Am never quite sure about this guy. If he wants to wander around starkers, then why not let him. Though if he insists on wandering down the High Street then I'm not sure I'd want my kids to see him. So why doesn't he restrict himself to the hills in that state? And, WHY???

It is worth noting that only in Scotland has he been treated so badly. In England he walked from Lands End to the Scottish Border with only two arrests followed by immediate release. Civilisation continued.

It seems to be generally accepted that he has not harmed anyone and that he is not a danger to anyone. Indeed there is very strong evidence that it is prudery, not nudity, that is harmful. Despite that, in Scotland, his conduct is considered so heinous by some parts of the police and legal system as to require several years solitary confinement. We have yet to hear any justification which isn't either founded ultimately on prejudice or an unthinking assumption that nudity must be inherently wrong.

Agreed Phil, he does seem to have a very strong exhibitionist streak (no pun intended). But at the same time the police in Scotland seem to have a grudge and arrest him at every opportunity now. We need more detail on why they've arrested him this time as it's starting to look like he's being singled out.
One of the funniest TV documentaries I've ever seen was about Gough - I hope it gets re-shown, or even released on DVD.

I agree with Phil in that I wouldn't want my grandkids or my missus, to have to see this exhibitionist. If the English legal system doesn't have the gumption to put him behind bars, then I'm pleased our Scottish system does. We're doing the English a favour here by keeping him off their streets as well as ours and we are paying the bill for it. The police are dead right to keep banging him up until he agrees to keep his private parts under wraps. The sheriffs should support the police.

Malcolm, you represent yourself as from British Naturism. I had always imagined that was a responsible body but you are making excuses for a man going around the country exposing himself to everyone. Is that what naturism is really about? Is it the aim of British Naturism to make it OK for exhibitionists like this guy to walk the streets naked? We should know.

Nobody is saying that all nudity is wrong but there is a time and place for everything. I don't want my wee grandkids to be seeing this guy any more than I want them to see a couple having sex in a bus station.

Sounds like two extremes to me. While I'm not about to drop me kecks and walk around in the buff, I'm no prude either and I can't see what the fuss is about. Gough isn't having sex in bus shelters, and he's no different to most dads and grandads when it comes to what he's got under his non-existent base layers. He's simply walking round with no clothes on. If the Scots are happy for their police and judicial-types to waste tax-paying parishioners' money locking him up every week, more fool them. If you want him to cover up, just ignore him - the cold and the lack of publicity/attention will get him back in plus-fours soon enough.

It is not a matter of being a prude, it is a matter of maintaining basic standards of decency in our streets. If he is allowed to behave like this then every exhibitionist will take that as a green light to behave in the same way. I do not want to live in a country that tolerates such behaviour thank you very much. You might let him get away with it in England but we know where to draw the line. Yes we all know what people look like naked just as we all know what sex looks like but that does not mean we want to have to see these things in public places. Let these characters go to their nudist colonies if they want to flash their parts at each other but if they do it in the street then they should stay behind bars until they get some sense. If we have to pay for this bloke's prolonged incarceration for years to come then it is worth every penny to keep our streets decent for our families.

I have met Steve Gough and he is not an exhibitionist. Just somebody who feels very strongly that nobody should dictate how he dresses unless they have something more substantial than "I don't like" as a reason. Basic decency, without evidence of what causes harm and benefit, is nothing more than popular prejudice and that can be very damaging.

Take a look at the effects of a prudish society on young people. It is no coincidence that Scotland in both one of the most prudish countries in Europe and has some of the worst rates for all sorts of body image related issues. For example compare the teenage pregnancy rates with those for countries such as Denmark. The research evidence is very clear, prudery is harmful, often very harmful and attitudes to nudity are inseparable from attitudes towards the human body.

This man's human rights are being grossly abused. I cannot understand why the Human Rights Act 1998 is not being upheld.

Nudity harms nobody, and there is no breach of the peace, since nothing unpeaceful was done, the peace was not breached! The continual re-arrest and illegal imprisonment of this man is a disgrace to our whole nation and the freedoms we fought two world wars for and 1000 years of ligislation intended to increasingly protect our rights and freedoms as british subjects.

We should all be thouroughly ashamed of the way this kind and gentle man has been treated by our authorities, who he has made complete fools of and they have themselves brought the law into total disrespect.

Sadly, in modern Britain this is now rather what we seem to expect, now that Britain is no longer policed with consent.

