Stephen Gough, known as the Naked Rambler, has been jailed for two-and-a half years after breaking the terms of an ASBO which bans him from appearing naked in public.

Gough, a former Royal Marine, has already spent eight years of almost continuous imprisonment as a result of his refusal to wear clothes in public – even appearing in the dock naked.

Gough had been arrested outside the gates of Winchester prison on April 15 just minutes after being released from a 16 month sentence for breaking an ‘indefinite’ ASBO – which states that he cannot appear in public naked with his buttocks and genitals exposed.

PC Rich Moody told Winchester Crown Court how he had been sent to the prison with a spare set of clothes to prevent Gough from breaching the terms of the ASBO again.

PC Moody said he saw Gough emerge from jail naked except for socks and boots and carrying two large plastic bags.   The officer said Gough was in full view of people waiting at a bus stop outside the Royal Hampshire County Hospital.

PC Moody offered Gough a tracksuit but he refused to wear it, and was promptly arrested.   The court heard, that following his arrest Gough told police that he would not comply with the ASBO because he thought it was unreasonable, saying:   “I want to live a reasonable life, I want my integrity.”

Gough told officers he thought the ASBO was “gobbledygook” and that it “goes against my sense of what is right”.   Gough told police: “I am not a robot I am a human being. Just because someone says something, no matter how big he is , you just don’t follow it.”

Prior to selecting and swearing in the jury, Judge J Miller had Gough brought before her to ask him if he wear clothes but Gough, who was representing himself, refused.

In a terse exchange, Gough refused to sit down.

“I am respectfully asking to stand. I want to be treated like a normal defendant,” Gough said.

“A normal defendant will sit down if asked to do so.” said the judge.

Gough was warned that if he did not sit then the trial would proceed without him.

Despite repeated requests Gough reused to sit and was taken back down to the cells.

Prosecutor Simon Jones told the judge that he thought Gough had been given every opportunity to participate but would not co-operate.

A group of Gough’s supporters, who had been in the public gallery, drafted a letter to the judge expressing their concerns about the way the trial was proceeding.

The supporters said they were not naturists but well wishers concerned about Gough’s civil liberties.

The letter noted that the jury had not been told that public nudity was not in itself a criminal offence and referred to the CPS guidance on handling cases of Naturism.

Gough’s supporters also felt the jury should be told he had already spent eight years in custody and that Gough refused to wear clothing out of ‘sincere and deeply held beliefs’ and not to cause alarm or distress.

The judge accepted the representation and a copy was provided for the prosecution.

The Prosecutor said he not said anything to suggest public nudity was illegal as it was irrelevant  – the trial was to consider an alleged breach of an ASBO not its validity.

The judge said that mentioning Gough’s previous time in jail was not only irrelevant, but could be prejudicial and although Gough may have ‘sincere and deeply held beliefs’ this is not a reasonable excuse in law.

The jury of six men and six women took under 15 minutes to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty.

Gough had turned down the opportunity to hear the verdict delivered but was returned to the dock for sentencing.

Judge Miller observed it was not the first ASBO Gough had broken and that he has committed a total of 48 offences:   “We are going round in circles in an endless cycle of prison sentences.” she observed.

Sentencing the Naked Rambler to two-and-a half years imprisonment plus a £120 victim surcharge.

The judge suggested that some sort of ‘closed community’ should be found for Gough otherwise “he is going to continue committing offences till the end of his natural life.”

The judge told Gough that he would only have to serve half of the sentence and warned him:   “You are the author of your own destiny.”

Print Friendly

21 Comments

  • George Gretton October 7, 2014 12:38 pm

    Hello Stephen,

    I spent over 50 years with psychological health problems whose severity meant that they spilled over into mental health problems – depression, suicide attempts, spells in and NHS Acute Psychiatric ward, after Insurance had run out, mind-numbing medication…..

    Very happily I finally, with crucial and critical help, resolved the problem at its psychological source, and I am now both psychologically and mentally healthy; or at least that’s my story, and I am sticking to it.

