onewheeldave

I think most people, if anyone, naked or clothed, 'confronted' their young daughters in the street, would be inclined to attract help from the law, or, if the 'confrontation' was severe, incapacitate the assailant. In contrast, if, as per the subject of this thread, there was merely a naked man walking down the street, most sane members of the public would simply wander past, trying to look like they're not paying attention. Any that assaulted him, would be advised to prepare for getting arrested and charged. ---------- Post added 25-12-2015 at 17:54 ---------- Must be wrong then, if the general shopping public react with violence to it How about a black person walking into a Klan meet in the last century- they'd get lynched and hung on the spot. Would you be celebrating that one as well?

What's the plan then? Cos it's unlikely he's going to approach you and your daughters, given that's he's got zero interest in you, and he's simply trying to get from A to B on a naked ramble. So the only way you'll be able to, as you put it, '"put him down"', is for you to approach him. And, given that he's got no interest in you, and, will probably be feeling under threat and keen to get away, you'll either have to let him do so, or, initiate an illegal assault. Two outcomes, if you initiate an assault- 1. he defends himself and beats you, so your 3 daughters, who you claim 'come first', get to see their Dad assault someone, get beaten up, then carted off to jail. 2. You beat him up, in which case your 3 daughters, who you claim 'come first', get to see their Dad assault someone, beat that person up, then carted off to jail.

Sounds like he's not alone You'd do time. You haven't thought this through, have you? ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 22:34 ---------- Aren't some of these 'perverts' reasonably intelligent though? In which case they'd realize that when it comes to not drawing attention to themselves and their perversions, walking around stark naked, even if it's legal, is far from ideal.

Given he's an ex-marine, and, from the photos, still clearly in good shape, I rather doubt that any 'one' would be able to 'knock 7 bells out of him'. If he does at some point in the future, get '7 bells knocked out of him', it will be by a group of cowards. It sounds like you're totally OK with that. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 21:06 ---------- It's worth remembering that, till quite recently, breastfeeding in public was considered in much the same way that those harrassing this individual consider public nudity i.e. as 'dirty/unacceptable/wrong'. Now the right to breastfeed in public has been established and publicized, and any cowards harrassing a breastfeeding women in public can be prosecuted under the 2010 Equality Act, they seem to have shut up.

When said judge is harrassing and harming one who has done nothing morally wrong, using outdated interpretations of outdated laws and enlisting the help of other bullies and pseudo-authoritarians to humiliate and imprison said individual, who, were it one-on-one, would put said cowardly judge in his place, and walk away, naked and free. Not 'failed', more 'ignored, due to it being utterly irrelevant to any claims I've made in this thread'. You seem to be assuming the naked rambler to be not wearing clothes, to maximise his 'pleasure'. I suspect it's more to do with a principle. Either way, he's the only one who can know.

He does. But a bully, is not authority. I guess your typical marine just doesn't bow to bullies, whatever delusions of 'authority' those bullies are operating under.

No, the article claims nothing of the kind. The costs were mainly court cases and prison expenses, neither of which were a consequence of his choice to go naked, but, rather, a consequence of bizarre interpretions of 'public decency' and an over-zealous legal system.

No-one's saying it should. Don't know where you've pulled that from. Of course laws shouldn't be changed because one person doesn't comply. It's a stupid argument, and one that no-one here has made.

A person who has hurt no-one, who has not lied, cheated, stole, damaged property, assualted anyone, has had his life trashed and experienced multiple jail sentences. Meanwhile, people who have lied, cheated, stolen, fiddled expenses, dodged taxes, abused children sexually, have gone unpunished and unjailed. I'm not so naive that I believe 'common decency' was ever a force in this land, or, that laws ever embodied it. The difference now is that more and more people are aware of the level of corruption and injustice in our culture, and, increasingly, they're disinclined to condemn people who've done nothing wrong, while the real criminals are getting away scot-free, simply due to the fact that they possess money and/or influence. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 13:33 ---------- wiki article here- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gough I'll end by reminding everyone that he's an ex-marine- once again interesting to see how little that counts for once servicemen become civilians. While I obviously have utter respect for him, due to the fact that he refuses absolutely to comply with 'laws' that are so clearly unjust, I feel very fearfull that this will end in suicide, due to the emotional and mental stress. Clearly he is still a soldier, and, in all likely hood, fighting for a principle which is maybe far more important to him, than anything he would have fought for during his actual military service (I could be wrong, but, I find it hard to believe that he'll have that much respect left for this country, it's laws, or, it's wars). ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 13:41 ---------- Terri Sue Webb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Sue_Webb makes an interesting point- "Clothing encourages us to fill it, to consume more. Which is what I have done, resulting in my disturbing fat body. If the effects of our behavior and habits upon our bodies were generally visible, people would take care of themselves and not look like me." - activist Terri Sue Webb in an interview with Daniel Johnson on 16 Dec 2001 Judging by the amount of fat policy/decision makers in our culture (politicians/rich) it's little wonder that the law is so skewed towards 'covering up'- a lot of people with a lot of influence would have a lot less influence, if stood equal and nude next to everyone else. There's a reason why neck to toe tailored suits are a pre-requisite of politics and business. Possibly explains why 'cover-ups' are also such a major part of modern business and politics

