Cyclists bare all for World Naked Bike Ride

A quartet of riders set off on the ride

The ride departs from the Millennium Bridge

Cyclists bare all for World Naked Bike Ride

Cyclists bare all for World Naked Bike Ride

First published in News

SCORES of people stripped off to take part in the World Naked Bike Ride in York.

The bike ride is held in cities around the world and was picked up in York in 2006 as a protest against oil dependency and car culture.

Riders gathered at the Millennium Bridge before setting off on the 90-minute course taking in Ouse Bridge, Coney Street, Clifford’s Tower, Micklegate, the Mount and Knavesmire.

John Cossham, a regular participant in the event, said: “If we just had an annual bike ride, wearing normal clothing, we would get minimal publicity for the issues... anthropogenic climate change, peak oil, pollution, dangerous roads, the genius simplicity of the bicycle.

“Riding naked is fun, feels nice and free, and draws attention to these important subjects, encouraging debate.”

John said he hoped it would also lead to society’s attitudes changing.

Nudity was not essential, and anyone was welcome to join the ride, which bears the motto As Bare As You Dare.

York Press: The Press - Comment

Baring a message

SATURDAY’S naked bike ride sent as strong a message as the poverty report, but in a fun way.

It was the sixth running of the event, and riders set off from Millennium Bridge to raise awareness of cycling and encourage people to choose more environmentally friendly modes of transport.

As ever, cyclists daubed themselves with logos or showed only a certain amount of flesh.

Others, though, were happy to express their barefaced cheek.

Let’s hope they remembered their factor 15.

York Press: What do you think? - Click to comment

Comments (68)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:43am Mon 6 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Thank you York Press for some great 'coverage'!
Thank you York Press for some great 'coverage'! John Cossham
  • Score: 0

8:46am Mon 6 Jun 11

Jazzper says...

Nauseating, just a pack of "nutters"
Nauseating, just a pack of "nutters" Jazzper
  • Score: 0

9:12am Mon 6 Jun 11

pedalling paul says...

A bit too nippy for me yesterday......
A bit too nippy for me yesterday...... pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

9:26am Mon 6 Jun 11

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent.
Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

9:28am Mon 6 Jun 11

CHISSY1 says...

Bet all the dirty mac brigade crawled out for a bit of sightseeing.But seriously this should not have been allowed.What is the difference between this and indecent exposure.
Bet all the dirty mac brigade crawled out for a bit of sightseeing.But seriously this should not have been allowed.What is the difference between this and indecent exposure. CHISSY1
  • Score: 0

9:50am Mon 6 Jun 11

NoMorePlease says...

Despite the prevalence of negativity over this issue, it should be noted that not all who take part are knob heads
Despite the prevalence of negativity over this issue, it should be noted that not all who take part are knob heads NoMorePlease
  • Score: 0

9:56am Mon 6 Jun 11

spiritofyork says...

Was there any arrests made? There was some noise about the police being called. I mean, if you can't have a pillow fight in a park, how are you expected to be allowed to committ mas gross-indecency? It should be banned before someone gets hurt/offended.
Was there any arrests made? There was some noise about the police being called. I mean, if you can't have a pillow fight in a park, how are you expected to be allowed to committ mas gross-indecency? It should be banned before someone gets hurt/offended. spiritofyork
  • Score: 0

11:35am Mon 6 Jun 11

petethefeet says...

spiritofyork wrote:
Was there any arrests made? There was some noise about the police being called. I mean, if you can't have a pillow fight in a park, how are you expected to be allowed to committ mas gross-indecency? It should be banned before someone gets hurt/offended.
I'm quite certain that the local police have already looked at this activity and concluded that, under the 2003 sexual offences act, no offence has occured. Their only concern would have concerned possible 'affray' caused by some of the 'sycophants' on this website wanting to impose their own form of justice via the hurling of abuse, missiles or other noxious substances.
[quote][p][bold]spiritofyork[/bold] wrote: Was there any arrests made? There was some noise about the police being called. I mean, if you can't have a pillow fight in a park, how are you expected to be allowed to committ mas gross-indecency? It should be banned before someone gets hurt/offended.[/p][/quote]I'm quite certain that the local police have already looked at this activity and concluded that, under the 2003 sexual offences act, no offence has occured. Their only concern would have concerned possible 'affray' caused by some of the 'sycophants' on this website wanting to impose their own form of justice via the hurling of abuse, missiles or other noxious substances. petethefeet
  • Score: 0

11:41am Mon 6 Jun 11

BL2 says...

Judging by the pictures I'm glad I didn't see it! *shudder*
Judging by the pictures I'm glad I didn't see it! *shudder* BL2
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Mon 6 Jun 11

Lord Muck says...

Phwooaaarrrr!! If it wasn't for the pesky injunction i'd have joined my fellow tele-lens toting perves on the bridge for a good gawp and dribble.
Nice to see the bike-less chap trotting alongside his chums on foot - had his bike been nicked or was he living the dream of 'testing the law' as so many of the mis-informed threatened to do on here?
Phwooaaarrrr!! If it wasn't for the pesky injunction i'd have joined my fellow tele-lens toting perves on the bridge for a good gawp and dribble. Nice to see the bike-less chap trotting alongside his chums on foot - had his bike been nicked or was he living the dream of 'testing the law' as so many of the mis-informed threatened to do on here? Lord Muck
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Mon 6 Jun 11

York Fox says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent.
Why pipe up now there is an advert on a video!? Have you failed to notice the adverts in every newspaper in the country, or between the news items on ITV/Sky etc?
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent.[/p][/quote]Why pipe up now there is an advert on a video!? Have you failed to notice the adverts in every newspaper in the country, or between the news items on ITV/Sky etc? York Fox
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Mon 6 Jun 11

Even AndyD says...

York Fox wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent.
Why pipe up now there is an advert on a video!? Have you failed to notice the adverts in every newspaper in the country, or between the news items on ITV/Sky etc?
Obviously frustrated at the 20sec delay before his titillation!
[quote][p][bold]York Fox[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: Why have I got to watch a ruddy advert for the OU before I get to see the video above? If the Press can't afford to offer news videos without having to sell advertising then how do we know the news item content won't be tainted by the need to satisfy the views of the advertisor? Selling sponsored news items is not in the spirit of "Freedom of the Press" and is abhorent.[/p][/quote]Why pipe up now there is an advert on a video!? Have you failed to notice the adverts in every newspaper in the country, or between the news items on ITV/Sky etc?[/p][/quote]Obviously frustrated at the 20sec delay before his titillation! Even AndyD
  • Score: 0

7:13pm Mon 6 Jun 11

MrChuckles says...

Surely its just one hour of the year! A bit of nudety, but nothing people havn't seen before. I choose not to take part or go support it in any way, but respect peoples choice to and its just a bit of fun for people. If don't like it, dont read about it, and dont go near the people taking part. But I guess the PC and censor police, of whom are intent on wrapping the world in cotton wool will have to stick their noses in!!!
Surely its just one hour of the year! A bit of nudety, but nothing people havn't seen before. I choose not to take part or go support it in any way, but respect peoples choice to and its just a bit of fun for people. If don't like it, dont read about it, and dont go near the people taking part. But I guess the PC and censor police, of whom are intent on wrapping the world in cotton wool will have to stick their noses in!!! MrChuckles
  • Score: 0

10:55am Tue 7 Jun 11

cherokee says...

Man is the only mammal which mates at nightime,looking at the pictures of the naked bike ride I can understand why
Man is the only mammal which mates at nightime,looking at the pictures of the naked bike ride I can understand why cherokee
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Tue 7 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

Glad to see that the consensus seems to be that the nudity was unnecessary. Credit to the guys in the photos for making themselves merely look like plonkers, rather than being completely nude. It's those that decide to go full-frontal that I have a major suspicion about! Particularly when they start talking about how nice it feels.
.
MrChuckles - political correctness? What? Haha the amount of times people chuck in that phrase just when there's the mere mention of common decency. Not being allowed to get your tackle out in town, broad daylight, on the busiest saturday of half-term? Political correctness! Hilarious. Plus the whole problem is that it *wasn't* easy to avoid. If they wanted to give people an option to suffer this, they could have done it out of the way somewhere. They did it through the centre of down.
.
Cycling, great. Protesting, fine. Making yourself look daft for your cause, OK. Having the desire for the public to see your genitals, not_cool.
Glad to see that the consensus seems to be that the nudity was unnecessary. Credit to the guys in the photos for making themselves merely look like plonkers, rather than being completely nude. It's those that decide to go full-frontal that I have a major suspicion about! Particularly when they start talking about how nice it feels. . MrChuckles - political correctness? What? Haha the amount of times people chuck in that phrase just when there's the mere mention of common decency. Not being allowed to get your tackle out in town, broad daylight, on the busiest saturday of half-term? Political correctness! Hilarious. Plus the whole problem is that it *wasn't* easy to avoid. If they wanted to give people an option to suffer this, they could have done it out of the way somewhere. They did it through the centre of down. . Cycling, great. Protesting, fine. Making yourself look daft for your cause, OK. Having the desire for the public to see your genitals, not_cool. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Tue 7 Jun 11

Sceptic01 says...

Mr cossham suggests that 'riding naked is fun' and also states that this event encourages debate!
Oh really, when was the last time we had a debate on Global Warming?
This is a bad advert for cycling, if one of these naked riders were to fall they could suffer serious dam age to tender parts of the body.
I'd be interested to see CYC's Risk Assessment from their Safety Department!
Mr cossham suggests that 'riding naked is fun' and also states that this event encourages debate! Oh really, when was the last time we had a debate on Global Warming? This is a bad advert for cycling, if one of these naked riders were to fall they could suffer serious dam age to tender parts of the body. I'd be interested to see CYC's Risk Assessment from their Safety Department! Sceptic01
  • Score: 0

9:34pm Tue 7 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

A full RA was submitted to the NY Police.

Cycling in a group is significantly safer than cycling (even with clothes!) on the 'open road' mixing with cars and other motor vehicles. There is much less of a risk of getting knocked off one's bike in a group of cyclists traveling at low speed than on the morning commute.

I'm saddened to read all the comments from people who are SO uptight about nakedness... but as I've said before, one of the reasons we ride naked is because it attracts comment, media attention and a bit of controversy, which gets the messages across. Growing numbers of people are trying to live with less pollution, a lower carbon footprint, and the WNBR movement is part of the response to unsustainable growth and energy use, congested roads and cyclist fatalities. We will ride every year to highlight the issues, whether a few prudes like it or not. No laws are being broken (apart from 3 of the 4 idiots in pink nappies, who urinated in a hedge at the racecourse, and received a warning of a £500 fine from the police for doing so) and more and more cities and towns are having the rides... over 50 Worldwide this year. So, winge on, and we'll ride on.
A full RA was submitted to the NY Police. Cycling in a group is significantly safer than cycling (even with clothes!) on the 'open road' mixing with cars and other motor vehicles. There is much less of a risk of getting knocked off one's bike in a group of cyclists traveling at low speed than on the morning commute. I'm saddened to read all the comments from people who are SO uptight about nakedness... but as I've said before, one of the reasons we ride naked is because it attracts comment, media attention and a bit of controversy, which gets the messages across. Growing numbers of people are trying to live with less pollution, a lower carbon footprint, and the WNBR movement is part of the response to unsustainable growth and energy use, congested roads and cyclist fatalities. We will ride every year to highlight the issues, whether a few prudes like it or not. No laws are being broken (apart from 3 of the 4 idiots in pink nappies, who urinated in a hedge at the racecourse, and received a warning of a £500 fine from the police for doing so) and more and more cities and towns are having the rides... over 50 Worldwide this year. So, winge on, and we'll ride on. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Wed 8 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

John, not a particularly positive spokesperson for your cause, I believe. You seem to be one of those who are more into the nude aspect. Not believing it appropriate to cycle through a busy city centre in a school holiday does *not* make you a prude - and if you genuinely think so, that says a lot about your attitudes. I believe that a very strong message was put across - one of nudity. Not only has the nude element alienated a lot of people who would otherwise support the cause, including myself, but has ended up completely and utterly overshadowing the actual protest. The true message was lost - how many here have commented on oil dependency rather than the pervert-vs-prude debate? Anyway, for people that need the publicity (rather than the cause) perhaps this is a nice opportunity for them - so long as they understand the nature of that publicity!
John, not a particularly positive spokesperson for your cause, I believe. You seem to be one of those who are more into the nude aspect. Not believing it appropriate to cycle through a busy city centre in a school holiday does *not* make you a prude - and if you genuinely think so, that says a lot about your attitudes. I believe that a very strong message was put across - one of nudity. Not only has the nude element alienated a lot of people who would otherwise support the cause, including myself, but has ended up completely and utterly overshadowing the actual protest. The true message was lost - how many here have commented on oil dependency rather than the pervert-vs-prude debate? Anyway, for people that need the publicity (rather than the cause) perhaps this is a nice opportunity for them - so long as they understand the nature of that publicity! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Wed 8 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Actually 'GoodDoc', I'm more into the environmental message of the ride, hence the first two years cycling dressed as Father Christmas on my unicycle, and last year in my colourful costume after entertaining at another event all day. . . . . I am not actually a naturist, but if getting naked draws attention to the suicidal behaviour of our species with oil addiction and unsustainable lifestyles, then I'll get naked. I know that it HAS enabled the issues to get into print and onto the airwaves, so it's been successful.
Actually 'GoodDoc', I'm more into the environmental message of the ride, hence the first two years cycling dressed as Father Christmas on my unicycle, and last year in my colourful costume after entertaining at another event all day. . . . . I am not actually a naturist, but if getting naked draws attention to the suicidal behaviour of our species with oil addiction and unsustainable lifestyles, then I'll get naked. I know that it HAS enabled the issues to get into print and onto the airwaves, so it's been successful. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

2:14am Thu 9 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

I just looked up 'prude' and you are one: "A person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity". There is nothing wrong with being a prude... wear it with pride. There is nothing wrong with being liberal and broad-minded, and I'll wear that happily too. We live in a diverse society, I like diversity .............. The prudes out there are offended by nudity. They are at liberty to say so. I'm offended by people eating meat unnecessarily and driving their 4x4s when a bike could do. But I know I cannot change their behaviour, can't stop them eating what they want to eat or driving what they want to drive. Nor can we be stopped having our annual one-hour protest, when it's completely within the law and carefully planned with the authorities. Just look the other way, my friend. That's what I have to do with your sausage, steak and SUV.
I just looked up 'prude' and you are one: "A person who is or claims to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity". There is nothing wrong with being a prude... wear it with pride. There is nothing wrong with being liberal and broad-minded, and I'll wear that happily too. We live in a diverse society, I like diversity .............. The prudes out there are offended by nudity. They are at liberty to say so. I'm offended by people eating meat unnecessarily and driving their 4x4s when a bike could do. But I know I cannot change their behaviour, can't stop them eating what they want to eat or driving what they want to drive. Nor can we be stopped having our annual one-hour protest, when it's completely within the law and carefully planned with the authorities. Just look the other way, my friend. That's what I have to do with your sausage, steak and SUV. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

7:18pm Thu 9 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

I feel that what you got into the minds of the public was a message about how 'nice' it feels to cycle with no clothes on, and how you label anyone that objects to you wanting to show your bits around as a prude! And despite your latest claim, you seem to have had a distinct focus on that element. Had you stopped at Santa costumes - or even just kept your pants on - people perhaps could trust your motives a little more easily.
.
If being a prude means I'm shocked, then I'm certainly not a prude. There's nothing 'shocking' about nudity per se. It was disrespectful, inconsiderate, perhaps even vaguely sinister in certain cases, but not shocking. I'm quite OK with nudity within the right situations. But the point of this was to have the nudity noticed by people who didn't have a choice. And most of those were pedestrians and families, rather than gas-guzzling 4x4 drivers.
.
Exposing yourself to men, women and children is not akin to eating steak or driving an SUV. Just because we have the legal ability to do something does not make it appropriate, effective or respectful. Well you're right, at the moment it won't be stopped - until the people with an interest in the real and noble cause separate themselves from the people with a awkward paraphilias. Good luck to them - I hope they get to sort out their priorities.
I feel that what you got into the minds of the public was a message about how 'nice' it feels to cycle with no clothes on, and how you label anyone that objects to you wanting to show your bits around as a prude! And despite your latest claim, you seem to have had a distinct focus on that element. Had you stopped at Santa costumes - or even just kept your pants on - people perhaps could trust your motives a little more easily. . If being a prude means I'm shocked, then I'm certainly not a prude. There's nothing 'shocking' about nudity per se. It was disrespectful, inconsiderate, perhaps even vaguely sinister in certain cases, but not shocking. I'm quite OK with nudity within the right situations. But the point of this was to have the nudity noticed by people who didn't have a choice. And most of those were pedestrians and families, rather than gas-guzzling 4x4 drivers. . Exposing yourself to men, women and children is not akin to eating steak or driving an SUV. Just because we have the legal ability to do something does not make it appropriate, effective or respectful. Well you're right, at the moment it won't be stopped - until the people with an interest in the real and noble cause separate themselves from the people with a awkward paraphilias. Good luck to them - I hope they get to sort out their priorities. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Thu 9 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

GoodDoc, you are SO way off the mark with your focus on sexual behaviour. Paraphilia indeed! What utter tosh.
.
Had you been on the ride... in underpants, pink nappy, gorilla suit or otherwise, you wouldn't have heard any other response than cheering, laughing or clapping. Thousands of people LOVED what we did. The people objecting are in a TINY minority, but like any minority, just a few people with loud voices and busy keyboards do get noticed.
.
Why do you feel that my intense dislike of cars and the livestock industry is any different than some peoples' dislike of the WNBR? I went through Leeds railway station yesterday, and there was a car on a podium in the foyer, an advertising ploy. I felt like spitting at it... but I held back, because I am very aware that no laws were being broken with the car there, and expressing my intense disgust at it being there by spitting at it would have no positive outcome whatsoever. Your irrational and tiny minority disgust is exactly the same to my irrational and tiny minority disgust. I urge you to shut up and put up... we live in the 21st Century, not the 19th. Our diverse culture has to accept lots of things which minorities dislike, whether you or I like it or not.
.
Anybody who knows me knows where my priorities lie. I've done a considerable amount of good for this city with my volunteering; I am passionate about making a better environment and community for everybody, and the organisations I've started and worked with have made York a better place. I really don't believe that my cycling naked on a protest ride once a year will change many peoples' view of me. I don't know if cycling naked will change the amount of catastrophic climate change we are letting ourselves and our grandchildren's grandchildren into, but I'm the sort of person who will try anything to try to get the message across. Maybe you think I should do some more obvious direct action... how about I try to close down a coal-fired power station?
.
John Cossham FRSA
GoodDoc, you are SO way off the mark with your focus on sexual behaviour. Paraphilia indeed! What utter tosh. . Had you been on the ride... in underpants, pink nappy, gorilla suit or otherwise, you wouldn't have heard any other response than cheering, laughing or clapping. Thousands of people LOVED what we did. The people objecting are in a TINY minority, but like any minority, just a few people with loud voices and busy keyboards do get noticed. . Why do you feel that my intense dislike of cars and the livestock industry is any different than some peoples' dislike of the WNBR? I went through Leeds railway station yesterday, and there was a car on a podium in the foyer, an advertising ploy. I felt like spitting at it... but I held back, because I am very aware that no laws were being broken with the car there, and expressing my intense disgust at it being there by spitting at it would have no positive outcome whatsoever. Your irrational and tiny minority disgust is exactly the same to my irrational and tiny minority disgust. I urge you to shut up and put up... we live in the 21st Century, not the 19th. Our diverse culture has to accept lots of things which minorities dislike, whether you or I like it or not. . Anybody who knows me knows where my priorities lie. I've done a considerable amount of good for this city with my volunteering; I am passionate about making a better environment and community for everybody, and the organisations I've started and worked with have made York a better place. I really don't believe that my cycling naked on a protest ride once a year will change many peoples' view of me. I don't know if cycling naked will change the amount of catastrophic climate change we are letting ourselves and our grandchildren's grandchildren into, but I'm the sort of person who will try anything to try to get the message across. Maybe you think I should do some more obvious direct action... how about I try to close down a coal-fired power station? . John Cossham FRSA John Cossham
  • Score: 0

