Aussie Naked Rambler Set Free

Wow, alwayscrackers has found this guy is arrested again? I wish there was more information beyond "he was arrested for 'breach of peace'"... Let's just hope he had his clothes on.

[657 days does not come close to equal 6 years... which is the actual figure? Check 20 july 2012 story says 6 years and OP says 657 days]

Another take on this story is this guy is just wanting 'three hots and a cot.' He's a bum with a preference towards prison cuisine and payment free housing. A freeloader. Maybe they don't give food stamps and HUD in Scotland/England? If he was truly for his cause, maybe his efforts would be better spent if he clothed himself [so he could see his kids, who I'm sure could give a fuck about him anymore since his behavior seems to indicate he could give a fuck about them...] and tried to open the path for legal nudity using other means instead of just stripping down and over and over and over again deciding on sitting on his ass in prison all day? In all honesty, if I saw this guy on the street, I'd have a good laugh then flip him off. He has no respect for himself or his neighbors/countrymen, just yet another loony.

[Still no word on why he's the ""Aussie"" naked rambler?]

hahahahaha

 

I don't get all the hate for him.

He doesn't want to wear clothes. He decided he was going to stop wearing clothes. He doesn't wear clothes.

If he does want the "benefits" of being in prison, well they could stop that real quick, by not repeatedly arresting him for something that shouldn't be a crime.

Who are you to say it's not right, or to say the story's over?

If parents have a hard time explaning that someone is not wearing clothes, they're piss-poor parents and should not be parents at all.

Does not make them a perv if they don't wear clothes, but the fact that YOU think something so natural and simple is perverted shows us a little about YOU.....

Why are public places "off limits"? This seems to be a reiteration of you deciding it's "not right".

Yes, it's perfectly acceptable if his dick gets hard, it's just a dick, it's his dick and his responsibility. Having an erection is NOT violating anyone in any way. The reason you've got a hair-trigger-dick is that you are sexually repressed and stuffed into clothes, for which you have some sort of stockholm-syndrome going on.

 

I would just love to hear you expand on this point.

[I think you meant "Have a hard time explaining WHY someone is not wearing clothes" because explaining 'that' he is not wearing clothes would probably elicit a "duh!" response from the children.]

You gotta be more fried out than a mozzarella cheese stick if you think that parents should describe to their children: "This guy decided to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and it's his right to do so. Though there are laws against it, you should never let that stop you, kids!"

Just what should "not-piss-poor" parents say to children upon encountering a naked man in public?

 

What utter shite, you can't have folk walking around naked whenever and wherever they want,. It's unhygienic and Im suspect of his true intentions . I think he is probably a paedo hence why he does not get to see his kids.
His kids prob don't want to see him anyway if he walks around naked
In fact thinking about it more . He should be sectioned indefinitely under the mental health act.

 

For the people saying its ok,
What about this scenario. Your having a day out with your kids
In the park , this freak turns up, naked sporting a boner, you gona tell your kids it's ok. It's natural , like fuck you would! You would be on the phone to the cops quicker than a pigeon on a chip. It's all very well typing tolerance on the web, faced with it . Well that's a different ball game

 

You're quite right that I meant to say why, not that.

But how is that hard to explain? There's lots of things that should not be illegal, that are, that's a piss-poor reason to not do something, though in some cases the consequences may still be enough to stop you. This guy obviously decided that they would not stop him, and so they don't.....

"some people don't like wearing clothes, and as long as they don't behave in a way that hurts anyone else, it's their choice to not put clothes on their own body"

Yeah, just explained it.

 

This is utterly undisguised fascism. He doesn't wear clothes, and you jump from that to he diddles children and whatnot, because you and your repressed teenage hormenes see sex in everything, because you wish you could walk around without clothes. Not everything everyone does is for sex, stop projecting your own perversions onto this man. Being naked is not just a thing you do to shower and fuck, it's the natural way to be.

As far as being unhygenic, I agree, to a point. On the other hand, you go sit on a chair, and think about how many asses have been as good as on that chair, with how thin and porous clothes really are.... I obviously don't think walking around wiping your ass on things is okay naked, but I don't think that's okay with pants on, either.

If he happens to have a boner and walk by, I could care less. If he's harassing me or mine, I'd take the same steps as if anyone was harassing me or mine.


Someone who's out to do "naughty" things is NOT GOING TO ADVERATISE IT BY WALKING AROUND STARK NAKED.

 

I wouldnt be surprised if this goof is a member here

 

Respect.

But if tomorrow nudity became legal, I don't exactly think it would catch on fast. You'd get either stares or gaze avoidance walking around naked... You would face ridicule and maybe a couple things thrown at you from cars, people are crazy... Not to mention the millions of

"NO SHOES
NO SHIRT
NO SERVICE"

signs around... Jump in your car and instead of burning your ass on the leather through the jeans, it's your actual ass frying on the seat. No thanks, I'll keep my pants on until in the privacy of my own residence. I, [probably alone here,] would not be willing to speak with a nude person I met in public, depending on how attractive I thought they were I know I would either stare or avoid looking at them. What about people with STDs, you want to be looking around in a store for some salsa and instead your eyes are greeted by a fat old pus-dripping display of red bumpies?

 

I agree.

And I would expect rules on nudity from establishments and the like. I think there are places in the US that it's legal to go naked, and many in europe I expect.... and you wouldn't catch ME doing it, I'm actually quite self conscious, and I like the physical protection afforded by clothes, too. But I do think that it should be a personal choice, in most circumstances.

 

The naked kiddy fiddler he should be called.
In fact I'll start a face book petition telling the public he is.
Bet that will curb his Tom foolery lol

 

You must be one of the many WHO HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED INTO THINKING NUDITY IS BAD....

Guess what bud??


ALL ANIMALS IN THIS WORLD ARE NAKED!!!!!! -- Why is the HUMAN ANIMAL the only one that cant be?? (AND YES,WE ARE ANIMALS)

 

Listen I have no prob with nakedness, between you and your gf of wife, but not in public
It's against the law , and he shouldnt bitch about being jailed . He was shown leincey lots of times, but was a persistent offender. So jail for the Jesus freak I'm afraid

 

Decided to do a little research into nudity and the history of clothing because this subject keeps coming up in my mind.

Because the non-human-animals aren't smart enough to make themselves clothes?

Clothes found to be practical; people wear clothes. Dude111 is correct in saying nudity is not bad, I mean for all I care, let's concede that nudity is good, fuck it, nudity is GREAT, but the argument stands under this quote that the state of being clothed is better.

This is something I really like in ^this^ quote: It backs up the statement that this guy is a loony, the above bolded words are "the voice of common sense" that all of us heard, but some tried to deny.

The best tidbit so far:
"A naked human body is not in itself indecent, the circumstances of its exposure,..."[determine whether the nudity is decent or indecent]

 

Well I'd say that in most situations, a state of nudity is not "better", bet that's for ME.

The problem here, as I see it, is people who have determined their optimum state of undress or dress, and thes pretend that they know better than everyone else, and everyone else should have to do as they do. This is sounding just like organized religion or the war on drugs..... fascist. It's their own body, it's as personal as it gets.

It's not better for others if I wear clothes, just me, so it should be my personal choice. This is not an argument about what's best for the naked rambler, it's about who's "morals" he offends, by simply existing in his natural and most simple state.

 

hahahaha if you start your own comedy show I'd watch it

 

he should provide proof too before accusing people

 

Tell you what, instead of providing proof. I'll find the weirdo, and send him
Round to your house. I'll pay for you and your partner to have a meal.
I'm sure you will enjoy it , knowing your kids are in safe hands with a naked man who looks like Jesus.
Fuck you could even let him stay over, you can let him take your kids to school
I'm sure all the other parents, will be more understanding seeing a naked jesus with a kid in each hand, and a morning glory pointing the way. Lol

 

Oh thank you

 

Let it all hang out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN65nAkk20&feature=related