Music3 mins ago
Should "tackle Out" Rambling Be Allowed?
119 Answers
http://
Apart from anything else I'd have thought walking about Scotland and England would have been a bit taters in the altogether!
Apart from anything else I'd have thought walking about Scotland and England would have been a bit taters in the altogether!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No.
I can't make up my mind whether this man is simply an attention-seeker, or whether he has a mental condition.
Either way, his bleating about his human right to be naked is not cutting any ice with anyone, so it's about time he gave it up.
Choosing to live in a society means abiding by its rules - and that includes not walking about showing the last turkey in Tesco, just because you have a thing about sharing your undercarriage with the general public.
I can't make up my mind whether this man is simply an attention-seeker, or whether he has a mental condition.
Either way, his bleating about his human right to be naked is not cutting any ice with anyone, so it's about time he gave it up.
Choosing to live in a society means abiding by its rules - and that includes not walking about showing the last turkey in Tesco, just because you have a thing about sharing your undercarriage with the general public.
Three guys, one Navy, one Army and one Royal Marine are taking the test to join the SAS. They have all passed the mental and physical sections and are down to the final interview.
Guy from the Navy walks in to be confronted by the SAS Head Shed who gives him a gun and says, "There are 6 bullets in that, your wife is upstairs, go up and kill her".
The guy disappears but comes back 2 minutes later to say,
"Sorry I really want to be in the SAS but she's my wife and I love her"
"Sorry" says Head Shed,"But if you can't take orders, we don't want you"
Guy from Army walks in and the same thing happens, he gets the gun and is told to go upstairs and kill his wife, but also can't do it, so is told to thin out.
The Marine walks in and is given the gun. Off he goes and suddenly 6 shots ring out from upstairs, followed by an almighty commotion, and 10 minutes later he walks back into the room drenched in sweat.
He looks at the Head Shed and chucks the gun at him saying, "You b******, they were blanks, I had to strangle the *****"
Guy from the Navy walks in to be confronted by the SAS Head Shed who gives him a gun and says, "There are 6 bullets in that, your wife is upstairs, go up and kill her".
The guy disappears but comes back 2 minutes later to say,
"Sorry I really want to be in the SAS but she's my wife and I love her"
"Sorry" says Head Shed,"But if you can't take orders, we don't want you"
Guy from Army walks in and the same thing happens, he gets the gun and is told to go upstairs and kill his wife, but also can't do it, so is told to thin out.
The Marine walks in and is given the gun. Off he goes and suddenly 6 shots ring out from upstairs, followed by an almighty commotion, and 10 minutes later he walks back into the room drenched in sweat.
He looks at the Head Shed and chucks the gun at him saying, "You b******, they were blanks, I had to strangle the *****"
"Trust that no public funds were used to pay for lawyers to put this ridiculous case. "
I think your trust may be misplaced, bm. Unless he represented himself it is most unlikely that Mr Gough had the funds to pay for advocacy. He appears to have undertaken no gainful employment for some time (preferring instead to roam around the country naked in a clearly designed challenge to the authorities) and in fact for long periods he was in the choky as a result of his exploits. He certainly had representation in 2012 when he was due to appear at Oxford Crown Court. He refused to stand in the dock unless he was allowed to do so naked so the judge ordered the trial to continue in his absence and his brief agreed to continue to represent him.
The outrageous thing about this case is that Mr Gough has the option to take his case to a supra-national court which could have seen his position vindicated. He clearly breaks UK law with impunity and constantly. The fact that such a straightforward law should be challenged in the ECHR is testament to the fact that that institution has long outlived its usefulness. Cue now for its defenders to say "Oh yes, but Winston Churchill was among its architects". Very true. But I don't imagine it was quite on the mind of Churchill and his colleagues that the court they set up with such good intentions would be used to try a matter where a man was defending his right to appear in public and in a court of law without any clothes on.
I think your trust may be misplaced, bm. Unless he represented himself it is most unlikely that Mr Gough had the funds to pay for advocacy. He appears to have undertaken no gainful employment for some time (preferring instead to roam around the country naked in a clearly designed challenge to the authorities) and in fact for long periods he was in the choky as a result of his exploits. He certainly had representation in 2012 when he was due to appear at Oxford Crown Court. He refused to stand in the dock unless he was allowed to do so naked so the judge ordered the trial to continue in his absence and his brief agreed to continue to represent him.
The outrageous thing about this case is that Mr Gough has the option to take his case to a supra-national court which could have seen his position vindicated. He clearly breaks UK law with impunity and constantly. The fact that such a straightforward law should be challenged in the ECHR is testament to the fact that that institution has long outlived its usefulness. Cue now for its defenders to say "Oh yes, but Winston Churchill was among its architects". Very true. But I don't imagine it was quite on the mind of Churchill and his colleagues that the court they set up with such good intentions would be used to try a matter where a man was defending his right to appear in public and in a court of law without any clothes on.
I think it should be allowed, there is nothing alarming or offensive in a naked body and public nudity helps to de-sexualise the notion that nudity = sex. Germany is much more chilled out than the UK for this and no-one there is morally corrupted by seeing another person in the nude- well I wasn't anyway:)
NJ
Can you explain which part of the ECHR ruling you disagree with, and which part shows it has 'outlived its usefulness'
//However, the applicant's imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, un-warned members of the public going about their ordinary business."
It continued: "Article 10 does not go so far as to enable individuals, even those sincerely convinced of the virtue of their own beliefs, to repeatedly impose their antisocial conduct on other, unwilling members of society and then to claim a disproportionate interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression when the state, in the performance of its duty to protect the public from public nuisances, enforces the law in respect of such deliberately repetitive antisocial conduct."
Regarding Article 8, it said: "Any interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was justified under Article 8 for essentially the same reasons given by the court in the context of its analysis of the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the convention."//
Isn't hearing cases and making sensible decisions what courts are for?
And isn't having a 'higher court' for recourse a traditional principle in this country?
Can you explain which part of the ECHR ruling you disagree with, and which part shows it has 'outlived its usefulness'
//However, the applicant's imprisonment is the consequence of his repeated violation of the criminal law in full knowledge of the consequences, through conduct which he knew full well not only goes against the standards of accepted public behaviour in any modern democratic society but also is liable to be alarming and morally and otherwise offensive to other, un-warned members of the public going about their ordinary business."
It continued: "Article 10 does not go so far as to enable individuals, even those sincerely convinced of the virtue of their own beliefs, to repeatedly impose their antisocial conduct on other, unwilling members of society and then to claim a disproportionate interference with the exercise of their freedom of expression when the state, in the performance of its duty to protect the public from public nuisances, enforces the law in respect of such deliberately repetitive antisocial conduct."
Regarding Article 8, it said: "Any interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life was justified under Article 8 for essentially the same reasons given by the court in the context of its analysis of the applicant's complaint under Article 10 of the convention."//
Isn't hearing cases and making sensible decisions what courts are for?
And isn't having a 'higher court' for recourse a traditional principle in this country?
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Singing By Chalicea ( The Crossword...
Crosswords12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.