11:30pm Fri 10 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

John, I think it's a huge mistake to assume that simply because the select people that turned up ("thousands" you say) cheered and waved meant that overall a tiny minority would rather it didn't happen naked. After-all, people who object to the exhibitionism would be ironically supportive if they turned up to protest.
.
And sorry, having a hatred for the livestock industry is wholly different.. and I'm amazed I'm having to explain it. The livestock industry is an industry - it is supported by over half of the population and is part of most people's daily lives to a certain degree. An annual cycling protest tainted by a few undesirables choose to expose themselves is just a bit different, don't you think?
.
I'm not criticising any charity work you do, or any views you may have. What I'm criticising is you making the deliberate choice not to wear a few inches of cotton when it would have made no difference to the point you were allegedly trying to make. I'm not suggesting you can close a power-station - but I am suggesting that near enough any other protest method would have been as effective, many more so, and other methods are not only more relevant to the actual issue but are more considerate to the general public.
.
For your sake, it would be nice to believe that no one would think worse of you. However, as a 'children's entertainer', you would be well aware of the various safeguarding procedures and specifically of 'Safer Recruitment' systems - and therefore, I suspect you're wrong on at least that point.
John, I think it's a huge mistake to assume that simply because the select people that turned up ("thousands" you say) cheered and waved meant that overall a tiny minority would rather it didn't happen naked. After-all, people who object to the exhibitionism would be ironically supportive if they turned up to protest. . And sorry, having a hatred for the livestock industry is wholly different.. and I'm amazed I'm having to explain it. The livestock industry is an industry - it is supported by over half of the population and is part of most people's daily lives to a certain degree. An annual cycling protest tainted by a few undesirables choose to expose themselves is just a bit different, don't you think? . I'm not criticising any charity work you do, or any views you may have. What I'm criticising is you making the deliberate choice not to wear a few inches of cotton when it would have made no difference to the point you were allegedly trying to make. I'm not suggesting you can close a power-station - but I am suggesting that near enough any other protest method would have been as effective, many more so, and other methods are not only more relevant to the actual issue but are more considerate to the general public. . For your sake, it would be nice to believe that no one would think worse of you. However, as a 'children's entertainer', you would be well aware of the various safeguarding procedures and specifically of 'Safer Recruitment' systems - and therefore, I suspect you're wrong on at least that point. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

4:13am Sat 11 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

As an Equity Children's Entertainer, I have signed up to working in a specific way which means I am never left as a childminder. I don't need a CRB check therefore, as I'm always in the presence of other adults. I have got a CRB check for one bit of volunteering I did though, and that shows I have not been in trouble with the law for any reasons which would prevent me working with vulnerable people.
.

I've been a professional entertainer for 17 years and my green views have been well to the fore all that time; indeed, I get bookings specifically because the client wants a green entertainer rather than one who pollutes all over the place with a dirty motor vehicle. Most of my work is repeat bookings and word of mouth recommendations so my reputation is unquestionable.
.
And you still don't get the fact that if we were to have a ride called The World Environmental Bike Ride or similar, it would get minimal publicity and we would be denied the chance to go on the radio and have articles in the Press where we once again get the concepts of peak oil, cyclist safety and 'body freedom', a concept I'm not too sure about as I'm not a regular naturist.
.
I still think both you and I are in a minority group. You don't like the WNBR, I don't like urban 4x4s. We may share some dislikes too.... maybe you dislike tobacco smoke or grapefruit? But I (nor you) can prevent people smoking whilst walking along the pavement (do you walk I wonder, or take the car everywhere?) and my own personal dislike of grapefruit extends only to the taste, so I choose not to partake. So, if you don't like something, do your best to avoid it. It really is that simple!
.
(And yes, thousands of people have seen the 7 WNBRs I've been on, and I've seen one family in Manchester turn their backs on us, and not look, and one old man cover a child's eyes as we cycled past, and one person - maybe you - yell out 'get your clothes on', but thousands cheering, clapping, laughing. So yes, you are in a tiny minority.
.

BUT I'm oh so glad minorities are tolerated in this country, including the small numbers of protesters on the WNBR.
As an Equity Children's Entertainer, I have signed up to working in a specific way which means I am never left as a childminder. I don't need a CRB check therefore, as I'm always in the presence of other adults. I have got a CRB check for one bit of volunteering I did though, and that shows I have not been in trouble with the law for any reasons which would prevent me working with vulnerable people. . I've been a professional entertainer for 17 years and my green views have been well to the fore all that time; indeed, I get bookings specifically because the client wants a green entertainer rather than one who pollutes all over the place with a dirty motor vehicle. Most of my work is repeat bookings and word of mouth recommendations so my reputation is unquestionable. . And you still don't get the fact that if we were to have a ride called The World Environmental Bike Ride or similar, it would get minimal publicity and we would be denied the chance to go on the radio and have articles in the Press where we once again get the concepts of peak oil, cyclist safety and 'body freedom', a concept I'm not too sure about as I'm not a regular naturist. . I still think both you and I are in a minority group. You don't like the WNBR, I don't like urban 4x4s. We may share some dislikes too.... maybe you dislike tobacco smoke or grapefruit? But I (nor you) can prevent people smoking whilst walking along the pavement (do you walk I wonder, or take the car everywhere?) and my own personal dislike of grapefruit extends only to the taste, so I choose not to partake. So, if you don't like something, do your best to avoid it. It really is that simple! . (And yes, thousands of people have seen the 7 WNBRs I've been on, and I've seen one family in Manchester turn their backs on us, and not look, and one old man cover a child's eyes as we cycled past, and one person - maybe you - yell out 'get your clothes on', but thousands cheering, clapping, laughing. So yes, you are in a tiny minority. . BUT I'm oh so glad minorities are tolerated in this country, including the small numbers of protesters on the WNBR. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Sat 11 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

Your analogies are scraping the barrel a little. Grapefruit now? Asking someone not to be starkers as they cycle through town on a saturday is akin to asking someone not to eat grapefruit because you don't like the taste? Do you really believe that?
.
Re. the CRB... well I'm more than a little a shocked. But no, that's a tiny fraction of 'Safer Recruitment', though it sounds as though you may fall on the first hurdle.
.
I would still query the amount of support you had, certainly on a local level. Certainly in my place of work (not a monastery by the way) people thought the nude aspect was unnecessary. I think the ways you're gauging the level of support are pretty flawed. You may as well test the national popularity of fox-hunting by seeing how many people used to turn up to hunt.
.
I'm also glad that minority groups are tolerated. However, I'm even more glad that in this country freedom-of-action generally only applies when the actions don't have an avoidable, direct and negative effect on others.
.
John, it boils down to the single decision you made to not wear pants. You still seem claim to think that wearing pants would have cost you publicity. You could have drenched yourselves in (fake) oil, you could have all ridden in fancy dress, you could have picketed or protested outside petrol stations, or rolled empty oil drums through town. There are a million ways to get this message across more effectively, without offending, without risking appealling to perverts, without jeopardising your message. But nope. You wanted people to see you in that way. Apparently, a pair of y-fronts would have ruined the message. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I think that's bordering on the insane.
Your analogies are scraping the barrel a little. Grapefruit now? Asking someone not to be starkers as they cycle through town on a saturday is akin to asking someone not to eat grapefruit because you don't like the taste? Do you really believe that? . Re. the CRB... well I'm more than a little a shocked. But no, that's a tiny fraction of 'Safer Recruitment', though it sounds as though you may fall on the first hurdle. . I would still query the amount of support you had, certainly on a local level. Certainly in my place of work (not a monastery by the way) people thought the nude aspect was unnecessary. I think the ways you're gauging the level of support are pretty flawed. You may as well test the national popularity of fox-hunting by seeing how many people used to turn up to hunt. . I'm also glad that minority groups are tolerated. However, I'm even more glad that in this country freedom-of-action generally only applies when the actions don't have an avoidable, direct and negative effect on others. . John, it boils down to the single decision you made to not wear pants. You still seem claim to think that wearing pants would have cost you publicity. You could have drenched yourselves in (fake) oil, you could have all ridden in fancy dress, you could have picketed or protested outside petrol stations, or rolled empty oil drums through town. There are a million ways to get this message across more effectively, without offending, without risking appealling to perverts, without jeopardising your message. But nope. You wanted people to see you in that way. Apparently, a pair of y-fronts would have ruined the message. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this because I think that's bordering on the insane. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Sat 11 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

You're right, a protest can take all sorts of forms. But I didn't invent the WNBR, nor did I start the York one. Im in agreement with you that our views differ on this. So you will continue with your opposition, and we will continue riding. Make a note in your diary for June 2012; keep a look out in the media and you'll see the ride advertised. Make sure you do something else on that day, rather than come into town and get all hot under the collar.... it's not good for your health. There, problem solved.
You're right, a protest can take all sorts of forms. But I didn't invent the WNBR, nor did I start the York one. Im in agreement with you that our views differ on this. So you will continue with your opposition, and we will continue riding. Make a note in your diary for June 2012; keep a look out in the media and you'll see the ride advertised. Make sure you do something else on that day, rather than come into town and get all hot under the collar.... it's not good for your health. There, problem solved. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

7:15pm Sat 11 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Oh, and the grapefruit.... I don't like them, so I don't eat them. I'm fortunate that no-one is forcing me to eat grapefruit, and if I should accidentally eat a bit, in a fruit salad, for instance, I can spit it out and avoid eating further chunks.
.
Do you understand my analogy now?
.
OK, no? Right, you, GoodDoc, don't like the WNBR. No one is forcing you to participate. As you don't like it, do try to avoid it. If you accidentally see the ride, it won't kill you and you can choose to turn away.
.
Neither grapefruit or the WNBR are illegal. A minority of the population dislikes them, some love them, most aren't really bothered either way. That's life.
Oh, and the grapefruit.... I don't like them, so I don't eat them. I'm fortunate that no-one is forcing me to eat grapefruit, and if I should accidentally eat a bit, in a fruit salad, for instance, I can spit it out and avoid eating further chunks. . Do you understand my analogy now? . OK, no? Right, you, GoodDoc, don't like the WNBR. No one is forcing you to participate. As you don't like it, do try to avoid it. If you accidentally see the ride, it won't kill you and you can choose to turn away. . Neither grapefruit or the WNBR are illegal. A minority of the population dislikes them, some love them, most aren't really bothered either way. That's life. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

7:09pm Sun 12 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

I understood what you were trying to imply John, but it doesn't really compare. Whether someone else eats grapefruit enough does not affect you, does not force you to make other plans, and does not potentially give adults with paraphilias the option of exposing themselves to kids!! If there was no other way of getting the point across, I could come closer to seeing your point.
.
And blaming the protest format on the organisers seems a bit weak. At the end of the day, you made a decision not to wear any covering. Many chose to protest in other, more decent ways. That was your decision and yours alone.
I understood what you were trying to imply John, but it doesn't really compare. Whether someone else eats grapefruit enough does not affect you, does not force you to make other plans, and does not potentially give adults with paraphilias the option of exposing themselves to kids!! If there was no other way of getting the point across, I could come closer to seeing your point. . And blaming the protest format on the organisers seems a bit weak. At the end of the day, you made a decision not to wear any covering. Many chose to protest in other, more decent ways. That was your decision and yours alone. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

8:56pm Sun 12 Jun 11

Stabvest says...

Great! An opportunity for flashers and exhibitionists to expose themselves to the general public, including children, with the police standing by and failing to arrest them. Disgusting!
Great! An opportunity for flashers and exhibitionists to expose themselves to the general public, including children, with the police standing by and failing to arrest them. Disgusting! Stabvest
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Sun 12 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

My main area of disagreement with GoodDoc and Stabvest is that the riders are flashers and exhibitionists, or get sexually aroused by going on the ride.
.
It is more likely that some of the photographers with long lenses are the pervy ones, going home with their images and getting off on them.
.
I think that next year I'll try to close a butchers shop, that will save more carbon. Oh, except that is someone's lawful living, and people have the legal right to eat meat. Or maybe the power station? With any luck I'll get help from an undercover cop and when I'm arrested, I'll be invited to appeal and then I'll find out the CPS was lying about something...
.
No, I'll stick to one hour of WNBR, as it's legal, non-violent, doesn't affect anybody's livelihood, and the majority of people who see the protest seem to like it.
.
I don't like upsetting people who don't like it and do urge them to stay away from the route of the ride on the advertised evening, and if they do happen to spot it, to look away.
My main area of disagreement with GoodDoc and Stabvest is that the riders are flashers and exhibitionists, or get sexually aroused by going on the ride. . It is more likely that some of the photographers with long lenses are the pervy ones, going home with their images and getting off on them. . I think that next year I'll try to close a butchers shop, that will save more carbon. Oh, except that is someone's lawful living, and people have the legal right to eat meat. Or maybe the power station? With any luck I'll get help from an undercover cop and when I'm arrested, I'll be invited to appeal and then I'll find out the CPS was lying about something... . No, I'll stick to one hour of WNBR, as it's legal, non-violent, doesn't affect anybody's livelihood, and the majority of people who see the protest seem to like it. . I don't like upsetting people who don't like it and do urge them to stay away from the route of the ride on the advertised evening, and if they do happen to spot it, to look away. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

3:04am Mon 13 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Check out the vid here, and listen to what the police have to say.
.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-ham
pshire-13727137
.
I like this balanced approach.
Check out the vid here, and listen to what the police have to say. . http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-ham pshire-13727137 . I like this balanced approach. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

6:52am Mon 13 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

More unhelpful analogies John. Butchers' shops now? Because butchers are easily avoidable, cause people to change their plans, and provide these opportunities for undesirables?
.
I think it's profoundly naive to assume that no one who strips off completely for something like this could be a flasher or an exhibitionist. I think it's pretty much guaranteed. There will be many ulterior motives for getting naked, and yes unfortunately *some* will be sexual...
.
I was imagining that perhaps you would come up with a feasible, convincing argument why you were not able to wear underwear. But then again, I think we all realise that there probably is no plausible reason - because others protesting managed to cover-up, and because it's entirely unrelated to the subject matter. Still, you enjoyed the nice feeling and that's what counts eh.
More unhelpful analogies John. Butchers' shops now? Because butchers are easily avoidable, cause people to change their plans, and provide these opportunities for undesirables? . I think it's profoundly naive to assume that no one who strips off completely for something like this could be a flasher or an exhibitionist. I think it's pretty much guaranteed. There will be many ulterior motives for getting naked, and yes unfortunately *some* will be sexual... . I was imagining that perhaps you would come up with a feasible, convincing argument why you were not able to wear underwear. But then again, I think we all realise that there probably is no plausible reason - because others protesting managed to cover-up, and because it's entirely unrelated to the subject matter. Still, you enjoyed the nice feeling and that's what counts eh. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

8:50am Mon 13 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

And another wonderful vid of this year's Manchester ride. Incredibly positive response from the public
.
http://www.g7uk.com/
video-world-naked-bi
ke-ride-2011-manches
ter.shtml
.
and terriffic Police help too. Lovely!
And another wonderful vid of this year's Manchester ride. Incredibly positive response from the public . http://www.g7uk.com/ video-world-naked-bi ke-ride-2011-manches ter.shtml . and terriffic Police help too. Lovely! John Cossham
  • Score: 0

9:02am Mon 13 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Butchers shops (and other places selling meat) are NOT easily avoidable. I have to walk past the stinking disgusting-looking places whenever I'm in town, and I cannot express strongly enough how much this trade upsets and angers me. But unlike you, I am not making a fuss about it. I just continue with my vegetarian and low carbon diet, as I have done since 1985.
.
I rode naked on this year's York WNBR because I could, because I think it's a way of demonstrating our vulnerability, because it's 'the done thing' on a WNBR to be naked or semi-clad, because I don't get a sexual thrill from it (cycling whilst aroused NOT a nice thought!) and because it is completely legal.
.
I think that's all I have to say. Readers should make their own mind up about whether they participate, congratulate, criticise or keep away.
Butchers shops (and other places selling meat) are NOT easily avoidable. I have to walk past the stinking disgusting-looking places whenever I'm in town, and I cannot express strongly enough how much this trade upsets and angers me. But unlike you, I am not making a fuss about it. I just continue with my vegetarian and low carbon diet, as I have done since 1985. . I rode naked on this year's York WNBR because I could, because I think it's a way of demonstrating our vulnerability, because it's 'the done thing' on a WNBR to be naked or semi-clad, because I don't get a sexual thrill from it (cycling whilst aroused NOT a nice thought!) and because it is completely legal. . I think that's all I have to say. Readers should make their own mind up about whether they participate, congratulate, criticise or keep away. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Mon 13 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

You really still think it's comparable? Despite butchers being a standard, regular part of every town, despite the majority of the national population being meat-eaters, despite people knowing where the butchers shops are, you think it's the same as allowing certain members of a small protest group to expose themselves in a variety of main streets. Wow. You're right, readers can make up their own minds.
.
And sorry, vulnerability does not wash. Wearing a pair of y-fronts would make you less significantly vulnerable would it? And ruin the message. Come on John, don't treat people like idiots. I think you're right - you rode naked because you could, because it 'feels nice' to you, and because it's just about the only time you or anyone else gets to expose themselves to the general public. I started this discussion to see if there could be a valid reason for not wearing a pair of pants, a nappy, a mini-dress, or anything else silly and noticable yet decent. I've found my answer, and my suspicions were sadly correct.
You really still think it's comparable? Despite butchers being a standard, regular part of every town, despite the majority of the national population being meat-eaters, despite people knowing where the butchers shops are, you think it's the same as allowing certain members of a small protest group to expose themselves in a variety of main streets. Wow. You're right, readers can make up their own minds. . And sorry, vulnerability does not wash. Wearing a pair of y-fronts would make you less significantly vulnerable would it? And ruin the message. Come on John, don't treat people like idiots. I think you're right - you rode naked because you could, because it 'feels nice' to you, and because it's just about the only time you or anyone else gets to expose themselves to the general public. I started this discussion to see if there could be a valid reason for not wearing a pair of pants, a nappy, a mini-dress, or anything else silly and noticable yet decent. I've found my answer, and my suspicions were sadly correct. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Mon 13 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