    It would be much more helpful in this case if compassionate talk of this man’s psychological / mental health condition could replace mindless and bizarre gibberish about his “Human Rights”. He is violating many others’ human rights…

    He is very unwell. His refusal to wear clothes is a very obvious symptom of his unwellness. People who are well wear clothes in public, and if they want to go naked, they do so in appropriate places, with like-minded people. The do not inflict themselves on members of the general public. I shared a lock up psychiatric ward for six months with people who were a whole lot more unwell than me, and the Nurses treated us all with care.

    His need is for care, rather than for detention in Prison, which will in itself do nothing to address his problem.

    Yours, George Gretton

  • Brian Johnson October 7, 2014 8:27 pm

    Mr Gretton has made a number of statements in his response which are just not true and are just based on prejudice.

    If he attended one of the World Naked Bike Ride events where up to a 1000 riders cycle naked through busy city centres, including London, at peak times he would realise that the vast majority of the population are enthusiastic or indifferent to the nudity.

    Mr Gough is questioning the indoctrination that occurs in our society, much propagated by the Churches, that there is something indecent about the human body.

    It is important to remember that it is not illegal to be naked in public and this was made clear when the Sexual Offences Act (2003)was being debated in Parliament when it was made clear it was not intending to criminalise Naturism or streaking. The abuse of the Public Order Act (1986) which was enacted in the follow-up to the Brixham riots was never intended to deal with eccentric behaviour such as is being shown by Mr Gough.

    The use by a Magistrate to issue an ASBO to make illegal something that has not been made illegal by Parliament is an abuse of our judicial system. At a time when many MPs are so concerned about laws being made by unelected bureaucrats in Europe, perhaps they should be more concerned by laws being made by unelected Judges and Magistrates.

    Mr Gough has not been confrontational or aggressive in his interactions with the public and the vast majority who have met him on his naked hikes have been supportive or indifferent. He has been confrontational in his dealings with the Courts and I think he is not doing his cause any good by the tactics that he pursues, but he is a stubborn man and he is reacting to the inhuman and unfair treatment he has received from the authorities over the years.

    Mr Gretton suggests that Mr Gough should only go naked in ‘appropriate places’ but doesn’t say what he means by that. For instance, there are many of us who think it is ‘appropriate’ to be naked when swimming. The swimming costume serves no practical purpose except to make money for the clothing industry. I would suggest that it is appropriate to be naked at all beaches (as in Denmark), in swimming pools, saunas etc. The runners in the ancient Olympics were naked. To me it would be ‘appropriate’ to run, walk or canoe naked in hot conditions; it is much more comfortable! I suspect that Mr Gretton would disagree and thinks Naturists belong in ghettos.

    I don’t agree with Mr Gough that it is ‘appropriate’ to be naked at all times. For instance, I wouldn’t find it appropriate to be naked when it’s too cold!

    Mrs May in her speech to the Conservative Party made it very clear that she thought people in Britain have a right to “wear what they like”. It appears that Muslims are allowed to wear what they like, but that privilege is not extended to Mr Gough or the estimated four million Naturists in Britain (IPSOS MORI POP).

    My last point is that it is a gross violation of Human Rights that Naturists don’t know when their activities are legal or criminal. At the moment it does not depend on the law, but is a lottery based on the prejudices of individual police officers, cps officials and Magistrates.

    • George Gretton October 8, 2014 7:34 pm

      Hello Brian,

      I take moderate exception to what you challenge me with, but not major exception; I think that some of your observations are a bit loose.. but I thank you for your courtesy. If we can stay civil in sincere debate, then everybody is the winner; and all are respected.