We don't. We associate the naked body as presented by the media in porn, underwear adverts etc, with sex. Having spent some time in communities where nudity is the practice, I can assure you all that being surrounded by actual naked bodies of real everyday people, is totally unlike the media presentation, and, sex will not be foremost on your minds. Actual nudity in that context, is far removed from the titillation approach of our culture and the media. The immoral harrassment of this gentleman, who has done nothing wrong, is a disgrace, but, no surprise in this culture, which is growing sicker with each passing minute.

I'd tick the box no problem. Disabled applicants who make use of this scheme are in no way cheating, or getting ahead of the other applicants. As disabled people, they enter the job market at a distinct disadvantage- schemes like this endeavour to boost the disabled persons chances of success so that they are at less of a disadvantage. Your fears that the employer may be "simply just going through the motions as they have to..." are understandable, but, this scheme is totally voluntary, so the employer is way more likely to be signed up to it, because they actually do recognize that disabled applicants are at an unfair disadvantage, and actually want applications from disabled people. Particularly for autistic people, who often have real issues filling in application forms (i.e. they can fill them in, but it takes 10 times longer than it does for neurotypicals, and involves 10 times the frustration and stress) it can be a real incentive, if they know that they will get a guaranteed interview.

This seems like a good suggestion- as there are a lot of disabled people who know that there is great prejudice towards them amongst employers, and I feel they would be encouraged to apply for a position with you, if you do go to lengths to make it clear that you welcome applications from disabled people. For the future, there is a scheme which employers can sign up to, which gives them a kitemark symbolising the fact that they guarantee an interview to disabled applicants who met the jobs minimum requirements- http://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/employment/twoticks.htm I can say from personal experience, that, as a disabled person looking for work, it's much easier tackling filling in an application form, when you know that you'll be guaranteed an interview when you send it off.

I'm just giving a bit of advice to anyone who is furious about the fact that, when they report a crime, the police sometimes fob them off as it's not a priority, as in- 1. cars with illegal and inadequate lights 2. drivers on mobile phones, which, despite being so low a priority for the police, that they aren't even interested if you say you've got video evidence- despite the fact that drivers on mobile have been shown to cause deaths. 3. Not attending when your home is broken into 4. etc, etc Getting incident numbers (even when the police don't offer them) and recording the phone calls, will make them take you more seriously, and, the fact that you've got evidence of exactly what they tell you, makes any future investigations and/or court cases, more likely to succeed. If the officers know they are being recorded, then they also know that they are instantly more accountable for what they tell you- that knowledge can really alter their behaviour for the better. If photographers hadn't stood up for their rights when police repeatedly lied (or genuinely didn't know the law) to them about the law concerning taking photographs in public, then they'd still be complying when an officer demanded they cease filming on the erroneous premise that it broke the law, when, in reality, it didn't.

It'll make it more likely that something will get done. All organisations take things more seriously if they know they're being recorded, due to the simple fact that it provides objective evidence that can be used in investigations and/or court cases. Why do you think it's getting almost impossible to call an organisation without the recorded message informing you that the call will be recorded? You don't really think it's for 'quality control purposes', do you? The police routinely dismiss offers to provide them with cam evidence of drivers using mobile phones while driving- one day, they'll end up in a court over it, and then they'll realise it's financially less damaging for them to actually do their actual job- which is enforcing the law, not deciding which laws they want to take seriously. Just like local councils only took installing disabled access in council buildings seriously, once they started to get sued by disability advocacy organisations.