You didn't start the discussion, I did. You were the 15th contributor.
.
Quite frankly, I don't really care that much about what you think about public nudity. I don't like the idea that some people might be offended, and I am genuinely sorry for that, but that is comparable with any minority being offended by something which happens in society, hence my personal feelings about the occasional butchers shop and meat eating.
.
If it were re-labelled as the 'guys in mini skirts bike ride' or the y-fronts ride, we wouldn't get the huge amount of positive response we do on the rides (I trust you've watched the video of the Manchester ride?) And you've focused on me, personally (are you jealous of something I wonder :-/ ) but you've not said anything about the female riders. Do you object to bare breasts? Do you object to painted bodies, which tend to obscure the 'natural bare look' of unpainted skin, sometimes looking like undergarments.
.
I fundamentally don't believe that public nudity is wrong. I am neither turned on nor aroused by it, nor am I horrified or weirded-out by it. I have an approach similar to that in Spain, where public nudity is an absolute right, and is accepted as an occasional but normal part of life. However, I don't like it so much that I'm part of a nudist club; I can take it or leave it.
.
I don't agree with your opinion, but I believe you have the right to express it. Why not be courageous and say you don't think we should be allowed to do the ride, but you accept that it is one recognised way of protesting and that there's nothing you can do to stop it. That would be an honourable way out of the hole you're digging for yourself.
.
Finally, just a note about transparency. You are hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym. I do not respect that one bit. Be a man (or a woman?) and come out with your real name. Stop pretending and be yourself.
You didn't start the discussion, I did. You were the 15th contributor. . Quite frankly, I don't really care that much about what you think about public nudity. I don't like the idea that some people might be offended, and I am genuinely sorry for that, but that is comparable with any minority being offended by something which happens in society, hence my personal feelings about the occasional butchers shop and meat eating. . If it were re-labelled as the 'guys in mini skirts bike ride' or the y-fronts ride, we wouldn't get the huge amount of positive response we do on the rides (I trust you've watched the video of the Manchester ride?) And you've focused on me, personally (are you jealous of something I wonder :-/ ) but you've not said anything about the female riders. Do you object to bare breasts? Do you object to painted bodies, which tend to obscure the 'natural bare look' of unpainted skin, sometimes looking like undergarments. . I fundamentally don't believe that public nudity is wrong. I am neither turned on nor aroused by it, nor am I horrified or weirded-out by it. I have an approach similar to that in Spain, where public nudity is an absolute right, and is accepted as an occasional but normal part of life. However, I don't like it so much that I'm part of a nudist club; I can take it or leave it. . I don't agree with your opinion, but I believe you have the right to express it. Why not be courageous and say you don't think we should be allowed to do the ride, but you accept that it is one recognised way of protesting and that there's nothing you can do to stop it. That would be an honourable way out of the hole you're digging for yourself. . Finally, just a note about transparency. You are hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym. I do not respect that one bit. Be a man (or a woman?) and come out with your real name. Stop pretending and be yourself. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 14 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

I first started the discussion with you, as your first comment was a statement about press coverage not a discussion starter.
.
You've cleared up a few points. You don't care what the public think about your nudity - I'm not in the least surprised. You still think that the *majority* of people are happy with you cycling nude through town on a saturday. Staggering.
.
And absolutely. Of course I object to bare breasts in the same context, for exactly the same reasons. Again, on a beach or in changing rooms it's different. And having lived in Spain for nearly 7 years I have no idea what resorts you've been visiting. No one thinks it appropriate to go through well populated areas wearing nothing at all - not here, not on the continent, no where other than nudist resorts. And if you really can 'take it or leave it', then why not simply wear the y-fronts, why go excuse-making to the press, and why defend it with such zeal? Despite your claims you give the impression of being particularly interested in the nudity.
.
I never once suggested that I can stop it, but that doesn't make it right. I respect your right to your opinion, but common-sense and respect dictates that each is entitled to their own opinions and actions unless they impinge on the liberties of others. As you've made perfectly clear, you're not remotely concerned about others - particularly those you declare are a minority. Clearly, neither myself nor any one of the other commenters on here consider ourselves to be digging a hole, merely by challenging you to justify your choices. Quite the opposite, though I'm sorry that you've been challenged in a way that you're clearly not used to.
.
And I'm pretty stunned about your little jab about anonymity. Skim the page and see how many posters choose their real names. Browse a few noticeboards elsewhere and note the same. I'm sorry that you cannot accept an opinion without a name attached - or that you accuse anyone of using a nickname of not being themselves. I assure you, this is me, this is my considered opinion. I'm not interested in the attention gained from anyone looking at my naked body except my long-term partner; I'm not interested in the attention gained from plastering my name across the Press forums or giving interviews and large facial photos to the local rag. I honestly think that you've made yourself very clear, intentionally or otherwise, through your various posts. Although I try not to judge a book by its cover, you've built up the picture that confirms my fears, and alas I don't think you've done the true cause any favours at all.
I first started the discussion with you, as your first comment was a statement about press coverage not a discussion starter. . You've cleared up a few points. You don't care what the public think about your nudity - I'm not in the least surprised. You still think that the *majority* of people are happy with you cycling nude through town on a saturday. Staggering. . And absolutely. Of course I object to bare breasts in the same context, for exactly the same reasons. Again, on a beach or in changing rooms it's different. And having lived in Spain for nearly 7 years I have no idea what resorts you've been visiting. No one thinks it appropriate to go through well populated areas wearing nothing at all - not here, not on the continent, no where other than nudist resorts. And if you really can 'take it or leave it', then why not simply wear the y-fronts, why go excuse-making to the press, and why defend it with such zeal? Despite your claims you give the impression of being particularly interested in the nudity. . I never once suggested that I can stop it, but that doesn't make it right. I respect your right to your opinion, but common-sense and respect dictates that each is entitled to their own opinions and actions unless they impinge on the liberties of others. As you've made perfectly clear, you're not remotely concerned about others - particularly those you declare are a minority. Clearly, neither myself nor any one of the other commenters on here consider ourselves to be digging a hole, merely by challenging you to justify your choices. Quite the opposite, though I'm sorry that you've been challenged in a way that you're clearly not used to. . And I'm pretty stunned about your little jab about anonymity. Skim the page and see how many posters choose their real names. Browse a few noticeboards elsewhere and note the same. I'm sorry that you cannot accept an opinion without a name attached - or that you accuse anyone of using a nickname of not being themselves. I assure you, this is me, this is my considered opinion. I'm not interested in the attention gained from anyone looking at my naked body except my long-term partner; I'm not interested in the attention gained from plastering my name across the Press forums or giving interviews and large facial photos to the local rag. I honestly think that you've made yourself very clear, intentionally or otherwise, through your various posts. Although I try not to judge a book by its cover, you've built up the picture that confirms my fears, and alas I don't think you've done the true cause any favours at all. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

12:28am Wed 15 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

What evidence do you have about the percentage of the population who like/dislike/don't care about the WNBR being in York for one hour a year? My evidence is only from the hoards of people clapping and cheering the riders, and the positive comments broadcast on Radio York on the Saturday morning. I firmly believe that a tiny minority would ban it.
.
A quick search on the web will show you that different countries have different attitudes to public nudity. For instance the position in Spain: local laws may stipulate that public nudity is either restricted or not permitted. However, in Barcelona public nudity is regarded as a recognised right, although there have been successful prosecutions for public nudity even there. 'Associations Addan', the organisation defending the right to nudity, 'Aleteia' and Barcelona Council have published the "Tríptic de Barcelona" that express this and clothes free rights. So it's not the whole of Spain (my mistake) and as I don't fly or go abroad, so I have no personal experience of what goes on in specific resorts there. Web searching also reveals that public nudity is legal as 'free speech' in some states in the US, and that there's a very long history of public nudity going right back into prehistory, for a wide variety of reasons.
.
Your conservatism, negativity and prudery is forcing me to think deeply about the issues surrounding protest, freedom of speech/action, the difficult issues of minority rights/views versus the legal right to do certain things. I thank you for being so frank, despite hiding behind a pseudonym, and I do accept that people with nick-names have opinions, I just think it's less honest and transparent, hence my always using my real name.
.
I have always been open about my politics and views, and I use my openness and ability to communicate to highlight the biggest issues of our time... poverty, inequality, fossil greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable resource use. I am public about my low carbon lifestyle to provide information to those who wish to live more ethically. I realise that this approach to life is going to make me a target for those opposing 'green' beliefs, as well as gaining me lots of friends and allies. I am not deliberately visible to publicise John Cossham, but because I am a vehicle (ha!) for the message that we cannot continue our capitalist consumerist way of living.
.
Finally, what, in your opinion, is the 'true cause' and what are you doing about it? I might respect you more if you were actually part of the solution, not just a moaning minnie.
What evidence do you have about the percentage of the population who like/dislike/don't care about the WNBR being in York for one hour a year? My evidence is only from the hoards of people clapping and cheering the riders, and the positive comments broadcast on Radio York on the Saturday morning. I firmly believe that a tiny minority would ban it. . A quick search on the web will show you that different countries have different attitudes to public nudity. For instance the position in Spain: local laws may stipulate that public nudity is either restricted or not permitted. However, in Barcelona public nudity is regarded as a recognised right, although there have been successful prosecutions for public nudity even there. 'Associations Addan', the organisation defending the right to nudity, 'Aleteia' and Barcelona Council have published the "Tríptic de Barcelona" that express this and clothes free rights. So it's not the whole of Spain (my mistake) and as I don't fly or go abroad, so I have no personal experience of what goes on in specific resorts there. Web searching also reveals that public nudity is legal as 'free speech' in some states in the US, and that there's a very long history of public nudity going right back into prehistory, for a wide variety of reasons. . Your conservatism, negativity and prudery is forcing me to think deeply about the issues surrounding protest, freedom of speech/action, the difficult issues of minority rights/views versus the legal right to do certain things. I thank you for being so frank, despite hiding behind a pseudonym, and I do accept that people with nick-names have opinions, I just think it's less honest and transparent, hence my always using my real name. . I have always been open about my politics and views, and I use my openness and ability to communicate to highlight the biggest issues of our time... poverty, inequality, fossil greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable resource use. I am public about my low carbon lifestyle to provide information to those who wish to live more ethically. I realise that this approach to life is going to make me a target for those opposing 'green' beliefs, as well as gaining me lots of friends and allies. I am not deliberately visible to publicise John Cossham, but because I am a vehicle (ha!) for the message that we cannot continue our capitalist consumerist way of living. . Finally, what, in your opinion, is the 'true cause' and what are you doing about it? I might respect you more if you were actually part of the solution, not just a moaning minnie. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

7:47pm Wed 15 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

I have little evidence - probably about the same as you. You're basing the 'support' on the amount of people who didn't make themselves scarce. An odd gauge, if I may say so - as surely if they didn't support you (no matter how many people were against) you wouldn't see them. I'm judging it on the attitudes of the people I know who almost exclusively agreed that the nude aspect was totally unnecessary. In fact several people talking about it were very much going down the road of pervs and pedos. But then again you can ignore them, as you don't agree. They don't want to be faced with your genitals John, so I expect they're just prudes like me hey.
.
I think your knowledge of local nudity laws in Spain speaks of slightly more than a 'take-it-or-leave-it
' attitude to naturism. And mentioning nudist action groups is not going to persuade me that nudity is widely accepted over there. It just isn't.
.
Accusing me of being a prude for objecting to this one example of very public nudity is very silly. I think we've been over what a prude means, courtesy of your googling, and the nudity is not shocking. Sorry to disappoint. I'm actually open-minded, and as one of my friends recently said 'too liberal for my own good'. It's just I have a sense of decency and of what is appropriate and fair to inflict on others. Please don't try to turn it into a 'freedom of speech'. That would be one of many things that ruins the notion of free speech, along with telling racist jokes or being deeply offensive about someone's appearance. 'It's not illegal, so I'll do it, sod the world'. Freedom of speech was never intended to allow people to freely inflict their actions on the general public.
.
The true cause, in this instance, was to do with oil dependency I believe. Saying that, I'm not absolutely sure because as I explained the nudity aspect overwhelms the message. What I may or may not do towards that goal is irrelevant to whether your methods are the most effective. You seem keen to cloud the water here, and still unable to justify your personal choice to go naked... other than it felt good. Which is what we already knew.
.
John, I am involved in a lot of charity work and have protested about things in the past. I'd be mad to object to either. But what we will never agree on is whether exposing yourself truly represents your message in a fair and considerate way. You've said nothing to make me think that you're not in it for the nudity, so I suspect there's no further we can go on this discussion. You will continue to get your kit off when it feels nice - what some may label a perv, and ignore people you believe are the minority. I on the other hand will continue to object to people exposing themselves under the veil of protest - what some will call a prude - and will not accept a 'freedom of speech' defence for something that impinges on others. We're polar opposites John.
I have little evidence - probably about the same as you. You're basing the 'support' on the amount of people who didn't make themselves scarce. An odd gauge, if I may say so - as surely if they didn't support you (no matter how many people were against) you wouldn't see them. I'm judging it on the attitudes of the people I know who almost exclusively agreed that the nude aspect was totally unnecessary. In fact several people talking about it were very much going down the road of pervs and pedos. But then again you can ignore them, as you don't agree. They don't want to be faced with your genitals John, so I expect they're just prudes like me hey. . I think your knowledge of local nudity laws in Spain speaks of slightly more than a 'take-it-or-leave-it ' attitude to naturism. And mentioning nudist action groups is not going to persuade me that nudity is widely accepted over there. It just isn't. . Accusing me of being a prude for objecting to this one example of very public nudity is very silly. I think we've been over what a prude means, courtesy of your googling, and the nudity is not shocking. Sorry to disappoint. I'm actually open-minded, and as one of my friends recently said 'too liberal for my own good'. It's just I have a sense of decency and of what is appropriate and fair to inflict on others. Please don't try to turn it into a 'freedom of speech'. That would be one of many things that ruins the notion of free speech, along with telling racist jokes or being deeply offensive about someone's appearance. 'It's not illegal, so I'll do it, sod the world'. Freedom of speech was never intended to allow people to freely inflict their actions on the general public. . The true cause, in this instance, was to do with oil dependency I believe. Saying that, I'm not absolutely sure because as I explained the nudity aspect overwhelms the message. What I may or may not do towards that goal is irrelevant to whether your methods are the most effective. You seem keen to cloud the water here, and still unable to justify your personal choice to go naked... other than it felt good. Which is what we already knew. . John, I am involved in a lot of charity work and have protested about things in the past. I'd be mad to object to either. But what we will never agree on is whether exposing yourself truly represents your message in a fair and considerate way. You've said nothing to make me think that you're not in it for the nudity, so I suspect there's no further we can go on this discussion. You will continue to get your kit off when it feels nice - what some may label a perv, and ignore people you believe are the minority. I on the other hand will continue to object to people exposing themselves under the veil of protest - what some will call a prude - and will not accept a 'freedom of speech' defence for something that impinges on others. We're polar opposites John. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Wed 15 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Well I'm all for diversity!
.
There is not one 'true cause' to the WNBR. If you do some research, you'll find that the acceptance of nudity (the naturists amongst the group call it 'body freedom') is one of the several 'true causes' (your term, definitely not mine!). The others, I remind you, are the tyrrany of car-dominated roads, and the vulnerability of cyclists on said roads, the foolishness of basing our entire modern way of life on a finite and non-renewable resource which is, in it's use as a combustable fuel, polluting in such an insidious way as to be making our only home uninhabitable, and a celebration of bikes and the bodies which power them... which brings us back to bodies.
.
Your continuation of this debate has started to push me towards being MORE into, ahem, 'body freedom', than I was before you started going on and on. You have started to radicalise me! I knew a lot less about the subject before the debate; I have done research BECAUSE of you, and thus I now have to agree that the WNBR is a 'freedom of speech' type activity (as enshrined in several other places in the World), and not simply a fun one-hour-a-year activity, which was my opinion before your attacks.
.
Now, don't worry, I'm not going to try to find out who you are and where you live and ensure we cycle past your house next year, but I sure am going to do the ride every year, and although I've been fully naked only twice out of the six times we've ridden in York, because of you, I will now ALWAYS ride naked because it is my right, and because it does really bring attention to the issues which I care about, of which the nudity and the love of the human form is the last on my list.
.
And if it annoys you, or makes you blush, or angry, well, join the club. We all have to put up with things we don't like, in this diverse culture we live in. I have to tolerate 4X4s, meat, cyclists who jump red lights, horoscopes, homeopathy, Ann Widdecombe bleating on, rapists being let out of prison after only a few years and many other everyday things. However, I try not to let these despicable things spoil my life and I suggest you try to put the one-hour-a-year WNBR to the back of your mind as I'm sure you're not doing your mental health any good by focusing on this one activity.
.
I still want to wish you well, despite your veiled accusation that all the WNBR riders are perverts and pedophiles. I know that I'm not, and those who know me know that, that's all that counts. I cannot speak for all other riders and have to leave it to them to reply.
.
Methinks the 'GoodDoc' doth protest too much....
Well I'm all for diversity! . There is not one 'true cause' to the WNBR. If you do some research, you'll find that the acceptance of nudity (the naturists amongst the group call it 'body freedom') is one of the several 'true causes' (your term, definitely not mine!). The others, I remind you, are the tyrrany of car-dominated roads, and the vulnerability of cyclists on said roads, the foolishness of basing our entire modern way of life on a finite and non-renewable resource which is, in it's use as a combustable fuel, polluting in such an insidious way as to be making our only home uninhabitable, and a celebration of bikes and the bodies which power them... which brings us back to bodies. . Your continuation of this debate has started to push me towards being MORE into, ahem, 'body freedom', than I was before you started going on and on. You have started to radicalise me! I knew a lot less about the subject before the debate; I have done research BECAUSE of you, and thus I now have to agree that the WNBR is a 'freedom of speech' type activity (as enshrined in several other places in the World), and not simply a fun one-hour-a-year activity, which was my opinion before your attacks. . Now, don't worry, I'm not going to try to find out who you are and where you live and ensure we cycle past your house next year, but I sure am going to do the ride every year, and although I've been fully naked only twice out of the six times we've ridden in York, because of you, I will now ALWAYS ride naked because it is my right, and because it does really bring attention to the issues which I care about, of which the nudity and the love of the human form is the last on my list. . And if it annoys you, or makes you blush, or angry, well, join the club. We all have to put up with things we don't like, in this diverse culture we live in. I have to tolerate 4X4s, meat, cyclists who jump red lights, horoscopes, homeopathy, Ann Widdecombe bleating on, rapists being let out of prison after only a few years and many other everyday things. However, I try not to let these despicable things spoil my life and I suggest you try to put the one-hour-a-year WNBR to the back of your mind as I'm sure you're not doing your mental health any good by focusing on this one activity. . I still want to wish you well, despite your veiled accusation that all the WNBR riders are perverts and pedophiles. I know that I'm not, and those who know me know that, that's all that counts. I cannot speak for all other riders and have to leave it to them to reply. . Methinks the 'GoodDoc' doth protest too much.... John Cossham
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Thu 16 Jun 11

Serena Murray says...