      When a major naturalist event is organised, the observing public have a choice as to whether to attend or not. As it happens I choose not to; I have far too volatile a sexuality to make that sensible. Women in the “Diana” pool in Sophia, Bulgaria, take off their tops; many men are aroused by that, having gone for a quiet swim and sunbathe. I consider that to be sexually provocative, in those circumstances. We are born with a wide range of sexual drive / potential for arousal, etc, etc, etc

      Parson’s Pleasure on the Cherwell in the Oxford Parks has long since been a male naturalist’s place of sanctuary; everybody knows that it is a place where men go naked, and that’s agreed, even if some don’t particularly respect the established convention.

      What happened in the Original Olympics took place a few millennia ago; while some of what the Ancient Greeks dreamed up is as relevant today as it ever was, this is not. Slavery was abundant then – do you want to re-introduce that now, here in the UK? You are being selective….

      Going back to the central man in this debate; I’m distressed at the thought of him just being sent back to prison, time and time again. But he has a MASSIVE problem with his lack of social boundaries, in his case.. If he went around loudly calling everybody “C***S”, then his situation would be the SAME, but the responses DIFFERENT. His inconsiderate-to-others actions in wandering around bollock naked in bog-standard environments bring other perfectly reasonable and decent people considerable offense and distress. They are not nasty prudes, but are not naturist-inclined. He has lost the plot, in this sole case under consideration.

      PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, can it be arranged for him to be assessed by an experienced Doctor of Psychology – I could recommend four for this purpose. Then he will no longer, I expect, be criminalised, but will be treated with care and consideration. He might re-discover appropriate social boundaries, and be free to lead an entirely liberated life… clothed when appropriate..

      He served his Country as a Soldier; I have no idea whether he served in difficult action, but I would not be surprised if that had been the case, and that that has affected him.

      1,900 US Military Veterans have ended their own lives this year alone, in acute and unsupported distress and isolation. That’s one thousand and nine hundred. The war experience can dreadfully disturb people – remember the aftermath of Vietnam – remember “The Deer Hunter”?

      So PLEASE CAN HE BE ASSESSED PSYCHOLOGICALLY? He’s NOT a Psychopath – he does NOT go around physically attacking people; it’s only the sight of his willy and balls that freaks many ordinary and kind people out, entirely prediactably.

      HE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, HAS A SERIOUS BEHAVIOUUR PROBLEM, and it is just cruel to treat him as a Criminal.

      I am developing an application in the Enfield Primary Schools Behaviour Support Service, where young children are helped and supported in resolving behaviours that would, if demonstrated as adults, find them Criminalised as well. The things that they do now.. phew, but they can be helped… or can learn to manage their behaviour in a way that will NOT bring them endless grief..

      So please can we see him for the human being that he is, respect him PROPERLY, and NOT by talking about his human rights while ignoring those of others, and HELP him?

      Yours, a somewhat passionate George – I was in psychological Hell for 50 years, as a direct result of sexual abuse, followed by psychological abuse, big time… There is a safe and caring place for him on our Society. And forget about the pseudo-priests and sexual assailants of children for this debate – it is relevant for another debate..

  • John H October 8, 2014 10:55 am

    Its appalling that this man who is no danger to others should be jailed for 2 years for something which is not an offence, The maj. who issued the ASBO (no doubt at the CPS’s suggestion) overstepped their powers and should at least be reprimanded

    • George Gretton October 10, 2014 9:45 am

      Hello John H,

      I am passionately concerned about this sad situation, and about the wellbeing of this very troubled man, who leaves a trail of problems in his wake, at great expense to society. In my view, as repeated here, he needs help and care. This situation does not have naturism at its core, in my view. This is a psychological health issue, as in any situation when a person’s sense of appropriate behaviour and boundaries has become impaired. If he went around, on an entirely equivalent basis, telling people to “Fuck off”, then perhaps a more balanced view would prevail, although he would also probably only end up in prison, after telling a Judge to fuck off.

      There are natural boundaries to Free Speech…. and if people don’t observe them, then there is appropriately exception taken..

      But I am just mind-boggled at your suggestions about “overstep” and “reprimand”.

      What, in your mind, SHOULD have happened INSTEAD?