Well, get yourself out of WW2, cos the post you're replying to (mine) said 'warzones', which, while it includes WW2, is refering to warzones in general, including the technologisised messes currently being inflicted on both the populations of the middle east, and, the 'civilised worlds' soldiers out there doing the work of politicians. And yes, if you're out there and you don't shoot Hans/Abdul, Hans/Abdul will likley shoot you, but, my post was rebuting your claim that soldiers can't be aware/reflect on the fact that Hans/Abdul is a human being with family. You were wrong, some do, and, maybe a lot of soldiers who end up shot, were ones who, aware of the 'enemies' humanity, unable to pull the trigger, on that occasion.

How would you know? You been in a warzone yourself? Fact is that, regardless of the propaganda, some soldiers will be very aware that the enemy they've just blown into pieces, was a soldier just like them, with a Mother/Father/wife/children. And you're right, it may well lead to them being dead or a basket case.

It doesn't matter that you don't understand why- the overiding point is that there are so many ex-serviceman on the streets. Support networks are great for those who can access and use them. Speaking from my autistic perspective, I can guarantee you that not everyone who leaves the army can find support appropriate for them. Again, speaking from my autistic perspective, I can tell you that, over the past ten years, things have got way harder for me, due to increasing systematisation, depersonalisation and modernisation. Sad but true, but most 'support' out there is impossible for many to access, as it requires paperwork, dealing with absurd automated phone systems, complience with utter nonsense etc. I suspect that a fair portion of those who enlisted 10 years ago, probably did so cos they couldn't really deal well with the world they were in. Leaving ten years later, when things have gone (from their perspective) even more downhill, must be a real hard thing to deal with- too hard for some, hence they end up homeless.

What does 'struggling or needing help' actually mean. It seems to me there's a very big difference between struggling and needing help, and being homeless. Those struggling or needing help, can often be assisted, by, for example, given them help, giving them an ear, giving them a bit of cash to tide them through a bad patch. Being homeless generally won't be solved by that kind of help, as it tends to go along with being mentally ill, addicted to alcohol and a host of other issues. Often homeless people are beyond the reach of charities. I'm not knocking your groups work, but I was specifically posting about homeless ex-service men/women, and, when people are really, really down, their attitude to pity is very different to that of people with homes and a place in society. I'd imagine not one of those homeless ex-service men/women could have ever imagined, when they enlisted, that, 10 years down the line they'd be asking passing strangers for money. Or being addicted to alcohol, because getting inebriated is the only way to deal with sleeping in the cold. Not that the army lifestyle and it's focus on alcohol would be helpfull in that regard (Unless things have changed since my Dads day, cos the fact that my Dads alcoholism pretty much trashed his family life, wasn't helped by his drinking being seen as completely normal at the army socials).

Getting an incident number & recording the call, can often help the police with their priorities, when it comes to reporting stuff that they routinely ignore, I find.

I've seen a good few one-lighted cars recently. What are the rules? Are they based on the assumption that there needs to be a police person around, or, is there anything a member of the public can do?

Fantastic. I'm guessing that your facebook group isn't likely to include homeless ex-military though? (People without homes generally don't have internet access). I'm wondering if your 'finger is on the pulse' with regards to homeless ex-military and their attitude to pity?

There's also the cars with just one working headlight- they look like a motorcycle in the dark.

Hence why I never said they were I said, 'all murderers are killers'.

People are just dog-tired of the obscene amount of traffic on the roads. Sick of having to stop, start, be herded like cattle to the crossing '200 yards out of the way they actually want to go. That's the reality- made worse by the fact that drivers think they've a god-given right to speed up/slow down, regardless of the inconvenience to pedestrians. So, IMO, another crossing is a splendid idea, as it will get used, due to being where it is, rather than '200 yards up the road', as well as provide some much needed traffic slowing, both to make the roads safer, and, provide more incentive for able-bodied drivers to get off their lazy backsides, park their metal box well out of the way of busy pedestrian areas, and get some much needed exercise. Hopefully, having spent some time being a pedestrian, they'll better appreciate just how much of a pain-in-the-ass it is having to negotiate never-ending steams of metal boxes.

I guess a lesson could be, then: be wary of assuming that twin lights are a car, far away, because they could be, instead, a bicycle, close by. Given the increasing number of cyclists running twin front lights, that lesson could save lives.