Oh dear `GoodDoc`, you really need to let this one go! You seem to be paying a really unhealthy interest in something that upsets you so much, particularly regarding John Cossham`s lack of pants!
Personally, I object to page 3 of the Sun newspaper. Maybe this doesn`t offend you in the same way? I certainly don`t kick up a song and dance about it, it`s just one of those things we have to put up with.
I participated in the York WNBR with my Father and young son. Dad and I were naked, my son was clothed, being too young to make the choice to be naked. Interestingly, young children are unfazed by nudity, it`s natural to them. We were just a family taking part in a really important protest, not paedophiles or exhibitionists. And no, it didn`t feel particularly `nice`..it was very cold!
A member of the public asked the riders what the protest was all about. One cyclist replied..`The WNBR, google it` `Thanks, I will` replied the spectator. Maybe that person will go home, read all about it, and decide he doesn`t really need to drive to the local shops. If so, mission accomplished in my opinion.
You only saw naked bodies for goodness sake! We`ve all got one! Maybe next year, stay indoors, and refrain from searching out photographs and other coverage that will only cause to upset you all over again.
Oh dear `GoodDoc`, you really need to let this one go! You seem to be paying a really unhealthy interest in something that upsets you so much, particularly regarding John Cossham`s lack of pants! Personally, I object to page 3 of the Sun newspaper. Maybe this doesn`t offend you in the same way? I certainly don`t kick up a song and dance about it, it`s just one of those things we have to put up with. I participated in the York WNBR with my Father and young son. Dad and I were naked, my son was clothed, being too young to make the choice to be naked. Interestingly, young children are unfazed by nudity, it`s natural to them. We were just a family taking part in a really important protest, not paedophiles or exhibitionists. And no, it didn`t feel particularly `nice`..it was very cold! A member of the public asked the riders what the protest was all about. One cyclist replied..`The WNBR, google it` `Thanks, I will` replied the spectator. Maybe that person will go home, read all about it, and decide he doesn`t really need to drive to the local shops. If so, mission accomplished in my opinion. You only saw naked bodies for goodness sake! We`ve all got one! Maybe next year, stay indoors, and refrain from searching out photographs and other coverage that will only cause to upset you all over again. Serena Murray
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Sat 18 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

Again, you've just shot yourself in the foot John. Describing the the nudity aspect as one of the true causes has entirely blown your cover - in case anyone was still confused about your motives or would otherwise support you. As someone who supports the environmental cause, this is the final clue that actually, it's not got much to do with it at all.
.
So I've polarised the debate further. I can assure you that you've done the same; I came on here curious to find out the pertinant reasons behind the nudity. You've explained in all manner of ways that actually, there is none, and ultimately it was an opportunity for nudists to be nude. While I will never find nudity itself shocking, I am truly surprised at the blatant lack of respect and justification of this. If it's your right to ride naked around town, it's mine too and everyone elses. The thing that separates us is a consideration for the views of others - and that even if I were to find it fun, I would recognise that it's not fair to inflict that upon other people and I'd take myself off to do it somewhere less public.
.
I am not in any way preoccupied with this - doubtless that disappoints you - though after you came on to defend your views I felt this an appropriate forum to discuss the issues. I've replied with one message to each of yours, so perhaps we're even. If you don't care for the opinions of others, it seems somewhat hypocritcal to go bleating to the press about your own.
.
I never once imagined that anyone would come on here admitting to a sexual penchant for exposing themselves. Nor did I expect known pedophiles to write in saying how fun the race is. So I'm sure you can imagine why your attempts to appear wholesome and charitable are not going to convince many. But I do find it vaguely amusing how you can continually spout about these 'prudes' that don't want to see your genitals yet you think that similar generalisations about perversion are unfair! A little cognitive dissonance perhance?!
.
You're right, we have to tolerate all manner of things, and yes diversity is brilliant. However, I value, above-all, respect for everyone's views, and I would not offer freedom of speech simply as a means of inflicting your views unecessarily on others. I appreciate you like to feel naked, and you like people to see you. Acknowledged. I realise it's your right to enjoy people looking at you, because for whatever reason that's what you're like or that's how you've grown up. OK. I understand you like that attention, and I don't even criticise you for that. John, you're perfectly entitled to go off with like-minded people and talk about body-freedom - no one is oppressing you. But the moment you start to inflict your attitudes upon the general public who happen to be in the city centre for a day, is the moment you begin to lose favour.
.
'Serena ' - well done for finding the article, I can tell you're an objective local reader. I can understand why you can't be bothered to read the above thread, but I can assure you that most of your points have already been addressed - over and over and over again.
Again, you've just shot yourself in the foot John. Describing the the nudity aspect as one of the true causes has entirely blown your cover - in case anyone was still confused about your motives or would otherwise support you. As someone who supports the environmental cause, this is the final clue that actually, it's not got much to do with it at all. . So I've polarised the debate further. I can assure you that you've done the same; I came on here curious to find out the pertinant reasons behind the nudity. You've explained in all manner of ways that actually, there is none, and ultimately it was an opportunity for nudists to be nude. While I will never find nudity itself shocking, I am truly surprised at the blatant lack of respect and justification of this. If it's your right to ride naked around town, it's mine too and everyone elses. The thing that separates us is a consideration for the views of others - and that even if I were to find it fun, I would recognise that it's not fair to inflict that upon other people and I'd take myself off to do it somewhere less public. . I am not in any way preoccupied with this - doubtless that disappoints you - though after you came on to defend your views I felt this an appropriate forum to discuss the issues. I've replied with one message to each of yours, so perhaps we're even. If you don't care for the opinions of others, it seems somewhat hypocritcal to go bleating to the press about your own. . I never once imagined that anyone would come on here admitting to a sexual penchant for exposing themselves. Nor did I expect known pedophiles to write in saying how fun the race is. So I'm sure you can imagine why your attempts to appear wholesome and charitable are not going to convince many. But I do find it vaguely amusing how you can continually spout about these 'prudes' that don't want to see your genitals yet you think that similar generalisations about perversion are unfair! A little cognitive dissonance perhance?! . You're right, we have to tolerate all manner of things, and yes diversity is brilliant. However, I value, above-all, respect for everyone's views, and I would not offer freedom of speech simply as a means of inflicting your views unecessarily on others. I appreciate you like to feel naked, and you like people to see you. Acknowledged. I realise it's your right to enjoy people looking at you, because for whatever reason that's what you're like or that's how you've grown up. OK. I understand you like that attention, and I don't even criticise you for that. John, you're perfectly entitled to go off with like-minded people and talk about body-freedom - no one is oppressing you. But the moment you start to inflict your attitudes upon the general public who happen to be in the city centre for a day, is the moment you begin to lose favour. . 'Serena ' - well done for finding the article, I can tell you're an objective local reader. I can understand why you can't be bothered to read the above thread, but I can assure you that most of your points have already been addressed - over and over and over again. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Sat 18 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Now then 'GoodDoc' you have misread and/or misrepresented me, and I cannot let that go, as you are so very wrong, wilfully so, as I can tell you have at least average intelligence, and are trying to label me with something which does not apply.

For me, public nudity is not a big thing in my life... in fact, it is unimportant, as I don't attend any other naked events. If you knew me, you'd know that I am extremely passionate about carbon, resource use, sustainability, green transport, vegetarianism and the like. I've been living a deliberately low carbon lifestyle for nearly 30 years and educating others about ethical lifestyle choices that are available for over a decade.
.
The WNBR is the only time I indulge in public nudity. If I thought the message could be conveyed effectively another way, I'd do that instead, but I see the WNBR as just ONE way of trying to alert people to the issues. With you, it fails, as you are fixated on genitals, and unfortunately, my genitals. I do wish you weren't! But as Serena suggests, IF, (and it is, of course, an 'if') someone is encouraged to consider their lifestyle choices because of the debate the ride throws up, then that's good.
.
I know that starting a Credit Union has helped people avoid the worst clutches of loan-sharks, which is a good thing. I know that starting York Rotters has enabled many many people to start composting and showed them how to compost more, and better. I know that YorkLETS helps build community and friendships, as well as helping people on a low income get access to goods and services. I DON'T know if the WNBR succeeds in getting people out of cars and onto bikes, or whether it causes people to read up about the issues of oil depletion and change their lives appropriately. BUT that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I had no idea that NYCU would be the success that it is when I started the ball rolling in 1997. Ditto York Rotters, when I asked St Nicks and the Council to meet me to talk about starting a Master Composter scheme in 2004. But I'm glad I took the risk.
.
For me, participating in the WNBR is a risk. It is a bit embarrassing being naked in public, only made possible because it's a mass event, and with police looking after us. But I'll take that risk, just in case it has some sort of positive effect.
.
So, please drop the accusations that I 'get off' on it, as I don't. Please don't keep insisting that we must be a bunch of 'pedos', as that too is just nonsense. Who knows where 'pedos' hang out? It is possible that the ride might attract undesirables, but so might the local Catholic boys' club, or teacher training college.
.
I'm curious as to why you dismiss Serena's comment. As far as I can tell, she told you that she went on the ride with her father and son, that she felt it was a family event and it was cold, and that the issues of green transport choices were important to her. So I thought your dismissal of her post was rude. But you're good at being rude, and of course, no-one knows who you are so you can get away from it. I remain polite as I use my real name and people know me ... and I couldn't live with the shame of being as rude as you are. I would like to tell you exactly what I think of you, but I won't. I choose not to sink to some commentators' levels.

Anyway, enough for now, I have loganberries to tie-in.
Now then 'GoodDoc' you have misread and/or misrepresented me, and I cannot let that go, as you are so very wrong, wilfully so, as I can tell you have at least average intelligence, and are trying to label me with something which does not apply. For me, public nudity is not a big thing in my life... in fact, it is unimportant, as I don't attend any other naked events. If you knew me, you'd know that I am extremely passionate about carbon, resource use, sustainability, green transport, vegetarianism and the like. I've been living a deliberately low carbon lifestyle for nearly 30 years and educating others about ethical lifestyle choices that are available for over a decade. . The WNBR is the only time I indulge in public nudity. If I thought the message could be conveyed effectively another way, I'd do that instead, but I see the WNBR as just ONE way of trying to alert people to the issues. With you, it fails, as you are fixated on genitals, and unfortunately, my genitals. I do wish you weren't! But as Serena suggests, IF, (and it is, of course, an 'if') someone is encouraged to consider their lifestyle choices because of the debate the ride throws up, then that's good. . I know that starting a Credit Union has helped people avoid the worst clutches of loan-sharks, which is a good thing. I know that starting York Rotters has enabled many many people to start composting and showed them how to compost more, and better. I know that YorkLETS helps build community and friendships, as well as helping people on a low income get access to goods and services. I DON'T know if the WNBR succeeds in getting people out of cars and onto bikes, or whether it causes people to read up about the issues of oil depletion and change their lives appropriately. BUT that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I had no idea that NYCU would be the success that it is when I started the ball rolling in 1997. Ditto York Rotters, when I asked St Nicks and the Council to meet me to talk about starting a Master Composter scheme in 2004. But I'm glad I took the risk. . For me, participating in the WNBR is a risk. It is a bit embarrassing being naked in public, only made possible because it's a mass event, and with police looking after us. But I'll take that risk, just in case it has some sort of positive effect. . So, please drop the accusations that I 'get off' on it, as I don't. Please don't keep insisting that we must be a bunch of 'pedos', as that too is just nonsense. Who knows where 'pedos' hang out? It is possible that the ride might attract undesirables, but so might the local Catholic boys' club, or teacher training college. . I'm curious as to why you dismiss Serena's comment. As far as I can tell, she told you that she went on the ride with her father and son, that she felt it was a family event and it was cold, and that the issues of green transport choices were important to her. So I thought your dismissal of her post was rude. But you're good at being rude, and of course, no-one knows who you are so you can get away from it. I remain polite as I use my real name and people know me ... and I couldn't live with the shame of being as rude as you are. I would like to tell you exactly what I think of you, but I won't. I choose not to sink to some commentators' levels. Anyway, enough for now, I have loganberries to tie-in. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

6:35pm Sat 18 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

For all your attempts to appear earnest and moral, you are still unable to explain your choice not to wear a strip of cotton that would've saved all of this. You surely would understand that it'd make little or no difference to the impact of the protest, yet would immediately remove most suspicions that I and many others have. Obviously I'm not fixated on genitals - but the fact is, you've unjustifiably made a choice to expose them. At the end of the day, that was your decision. That is what nudity is about - otherwise, you would've been happy to cover up just a little.
.
To be honest, I am 100% certain that there are people on the ride that would get off on exposing themselves. Whether you're one of them, I simply cannot tell - but there's nothing you've said that would clearly prove otherwise. The difference between a catholic boys' club and a naked cycle ride is presumably that the boys' club is unfortunately inherently appealing to undesirables (hence safeguarding procedures) whereas the bike ride was an optional decision that was made - and one which still appears to have little basis.
.
Eurrrgh once again you're choosing to blow your own trumpet about your dubious accolades. Sorry John, not interested. Whatever little schemes you've been involved with have got nothing to do with this. Hear me once more - the only, the *only* thing I am taking issue with here is your belief that exposing yourself was the most appropriate or considerate way of publicising your views.
.
I dismissed Serena's comment because she clearly isn't local or objective - and if I'm going to take the views of a naked participant as gospel truth then I would've accepted yours long ago. I have no doubt that various people that got naked feel that it was appropriate. My doubts are whether the general public agree. I'm not going to repeat all my arguments for the sake of a partisan who has suspiciously managed to dig up a news page 2 weeks after it was on the front page.
.
Ultimately John, I think you need to assess your motives for coming on here. You've courted The Press for a certain amount of attention and to get your views on nudity publicised. As one of a few commenters who have decided to challenge you on those views, I'm surprised at how poorly you take them. I find your accusation of being rude just a tad hypocritical bearing in mind this context - and being called rude won't stop me from voicing my opinions. Neither will being told in a childish way that you are now going to be even more of a hardcore supporter. And I won't be silenced by being told that I'm obsessed or fixated purely because I've matched every one of your comments with one of my own.
.
I suspect we've both made our feelings clear, and they are irreconcilable. I think we can now predict each other's opinions on these issues, which makes sharing them a little pointless. You've become more defensive about the nudity since this discussion started, and I've become clearer that there was never any decent excuse. If this discussion continues, I suspect you will take to the streets in the buff once more announcing on loudspeaker how nice it feels, how it's everyone's right to be naked and how much you've done for the community... and I will take to the streets in a burqa calling for tighter safeguarding rules, public sex offenders registers and warning people to run away from exhibitionists. We may need to stop this debate before we radicalise one another.
For all your attempts to appear earnest and moral, you are still unable to explain your choice not to wear a strip of cotton that would've saved all of this. You surely would understand that it'd make little or no difference to the impact of the protest, yet would immediately remove most suspicions that I and many others have. Obviously I'm not fixated on genitals - but the fact is, you've unjustifiably made a choice to expose them. At the end of the day, that was your decision. That is what nudity is about - otherwise, you would've been happy to cover up just a little. . To be honest, I am 100% certain that there are people on the ride that would get off on exposing themselves. Whether you're one of them, I simply cannot tell - but there's nothing you've said that would clearly prove otherwise. The difference between a catholic boys' club and a naked cycle ride is presumably that the boys' club is unfortunately inherently appealing to undesirables (hence safeguarding procedures) whereas the bike ride was an optional decision that was made - and one which still appears to have little basis. . Eurrrgh once again you're choosing to blow your own trumpet about your dubious accolades. Sorry John, not interested. Whatever little schemes you've been involved with have got nothing to do with this. Hear me once more - the only, the *only* thing I am taking issue with here is your belief that exposing yourself was the most appropriate or considerate way of publicising your views. . I dismissed Serena's comment because she clearly isn't local or objective - and if I'm going to take the views of a naked participant as gospel truth then I would've accepted yours long ago. I have no doubt that various people that got naked feel that it was appropriate. My doubts are whether the general public agree. I'm not going to repeat all my arguments for the sake of a partisan who has suspiciously managed to dig up a news page 2 weeks after it was on the front page. . Ultimately John, I think you need to assess your motives for coming on here. You've courted The Press for a certain amount of attention and to get your views on nudity publicised. As one of a few commenters who have decided to challenge you on those views, I'm surprised at how poorly you take them. I find your accusation of being rude just a tad hypocritical bearing in mind this context - and being called rude won't stop me from voicing my opinions. Neither will being told in a childish way that you are now going to be even more of a hardcore supporter. And I won't be silenced by being told that I'm obsessed or fixated purely because I've matched every one of your comments with one of my own. . I suspect we've both made our feelings clear, and they are irreconcilable. I think we can now predict each other's opinions on these issues, which makes sharing them a little pointless. You've become more defensive about the nudity since this discussion started, and I've become clearer that there was never any decent excuse. If this discussion continues, I suspect you will take to the streets in the buff once more announcing on loudspeaker how nice it feels, how it's everyone's right to be naked and how much you've done for the community... and I will take to the streets in a burqa calling for tighter safeguarding rules, public sex offenders registers and warning people to run away from exhibitionists. We may need to stop this debate before we radicalise one another. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

1:31am Sun 19 Jun 11

Mike Pugsley says...

I feel I really want to put in a word or two for the totaly naked riders. My main reason for being on the ride is the Body Freedom aspect. I am a naturist and I work as a life model. In these aspects of my life nudity is normal and expected. Outside of this nudity seems to be the cause a great deal of fuss , I cannot understand why this should be, why are some people so outraged by naked people. I have been on a number of these rides mainly in London and the one in York.
I have been heartened by the the response of the public they have been very supportive. The atmosphere on these rides is great everyone is chatting as we ride along and it perfectly possible for a naked man and a naked woman to chat without sex coming into it at all . As for the riders "getting off on it" I think it would be a very few if any I actually had to look up Paraphilia in the dictionary. One aspect you might not have thought of about riding a bike or doing anything in the nude is that looking out you cant see yourself so it is every one else who has nothing on it feels normal to you! I am looking forward to the day when you can go naked in your garden, park , beach or walk in the hills and no one will be shocked by it. It is possible with a more relaxed attitude towards nudity there would be a more balanced view of the naked body and not just viewing it in terms of sex.
I feel I really want to put in a word or two for the totaly naked riders. My main reason for being on the ride is the Body Freedom aspect. I am a naturist and I work as a life model. In these aspects of my life nudity is normal and expected. Outside of this nudity seems to be the cause a great deal of fuss , I cannot understand why this should be, why are some people so outraged by naked people. I have been on a number of these rides mainly in London and the one in York. I have been heartened by the the response of the public they have been very supportive. The atmosphere on these rides is great everyone is chatting as we ride along and it perfectly possible for a naked man and a naked woman to chat without sex coming into it at all . As for the riders "getting off on it" I think it would be a very few if any I actually had to look up Paraphilia in the dictionary. One aspect you might not have thought of about riding a bike or doing anything in the nude is that looking out you cant see yourself so it is every one else who has nothing on it feels normal to you! I am looking forward to the day when you can go naked in your garden, park , beach or walk in the hills and no one will be shocked by it. It is possible with a more relaxed attitude towards nudity there would be a more balanced view of the naked body and not just viewing it in terms of sex. Mike Pugsley
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Sun 19 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

So, MadDoc, you are basically calling me a liar:
.
"To be honest, I am 100% certain that there are people on the ride that would get off on exposing themselves. Whether you're one of them, I simply cannot tell - but there's nothing you've said that would clearly prove otherwise. "
.
I have said that I'm an environmentalist who goes on a demonstration which involves voluntary nudity for one hour a year. I've said that I'm not particularly into the so called 'body freedom. I've told you that in my personal life, I'm quite 'vanilla' and have no interest in perverted or unusual sex. I'm afraid you either have to take my word for it, or label me a liar. And of course, you can do that as you are hiding behind a pseudonym in a cowardly way, so no-one knows who you are.