      What alternative response to this undoubted problem would you have advocated?

      Please be very specific; put up or shut up…

      George Gretton

      • John H October 10, 2014 9:57 pm

        Like you I think a more humane solution would have been if he were required to seek medical supervision. I suspect that this former soldier is suffering from PTSD Many many soldiers throughout the world have suffered & as you remarked far to many have taken their own life OR have entered a life of crime to support themselves.
        I believe that we as a nation, fostered by government, ignore the plight of our service man & women & its a disgrace

        We rely on these people to protect us in the event of war or terrorism often at the risk of their own lives Yet we ignore them when they become ill

        Every week I drive passed the Help for Heroes rehabilitation centre & it make me mad thinking this place, although well intentioned, is allowing our politicians to avoid their responsibilities to these people who they send to war to fight & too often die, without much thought

  • Dita Gill October 9, 2014 9:05 am

    Thank you Brian Johnson for your reasoned comment.
    I admire Stephen Gough for thinking outside the box of social convention. Many other societies treat human nudity as natural and unobjectionable. It is wrong to criminalise his behaviour.
    Ironically, every day we are assailed by images of [young and attractive] naked women posed in particular ways which encourage a harmful and demeaning objectification of women, but the publishers of those images are not spending time in prison for contributing to attitudes which positively harm the development and life chances of women.

    • George Gretton October 10, 2014 10:30 am

      Hello Dita Gill,

      I’m as offended by the public demeaning of women as you are.

      I go back to the origins of this, and object there; I tackle the sources of the problem, which are the foul and calumnious fables of Eve and Pandora. This problem has been around for MILLENNIA, and needs to be understood as such if it is to be further addressed. And the current situation harms men and boys as well as women and girls.

      You refer to the Naked Man as “….thinking outside the box of social convention”, in an unqualified way.

      You are in my mind implicitly suggesting that “anything goes”. It does not.

      I think very radically, outside of “the conventional box”, in a number of areas, but I STILL RESPECT BOUNDARIES that are there for a good reason.

      Abusers violate natural and decent and healthy boundaries so as to actively harm people. That is totally intentional, and they know exactly what they are doing.

      The Naked Man, the Naked Ex-Soldier, has totally lost sight of natural boundaries in the area of where it is kind and respectful towards others for him to wander around with his penis and testicles in everybody’s full view, as well as his bottom.

      I’m taking a generous and compassionate view here; there is an obvious possibility that has to be considered that he is not in any way a benevolent person, but that he has a huge axe to grind with Society, and his relentless nakedness is his way of grinding that axe, at the public expense, both financially and socially.

      We do, with good and agreed reason and rationale, punish such criminals by imprisoning them.

      THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURISM.

      Yours,

      George Gretton

      P.S. I do try to get anti-social and nasty people banged up in prison, even if they dress smartly and conventionally, and have shared with me a privileged background.

      “Google” (sorry) “George Gretton IBD”, and download the “J’Accuse” document that you will find there, and read it. These people seem to have grossly and blatantly violated the Laws of the UK, in laundering money so as to evade Corporation and Personal Taxes, and need to be tackled on that basis. Kenny should be up for a 10 year sentence… as was sentenced the Polly Peck piece of excrement..

  • Brian Johnson October 9, 2014 11:57 pm

    Hi
    Just a few brief comments on the post of George Gretton.

    At events such as the World Naked Bike Ride, probably 99% of the observing public will have no prior knowledge of the event. The enthusiasm and support for the riders is amazing. The idea that the majority of the public are offended by nudity is just wrong. It is only a very small proportion of the public who claim to be offended by nudity and most of those are offended on someone else’s behalf: “I don’t want my wife/children to see nudity”. This attitude displayed by the public at World naked Bike Ride events is backed up by the results of IPSOS MORI public opinion polls where only about 1% of the population think that nudity in public should be unlawful.

