, you might not like public nudity but I’m not sure I understand how exactly a middle aged man going on his way and minding his own business is actually harming you. Can you explain, please?
If a man intends to sexually abuse a child, he may well start by exposing his genitals to the child. Start off by getting the child used to the sight, then to used to the touch, and so on.
It may be that the person in this case really does not have any underlying sexual feelings in his wish to be naked in public. However, it happens to be the case that most men who expose their genitals in public are doing so in order to gain sexual satisfaction, and it is often a prelude to more than just exposure.
We are cautious about public nudity, particularly with children, because so often it is a stage in sexual abuse. The concern is that if children learn to be relaxed about it, they may more easily be led into situations where they are abused.
I would have thought that this is fairly obvious, and did not need to be spelled out.
A final thought on Naked Rambler Stephen Gough. Many congratulations to him for winning CentreForum Liberal “Hero of the Week”. Here, in this excellent John Stuart Mill-esque philosophical piece by Stephen Tall.. Walk tall young man, walk tall! http://centreforumblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/centreforum-liberal-hero-of-the-week-40-stephen-gough-aka-the-naked-rambler/