So that's it. You're a prude and a coward. I'm someone who feels so passionate about something that I'm prepared to go through the embarrassment of getting naked in public in order to try to make a point. I'm a citizen of the more liberal 21st Century, you're a Victorian conservative.
.
I think I can cope with that. Cheers and good bye.
So, MadDoc, you are basically calling me a liar: . "To be honest, I am 100% certain that there are people on the ride that would get off on exposing themselves. Whether you're one of them, I simply cannot tell - but there's nothing you've said that would clearly prove otherwise. " . I have said that I'm an environmentalist who goes on a demonstration which involves voluntary nudity for one hour a year. I've said that I'm not particularly into the so called 'body freedom. I've told you that in my personal life, I'm quite 'vanilla' and have no interest in perverted or unusual sex. I'm afraid you either have to take my word for it, or label me a liar. And of course, you can do that as you are hiding behind a pseudonym in a cowardly way, so no-one knows who you are. So that's it. You're a prude and a coward. I'm someone who feels so passionate about something that I'm prepared to go through the embarrassment of getting naked in public in order to try to make a point. I'm a citizen of the more liberal 21st Century, you're a Victorian conservative. . I think I can cope with that. Cheers and good bye. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

9:59pm Sun 19 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

Dear, dear. Teddy is well and truly out of the pram and here come the insults.
.
If you think me writing that I have no independent way of corroborating what you say, and no particular reason to trust you is the same as calling you a liar or pervert, your reading comprehension skills need a little polishing. Suffice to say that I don't intend to explain what I actually think of you, as believe it or not I'm being reasonably diplomatic on here. But either way, the sort of things that people may suspect are not the sort of things that you may freely admit to - so forgive me for not taking every word you say at face value.
.
Well I'll expect your next nude campaign to be relating to internet forums, on which hardly any one ever uses their names. Apart from people that court attention in unfathomable, innumerable ways. 90% of the internet are cowards, I see. Suffice to say you succeed in being noticed, and one of my colleagues has a rather unique description of you from another stunt which makes my views look positively generous. Still, no publicity is bad publicity, and you're just a vehicle right?
.
Of course, you've explained - all of us who would rather not look at your body are 'Victorian prudes', that's exactly it John, well done. And yes, everyone that considers getting their bits out in town on a busy saturday in half-term is a liberal citizen of the 21st century, including your two convincing fellow exhibitionists on here. Indecent exposure is definitely the best way to promote oil-awareness, you're a passionate and courageous champion of the community, and my views are in a minority so are therefore worthless. I get it, I get it. You are a true salt-of-the-earth liberal John, I salute you.
Dear, dear. Teddy is well and truly out of the pram and here come the insults. . If you think me writing that I have no independent way of corroborating what you say, and no particular reason to trust you is the same as calling you a liar or pervert, your reading comprehension skills need a little polishing. Suffice to say that I don't intend to explain what I actually think of you, as believe it or not I'm being reasonably diplomatic on here. But either way, the sort of things that people may suspect are not the sort of things that you may freely admit to - so forgive me for not taking every word you say at face value. . Well I'll expect your next nude campaign to be relating to internet forums, on which hardly any one ever uses their names. Apart from people that court attention in unfathomable, innumerable ways. 90% of the internet are cowards, I see. Suffice to say you succeed in being noticed, and one of my colleagues has a rather unique description of you from another stunt which makes my views look positively generous. Still, no publicity is bad publicity, and you're just a vehicle right? . Of course, you've explained - all of us who would rather not look at your body are 'Victorian prudes', that's exactly it John, well done. And yes, everyone that considers getting their bits out in town on a busy saturday in half-term is a liberal citizen of the 21st century, including your two convincing fellow exhibitionists on here. Indecent exposure is definitely the best way to promote oil-awareness, you're a passionate and courageous champion of the community, and my views are in a minority so are therefore worthless. I get it, I get it. You are a true salt-of-the-earth liberal John, I salute you. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

11:12pm Sun 19 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

"Well I'll expect your next nude campaign..."
.
What next nude campaign? I don't have any nude campaigns nor am I planning any. I don't call the WNBR a 'nude campaign' (but of course, you are SO focused on the huge problems of nudity in society that you've missed the fact that the ENVIRONMENTAL message of the WNBR is highlighted by some people cycling nude).
.
Re internet fora, yes, I'd prefer it if people were as transparent as me, and on most of the ones I use, a good number do use their real names. However, the ones you frequent probably allow anonymous flaming and hatred.... not my cup of tea at all.
.
And re 'insults', all I can say is that when someone as open and honest as me is disbelieved, and you really don't know me so you won't know about the condition I have which makes me, according to some, 'disarmingly honest', it really rankles and irritates; I'm unused to someone implying I'm lying... but that's maybe because I generally don't have arguments with anonymous people with an axe to grind.
.
I think, as you do, that we're getting no-where with this. I feel the WNBR protests are justified, you don't... that's what it boils down to. The WNBR participants are lucky to have the law on our side. The only way you will achieve your aims to stop this is to contact your MP and petition them to change the law. I would welcome a debate about the ins and outs of the law as it stands. I expect the people like you would put up a vigorous 'change the law' campaign, which I'd follow with a small amount of interest. Best of luck.
.
In the meantime, I'll continue my work to get more renewable energy installed in my community, and continue to 'show by doing' that it is quite possible to live a low carbon lifestyle without living in a cave or wearing hair shirts.
"Well I'll expect your next nude campaign..." . What next nude campaign? I don't have any nude campaigns nor am I planning any. I don't call the WNBR a 'nude campaign' (but of course, you are SO focused on the huge problems of nudity in society that you've missed the fact that the ENVIRONMENTAL message of the WNBR is highlighted by some people cycling nude). . Re internet fora, yes, I'd prefer it if people were as transparent as me, and on most of the ones I use, a good number do use their real names. However, the ones you frequent probably allow anonymous flaming and hatred.... not my cup of tea at all. . And re 'insults', all I can say is that when someone as open and honest as me is disbelieved, and you really don't know me so you won't know about the condition I have which makes me, according to some, 'disarmingly honest', it really rankles and irritates; I'm unused to someone implying I'm lying... but that's maybe because I generally don't have arguments with anonymous people with an axe to grind. . I think, as you do, that we're getting no-where with this. I feel the WNBR protests are justified, you don't... that's what it boils down to. The WNBR participants are lucky to have the law on our side. The only way you will achieve your aims to stop this is to contact your MP and petition them to change the law. I would welcome a debate about the ins and outs of the law as it stands. I expect the people like you would put up a vigorous 'change the law' campaign, which I'd follow with a small amount of interest. Best of luck. . In the meantime, I'll continue my work to get more renewable energy installed in my community, and continue to 'show by doing' that it is quite possible to live a low carbon lifestyle without living in a cave or wearing hair shirts. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

12:08am Mon 20 Jun 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

I can fully see why John described GoodDoc as genitally fixated, although he does appear to have a fetishistic interest in Y-fronts as well. GoodDoc – if you would just takes your eyes and thoughts away from people’s genitals for a moment, you would see that this bike ride is portraying some very powerful environmental messages, not least the fact cyclists are a highly vulnerable and disadvantaged group on our roads and proportionately overrepresented in the death and casualty figures.

Given the choice between seeing 100 naked cyclists and reading about the same number of dead ones in some government report, I would choose the former every time. When naked cyclists are riding by, they are not shoving their genitals in your face, they are generally smiling, ringing bells, blowing whistles and responding to the cheers of onlookers. Why on earth do you equate nudity with deviant sexuality and abuse of children? And why do you keep harping on emotively about “half-term”? The ride was on a Saturday afternoon: there may or may not have been children around, half-term or no half-term. What gives YOU the right to speak on behalf of children? Are you a paediatric psychologist for example? I doubt it. Who are you to judge how they will perceive nudity? Time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity, although they have their development warped by repressive adults who have problems accepting or explaining such nudity themselves. We are all born naked and children just as much as adults have naked bodies underneath their clothes. In short, please stop USING (the supposed responses of) children as an emotional weapon to hit your opponents with.

It feels good to ride a bike. Contact with the atmosphere is that much more intimate than in the enclosed confining space of a car. It feels good on a nice day to feel the breeze and the sun on one’s skin. Quasi- or total nudity outdoors give a contact with the elements that is second to none. These are sensual feelings, not the sexual ones that you are obsessively reading into the situation.

So stop fixating and stop attacking a man whose background and environmental credentials you are clearly ignorant about. And next time you go for a walk in Rowntree Park or at the West End of the Minster, please don’t forget to take an extra item of CLOTHING with you – a simple dark cloth to wrap round the top of your head in such a way that your eyes cannot see through it. Commonly called a blindfold, it will prevent from seeing the NAKED statuary that it is on display there.

Or will you nevertheless have a good leering look and then write complaining letters to the Parks Department and Archbishop?

I’m not going to spend the rest of my life arguing with this single bigot, and I would suggest that John and the other reasonable people who have put their views forward recently now vacate this forum and leave the GoodDoc to have one last fulmination all by himself.
I can fully see why John described GoodDoc as genitally fixated, although he does appear to have a fetishistic interest in Y-fronts as well. GoodDoc – if you would just takes your eyes and thoughts away from people’s genitals for a moment, you would see that this bike ride is portraying some very powerful environmental messages, not least the fact cyclists are a highly vulnerable and disadvantaged group on our roads and proportionately overrepresented in the death and casualty figures. Given the choice between seeing 100 naked cyclists and reading about the same number of dead ones in some government report, I would choose the former every time. When naked cyclists are riding by, they are not shoving their genitals in your face, they are generally smiling, ringing bells, blowing whistles and responding to the cheers of onlookers. Why on earth do you equate nudity with deviant sexuality and abuse of children? And why do you keep harping on emotively about “half-term”? The ride was on a Saturday afternoon: there may or may not have been children around, half-term or no half-term. What gives YOU the right to speak on behalf of children? Are you a paediatric psychologist for example? I doubt it. Who are you to judge how they will perceive nudity? Time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity, although they have their development warped by repressive adults who have problems accepting or explaining such nudity themselves. We are all born naked and children just as much as adults have naked bodies underneath their clothes. In short, please stop USING (the supposed responses of) children as an emotional weapon to hit your opponents with. It feels good to ride a bike. Contact with the atmosphere is that much more intimate than in the enclosed confining space of a car. It feels good on a nice day to feel the breeze and the sun on one’s skin. Quasi- or total nudity outdoors give a contact with the elements that is second to none. These are sensual feelings, not the sexual ones that you are obsessively reading into the situation. So stop fixating and stop attacking a man whose background and environmental credentials you are clearly ignorant about. And next time you go for a walk in Rowntree Park or at the West End of the Minster, please don’t forget to take an extra item of CLOTHING with you – a simple dark cloth to wrap round the top of your head in such a way that your eyes cannot see through it. Commonly called a blindfold, it will prevent from seeing the NAKED statuary that it is on display there. Or will you nevertheless have a good leering look and then write complaining letters to the Parks Department and Archbishop? I’m not going to spend the rest of my life arguing with this single bigot, and I would suggest that John and the other reasonable people who have put their views forward recently now vacate this forum and leave the GoodDoc to have one last fulmination all by himself. Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Mon 20 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

As I've said John, if you resent not having a name to attach an opinion to, you're out of place on here at least. Personally, I find myself able to focus on issues and arguments rather than personalities, names and identities. I do hope you intend to have a little word with 'Ebor Eco-Rider'- as his shameless anonymity needs mentioning too.
.
The only reason why I have mentioned genitals (explaining this for the benefit of you and 'Ebor'), is that the only difference between cycling in nappies, underwear, mankinis etc and cycling completely nude is the fact that your genitals and rear end are exposed. You both trying to plead ignorance on this only makes it more suspicious! Don't play dumb here, please.
.
I suspect your condition also renders you unable to see how cringeworthy phrases such as 'someone as open and honest as me' sound.. and that they certainly don't make your case any more convincing. I can only continue to repeat what I have been all along - that I have no issue with environmental campaigning. I've protested myself on numerous occasions. In fact, that's one of the reasons why this irritates me so - that a just cause such as the environment can be tainted by people whose prime motive seems to be self-exposure. That is NOT what environmentalists are about. I entirely support a protest for these reasons - but I deeply resent it being made into a magnet for undesirables and an irrelevant opportunity for nudity.
.
I realise you'd like to paint me as a evil,corporate gas-guzzling prude, hating the green movement and despising liberals. Unfortunately for you, I agree with nearly everything you stand for apart from your still unjustified decision to go naked. Best of luck with your campaigns, and I hope that you end up being able to act in a more considerate way, so as to avoid alienating supporters and giving people a rather distasteful idea of your motives.
.
You may have noticed another record skinny-dip in Wales recently to highlight a different cause. How strange that they deliberately arranged it at a very early time, on a secluded beach - precisely to avoid 'rubber-neckers' and the sorts of undesirables that could be attracted to taking part. That is why I take issue with the bike stunt happening during peak shopping hours around busy high streets on half-term. Surely you can understand the difference there. Again, it boils down to simple consideration... which apparently is too much to ask.
.
Ebor - another impartial observer? Or another nude cycler wanting to justify themselves? I wonder. I'm glad you won't argue with me, because I've just about had it with name-calling activists who think *their* freedom of speech means that *we* have to endure their little penchants when it suits them. How sad it is that you deem anyone a bigot who asks you to consider minor constraints on your activities for the benefit of others. I also wonder what research you're referring to as you say 'time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity'. Sounds like weasel words to me, as whether I agree or not that is not the sort of thing that can be proven. Ha, you're actually not a million miles off the mark with your guess at my job description - but suffice to say it involves safeguarding, public events, and behavioural psychology.
.
And by the way Ebor, if you really didn't want people to think about your genitals, perhaps you wouldn't expose yourself to the town centre. Or perhaps, as so many on here seem to be, you enjoy the attention, you love the way it feels - but you'll be b**gered if you'll admit to it!
As I've said John, if you resent not having a name to attach an opinion to, you're out of place on here at least. Personally, I find myself able to focus on issues and arguments rather than personalities, names and identities. I do hope you intend to have a little word with 'Ebor Eco-Rider'- as his shameless anonymity needs mentioning too. . The only reason why I have mentioned genitals (explaining this for the benefit of you and 'Ebor'), is that the only difference between cycling in nappies, underwear, mankinis etc and cycling completely nude is the fact that your genitals and rear end are exposed. You both trying to plead ignorance on this only makes it more suspicious! Don't play dumb here, please. . I suspect your condition also renders you unable to see how cringeworthy phrases such as 'someone as open and honest as me' sound.. and that they certainly don't make your case any more convincing. I can only continue to repeat what I have been all along - that I have no issue with environmental campaigning. I've protested myself on numerous occasions. In fact, that's one of the reasons why this irritates me so - that a just cause such as the environment can be tainted by people whose prime motive seems to be self-exposure. That is NOT what environmentalists are about. I entirely support a protest for these reasons - but I deeply resent it being made into a magnet for undesirables and an irrelevant opportunity for nudity. . I realise you'd like to paint me as a evil,corporate gas-guzzling prude, hating the green movement and despising liberals. Unfortunately for you, I agree with nearly everything you stand for apart from your still unjustified decision to go naked. Best of luck with your campaigns, and I hope that you end up being able to act in a more considerate way, so as to avoid alienating supporters and giving people a rather distasteful idea of your motives. . You may have noticed another record skinny-dip in Wales recently to highlight a different cause. How strange that they deliberately arranged it at a very early time, on a secluded beach - precisely to avoid 'rubber-neckers' and the sorts of undesirables that could be attracted to taking part. That is why I take issue with the bike stunt happening during peak shopping hours around busy high streets on half-term. Surely you can understand the difference there. Again, it boils down to simple consideration... which apparently is too much to ask. . Ebor - another impartial observer? Or another nude cycler wanting to justify themselves? I wonder. I'm glad you won't argue with me, because I've just about had it with name-calling activists who think *their* freedom of speech means that *we* have to endure their little penchants when it suits them. How sad it is that you deem anyone a bigot who asks you to consider minor constraints on your activities for the benefit of others. I also wonder what research you're referring to as you say 'time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity'. Sounds like weasel words to me, as whether I agree or not that is not the sort of thing that can be proven. Ha, you're actually not a million miles off the mark with your guess at my job description - but suffice to say it involves safeguarding, public events, and behavioural psychology. . And by the way Ebor, if you really didn't want people to think about your genitals, perhaps you wouldn't expose yourself to the town centre. Or perhaps, as so many on here seem to be, you enjoy the attention, you love the way it feels - but you'll be b**gered if you'll admit to it! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

12:31am Wed 22 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Fulmination indeed. Excellent!
Fulmination indeed. Excellent! John Cossham
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 22 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

John Cossham wrote:
Fulmination indeed. Excellent!
Oblivious to irony, it would seem. Gave me a chuckle though, cheers. If you could bring on any more of your naturist friends to share their objective and healthy point of views, please do. I think you need a little help. God bless.
[quote][p][bold]John Cossham[/bold] wrote: Fulmination indeed. Excellent![/p][/quote]Oblivious to irony, it would seem. Gave me a chuckle though, cheers. If you could bring on any more of your naturist friends to share their objective and healthy point of views, please do. I think you need a little help. God bless. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Wed 22 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Oh, you're religious. That explains it. Thanks, NOW I understand.
Oh, you're religious. That explains it. Thanks, NOW I understand. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

8:32pm Thu 23 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Actually, there were some naked Christians on the ride so I'm wrong, the fact that you're religious isn't the whole story.
.
You must be a particular type of religious person. And don't think I'm anti religion... some of my best friends have faith. However, they aren't the sort to call other people wrong because they believe something different. So they accept my agnosticism, and my passionate support for environmental protests including the WNBR. Some of them are environmentalists, some aren't. Some ride the WNBR, some don't. Some of those who do, ride naked, others don't.
.
The world I live in is much more accepting and friendly than I sense yours is, GoodDoc. I am very lucky to have the friends I do have who don't get all wobbly about something as innocuous as a one hour WNBR event.
.
Just sayin'. xxx
Actually, there were some naked Christians on the ride so I'm wrong, the fact that you're religious isn't the whole story. . You must be a particular type of religious person. And don't think I'm anti religion... some of my best friends have faith. However, they aren't the sort to call other people wrong because they believe something different. So they accept my agnosticism, and my passionate support for environmental protests including the WNBR. Some of them are environmentalists, some aren't. Some ride the WNBR, some don't. Some of those who do, ride naked, others don't. . The world I live in is much more accepting and friendly than I sense yours is, GoodDoc. I am very lucky to have the friends I do have who don't get all wobbly about something as innocuous as a one hour WNBR event. . Just sayin'. xxx John Cossham
  • Score: 0

12:23am Fri 24 Jun 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Will GoodDoc ever say anything new or will he just continue his febrile arguments ad nauseam, hoping to bore us from ever riding our bikes naked again?

John is fully aware of my identity. You are not although I would consider revealing myself (no pun intended) even to you if you yourself were a bit more forthcoming.

If there’s one thing guaranteed to draw attention to the genital area, it’s the wearing of fetishistic underwear, such as adult nappies and Y-fronts or ludicrous garments such as mankinis. Simply nudity is just more direct and honest, but according to GoodDoc we should be covered at all costs. Some riders in London have been seen sporting large strap-on organs and penis-gourds, clothing of a sort to be sure, so probably these people would get pass GoodDoc’s censorship test.

