Let the poor lad ramble!
I mean who complains about him, really?
More just 'living' and wandering around towns and that with his lad out
He shouldnt do it and he needs to be put away somewhere forever
I go round shoving fatties under buses after a few shandies
Unless we're talking inanimate objects here.
Something something 15 months for child abuse
Something something 11 months for being a nudist
it seems more like a case for a psychiatric unit.
Cos I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to be naked in public in england but Scottish Law is stricter? But it's breach of the peace he gets arrested for anyway isn't it?
Fair play to him for sticking to his beliefs. I imagine it's cos the judge is sick of him turning up hence the long sentance. They should just let him get on with it.
Found guilty of breaching an antisocial behaviour order (asbo), stipulating that he had to cover his genitalia and buttocks when he appeared in public, apart from in a changing room, nudist beach or during a medical examination.
He was arrested wearing just his boots and socks on the steps of the court in February, after receiving the asbo.
Just that Scots "breach of the peace" is basically this catch-all offence that can be used against any alarming conduct likely to disturb the public. (Used to be interpreted even more broadly than this before human rights challenges came along.)
Also, as mentioned above, his last few arrests have been for breaching an ASBO. Which is convenient for the authorities because that offence carries a much longer potential sentence than the other, underlying offences he might be committing.
if he just gives up and puts clothes on and goes back to living a normal life then all this past decade of hassle has been utterly pointless. Even more utterly pointless than it already has been. He just needs to put clothes on around kids and cities and get his lad out when on the open hills, covering up if asked. Then everyone can be happy.
but this whole story is really sad.
you people will get off on anything
concerning the imorisonment of people who are naked, like pussy riot or this naked rambler (yes I am aware there is a difference...pussy riot are more confrontational)
It basically make all the accusations from the UK about the russians being heavy handed look utterly pathetic.
This is actually an example of awful our own system is (under the skin).
i.e. irrelevant of any harm done, the law will hurt you bad unless you kow toe to it
Kudos to anyone who can be arsed googling whether he has kids.
according to the Guardian article up there^
unlawfully imprison a human animal for no good reason.
Im baffled as to why britain has not been censured over this by human rights courts.
I know it will be considered trivial to some.....but.....why is there so little support to free him.
I can see that, reluctantly I am going to have to start campaigning
I really thought they had freed him you see.
poor poor bloke
horrible horrid authorities
locking up real criminals? or real preditors.
I see that Stuart hall will recieve less time than this guy, although stuart hall actually WAS a s*x criminal, and actually DID hurt people.
Why is this?
the police have to be seen to be acting on it. (Originally, not so much now as it's a breach of an ASBO)
If no one complained then he'd not have been arrested. It's the stupidity of the general public who think nudity = sex and get all shocked and appaled at the concept of the human form.
It basically comes down to a farcical situation where they have to enforce the law and the court orders, he keeps clearly breaking them, so they keep having to imprison him. I don't think they're persecuting him maliciously. Their prosecuting him again because they can't not prosecuting him again without contradicting themselves and setting a precedent that, if someone ignores the law for long enough, they'll be left alone, which is presumably not a precedent they want to establish.
From the sounds of the Guardian article above they keep offering him legal loopholes so that they can let him out of prison and not have to re-arrest him but he feels it's a point of principle not to take them.
Similarly I suspect he's getting long sentences because he keeps repeatedly doing it again so they kind of have to do that - and I suspect they want to discourage him from doing it again, even though it won't work.
so how about introduce other 'incentives' to him to keep him away from 'high risk of complaint' areas? keep him on the beaches if you like
Like removing his boots and rucksack, unless he keeps to certain areas (He needs to eat, and it is difficult to forage in hedgerows without footwear (nails/glass)
I've had a discussion with Mrs knees about this and she thinks that now he is probably a bit (what others would call) mentally ill (compulsive) so he is not a criminal.
I realise that a lot of the imprisonment is to do with contempt of the court......but the courts themselves are making an ass of the law, because in this case they can appear to be as draconian as the russion legal system that locks up pussy riot. The thing is, that the system has much resource and it should come up with an alternative to the way it is dealing with him, because it obviously isnt working, and it IS childish to then take this out on him.......to vary the method of dealing with him is not something that would set a precedance, because he IS unusual and it is evidently UNUSUAL to all, therefore any exception made in the way that they deal with him is not going to result in a flood of similar copycats as the circumstances will differ from his to an extent which does NOT compell the legal system to follow any precedant.
Unless we all accept that the inflexibility of the legal system should be enshrined.......but this is obviously not intended, otherwise we would not have judicial discretion over sentencing (for what we would consider to be serious crimes) and yet there is often considerable variance which is not always immediately predictable (which it should be for the public (not just the system) as otherwises the purposes of deterent will not be met)
were aving their sleeping bags and food confiscated......now this IS unacceptable, but if they can do this, then FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS GUY they could help to chane his habits.....I mean why isnt he sectioned for a short while, whilst they change his behaviours.....or the method/manner of his expressing that which he needs to.......although he may be perfectly sane, by mine or your or his or rational standards, he is obviously not sane by the small minded horrible spiteful shits that keep complaining to get him locked up again.
(even if motivated by the power of being able to be vindictive and malevolent towards someone who is not quite the same as they are........they will be considered to be 'upstanding' PAH!)
on the one hand, getting sent to jail for what he's doing is pretty ridiculous, given how harmless and decent he seems. On the other hand though, he's kinda ruined his life making a stand over something that really doesn't seem that important (only my opinion obviously, he clearly thinks it matters). Can't remember all the details of the Guardian article, but sure he's had loads of hiss with his wife and kids cos of this, and ... just doesn't seem worth the hassle does it? Sad stuff all round
Report this thread