    Mr Gough has been assessed and found to be perfectly sane by psychiatrists. We don’t want to follow the example of the old USSR of declaring anyone who won’t conform to be insane and then imprisoning them in a psychiatric hospital. Mr Gough is being imprisoned because he is not willing to conform, not because he is causing any harm to anyone.

    Mr Gough does lack some of the social graces, but so do millions of other members of our society.

    In our society we have to put up with all sorts of anti-social things we don’t like. I am certainly offended by people who drop litter, people who don’t control their dogs, smokers and my own prejudice; obese people. I have to put up with these people, I don’t go crying to the police and ask for them to be arrested. We need to show toleration of others. One of the others we need to show toleration to is Mr Gough.

    • George Gretton October 10, 2014 4:56 pm

      Hello Dear Brian Johnson,

      Thank you so much for providing the previously missing-to-me ingredient here, that the central player, Mr Gough, has been assessed as “sane” by a team of Psychiatrists, who I happen to think are bonkers…although that is not a technical term..

      I remember being taught, when I was 13 or so, the Ancient Greek word whose English phonetic form is “athumeo”; it was being used, very expressively, by a Benedictine Monk at Ampleforth College, who was DESPAIRING of his Class of 13 year olds, that he was trying to educate in Ancient Greek …. I got a Grade 5 in my “O” Level, and / but a Grade 3 in Latin.

      I was much, much stronger in maths, and in the sciences…

      Please note that I did NOT previously use the word “Psychiatrist” in this context; I used words that I will now expand on as “Clinical Psychologists”.

      I have had mixed experience personally of “My” Psychiatrists, over 20 years (I am at last heading for discharge from the CNWL Foundation Trust) – some have had wondrous Psychological insight, and some have none at all …. the pill-brigade… and I understand how desperate one was when I was subjected to repeat episodes of ECT – amongst the most terrifying experiences of my life.. even amongst others.

      But in a mix of Psychiatrists and Clinical Psychologists, some of whom also work as Psychotherapists (AVOID PSYCHOLOGICALLY UNQUALIFIED “Psychoanalysts”, etc, like the PLAGUE, or AIDS / HIV, especially when they do not have a single Degree in ANYTHING), I can assure readers that Dr Vesna Inanesevic, Dr Jan Wise, Dr (I think) Anna Patalan, Dr Ricardo Stramer, Dr Ya’ir Klein, Dr Abigail San, Dr Richard White, Dr Amini, and Dr Maggie Turp would all read the observations in this extended thread and observe that while some may have assessed this Ex-Soldier as “sane”, they would regard his as having a serious Psychological disorder; as would both a former Couple Counsellor, Peter Smith, and the Art Therapist, Mary Riley, through whose trustworthiness I found my own healing.

      So I can only re-suggest that Soldier Gough is assessed on a Psychological basis, under which he might compassionately be “Sectioned” under the relevant Mental Health Act, as simply being very unwell. It’s so bloody obvious to caring people..

      We are neither in Bolshevik Russia, that murdered 60,000,000 if its own “Dissidents”, nor are we in the Terrifying World so shockingly but brilliantly portrayed by Stanley Kubrick in “A Clockwork Orange”.

      This is positively my last post in this thread…

      Yours, George

      Here is a link to Joseph Haydn’s Divine “Insane Song”; an utter Gift for the Tenors… but the Counter-Tenors make a late entrance.. as for the Trebles…. wow…

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSYK5JHgRnA

  • Michael October 10, 2014 2:47 pm

    A few thoughts.

    Firstly, it is regrettable that Mr Gretton should seem to be seeking to advance his own personal and vested interests on the naked back of Mr Gough. His arguments might have more force if they didn’t appear to be motivated, in part at least, by self-interest.

    Secondly, Mr Johnson complains about “laws being made by unelected judges and magistrates”.