David.

You are right, this is not a breach of the peace, it is antisocial behaviour (see Home Office for definition). "Popular prejudice" can also be interpreted as "socially acceptable". I don't like all the rules I have to follow to fit in but I am willing to compromise on some in return for the benefits of being a member of society.

Nudity harms no-one? If you mean by harm "causes physical injury to" then that is correct. But as Tommy points out, neither does the sight of people copulating in a bus station. Nor does displaying posters depicting graphic pornography. Nor does shouting obscenities outside a primary school. Colin seems to be saying that this is an issue related to public order, so the Scottish version of breach of the peace is an appropriate criminal remedy. I'd like to see Mr Gough slapped with an ASBO.

As for Mr Boura talking about Denmark, I know Denmark intimately - I have lived there for several short periods and even speak, read and write Danish with such fluency that I have taught it to Danish schoolchildren! I also know a bit about Danish culture and their laws. With a very few exceptions, people in Denmark, don't walk about naked anywhere away from the "fribadestrande" (free beaches). Their laws appear to be very lax in that respect but don't be fooled. You will be less likely to see nudity in Denmark than you would be in London! Their World Naked Bike Ride in Copenhagen this year was permitted only on the understanding that they kept their private parts covered. Danish public saunas are almost invariably either single-sex or else swimwear compulsory. The Danes are almost as prudish as we are and, in my experience, younger Danes are the most prudish of the lot!!! THAT may explain why they have lower teenage pregnancies than we do.

Tommy raises an important issue regarding British Naturism. This organisation used to be highly responsible and would never condone the kind of behaviour we have seen from Mr Gough. Regrettably, the hierarchy of this body has been infiltrated by a breed of "nudist fundamentalists" who have the aim of "educating" and ultimately "de-sensitizing" the population with regard to nudity (so that they can get their tackle out wherever they please). Their attitude is that if you don't like being exposed to naked people, or if you don't want your kids to see such things, TOUGH! So Gough and his friends now have the support of some mainstream nudist bodies. This is not merely disrespectful to the majority of people who prefer not to have to see exhibitionism, it is arrogant and reprehensible. I am very happy to see Mr Gough rotting in his cell: long may he stay there.

I would suggest that the people on this list need to study what constitues exhibitionism under English law, as all the above statements that Mr. Gough is guilty of this are wrong. This has been proven in court.

Moderator - please note the last post is not from me. It appears I have a namesake who does not understand the law. I do.

Exhibitionism is not a legal term and is not mentioned anywhere in our criminal law. Mr Gough has been prosecuted and convicted for public order offences both in England and Scotland. The cases in England (for insulting behaviour as defined under s. 5 Public Order Act 1986) occurred in his home town of Eastleigh and a subsequent appeal he made to Southampton Crown Court was not successful - so the convictions were allowed to stand. He has numerous convictions before local sheriffs in Scotland for breach of the peace (as defined under Scots Law) and his appeals there to the High Court in Edinburgh were also unsuccessful. That's why he has spent almost 2-years behind bars.

If Mr Gough were not guilty of anything, he would not have been convicted of any offences: his appeals would have been upheld rather than dismissed and he would not have spent such a lengthy time in prison. So to imply that his behaviour has not contravened the law is fatuous.

Stu, the author of the above post is correct in his first sentence. The previous poster has a different email address and IP address - grough editor

Tommy Campbell who says "I agree with Phil in that I wouldn’t want my grandkids or my missus, to have to see this exhibitionist" seems to be one of that band of people who just can't help wanting to protect other people when it comes to the sight of the human body. He even says "We’re doing the English a favour here by keeping him off their streets as well as ours and we are paying the bill for it."

Well maybe they do things differently in Scotland but I'm sure his "missus" could speak for herself. His kids would probably just laugh and certainly not come to any harm, and I'm pretty sure the English can decide for themselves whether they want to subscribe to the Scottish view that the mere sight of a naked human being is enough to justify the huge expense of prosecuting and incarcerating this man just because he's does eccentric things.

I see Stu the well known nudist antagonist is here, he is well known for frequenting nudist bulletin boards and causing disruption. Stu has an admitted phobia about the naked human form, he is a crusader against nudity and will take every opportunity to talk it down.

As for Steve Gough, until you meet him and understand him for what he is it is impossible to judge him, he is actually quite a nice guy, if he were robbing little old ladies of their pension he would be free by now, but all he has done is walk naked the length of Britain, such a heinous crime don't you think?