Here we go again about peak shopping hours and the inevitable gratuitous mention of “half-term”. If you’d checked your facts, GoodDoc, you would have realised that the ride was scheduled outside of core shopping time when the foot-streets were legally available to be used by non-pedestrian traffic (otherwise we’d all have been pushing our bikes through the centre). With regard to the supposed selfish “half-term” scheduling, I repeat my previous and as-yet unanswered question to GoodDoc “What gives YOU the right to speak on behalf of children?” As for the research I mentioned, if you’re trained in psychological methodology, you’ll have no trouble in seeking it out for yourself, though I suspect somehow you would rather not learn anything new. You could use Google for a start. I just did by typing in “the effect of nudity on child development” and this was the first link that came up: http://www.fcn.ca/ch
ildren_2.htm . Ok, admittedly it’s a naturist website, but do check it out fully before you blatantly dismiss it. Psychological research methods do allow for thorough testing as I’m sure you’ll realise.

So what is your job then, if it’s not dealing with children? Public events, safeguarding? Something official, perhaps a position with the City Council? It would go some way to explaining why your reluctance to be open, after all an officer in a public role can hardly be seen to be making unfounded and semi-abusive comments on a public web forum.

For someone who finds public nudity so distasteful it’s odd that you should pick up on that story about the mass skinny dip. Secluded beach it may have been, but I wonder how many extra car journeys it generated it order for participants (and die-hard rubber-neckers) to get there on time? 400 is a good number, but they’ve still some way to go before they reach the quantities of riders on some of the WNBR’s or the numbers of participants at Spencer Tunick events.

If you also share the environmental aims of the ride, why don’t you come along to the next one? You might come to appreciate – as did a certain City Councillor a couple of years ago – that these protests are not seedy as you like to imagine, but actually very good-natured and friendly. And after all, as you know, there is absolutely no compulsion to be naked. It is totally up the individual rider to decide how much or how little they wear. Some riders have even retained their anonymity in public by wearing funny gorilla suits. Might that be a suitable (though possibly sweaty) costume for you, GoodDoc?

Oh, sorry I forgot, gorillas don’t generally wear underpants, do they?
Yawn, yawn, yawn. Will GoodDoc ever say anything new or will he just continue his febrile arguments ad nauseam, hoping to bore us from ever riding our bikes naked again? John is fully aware of my identity. You are not although I would consider revealing myself (no pun intended) even to you if you yourself were a bit more forthcoming. If there’s one thing guaranteed to draw attention to the genital area, it’s the wearing of fetishistic underwear, such as adult nappies and Y-fronts or ludicrous garments such as mankinis. Simply nudity is just more direct and honest, but according to GoodDoc we should be covered at all costs. Some riders in London have been seen sporting large strap-on organs and penis-gourds, clothing of a sort to be sure, so probably these people would get pass GoodDoc’s censorship test. Here we go again about peak shopping hours and the inevitable gratuitous mention of “half-term”. If you’d checked your facts, GoodDoc, you would have realised that the ride was scheduled outside of core shopping time when the foot-streets were legally available to be used by non-pedestrian traffic (otherwise we’d all have been pushing our bikes through the centre). With regard to the supposed selfish “half-term” scheduling, I repeat my previous and as-yet unanswered question to GoodDoc “What gives YOU the right to speak on behalf of children?” As for the research I mentioned, if you’re trained in psychological methodology, you’ll have no trouble in seeking it out for yourself, though I suspect somehow you would rather not learn anything new. You could use Google for a start. I just did by typing in “the effect of nudity on child development” and this was the first link that came up: http://www.fcn.ca/ch ildren_2.htm . Ok, admittedly it’s a naturist website, but do check it out fully before you blatantly dismiss it. Psychological research methods do allow for thorough testing as I’m sure you’ll realise. So what is your job then, if it’s not dealing with children? Public events, safeguarding? Something official, perhaps a position with the City Council? It would go some way to explaining why your reluctance to be open, after all an officer in a public role can hardly be seen to be making unfounded and semi-abusive comments on a public web forum. For someone who finds public nudity so distasteful it’s odd that you should pick up on that story about the mass skinny dip. Secluded beach it may have been, but I wonder how many extra car journeys it generated it order for participants (and die-hard rubber-neckers) to get there on time? 400 is a good number, but they’ve still some way to go before they reach the quantities of riders on some of the WNBR’s or the numbers of participants at Spencer Tunick events. If you also share the environmental aims of the ride, why don’t you come along to the next one? You might come to appreciate – as did a certain City Councillor a couple of years ago – that these protests are not seedy as you like to imagine, but actually very good-natured and friendly. And after all, as you know, there is absolutely no compulsion to be naked. It is totally up the individual rider to decide how much or how little they wear. Some riders have even retained their anonymity in public by wearing funny gorilla suits. Might that be a suitable (though possibly sweaty) costume for you, GoodDoc? Oh, sorry I forgot, gorillas don’t generally wear underpants, do they? Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Sat 25 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

Ebor. I will stop repeating my points when you can be bothered to read and digest them. Can I break it down for you, and any other nudist friends that John has chosen to invite.
.
'Complete nudity during peak hours in a busy location was necessary for publicity reasons'. The welsh skinny dip gained a top spot on the BBC website, yet was away from the crowds and was generally considerate of the views of others.
.
'Y-fronts are fetishistic, compared to full-frontal nudity'. I'm not surprised you think this, and it certainly confirms a few more of my suspicions. Suffice to say I'd rather take a more objective source.
.
My refusal to provide a name (and now a profession!!) means I am dishonest and not open? OK, so along with 99% of people on here, my opinion will not matter to you. Find somewhere else to debate then.
.
'Nudity cannot possibly harm children because there's proof!' Unfortunately, I have had to study psychology - mostly developmental - and that claim is at best simplistic and naive, and at worst woefully misinformed. Read into the process of assimilation that young children go through, and it may become clearer. It's also basic safeguarding knowledge that certain types of offender look for opportunities to do this sort of thing. A few easy and simple steps could have lessened or entirely removed the chances of this occuring. Is that really news to you? And you're right, I'm not particularly interested in research done by a naturist organisation!! I hope you follow my logic?
.
'No one has a right to speak on behalf of children'. If this is your view, then that's hugely worrying on all kinds of levels. We act and speak on behalf of our most vulnerable citizens all the time. Particularly some parents, who were unable to take their children into certain areas of town on that day thanks to the decision made by you.
.
'Freedom of speech means it's fine'. So asking you to be respectful is denying your freedom of speech? We all have a right to expose ourselves to each other, and make crass and racist jokes, and that means we need not take anyone else's opinion on board? I have a burning hatred for people that attempt to use freedom of speech to curtail the freedoms and views of others.
.
I wouldn't come on that ride for love nor money, because I along with several friends now firmly believe the motives are not really about environmentalism at all. I care far more about the environment than about showing myself to unsuspecting members of the public. There are many more effective, more considerate, and more relevant ways to get that particular message across - so until I decide that it's my right to expose myself to everyone as a means of inflicting my beliefs, I think I'll stick to more conventional methods of protest.
Ebor. I will stop repeating my points when you can be bothered to read and digest them. Can I break it down for you, and any other nudist friends that John has chosen to invite. . 'Complete nudity during peak hours in a busy location was necessary for publicity reasons'. The welsh skinny dip gained a top spot on the BBC website, yet was away from the crowds and was generally considerate of the views of others. . 'Y-fronts are fetishistic, compared to full-frontal nudity'. I'm not surprised you think this, and it certainly confirms a few more of my suspicions. Suffice to say I'd rather take a more objective source. . My refusal to provide a name (and now a profession!!) means I am dishonest and not open? OK, so along with 99% of people on here, my opinion will not matter to you. Find somewhere else to debate then. . 'Nudity cannot possibly harm children because there's proof!' Unfortunately, I have had to study psychology - mostly developmental - and that claim is at best simplistic and naive, and at worst woefully misinformed. Read into the process of assimilation that young children go through, and it may become clearer. It's also basic safeguarding knowledge that certain types of offender look for opportunities to do this sort of thing. A few easy and simple steps could have lessened or entirely removed the chances of this occuring. Is that really news to you? And you're right, I'm not particularly interested in research done by a naturist organisation!! I hope you follow my logic? . 'No one has a right to speak on behalf of children'. If this is your view, then that's hugely worrying on all kinds of levels. We act and speak on behalf of our most vulnerable citizens all the time. Particularly some parents, who were unable to take their children into certain areas of town on that day thanks to the decision made by you. . 'Freedom of speech means it's fine'. So asking you to be respectful is denying your freedom of speech? We all have a right to expose ourselves to each other, and make crass and racist jokes, and that means we need not take anyone else's opinion on board? I have a burning hatred for people that attempt to use freedom of speech to curtail the freedoms and views of others. . I wouldn't come on that ride for love nor money, because I along with several friends now firmly believe the motives are not really about environmentalism at all. I care far more about the environment than about showing myself to unsuspecting members of the public. There are many more effective, more considerate, and more relevant ways to get that particular message across - so until I decide that it's my right to expose myself to everyone as a means of inflicting my beliefs, I think I'll stick to more conventional methods of protest. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Mon 27 Jun 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

GoodDoc

I have read, digested and regurgitated your points, not finding in any of them much of nutritional value. And for your information I do not use the label “nudist” to describe my own stance vis-à-vis social nudity.

It seems to have escaped you that the mass skinny dip on a Welsh beach was not a political protest but merely an attempt to break a previous skinny-dipping record, though it possibly had the side-effect of promoting naturism at the same time. All such heroic attempts generally garner publicity. Spencer Tunick’s mass nude installations likewise gain a lot of media attention.

What a sad suspicious mind you have! I personally do not find Y-fronts in the least exciting, however I am aware that there is a “scene” out there that does (there are also scenes for lycra, PVC etc. you name it in terms of textiles). It takes all sorts, and I’ve no problem with such pursuits between consenting adults, though I would prefer the garments were ethically produced. What’s YOUR objective source then? The clothing manufacturer?

I wish you would stop putting things between single quote marks ‘thus’ as if they were things that I said, because any reader looking backwards in this chain will find that they’re not and that you are blatantly taking things out of context.

If you’d followed through the web-link that I gave you, you would have found references to a great deal of original sources. This is not necessarily research done or even commissioned by naturist organisations, so please don’t be so peremptory in your judgments. Learning something new is all about keeping an open mind, assimilating maybe, but not dismissing out of hand. Fortunately children’s minds are not as closed off and inflexible as yours. I know a bit about assimilation too (i.e. you’re not the only one who’s studied psychology), but let’s hear about your supposedly more objective sources – you seem to be at a loss to quote any.

“Certain types of offender look for opportunities to do this sort of thing” . You are bit circumspect here, but I guess you are referring to paedophilia as opposed to mere exhibitionism – or maybe you’re lumping the two together. Yes, everybody is thankfully aware of the strategies used by paedophiles these days to get in touch with children. Unaccompanied children are not allowed on World Naked Bike Rides. But it is a far step from there to banning all nudity outside of the bathroom or secluded beach as it appears you would like to do. Also, let us not forget that a lot of child abuse actually happens in the home and not in a city centre on a Saturday afternoon.

Re-read my last post. I did not say no-one has the right to speak on behalf of children (please do not misquote for the purpose of misleading). I specifically asked what gives YOU – as opposed to anyone else – the right to speak on their behalf. Instead of answering that question you have deflected the attention to the children’s parents who it seems must also rely on you as their sole advocate and mouthpiece – this despite the fact that several parents have expressed their support for the naked protest both in this thread and in reaction to similar press articles about the WNBR. Why don’t you allow them a voice of their own? Afraid they might contradict you perhaps?

There is a long tradition of naked protest throughout the world. Most of this predates the (post)modern sensibilities of people like yourself. It is a simple fact that when most other methods have been exhausted, people will take off their clothes as an act of civil disobedience. In some places they take up arms – with far more damaging consequences. Protest, naked or otherwise, is by its nature a challenge to the status quo. If every protestor bent over backwards to consider the personal tastes of possible observers (in terms of visual and auditory stimuli) we would never have any protests at all. Would you really like to live in such a boring society? After all it would deprive you of something to write in and complain about.

What you have singularly failed to appreciate in all this discussion is the simple distinction between decent exposure and IN-decent exposure, or to put it another way, between innocent nudity and overt sexual behaviour. We must all take some responsibility for interpreting what we see. If you think there is intent to cause offence or harassment then you should make an official complaint, write to your MP, try and get the law changed etc. You will be in a minority though as most observers can clearly distinguish between nudity in the context of this protest and that which they might encounter (should they choose to) in a sex club. I may not like the appearance of a skinhead with hobnail boots and tattoos, but I would not necessarily conclude that he’s a fascist. These days he’s just as likely be a fun-loving gay man. Stereotypes are constantly being challenged and subverted. However much you choose to characterise us as a bunch of perverts, because of your own narrow prejudices, it doesn’t mean we are. You have failed to demonstrate any intent to offend; you have merely been offensive and flaunted but your own prejudices.

You entirely miss the point about the invitation to participate next year. In a gorilla suit you won’t be exposed and none of your friends will recognise you. You could safely demonstrate for the same environmental causes that we espouse. And in case you should fear that any nudity might afflict your visual cortex, we could arrange to blindfold you and put you on the back of a tandem.

Until then, may I paraphrase a well-known WNBR slogan and wish you both LESS GAS (aka pontification, GoodDoc) and MORE **** (Go for it, John!)
GoodDoc I have read, digested and regurgitated your points, not finding in any of them much of nutritional value. And for your information I do not use the label “nudist” to describe my own stance vis-à-vis social nudity. It seems to have escaped you that the mass skinny dip on a Welsh beach was not a political protest but merely an attempt to break a previous skinny-dipping record, though it possibly had the side-effect of promoting naturism at the same time. All such heroic attempts generally garner publicity. Spencer Tunick’s mass nude installations likewise gain a lot of media attention. What a sad suspicious mind you have! I personally do not find Y-fronts in the least exciting, however I am aware that there is a “scene” out there that does (there are also scenes for lycra, PVC etc. you name it in terms of textiles). It takes all sorts, and I’ve no problem with such pursuits between consenting adults, though I would prefer the garments were ethically produced. What’s YOUR objective source then? The clothing manufacturer? I wish you would stop putting things between single quote marks ‘thus’ as if they were things that I said, because any reader looking backwards in this chain will find that they’re not and that you are blatantly taking things out of context. If you’d followed through the web-link that I gave you, you would have found references to a great deal of original sources. This is not necessarily research done or even commissioned by naturist organisations, so please don’t be so peremptory in your judgments. Learning something new is all about keeping an open mind, assimilating maybe, but not dismissing out of hand. Fortunately children’s minds are not as closed off and inflexible as yours. I know a bit about assimilation too (i.e. you’re not the only one who’s studied psychology), but let’s hear about your supposedly more objective sources – you seem to be at a loss to quote any. “Certain types of offender look for opportunities to do this sort of thing” [direct quote]. You are bit circumspect here, but I guess you are referring to paedophilia as opposed to mere exhibitionism – or maybe you’re lumping the two together. Yes, everybody is thankfully aware of the strategies used by paedophiles these days to get in touch with children. Unaccompanied children are not allowed on World Naked Bike Rides. But it is a far step from there to banning all nudity outside of the bathroom or secluded beach as it appears you would like to do. Also, let us not forget that a lot of child abuse actually happens in the home and not in a city centre on a Saturday afternoon. Re-read my last post. I did not say no-one has the right to speak on behalf of children (please do not misquote for the purpose of misleading). I specifically asked what gives YOU – as opposed to anyone else – the right to speak on their behalf. Instead of answering that question you have deflected the attention to the children’s parents who it seems must also rely on you as their sole advocate and mouthpiece – this despite the fact that several parents have expressed their support for the naked protest both in this thread and in reaction to similar press articles about the WNBR. Why don’t you allow them a voice of their own? Afraid they might contradict you perhaps? There is a long tradition of naked protest throughout the world. Most of this predates the (post)modern sensibilities of people like yourself. It is a simple fact that when most other methods have been exhausted, people will take off their clothes as an act of civil disobedience. In some places they take up arms – with far more damaging consequences. Protest, naked or otherwise, is by its nature a challenge to the status quo. If every protestor bent over backwards to consider the personal tastes of possible observers (in terms of visual and auditory stimuli) we would never have any protests at all. Would you really like to live in such a boring society? After all it would deprive you of something to write in and complain about. What you have singularly failed to appreciate in all this discussion is the simple distinction between decent exposure and IN-decent exposure, or to put it another way, between innocent nudity and overt sexual behaviour. We must all take some responsibility for interpreting what we see. If you think there is intent to cause offence or harassment then you should make an official complaint, write to your MP, try and get the law changed etc. You will be in a minority though as most observers can clearly distinguish between nudity in the context of this protest and that which they might encounter (should they choose to) in a sex club. I may not like the appearance of a skinhead with hobnail boots and tattoos, but I would not necessarily conclude that he’s a fascist. These days he’s just as likely be a fun-loving gay man. Stereotypes are constantly being challenged and subverted. However much you choose to characterise us as a bunch of perverts, because of your own narrow prejudices, it doesn’t mean we are. You have failed to demonstrate any intent to offend; you have merely been offensive and flaunted but your own prejudices. You entirely miss the point about the invitation to participate next year. In a gorilla suit you won’t be exposed and none of your friends will recognise you. You could safely demonstrate for the same environmental causes that we espouse. And in case you should fear that any nudity might afflict your visual cortex, we could arrange to blindfold you and put you on the back of a tandem. Until then, may I paraphrase a well-known WNBR slogan and wish you both LESS GAS (aka pontification, GoodDoc) and MORE **** (Go for it, John!) Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

3:05am Tue 28 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Sorry, can't type sensibly now as I'm laughing so much at the idea of the so-called GoodDoc in a gorilla suit, blindfolded and on the 'stoker' seat of a tandem! All he'd be able to hear were the cheers and whistles and laughter and clapping of all the people who like the WNBR going past.
.
Yeah, Less Gas, More ****... obviously referring to donkey power, not an internal combustion engine!
Sorry, can't type sensibly now as I'm laughing so much at the idea of the so-called GoodDoc in a gorilla suit, blindfolded and on the 'stoker' seat of a tandem! All he'd be able to hear were the cheers and whistles and laughter and clapping of all the people who like the WNBR going past. . Yeah, Less Gas, More ****... obviously referring to donkey power, not an internal combustion engine! John Cossham
  • Score: 0

3:09am Tue 28 Jun 11

John Cossham says...

Hey, that's cool, the Press website automatically removes certain words. Not so good if discussing equines!
Hey, that's cool, the Press website automatically removes certain words. Not so good if discussing equines! John Cossham
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Thu 30 Jun 11

GoodDoc says...