    However disturbing it is that Mr Gough should be repeatedly imprisoned, as I understand it, he is not being punished on the basis of a “made up” law, but rather for repeated breaches of the ASBO (and it may be helpful to recall what that acronym actually means, namely an “antisocial behaviour order”) to which he is subject, a regime – like it or loathe it – which was adopted by the legislature (parliament) without any judicial interference, and has been tested in the courts numerous times. The decision to make custody the ultimate sentence for wilful and persistent breaches of an ASBO was made by our MPs, and not by judges or magistrates, who are called on to apply the law as they find it, warts and all.

    It is not an offence to go into either a shop or a public house, for example, but many prolific shoplifters and those who have repeatedly been found to be behaving in a drunk and disorderly manner have been banned from certain shops, or types of shop, or from all the pubs in the area in which they live. If they consistently breach such court orders they can, in the last resort, be sent into custody, even if they weren’t shoplifting when found in a shop, or drunk in a pub.

    And finally, moving on from that observation, I wonder whether Mr Johnson is really calling for us to have an elected judiciary.

    For my part, the thought sends shivers down my spine. For us to live in a society in which we can be sure that the “rule of law” applies, the judiciary (whether judges or magistrates) must be able to decide “without fear or favour” according to their judicial oath. How on earth could that be possible if they were canvassing for votes and campaign donations at the same time?

    • George Gretton October 10, 2014 5:24 pm

      Time for a quick straw poll….Michael..

      It is suggested that I am “advancing my own personal and vested interests”, and that “my arguments might have more force if they didn’t appear to be motivated, in part at least, by self-interest.”

      Can somebody be a bit specific here?

      What “interests” are being referred to?

      My interest in Justice, which I exercise by actively pursuing Frauds and Abusers, rather than just by pontificating?

      I have my “IBD” case and my “Phoenix” case in the Public Domain; I take every opportunity to Publicise them, since in doing so I gather even more case evidence.

      My interests in Child Protection and Recovery, and in the recognition of psychological health problems?

      As far as I am concerned I act in a Spirit of Service in what I do, in a number of areas; I have as role models my dad, Peter Gretton (see Wikipedia page), Dr Ted Codd, Albert Einstein, and many other Servants.

      Please specify….. the “self-interest” and “personal and vested interests”, Michael No-Surname…

  • Tom Jones October 28, 2014 5:50 pm

    According to the Guardian, “Naked Rambler loses at European court over right to public nudity“.

    In my opinion, this is an abuse of the ASBO system, to imprison someone who had not broken the law, it is not illegal to be nude in public, subject to various guidelines issued by the Crown Prosecution Service “Nudity in Public – Guidance on handling cases of Naturism“.

    As has been pointed out, events such the Naked Bike Ride allow hundreds of naked people cycle through busy cities in full view of everyone. It is inconsistent to criminalise Gough, and not the cyclists, despite there being people who would claim equal offence.

    According to the CPS, the law seems to require either harassment, alarm or distress… unless it doesn’t involve nudity, or you are on a bicycle, which is again, inconsistent.

    Incarcerating someone who has not broken an actual law, who is of no harm to the public, at tax payers offence, seems biased, prejudiced, and somewhat worrying.

    • George Gretton October 29, 2014 10:29 am

      Hello Tom Jones,

      I also saw this news yesterday, in the evening on my way into London for a choir rehearsal.

      SHIT! Even the European Court throws out his case.

      The notion of CONSENT is relevant when a man or woman displays his or her genitals to others.

      “Indecent exposure laws in most states make it a crime to purposefully display one’s genitals in public, causing others to be alarmed or offended. Indecent exposure is often committed for the sexual gratification of the offender or committed to entice a sexual response.” This is from the US, but makes the point perfectly.

      We may miss the point that Gough is a SERIAL, DETERMINED, AND TOTALLY UNAPOLOGETIC OFFENDER on account of the fact that he does not wear any clothes at all.

      He would be more honest it he went around clothed, but with his penis hanging out of his flies. That would make his intent to offend clearer.

      I did write on this before, but it got moderated. Note from above:

      “Indecent exposure is often committed for the sexual gratification of the offender or committed to entice a sexual response.”