Scotland get real, let him walk across the border naked and it will be all over and done with, it will be England's problem then, he can walk unmolested back to Eastleigh.

Last I heard all of his convictions in England had been overturned on appeal although it took more than one appeal in at least one case. If I recall correctly the Southampton Appeal failed because Steve Gough did not attend. That was despite the court knowing that he was in a Scottish Prison. In a further appeal that was ruled ridiculous and he was acquitted.

A few days ago one of the higher Danish courts ruled that nudity was a right on all Danish beaches and the people who tried to challenge that now have a large legal bill. Stu obviously knows a different Denmark to the one that I have visited and worked in.

The comparison I made was of Denmark with Scotland. Stu replied by writing about London. Attitudes in England are significantly different to those in Scotland and the law is completely different. In particular breach of the peace is very different as somebody with Stu's background should know.

Malcolm, don't worry about Stu, he specialises in diverting attention away from anything that may appear to support nudity, he cherry picks those incidents that bring nudism into disrepute.

Tommy refers to behaviour in the streets, so he is happy for drunks throwing up in the High Street, but gets uptight when a guy walks naked down the same street.
I would also like to know exactly what is so indecent about a naked human. Nudity per se isn't indecent, behaviour is, what indecent act did Steve Gough perform?

You can see nudity of the TV every day, walk the High street and see naked bodies in window displays, on posters, but if the real thing turns up its suddenly quite different, why?

To Peter Knight - I do not have a "phobia" about anything - I just don't want to have to see naked people in our public places. Judging by comments on here from others, I am far from alone in that respect. I don't care how nice you think Mr Gough is, his behaviour in exhibiting himself and sometimes causing distress and annoyance to people just to make a "point" shows that he is anything but a "nice guy", but rather a selfish and antisocial public nuisance. And yes, walking the length of Britain while exposing his genitals, and then repeating the behaviour, is heinous enough to warrant his imprisonment. I think we owe Scotland a debt of gratitude in that they have relieved us of having to put up with this man and his offensive antics for the past two years.

Regarding Malcolm Boura's comment about Steve Gough, no court has ever said it is ridiculous to arrest and convict a man for walking about naked and he knows it. He can not cite any hearing where a higher English court has said that his (or anyone's) behaviour of walking about naked is insufficient to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" and thereby contravene section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. If he could then of course nudists and exhibitionists would have won a massive legal victory which they would be proclaiming from the rooftops and the tabloid press would have made a meal of it. Of course that has never happened. When cases against offensive nudity do fail in courts, it is inevitably because the behaviour is extremely rare and the police haven't known how to respond. They have gone straight into arrest mode and then either charged the wrong offence (like indecent exposure) or else failed to secure the necessary evidence, like identifying witnesses, to show the elements of the correct offence. To get a conviction all the police must do is show that at least one member of the public was alarmed or distressed and then charge the individual under section 5 in England and Wales, or breach of the peace in Scotland.

As for Denmark, it's true that in the 1970s and 1980s they gained a reputation for liberalism with regard to nudism and pornography, but times have changed and in some respects the country has, to some extent, shifted back to its Lutherian ethos. I have been there three times this year, once for a holiday and twice for work. I have worked with two universities there, the Danish police and the Offentlig Anklager (public prosecutor's office). Rest assured that if anyone tried to walk the length of Denmark naked, someone would complain and the exhibitionist arrested. As I said, the World Naked Bike Ride in Copenhagen required the riders to cover their privates.

People in most modern western nations don't want to see nakedness in public. They are happy to accept places set aside for nudity, like nudist beaches, but they don't want nudists on their beaches and they certainly don't want them exposing themselves in towns and cities.

quoting stu above "To get a conviction all the police must do is show that at least one member of the public was alarmed or distressed and then charge the individual under section 5 in England and Wales, or breach of the peace in Scotland."

i could have every football supporter, 20% of british drivers, torys, halal butchers, GOML farmers, gordon ramsey, len goodman, chris moyles, patricia hewitt and even alan titchmarsh( for his sunday evening contribution to pomposity on the radio) arrested on this criteria...but i just let it go. It's 2008 out there.

nice to see grough stays up late when he's got a hot potato

I am afraid that Stu has let his prejudices run away with him. His comment on my post starts from a false premise, builds on that and then throws in a couple more misleading statements to confuse the issue even further.