You digest my points? I'm having to repeat them again - My point about the skinny dip was about publicity. It proves that nudity can gain massive publicity yet still respect the rights of others not to witness it. Now, you seem to consider changing the timing or location of the event to be 'bending over backwards'. Most people would think that's a small price to pay for a little respect. When simple measures are ignored that would maintain publicity and the core message, it shows that there are other motives in play.
.
My objective source would be any number of local residents who did not strip off and take part in a mass exhibitionist stunt. I am neither a nudist (or 'body freedom' advocate or whatever you want to dress it up as), nor am I an anti-nudity activist. Unfortunately for you, that makes me more objective than either you or John, as you clearly have vested interests.
.
My use of quotation marks, as I already explained, was an attempt to summarise the points that you and John have made, while cutting through the name-calling and weasel words. They seem to sum up your views fairly adequately.
.
Let me explain, I do not need to learn about the reasons behind your nudity. I would bet large sums of money that I have read more relevant psychology than you ever will, but thanks for the advice! How intriguing that after making a claim as wooly and spurious as "Time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity" you then criticise me for not giving references! I'm still waiting for yours. But in the mean time, I advise you start off with the basics such as Vygotsky and Erikkson. Then look into the likes of Bonner, Silovsky or Rich who wrote about the problems certain children at certain stages have with assimilating non-normative behaviours. Or perhaps Salter is more your cup of tea, who has written a lot about specific offenders and issues of desensitisation and resensitisation. You won't find the pop psychology you're looking for - 'nudity is bad', 'nudity is good' - but assuming you can be bothered and actually do have some history in psychology, it'll be fairly easy reading. So don't try to call my bluff if you can't even be bothered to do your homework yourself, and when your best efforts involve telling me to find it myself, and pointing me towards a naturist site! Silly, silly, silly.
.
You like to think that me voicing my opinion is stopping from others voicing theirs. You like to pretend that me saying your self-exposure is inappropriate means I'm a natural complainer. Like John, you like to equate me with an up-tight prude, simply for recommending a little more consideration when you choose to flash yourself. I am more than happy to sit my views alongside others, but don't expect me to consider you in any way representative of public opinion. I am happy to be open-minded, but do not assume that means I will agree with someone as opinionated and partisan as yourself.
.
I have to say, the analogies you and John come up with are bizarre. He's talking about butchers' shops, now you're talking about skinheads. I'm talking about a band of people getting naked in the middle of town, and I'm stunned you don't see the difference. Sorry, I do not think nudity is wrong. Not at all. I would fight for the right for people to do anything legal in their own time as long as it doesn't affect others. However, I am suggesting that other people should be able to make an informed choice (where possible) about what they and their children see, and that the views and urges of a minority should never overrule the rights of others. And yes, I know parents that were pretty annoyed with what they met in town, and the mother had a rather brutal way of describing the participants. You're right, I can prove no intent either way and neither can you. This is why police won't get involved, and why other precautions should have been taken.
.
And I'm afraid it's you who is missing the point re. the gorilla suit. Though I commend the people who attended that were able to show a little respect to passers-by by not going full-frontal, each person attending that event is saying it's appropriate or effective to protest in that manner, in that context. I care far more about the environment than I do for showing my naked body to people who had no choice. I will continue to be intermittently active on environmental issues, but it's becoming increasingly clear that actually, this ride could have been for any cause whatsoever.
.
I'll end with the same advice I gave to John. Our views are irreconcilable. As someone who took part, I don't expect you to really value other peoples opinions on this, and of course I don't expect to convince you of anything. Similarly, you want to think of me as a prude for not wanting people to cycle through town on a saturday in the buff. This would have been a far more interesting debate if other people who weren't involved can give their views, rather than the same pair of nude cyclists! Still, I understand and respect your views, and just wish you could gain a similar level of satisfaction by enacting them with a little more consideration.
.
PS John, you've become quite an endearing little chap with your attempts to chip in! Don't worry, you're still part of this conversation!
You digest my points? I'm having to repeat them again - My point about the skinny dip was about publicity. It proves that nudity can gain massive publicity yet still respect the rights of others not to witness it. Now, you seem to consider changing the timing or location of the event to be 'bending over backwards'. Most people would think that's a small price to pay for a little respect. When simple measures are ignored that would maintain publicity and the core message, it shows that there are other motives in play. . My objective source would be any number of local residents who did not strip off and take part in a mass exhibitionist stunt. I am neither a nudist (or 'body freedom' advocate or whatever you want to dress it up as), nor am I an anti-nudity activist. Unfortunately for you, that makes me more objective than either you or John, as you clearly have vested interests. . My use of quotation marks, as I already explained, was an attempt to summarise the points that you and John have made, while cutting through the name-calling and weasel words. They seem to sum up your views fairly adequately. . Let me explain, I do not need to learn about the reasons behind your nudity. I would bet large sums of money that I have read more relevant psychology than you ever will, but thanks for the advice! How intriguing that after making a claim as wooly and spurious as "Time and time again it has been shown the children are not emotionally damaged by innocent nudity" you then criticise me for not giving references! I'm still waiting for yours. But in the mean time, I advise you start off with the basics such as Vygotsky and Erikkson. Then look into the likes of Bonner, Silovsky or Rich who wrote about the problems certain children at certain stages have with assimilating non-normative behaviours. Or perhaps Salter is more your cup of tea, who has written a lot about specific offenders and issues of desensitisation and resensitisation. You won't find the pop psychology you're looking for - 'nudity is bad', 'nudity is good' - but assuming you can be bothered and actually do have some history in psychology, it'll be fairly easy reading. So don't try to call my bluff if you can't even be bothered to do your homework yourself, and when your best efforts involve telling me to find it myself, and pointing me towards a naturist site! Silly, silly, silly. . You like to think that me voicing my opinion is stopping from others voicing theirs. You like to pretend that me saying your self-exposure is inappropriate means I'm a natural complainer. Like John, you like to equate me with an up-tight prude, simply for recommending a little more consideration when you choose to flash yourself. I am more than happy to sit my views alongside others, but don't expect me to consider you in any way representative of public opinion. I am happy to be open-minded, but do not assume that means I will agree with someone as opinionated and partisan as yourself. . I have to say, the analogies you and John come up with are bizarre. He's talking about butchers' shops, now you're talking about skinheads. I'm talking about a band of people getting naked in the middle of town, and I'm stunned you don't see the difference. Sorry, I do not think nudity is wrong. Not at all. I would fight for the right for people to do anything legal in their own time as long as it doesn't affect others. However, I am suggesting that other people should be able to make an informed choice (where possible) about what they and their children see, and that the views and urges of a minority should never overrule the rights of others. And yes, I know parents that were pretty annoyed with what they met in town, and the mother had a rather brutal way of describing the participants. You're right, I can prove no intent either way and neither can you. This is why police won't get involved, and why other precautions should have been taken. . And I'm afraid it's you who is missing the point re. the gorilla suit. Though I commend the people who attended that were able to show a little respect to passers-by by not going full-frontal, each person attending that event is saying it's appropriate or effective to protest in that manner, in that context. I care far more about the environment than I do for showing my naked body to people who had no choice. I will continue to be intermittently active on environmental issues, but it's becoming increasingly clear that actually, this ride could have been for any cause whatsoever. . I'll end with the same advice I gave to John. Our views are irreconcilable. As someone who took part, I don't expect you to really value other peoples opinions on this, and of course I don't expect to convince you of anything. Similarly, you want to think of me as a prude for not wanting people to cycle through town on a saturday in the buff. This would have been a far more interesting debate if other people who weren't involved can give their views, rather than the same pair of nude cyclists! Still, I understand and respect your views, and just wish you could gain a similar level of satisfaction by enacting them with a little more consideration. . PS John, you've become quite an endearing little chap with your attempts to chip in! Don't worry, you're still part of this conversation! GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Sat 2 Jul 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

Yay, let’s hear it for the poor oppressed gymnsophically-chall
enged mainstream majority and its self-appointed spokesperson, trick-cylist extraordinaire GoodDoc!

John – We must question what kicks GoodDoc gets from issuing taunts in this way. It may be better not to encourage him by responding as he so dearly wants you to, but of course I leave that choice to you ;-)

GoodDoc – You seem to forget that there is NO right in law not to see events that are happening in public. You can choose to look away, or “if thine eye offends you”, you can follow the Biblical advice to pluck it out. I am often offended by things I witness in the city centre: drunken and aggressive men and women, speeding, dangerous drivers, people discarding food and rubbish on the pavement. Oh how I wish these people would be considerate and take account of my “right” not to see these things. Fat chance of that! But I do recognise that what I’m really complaining about is certain types of behaviour rather than the visual representation of the behaviour. With you, GoodDoc, the “picture” is less clear. You have trouble making the distinction. You seem to share our environmental aims (and hopefully support our exemplary cycling behaviour) yet you continue to object to the visual detail of our nakedness. Let’s just suppose that you cannot help but look (many people unused to social nudity find themselves inexorably drawn to the sight of others’ genitals – thankfully it’s a stage they usually get over). You should have enough free will left over to decide on whether disrespect, offence, or merely attention-grabbing fun is intended. You don’t seem to weigh over the choices though: the stereotype kicks in and hey presto – you’ve made up your mind that we’re all perverts – and perversely are all just pretending to be environmentalists, making flags and painting slogans on our bodies, writing articles for the press etc. just so we can get out bits out in public and propagate our (di)vested interests (ha, ha).

If only it were so simple.

Your objective sources of “any number of local residents” do not seem to be very supportive of your cynical outlook. We would certainly NOT expect them all to strip off and join us. But we would expect them even less to chorus your own minority views. In all the instances where children have been mentioned as having to witness the ride, it is always from the perspective of the parents who do not have sufficient integrity or imagination to explain to their offspring that such things do actually happen in the world they live in, just as much as public vomiting, car “accidents” and environmental degradation happen. If they are old enough to witness such really distasteful goings on, one has to ask is a spot of non-normative nudity really going to do that much emotional damage?

You obviously think so - so please explain, for the benefit of those of us who are not so well-versed in the particularly psychological theories you espouse, exactly what the mechanics of this are. How does the abuse, psychosis, trauma, deviance or delinquency arise in the child from the trigger of a cyclist’s genitals? Come on, we’re dying to know. Would it be more respectful to carry guns instead as they do on military parades? Of course it would , guns never harmed anybody, did they? That’s why we freely dish out toy ones to our kids. And why do some children grow into adulthood seeking their sexual pleasure in situations of violence? Answer me that, GoodDoc. Is it really because they witnessed a few peaceful naked cyclists?

For all your academic name dropping, you forget what I told you in my last two posts. I merely typed some words (“the effect of nudity on child development”) into Google and selected the first link that came up. This link contained many references to studies that you could have followed up, but chose not to. Do the same for yourself and select another link or two. Of course naturist sites are going to be interested in gathering the sort of material that supports social or familial nudity. That much is a given. What I would like to know, is why aren’t the other side (the Nude Is Disrespectful movement or whatever you call yourselves) doing likewise? Pop psychology or not, we all know that there are competing theories around in the social sciences and just because you find that Bonner et al are illuminating in what they say about “certain children at certain stages” (presumably the ones in York City Centre during half-term), it doesn’t mean that the views of Freud, Jung, Fromm, Piaget, Adler, Rogers, Laing (for example) can be safely disregarded.

The point of the gorilla suit is that you would NOT have to show your naked body to the general public. You could be safely naked underneath your costume (with or without additional underclothes). Some people on the ride have no more interest in being naked than you have, yet they accompany us because the sheer strength of their environmental beliefs, beliefs that are not conveniently pushed aside because of a bit of nudity. I don’t actually think you’re a prude, but you’re now beginning to sound like one, rather like one of those old-fashioned missionaries who dictates: “Yes, the natives can share our beliefs and benefit from our society – but first they must put some clothes on.” So much for the lost “heathen” civilisations and the lost, raped environments they once inhabited. And when we eventually get to the stage when there are only a couple of cotton plants left on the Earth, there’s no need to tell me what you’ll do to propagate them and ensure their survival: you’ll rip them up no doubt and use the fruite of the loom to weave yourself some new underpants.

Yes, GoodDoc, I can see where your priorities really lie. The sad thing is, ultimately the planet doesn’t care what you and your kind think about nudity. When the tsunami comes or global warming just gets too unbearable, those wearing Y-fronts and fig-leaves of any description are not going to survive one jot longer than the nudies. Before you dismiss what you see once more, just get things into perspective, will you.

And speaking of perspective, when I’m not riding naked for one hour in June, i.e. for the other 364 days of the year, I am a CLOTHED cyclist – and maybe, if people like you took more notice of me during those 364 days and didn’t abuse me because of my choice of transport, just maybe I wouldn’t take my clothes off once a year to protest. And you have the nerve to speak of respect! When the majority with whom you’re complicit start treating people like me with respect, then we’ll stop protesting. Over to you, GoodDoc, you have a year to improve the environment, the attitude of drivers and dire conditions for cyclists in York. Good luck to you!
Yay, let’s hear it for the poor oppressed gymnsophically-chall enged mainstream majority and its self-appointed spokesperson, trick-cylist extraordinaire GoodDoc! John – We must question what kicks GoodDoc gets from issuing taunts in this way. It may be better not to encourage him by responding as he so dearly wants you to, but of course I leave that choice to you ;-) GoodDoc – You seem to forget that there is NO right in law not to see events that are happening in public. You can choose to look away, or “if thine eye offends you”, you can follow the Biblical advice to pluck it out. I am often offended by things I witness in the city centre: drunken and aggressive men and women, speeding, dangerous drivers, people discarding food and rubbish on the pavement. Oh how I wish these people would be considerate and take account of my “right” not to see these things. Fat chance of that! But I do recognise that what I’m really complaining about is certain types of behaviour rather than the visual representation of the behaviour. With you, GoodDoc, the “picture” is less clear. You have trouble making the distinction. You seem to share our environmental aims (and hopefully support our exemplary cycling behaviour) yet you continue to object to the visual detail of our nakedness. Let’s just suppose that you cannot help but look (many people unused to social nudity find themselves inexorably drawn to the sight of others’ genitals – thankfully it’s a stage they usually get over). You should have enough free will left over to decide on whether disrespect, offence, or merely attention-grabbing fun is intended. You don’t seem to weigh over the choices though: the stereotype kicks in and hey presto – you’ve made up your mind that we’re all perverts – and perversely are all just pretending to be environmentalists, making flags and painting slogans on our bodies, writing articles for the press etc. just so we can get out bits out in public and propagate our (di)vested interests (ha, ha). If only it were so simple. Your objective sources of “any number of local residents” do not seem to be very supportive of your cynical outlook. We would certainly NOT expect them all to strip off and join us. But we would expect them even less to chorus your own minority views. In all the instances where children have been mentioned as having to witness the ride, it is always from the perspective of the parents who do not have sufficient integrity or imagination to explain to their offspring that such things do actually happen in the world they live in, just as much as public vomiting, car “accidents” and environmental degradation happen. If they are old enough to witness such really distasteful goings on, one has to ask is a spot of non-normative nudity really going to do that much emotional damage? You obviously think so - so please explain, for the benefit of those of us who are not so well-versed in the particularly psychological theories you espouse, exactly what the mechanics of this are. How does the abuse, psychosis, trauma, deviance or delinquency arise in the child from the trigger of a cyclist’s genitals? Come on, we’re dying to know. Would it be more respectful to carry guns instead as they do on military parades? Of course it would [I seem to hear you say], guns never harmed anybody, did they? That’s why we freely dish out toy ones to our kids. And why do some children grow into adulthood seeking their sexual pleasure in situations of violence? Answer me that, GoodDoc. Is it really because they witnessed a few peaceful naked cyclists? For all your academic name dropping, you forget what I told you in my last two posts. I merely typed some words (“the effect of nudity on child development”) into Google and selected the first link that came up. This link contained many references to studies that you could have followed up, but chose not to. Do the same for yourself and select another link or two. Of course naturist sites are going to be interested in gathering the sort of material that supports social or familial nudity. That much is a given. What I would like to know, is why aren’t the other side (the Nude Is Disrespectful movement or whatever you call yourselves) doing likewise? Pop psychology or not, we all know that there are competing theories around in the social sciences and just because you find that Bonner et al are illuminating in what they say about “certain children at certain stages” (presumably the ones in York City Centre during half-term), it doesn’t mean that the views of Freud, Jung, Fromm, Piaget, Adler, Rogers, Laing (for example) can be safely disregarded. The point of the gorilla suit is that you would NOT have to show your naked body to the general public. You could be safely naked underneath your costume (with or without additional underclothes). Some people on the ride have no more interest in being naked than you have, yet they accompany us because the sheer strength of their environmental beliefs, beliefs that are not conveniently pushed aside because of a bit of nudity. I don’t actually think you’re a prude, but you’re now beginning to sound like one, rather like one of those old-fashioned missionaries who dictates: “Yes, the natives can share our beliefs and benefit from our society – but first they must put some clothes on.” So much for the lost “heathen” civilisations and the lost, raped environments they once inhabited. And when we eventually get to the stage when there are only a couple of cotton plants left on the Earth, there’s no need to tell me what you’ll do to propagate them and ensure their survival: you’ll rip them up no doubt and use the fruite of the loom to weave yourself some new underpants. Yes, GoodDoc, I can see where your priorities really lie. The sad thing is, ultimately the planet doesn’t care what you and your kind think about nudity. When the tsunami comes or global warming just gets too unbearable, those wearing Y-fronts and fig-leaves of any description are not going to survive one jot longer than the nudies. Before you dismiss what you see once more, just get things into perspective, will you. And speaking of perspective, when I’m not riding naked for one hour in June, i.e. for the other 364 days of the year, I am a CLOTHED cyclist – and maybe, if people like you took more notice of me during those 364 days and didn’t abuse me because of my choice of transport, just maybe I wouldn’t take my clothes off once a year to protest. And you have the nerve to speak of respect! When the majority with whom you’re complicit start treating people like me with respect, then we’ll stop protesting. Over to you, GoodDoc, you have a year to improve the environment, the attitude of drivers and dire conditions for cyclists in York. Good luck to you! Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

6:14pm Sat 2 Jul 11

John Cossham says...

Well put, Ebor. Earlier in the discussion, GoodDoc said that we just had a basic difference of opinion on this subject, and he's right. Neither side is likely to budge, so I don't see the point trying to change his mind, nor is he going to change mine.
.
However, Press readers will know that I've dedicated my life to IMPROVING society, so if there were to be proof that the surprise sight of a group of naked, semiclothed and decorated cyclists harmed society (or any individual in it) then I would have to reconsider my position. So, if there are any properly conducted scientific studies that prove harm, then please let me know.
.
However, there is plenty of evidence that motorised traffic is harming people. The emissions in York (for instance) make air pollution levels so high that they break EU law, and there is a direct connection between these levels of nitrogen oxides and benzene and mortality amongst those with COPD, asthma and other respiritory and circulatory problems. Cyclists don't cause air pollution. Motor traffic is guilty of mass murder... there are VAST numbers of motorists and other people killed on the roads every year (I can get figures if anyone wants). To date, I believe there is just one recorded instance of a cyclist causing the death of another road user, so cycling doesn't contribute to this slaughter in any statistically significant way.