      Most recipients of indecent exposure are very, very distressed by somebody enticing an involuntary sexual response in them.

      This is sexual violation on an emotional basis, rather than on a physical basis. It is covered by the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which was NOT written by prudes.

      Have a look what was very usefully and beneficially cleaned up material about penetrative, invasive, penetrative rape. It was not a prude that included a person’s mouth as one of the relevant orifices. It was a wise and sensitive person, who can differentiate inoffensive nudism from intentionally offensive genital display.

      Yours, as ever sincerely, George Gretton

    • Brian Johnson October 29, 2014 11:34 am

      It has not been made clear in some of the media reports that the ECHR judgement only refers to the law in Scotland and has nothing to do with the ASBO or his present incarceration.

      If you read the 32 page judgement from the ECHR it will be clear that the justices did not consider the issues which Steve Gough wanted to raise. Most of their ruling was based on legal nicities, such as time-limits.

      They seemed to accept without consideration as “fact” the statement “the Sheriff was satisfied that the applicant’s appearance naked on a public road outside HMP Perth was sufficiently severe to cause alarm to ordinary people and serious disturbance to the community” when this was just an assertion of prejudice and that no evidence had been provided to support this claim.

      This is law made by police and Judges, not by Parliament.

      • George Gretton October 30, 2014 4:33 pm

        Here’s what Brian wrote above….

        “They seemed to accept without consideration as “fact” the statement “the Sheriff was satisfied that the applicant’s appearance naked on a public road outside HMP Perth was sufficiently severe to cause alarm to ordinary people and serious disturbance to the community”

        … when this was just an assertion of PREJUCICE and that NO EVIDENCE had been provided to support this claim.

        Now I entirely agree with what The Sherriff said, as a transparent fusion of common sense and legislation, by a clear thinking and sensitive human being, who happens to be a Senior Officer of the Law North of The Border. As it happens there is a Lawyer and Academic called “George (Lidderdale) Gretton” in Edinburgh – but we are not connected, that I know of, except by first given and family names.

        Brian, you and I do not live in the same conceptual and emotional world. You life in the same world as Gough, and need to be with him.

        I suggest that you go to near where Gough is serving his current or next sentence, find a busy shopping centre, get a Police Officer to attend in advance, and strip naked, except perhaps for your shoes and socks, in an expression of Solidarity with him, and take it from there.

        Tell the Police in advance what you are doing, so that they cannot doubt your sincerity; but they will arrest you anyway, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

        If you repeat that enough times, in the process really distressing and upsetting very many people with your “genital exposure”, as defined in the Act, then you will hopefully end up sharing a cell with Gough, where the two of you can endlessly debate how awful “Prejudice” is.

        But watch out for thus-prejudiced fellow prisoners / inmates.

        My understanding is that they are in their way clear-sighted and expressive individuals, that would beat to death paedomisetes (child haters / abusers) if those individuals were NOT secluded / segregated from the other “rough diamonds” serving their sentences.

        Did fellow inmates accommodate the sight of Gough’s exposed penis? I doubt it, Unless they just thought it was a huge joke.

        But I shudder to think what might have descended onto his genital area at meal times..

        “Whoops, I dropped spotted dick on your dick, mate. SO sorry!”

        George (Richard) Gretton; utterly exasperated. Could somebody else take up the running?

        • Brian Johnson October 31, 2014 12:18 pm

          George

          I had thought your contributions were sincere, but misguided, which is the view I assumed you took of my contributions.

          Now however I’m leaning towards the view that you are a troll.
          Please read what I actually say before making your responses.

          • George Gretton November 4, 2014 10:12 am

            Hello Brian Johnson,

            “In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

            Please look in the mirror, and don’t project your own behaviours onto me.

            I regard Gough as very seriously disturbed, and profoundly abusive, even as evil, and I regard you as dangerously misguided.

