I feel so sorry for this man.

Don't deliberately misunderstand me, jings darling! Of course I didn't mean that we only communicate and relate to others through superficial things, just that they are important and it's no good pretending otherwise.

Rambler is choosing to be repeatedly arrested and put in jail. There are simple actioins he could take to prevent it and then he could expend some of his undoubted energy trying get the law changed, perhaps. I guess that's what he thinks he's doing already. There – empathy.

And, let's face reality, anyone who walks around outside naked in Scotland for most of the year is daft. I make no apologies for thinking that, and neither would anyone else with any sense, or knowledge of the climate. clothes were invented to protect us in such climes. Rambler needs to get real.

absent

And what is worn under the kilt?

I think those horrible child abuse cases fell down because of the ridiculous suggestion that an elderly vicar had pranced around naked at night in Orkney!

Nothing is worn, Jeni, everything is as good as new and in perfect working order (the old jokes never lie down)

Elegran...you've been looking!

Things are taking a serious turn. This man has been arrested three days after release because he refused to move away from the vicinty of a children's park, and would not cover himself up. I have no sympathy for him at all now, nor do I feel any need to respect his views. He is assessed as not being mentally ill, so does not need curing. He is a pest.

Thanks for that info, when. That does put a different slant on his behaviour. I'm beginning to get the feeling he is just awkward and bloody-minded. Wonder what he gets out of spending so much time locked up though? I'm also beginning to wonder to what extent you have to be so completely bloody-minded that it is regarded as mentally ill.

Mentally ill or not, he is certainly costing us taxpayers plenty!

Bags, I have been pondering what makes people do really evil acts, following the massacres in Norway and America. Ian Brady is classed as being mentally ill but the Norway killer has, I think, been declared sane.
At what stage does somebody's behaviour become so far from the norm of their tribe that they can be regarded as insane?
I watched a programme a few weeks ago in which a psychiatrist said there was some research (sorry I can't quote it) to show that the chemical make-up of some brains included a gene for criminality, but it usually only became dominant if the person were subject to abuse or neglect. This would certainly have been true for Brady and the boys who killed Jamie Bulger.
Even when murderers appear to have had a 'good' and stable childhood, we have no way of knowing the inner dynamics of the family relationships.

I have never felt the urge to hit anyone (at least, not physically) and I rarely even feel anger,although I may feel some righteous indignation when I read of cruelty and abuse. My sister, who is the kindest person you could hope to meet, used to suffer from 'red mist' rage and would hurl things around the room (she was always very good to me, though). Ostensibly, we had exactly the same upbringing, but I was the youngest and very much my mother's favourite whilst my sister suffered constant bullying from our older sister, who had her own demons.

Perhaps our path in life is the product of brain chemistry allied to our childhood experiences.

To be honest when I think your post puts a bit of an unfavourable spin on the situation. It's most likely that the play area was simply on the route he was taking and it was probably other people who would not let him on his way past it without a fuss.

I think this article is very fair. here

Greatnan they should explain that they are differentiating between Dangerous and Severe Personality Disorder (sane) and Severe and Enduring Mental Illness (mentally ill and therefore potentially treatable) in the case of Brevik and Brady. The children who killed Jamie Bulger were classified as neither insane nor personality disordered whilst they were growing up, although Venables is now considered to be PD, follwng his problems with rehabilitation. Thompson is getting on with his life anonymously.

When, I am right in thinking that Severe Personality Disorders do not respond to treatment? Were extreme measures like lobotomies and electric convulsive therapy once tried? I find this subject extremely interesting and I consulted several web sites as I think it could explain something in my own family
I was particularly interested in the diagnosis of Childhood Paranoid Delusion Personality.

Strange, isn't it, all these chemical balances or imbalances that affect our behaviour, or outlook on life anyway? My sister, when growing up, seemed to have a quite different view of our parents than the other four of us did, and it detrimentally affected her during her teenage years and early twenties. Her behaviour during those years also detrimentally affected the rest of us to a greater or lesser degree.

And yet, as a small child, she was the easy one, according to my mother. I've often wondered if Sis had rebelled as much as the rest of us did as a child whether she wouldn't have suffered and caused suffering later. On the other hand, my mother once said that she'd had to be crafty to avoid S having tantrums. I've often wondered if it would have been better, with hindsight, to let her have tantrums. Not that I'm criticising my mother's approach – she had four other kids (and herself!) to consider and probably didn't have the energy to cope with full blown tantrums. Who knows? I was never aware of any favouritism from either of my parents. I think they were very careful about things like that. In fact, I think they were pretty careful about everything.

People like the Naked Rambler do make you wonder what their background was, don't they, and what motivates them to behave with a determination that has such negative results, and such predictable negative results at that.

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

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.

Silly iPad should have said 'perspectives'

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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"