I feel so sorry for this man.

Only the silly b* amongst them!

It's OK to criticise men, then, petallus?

I still can't get the hand of asterisks. I was trying to say bugger.

Bug*

I'm not going to ignore the silly b*** if he shows his face etc around here!

I get fed up with men and their little quirks.

Spot on, nightowl.

Wisely put, nightowl. If he's not actually pestering people, I think it might be a pity we (whoever 'reports' him/the 'authorities') can't just ignore him.

I agree petallus it is right to be cautious where psychiatry is concerned. I work very closely with psychiatrists and it is far from an exact science. The medical model of mental illness has not brought about the promised progress and other treatments such as behaviour modification - as referred to by when have been developed by psychologists. I think the best outcomes result from true multi disciplinary working.

Still not convinced this man has either a mental disorder or a personality disorder - I think he may just be what we used to call an eccentric, and he will keep on paying the penalty for that. My guess is that only serves to reinforce his behaviour as it feeds into his belief that he is on some kind of crusade.

Good thinking Ana I shall need to rethink...

So glad you've decided to join in the debate soop. Hope it's not too much for you.

The law doesn't say it. The only law-breaking bit is "causing a disturbance of the peace" or something similar.

It's the others doing that.

soop!
But....he would be inside for the rest of his life, surely, as he wouldn't be able to pay. And it would cost the taxpayer even more. I suppose some anonymous benefactor (?) might pay his bill occasionally, but then he'd just be back again before too long.

I bet his arse was a picture when he was in the Marines petallus.

Thanks for the link JO4. Michelle Hanson usually writes rueful humorous articles so perhaps she is not being entirely serious.

Liked the comment - 'Fair do's to them but you'd think all that walking would firm their arses up an bit'

Okay...the man likes to ramble in the altogether. The law says that he should be locked up for doing so. The rambler won't accept that the law is just [in his case]. Hence, he continues to flout the rules and gets "banged up" [often] as a result. The cost to the tax payer is, let's face it, substantial. So, in future, every time said naked rambler chooses to defy rules and regulations, tell him that he has to pay for his board and lodging [behind bars] and won't be released until he's settled the bill in full. During his time incarcerated in a wee cell, he'll need to figure out a way to cover his outgoings.

this is the stupidest article on it I've seen so far

Love the comments, especially: "If he was doing it for charity it would be thought perfectly acceptable". And, "He should get his arse over to France. They wouldn't bat an eyelid there"

Some psychiatrists do try adventurous treatments in the hope of securing some positive change, and the psychs who have been talking about certain personality disorders being amenable to treatment are being modest about their progress, as the implications of claiming success, without long term evidence of change, could be disastrous.

It's best to be cautious where psychiatrists are concerned. They have come up with some idiotic theories in the past about what causes human behaviour.

He was in the Royal Marines, so he must have been a fit bloke before all the years in prison.

I agree he's daft. No doubt about that.

But..............prison? Why?

Thanks for the link to the Indie article, jings. Yes, it is balanced. What jumped out at me is NR's unwillingness to compromise. As social animals, I think we have to accept compromises as just part of life. The degree of compromise on any issue will vary, of course, from individual to individual, and those with more power will possibly have to compromise less than those without it. By refusing to compromise, e.g. by avoiding towns and, therefore, possibly, arrest, NR is refusing to accept something fairly fundamental about being human. I don't find what he does offensive and I wonder if that three year old child really "got upset" or whether his mother got upset and projected that onto the child. Why should a three year old be upset by the sight of a naked man? Unless NR has an 'aggressive' way of walking, or something?

So many questions! He's certainly making us think about issues. Good on him.

Still think he's daft though. But that's his choice.

Thanks, when, I knew you would give me some useful information.

Greatnan there are some forensic psychiatrists who are claiming a degree of success with beaviour modification and medical treatment of some seriously personality disordered people, but generally DSPD is not amenable to treatment and some such criminals have been detained under the Mental Health Act as they are too dangerous to be released. Having tried to contain/manage such dangerous offenders in probation hostels (stuff of nightmares), the decision to detain indefinitely (subject to parole board and M H Tribunals) has done much to protect the public.

Silly iPad should have said 'perspectives'

Jingle I think we read the article from different perectives. All it does is reinforce my view that a self-confessed 'maverick' who has walked through neighbourhoods and refused to cover himself when a three year-old child happened to see him, who also says he is not a naturist, is hell-bent on spoiling his own children's lives and offending reasonable members of the public, because he won't moderate his behaviour. It's one thing to walk free as nature intended in splendid isolation, but another thing entirely to insist on walking through the streets like that.

Ps me sister's fine now. I think having kids herself made a huge difference.