            As one who lived for over 50 years in the shadow of abuse, I regard it as my duty to challenge what I sincerely believe, after much sincere debate, to be abusive behaviour, especially when that abusive behaviour is presented as if it were righteous, or in some way justified. That’s as bad as it gets.

            The pseudo-Muslim preachers who recruit, with lies and fantasies, often vulnerable and deprived young individuals to be suicide bombers, are an extreme example of redefining death as the best form of life, of disrespect as the ultimate respect, and abuse as kindness; they claim the right to abuse as one of their “human rights”. They sometimes talk, falsely, of “tough love”…

            If I either challenge or strongly agree with a post here, then I print it out, so as the better to read it. I do read what you post, and it disturbs me.

            As it happens I yesterday printed out an article by Barrister Barbara Hewson, that also mightily disturbs me, along with another article of hers that asserts that “Rape victims can be partially responsible for their ordeal”. That disturbs me even more; I would not say that of a dear women friend that described to me, in necessary detail, what happened to her when she was raped with extreme violence. That helped me understand the gulf and abyss between a rapist’s behaviour and my own, as a caring, albeit passionate, individual.

            Sincerely,

            George Gretton

          • Brian Johnson November 5, 2014 10:08 am

            Hi George
            You continue to take comments completely out of context and exaggerate them beyond recognition.

            Your attack on Barrister Barbara Hewson which infers with the words: “I would not say that of a dear women friend that described to me, in necessary detail, what happened to her when she was raped with extreme violence.” that she would condone such a rape.

            This seems to fit your criteria of a troll “posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” exactly.

            You may disagree, but the article to which we are commenting is about the imprisonment of a man who many (obviously not you) consider to be a harmless, eccentric. Even the police and Courts have accepted that he is non-violent, has no sexual motive and is not intending to cause distress.

            The prison sentences he has served are longer than those for the rapists and child abusers that you quite rightly abhor.

            brian

  • linden fisher October 28, 2014 8:27 pm

    its a disgrace giving this guy 2.5 years when thiefs and muggers get much less, the judge who dished out this sentence is a scaggy old slag

    • George Gretton October 29, 2014 10:51 am

      Hello Linden Fisher,

      I suggest that you find a wise and experienced Doctor of Psychology, who has worked in Clinical Psychology in Hospital and Group settings for a long time, as well, perhaps, as doing some private Psychotherapy work. Avoid psychologically unqualified, “Membership Organisation” “Psychotherapists”, who don’t actually have ANY University Degree.

      Tell that person that you think that it is fine for an individual such as Gough to go around exposing as many people as possible, men, women, and children, to the sight of his penis, and take it from there. Judges count as men or women. They are not children.

      You will be treaded kindly, but ultimately firmly, and factually.

      You will be offered some very well established Psychological theory, about interpersonal interactions, and consent and non-consent, and about the naked reality of human sexual responses, as honed by many millennia of wearing clothes in Western Society.

      I don’t know what usefully to do about Gough. He wastes so much time, attention, care and money. But until he agrees to stop his genital exposure, he will need to be kept locked up. As far as I am concerned he can rot in jail until he joins the rest of the world, and starts respecting others completely normal and healthy feelings.

      See how much money he wastes with his determinedly anti-social behaviour.

      And see how many people he completely cons. I’m trying to deal with a person like that in one of my choirs, as it happens… although he does not, as it happens, display his penis in rehearsals….

      That MIGHT, POSSIBLY, get through to the Director of Music….. he has simply ignored my sincere complaints about the others’ abusive behaviour towards me. Either he goes, or I go… I simply do not tolerate abusive behaviour towards me, or indeed towards others, especially children.

      You may have a young nephew or niece that you care about. Try asking that child, boy or girl, with a parent present, how it would be for that child to see Gough face to face, including genitals. I expect that the word “horrid” might emerge. Watch the child’s facial expression at the time, and form an opinion as to whether the child is a prude, or just a lovely child.

      Yours, George Gretton

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar