Gamston Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Thats the whole point of the people who are supportive of his situation. They cant see the harm and feel that public morality has changed from the law he is currently being punished by. The logic of it suggests they have no problem with him attending midnight mass (notwithstanding it is private property) as they see no problem in his nudity. Common sense tells me other people attending midnight mass would see a problem with his nudity . You are correct there would be a private property issue . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Common sense tells me other people attending midnight mass would see a problem with his nudity . You are correct there would be a private property issue . But the whole point is that people are suggesting morality has changed and the law should reflect that according to the people here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 "Common" as judged by the majority of posters here doesn't seem to think that clothing is required to be decent or to demonstrate respect. That's kind of the point that is being made. Laws and taboo's about the naked body are outdated victorian morality. Common sense tells me it is best to leave the existing laws in place to avoid any wannabe nudist intentions being misinterpreted . ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 10:49 ---------- But the whole point is that people are suggesting morality has changed and the law should reflect that according to the people here. The changing of the law to accommodate one serial law breaker makes no common sense . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bloke Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Common sense tells me other people attending midnight mass would see a problem with his nudity . You are correct there would be a private property issue . Ooo... err! Well I suppose that's one way to swell the congregation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Common sense tells me it is best to leave the existing laws in place to avoid any wannabe nudist intentions being misinterpreted . What do you mean? The changing of the law to accommodate one serial law breaker makes no common sense . The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Common sense tells me it is best to leave the existing laws in place to avoid any wannabe nudist intentions being misinterpreted . ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 10:49 ---------- The changing of the law to accommodate one serial law breaker makes no common sense . But the people on this board are suggesting public morality has changed as a whole and the law doesnt reflect that. The issue was a morality one about public nudity and not a practicaity one. What's wrong with walking around nude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Ooo... err! Well I suppose that's one way to swell the congregation! Fair point , but there could be some issues about the choice of hymns . Come all ye faithful and All things bright and beautiful may be excuded from the rota . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Why is a law based on common decency and respect outdated ? 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 Stephen Gough (born c. 1959), popularly known as the "Naked Rambler", is a British activist and former Royal Marine. In 2003–04, he walked the length of Great Britain naked. He did it again in 2005-06, but was arrested in England and in Scotland. Since then he has spent most of the intervening years in prison, having been repeatedly rearrested for contempt of court for public nudity, each time within a short period after release.... ....Sheriff MacFarlane was told that the bill for dealing with Gough had cost the public an estimated several hundred thousand pounds.... ....In 2012 Gough won the Nicolás Salmerón Human Rights Award from the Spanish human rights group, Fundación Internacional de Derechos Humanos..... 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 Edited December 24, 2015 by onewheeldave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Terri Sue Web sounds like a quack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 I'm a bit on fence with this one Not a good position to be if unclothed. ---------- Post added 24-12-2015 at 14:03 ---------- The law should be changed because it's outdated and ridiculous. Er, why should someone's non-compliance with a law necessitate a change in the law? Better: that person should change his behaviour so as to comply! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now