GoodDoc and I are both in a minority, and democracy means that our views will almost certainly not shift what happens 'on the ground'. He'd ban the WNBR, well the N bit of it, and the majority of people I've spoken to (and I've actually conducted a random survey, because of GD's view) are JUST NOT BOTHERED or DON'T THINK IT'S WRONG. I'd ban cars from within the city wall, and, sadly (for me!) the majority of the population think that it is OK for cars to go into the city. So, neither of us is going to see our vision realised.
.
I've learned that arguing with a religious person is futile, as they KNOW they are right. They have been told THE TRUTH by their parents, or a Priest, vicar or Iman, and may be surrounded by others who bolster their belief, their blind faith. GoodDoc blessed me. I thank him for that, as it does no harm. However, it indicates a certain mind-set, and I don't propose to attempt to change that. I know a 'hell' of a lot about the effects of religion and there is no point trying to be rational with anyone with faith.
.
I've learned a lot through this discussion. I researched public nudity, something I knew nothing about as I'm an environmentalist, not a naturist. I found out that GoodDoc's view is more common in the UK and some parts of the US, but in other parts of the world, the right to be nude in public is seen as equivalent to 'Freedom of Speech', and there are laws protecting this right! I've learned about 'paraphilias', and think that GoodDoc is completely out of order labeling the WNBR participants with this.
.
However, I've enjoyed GoodDoc's attempt at humour; his dig at me in his last diatribe was great... and 'got me back' for my calling him MadDoc. So, although I've wasted a bit of time with this comment thread, it has been interesting and quite enjoyable, but before GD jumps on me for enjoying a bit of an argument, no, I haven't experienced ANY sexual arousal due to this enjoyment. Is there a paraphilia based on arguing?
.
OK, I have to go to work now, have a nice evening all! John
Well put, Ebor. Earlier in the discussion, GoodDoc said that we just had a basic difference of opinion on this subject, and he's right. Neither side is likely to budge, so I don't see the point trying to change his mind, nor is he going to change mine. . However, Press readers will know that I've dedicated my life to IMPROVING society, so if there were to be proof that the surprise sight of a group of naked, semiclothed and decorated cyclists harmed society (or any individual in it) then I would have to reconsider my position. So, if there are any properly conducted scientific studies that prove harm, then please let me know. . However, there is plenty of evidence that motorised traffic is harming people. The emissions in York (for instance) make air pollution levels so high that they break EU law, and there is a direct connection between these levels of nitrogen oxides and benzene and mortality amongst those with COPD, asthma and other respiritory and circulatory problems. Cyclists don't cause air pollution. Motor traffic is guilty of mass murder... there are VAST numbers of motorists and other people killed on the roads every year (I can get figures if anyone wants). To date, I believe there is just one recorded instance of a cyclist causing the death of another road user, so cycling doesn't contribute to this slaughter in any statistically significant way. GoodDoc and I are both in a minority, and democracy means that our views will almost certainly not shift what happens 'on the ground'. He'd ban the WNBR, well the N bit of it, and the majority of people I've spoken to (and I've actually conducted a random survey, because of GD's view) are JUST NOT BOTHERED or DON'T THINK IT'S WRONG. I'd ban cars from within the city wall, and, sadly (for me!) the majority of the population think that it is OK for cars to go into the city. So, neither of us is going to see our vision realised. . I've learned that arguing with a religious person is futile, as they KNOW they are right. They have been told THE TRUTH by their parents, or a Priest, vicar or Iman, and may be surrounded by others who bolster their belief, their blind faith. GoodDoc blessed me. I thank him for that, as it does no harm. However, it indicates a certain mind-set, and I don't propose to attempt to change that. I know a 'hell' of a lot about the effects of religion and there is no point trying to be rational with anyone with faith. . I've learned a lot through this discussion. I researched public nudity, something I knew nothing about as I'm an environmentalist, not a naturist. I found out that GoodDoc's view is more common in the UK and some parts of the US, but in other parts of the world, the right to be nude in public is seen as equivalent to 'Freedom of Speech', and there are laws protecting this right! I've learned about 'paraphilias', and think that GoodDoc is completely out of order labeling the WNBR participants with this. . However, I've enjoyed GoodDoc's attempt at humour; his dig at me in his last diatribe was great... and 'got me back' for my calling him MadDoc. So, although I've wasted a bit of time with this comment thread, it has been interesting and quite enjoyable, but before GD jumps on me for enjoying a bit of an argument, no, I haven't experienced ANY sexual arousal due to this enjoyment. Is there a paraphilia based on arguing? . OK, I have to go to work now, have a nice evening all! John John Cossham
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Sun 3 Jul 11

GoodDoc says...

Look, I'm going to be honest here. There's no chance I'm going to sift through the reams of gubbins you've just written once again. When you first lumbered into the debate, you were saying how you wouldn't chose to argue with a so-called bigot. So stop. I've made my views perfectly clear, and they represent those of other people that I've discussed this with closer to the time. I know that bothers you, and you'd like to think that the people who stood by the road side cheering represent everyone. Sorry to disappoint. I would never have entered this debate if I felt my view was unusual here, and my work colleagues in particular seemed to have stronger judgements on you than I do. I completely understand your view point, and despite knowing that there are folks like you out there, it does worry me at the sheer audacity, and your complete lack of consideration for anyone but yourself.
.
As I said before, I'm afraid I have a vehement anger towards people like yourself who wish to use 'Freedom of Speech' as a means of inflicting their views on people who have little choice. You both seem wholly against people having their own choice to avoid this situation, and to prevent their children (for their own personal reasons) from having to see it. I think that is the only thing that is truly shocking about this affair. You and John have convinced me, from being vaguely suspicious, to knowing full-well that it's about how it felt for you - not publicity, not oil dependency, nor any one of the other decoys. You've asked for references, now go off and read, for pity's sake, because I'm not about to give a beginners' course on the topics we discussed - particularly as it's neither the pop-psychology nor the blanket judgements that you're looking for. This no doubt is arrogant of me, but frankly I have better things to do with my time and I suspect you have little knowledge and even less interest in the psychological background of my claims.
.
On a side note, to John, I've just noticed the paragraph about being a religious person. Wow. I think you've leapt to that judgement from a simple 'God Bless' statement. You seem incredibly keen to put labels on me, and no, I'm not religious - it was a turn of phrase. But thanks for the sweeping generalisations about anyone with faith, I'm sure that has made you more friends and has further cemented you as the open-minded liberal you like to present yourself as. Well whatever helps you deal with opinions that challenge you is fine for me. Whatever gives you an added reason to disregard the views of people that disagree with you, eh?
.
Anyway, I'm sorry I'm really not willing to read more supposed justification for your selfish little penchants. Surely you've covered it all by now? I only hope that people will continue to be honest supporters of the environmental cause without being dragged into some dubious exhibitionist parade. John and Ebor, please at least consider getting your kicks in private next time, and leave the protesting to people with less muddy motives. Be angry with me, make your judgements - that's fine. I can live with it. Thanks for the debate, and yes, we all feel even more strongly about our original views. Great stuff.
.
GoodDoc - signing out.
Look, I'm going to be honest here. There's no chance I'm going to sift through the reams of gubbins you've just written once again. When you first lumbered into the debate, you were saying how you wouldn't chose to argue with a so-called bigot. So stop. I've made my views perfectly clear, and they represent those of other people that I've discussed this with closer to the time. I know that bothers you, and you'd like to think that the people who stood by the road side cheering represent everyone. Sorry to disappoint. I would never have entered this debate if I felt my view was unusual here, and my work colleagues in particular seemed to have stronger judgements on you than I do. I completely understand your view point, and despite knowing that there are folks like you out there, it does worry me at the sheer audacity, and your complete lack of consideration for anyone but yourself. . As I said before, I'm afraid I have a vehement anger towards people like yourself who wish to use 'Freedom of Speech' as a means of inflicting their views on people who have little choice. You both seem wholly against people having their own choice to avoid this situation, and to prevent their children (for their own personal reasons) from having to see it. I think that is the only thing that is truly shocking about this affair. You and John have convinced me, from being vaguely suspicious, to knowing full-well that it's about how it felt for you - not publicity, not oil dependency, nor any one of the other decoys. You've asked for references, now go off and read, for pity's sake, because I'm not about to give a beginners' course on the topics we discussed - particularly as it's neither the pop-psychology nor the blanket judgements that you're looking for. This no doubt is arrogant of me, but frankly I have better things to do with my time and I suspect you have little knowledge and even less interest in the psychological background of my claims. . On a side note, to John, I've just noticed the paragraph about being a religious person. Wow. I think you've leapt to that judgement from a simple 'God Bless' statement. You seem incredibly keen to put labels on me, and no, I'm not religious - it was a turn of phrase. But thanks for the sweeping generalisations about anyone with faith, I'm sure that has made you more friends and has further cemented you as the open-minded liberal you like to present yourself as. Well whatever helps you deal with opinions that challenge you is fine for me. Whatever gives you an added reason to disregard the views of people that disagree with you, eh? . Anyway, I'm sorry I'm really not willing to read more supposed justification for your selfish little penchants. Surely you've covered it all by now? I only hope that people will continue to be honest supporters of the environmental cause without being dragged into some dubious exhibitionist parade. John and Ebor, please at least consider getting your kicks in private next time, and leave the protesting to people with less muddy motives. Be angry with me, make your judgements - that's fine. I can live with it. Thanks for the debate, and yes, we all feel even more strongly about our original views. Great stuff. . GoodDoc - signing out. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

2:53am Mon 4 Jul 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

"There's no chance I'm going to sift through the reams of gubbins you've just written ..."
I’m really sorry, GoodDoc, for giving you the benefit of a doubt. My sincere apologies for letting you have ample chance to prove yourself NOT to be a bigot. I'm afraid to say you have failed miserably and for that have my fullest sympathy. However there's no need to rip up your Y-fronts in rage and launch into a tirade of abuse, a sure sign in my view that you’re losing the rational argument.

No, you're right, I am not about to embark on a psychology doctorate right now as I have quite a lot of other things to attend to. What I asked was for you to follow up the references I gave you (you declined) and for you to reciprocate by providing a summary of the process of harm creation in the psyche of children as occasioned by public nudity - other than by academic name-dropping, that is. I know and understand the various religious viewpoints on nudity but am not at all au fait with the psychological theories which see nudity as a pathogen. Thanks to you, these theories will remain obscure and it is interesting to speculate whether they underpin your views at all or are just being vaguely ‘paraded’ as a means of bolstering your increasingly untenable prejudices.

Your friends and work colleagues seem to have been mysteriously silent during all this debate. Could it be, I wonder, that they are not so supportive of your views after all? Or maybe you’re just acting as self-appointed spokesperson for views that they don’t possess after all. Who knows?

One thing I have picked up on in your postings is the number of times you use the phrase “I suspect”. What did I say about your suspicious mind earlier on? Whatever, that phrase seems to sum it up. You cannot be bothered to enquire, to probe more deeply, to learn what is really going on. You just want to sit back in your (motorised?) armchair and conveniently forget about the blind spots and pass your blanket judgments on all associated with this ride, whether they stripped off fully or not (according to one of your more recent postings). You remind me of the archetypal impatient driver who routinely opines: “You cyclists are all the same, go through red lights, hold up the traffic etc etc.” The analogy is apt. It is not our motives that are muddy but the windscreen through with you’re looking at us.

Next time we ride it will be fully publicised in the way it usually is, through the Press and so on. Please take note of the date, place and time, warn your friends, and exercise your freedom of choice to stay at home (curtains drawn if necessary if you happen to be on the route) or even better, go somewhere out of town, or to a secluded Welsh beach if you prefer. If the thought of that doesn’t ‘do it’ for you, then why not get your kicks by organising a counter-demonstratio
n: the Textile Defence League perhaps, of the Freedom Not To See campaign? Be sure to notify the police in advance, though, and try not to be too confrontational – or you might end up seeing us after all!

GoodDoc – I think for all the clever arguments you’ve tried to employ, your views are ultimately based on ignorance and, dare I say it, immaturity. Firstly, you have not yet learned to address the ‘demon’ (superego, Angry Parent, whatever) within you that forbids the contemplation of public nudity. Secondly, to reinforce the ‘demon’, you have labelled anyone audacious enough to demonstrate public nudity as a deviant, pervert, paraphiliac or whatever label springs into your defensive little mind.

Your sticks and stones will not harm us, GoodDoc. Please try and be a little less arrogant and channel your anger more creatively in future. Above all please refrain from confusing the medium with the message.

Goodbye, GoodDoc, and thank you for sharing with us.

Ebor Eco-Rider, riding on …
"There's no chance I'm going to sift through the reams of gubbins you've just written ..." I’m really sorry, GoodDoc, for giving you the benefit of a doubt. My sincere apologies for letting you have ample chance to prove yourself NOT to be a bigot. I'm afraid to say you have failed miserably and for that have my fullest sympathy. However there's no need to rip up your Y-fronts in rage and launch into a tirade of abuse, a sure sign in my view that you’re losing the rational argument. No, you're right, I am not about to embark on a psychology doctorate right now as I have quite a lot of other things to attend to. What I asked was for you to follow up the references I gave you (you declined) and for you to reciprocate by providing a summary of the process of harm creation in the psyche of children as occasioned by public nudity - other than by academic name-dropping, that is. I know and understand the various religious viewpoints on nudity but am not at all au fait with the psychological theories which see nudity as a pathogen. Thanks to you, these theories will remain obscure and it is interesting to speculate whether they underpin your views at all or are just being vaguely ‘paraded’ as a means of bolstering your increasingly untenable prejudices. Your friends and work colleagues seem to have been mysteriously silent during all this debate. Could it be, I wonder, that they are not so supportive of your views after all? Or maybe you’re just acting as self-appointed spokesperson for views that they don’t possess after all. Who knows? One thing I have picked up on in your postings is the number of times you use the phrase “I suspect”. What did I say about your suspicious mind earlier on? Whatever, that phrase seems to sum it up. You cannot be bothered to enquire, to probe more deeply, to learn what is really going on. You just want to sit back in your (motorised?) armchair and conveniently forget about the blind spots and pass your blanket judgments on all associated with this ride, whether they stripped off fully or not (according to one of your more recent postings). You remind me of the archetypal impatient driver who routinely opines: “You cyclists are all the same, go through red lights, hold up the traffic etc etc.” The analogy is apt. It is not our motives that are muddy but the windscreen through with you’re looking at us. Next time we ride it will be fully publicised in the way it usually is, through the Press and so on. Please take note of the date, place and time, warn your friends, and exercise your freedom of choice to stay at home (curtains drawn if necessary if you happen to be on the route) or even better, go somewhere out of town, or to a secluded Welsh beach if you prefer. If the thought of that doesn’t ‘do it’ for you, then why not get your kicks by organising a counter-demonstratio n: the Textile Defence League perhaps, of the Freedom Not To See campaign? Be sure to notify the police in advance, though, and try not to be too confrontational – or you might end up seeing us after all! GoodDoc – I think for all the clever arguments you’ve tried to employ, your views are ultimately based on ignorance and, dare I say it, immaturity. Firstly, you have not yet learned to address the ‘demon’ (superego, Angry Parent, whatever) within you that forbids the contemplation of public nudity. Secondly, to reinforce the ‘demon’, you have labelled anyone audacious enough to demonstrate public nudity as a deviant, pervert, paraphiliac or whatever label springs into your defensive little mind. Your sticks and stones will not harm us, GoodDoc. Please try and be a little less arrogant and channel your anger more creatively in future. Above all please refrain from confusing the medium with the message. Goodbye, GoodDoc, and thank you for sharing with us. Ebor Eco-Rider, riding on … Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

1:57pm Mon 4 Jul 11

John Cossham says...

GoodDoc, how rude, arrogant and stupid are you?
.
I read all your posts, carefully, sometimes twice. You rudely say you can't be bothered to read through replies.
.
I am particularly annoyed at your arrogance, calling me a liar. This is absolutely unacceptable. I have told you, candidly and honestly, about my motives for going on this environmental protest. If you doubt my environmental and social integrity, Google me. You will see evidence of 2 decades of hard work trying to raise awareness of sustainability, reducing poverty, increasing equality, good honest social and environmental justice work. You write me off as a exhibitionist pervert.
.
I have been quite fair to you, if you chose to read my posts, as I have agreed with some of what you say, and have been very balanced. This is part of my nature, to want to see the best about people. The other part of my Aspergers is that I take people at face value. You wrote 'God Bless'. This indicates that you have some degree of belief in God. A non-believer would NEVER use a phrase like that and as an agnostic, I never use terminology which is utterly meaningless to me. So you're now trying to slither out of your religious belief (however mildly held), and this belief does indeed does give objective readers an insight into how your mind works.
.
I would like to find common ground with you. I would like to believe that you are a good person, but I'm afraid the more you continue with your assumptions and willful misunderstandings, and trying to wriggle out of things, the more I dislike you. And I really don't like disliking anyone... after all, in my world view, we are all equal.
.
I utterly despair with your attitude. You fail to provide evidence to back up that the chance viewing of a WNBR protest harms people. You ignore many valid points raised by myself and Ebor. I just wonder where your bigoted approach is coming from? Your blinkers and one-track mind are really difficult to understand, but that's my problem as people like you aren't very numerous in society, thank goodness, and I've not met any... or many, in order to try to understand that attitude.
.
I'm glad that the large ring of friends I have around me are more accepting of diversity... and that includes, by the way, quite a substantial number of faith-driven people. Their way of 'doing religion', however, means they do not judge me, they believe that judging is not up to them. I suggest you take a leaf out of their book and 'live and let live'. And yes, use your nouse and when next June comes around, make sure you either just avoid the ride route, or organise your own demo, legally, of course, as you too have a right to express your views, as do we, even if those views don't chime with some others, or if a few find it offensive. That is the mark of a free society.
GoodDoc, how rude, arrogant and stupid are you? . I read all your posts, carefully, sometimes twice. You rudely say you can't be bothered to read through replies. . I am particularly annoyed at your arrogance, calling me a liar. This is absolutely unacceptable. I have told you, candidly and honestly, about my motives for going on this environmental protest. If you doubt my environmental and social integrity, Google me. You will see evidence of 2 decades of hard work trying to raise awareness of sustainability, reducing poverty, increasing equality, good honest social and environmental justice work. You write me off as a exhibitionist pervert. . I have been quite fair to you, if you chose to read my posts, as I have agreed with some of what you say, and have been very balanced. This is part of my nature, to want to see the best about people. The other part of my Aspergers is that I take people at face value. You wrote 'God Bless'. This indicates that you have some degree of belief in God. A non-believer would NEVER use a phrase like that and as an agnostic, I never use terminology which is utterly meaningless to me. So you're now trying to slither out of your religious belief (however mildly held), and this belief does indeed does give objective readers an insight into how your mind works. . I would like to find common ground with you. I would like to believe that you are a good person, but I'm afraid the more you continue with your assumptions and willful misunderstandings, and trying to wriggle out of things, the more I dislike you. And I really don't like disliking anyone... after all, in my world view, we are all equal. . I utterly despair with your attitude. You fail to provide evidence to back up that the chance viewing of a WNBR protest harms people. You ignore many valid points raised by myself and Ebor. I just wonder where your bigoted approach is coming from? Your blinkers and one-track mind are really difficult to understand, but that's my problem as people like you aren't very numerous in society, thank goodness, and I've not met any... or many, in order to try to understand that attitude. . I'm glad that the large ring of friends I have around me are more accepting of diversity... and that includes, by the way, quite a substantial number of faith-driven people. Their way of 'doing religion', however, means they do not judge me, they believe that judging is not up to them. I suggest you take a leaf out of their book and 'live and let live'. And yes, use your nouse and when next June comes around, make sure you either just avoid the ride route, or organise your own demo, legally, of course, as you too have a right to express your views, as do we, even if those views don't chime with some others, or if a few find it offensive. That is the mark of a free society. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Mon 4 Jul 11

GoodDoc says...

Once again, not a chance. For people who supposedly digest my points, me saying I'm not going to give your more airtime for your penchants obviously didn't sink in. You expect me to read your posts when your opening line is a stream of abuse! What a charmer you are, Mr Pillar of the Community. Go preach to naturist friends. Go and lecture about respect and freedom, while calling people stupid idiots, generalising about religious beliefs and refusing to compromise for the sake of others. Talk about bigots while not budging an inch for other people's views. Go for it, criticise those with faith too - I think that's pretty low, but I'm not religious so you're wide of the mark. But it's further evidence to the sort of guy you really are. How well-rounded. How liberal. A local hero, as you like to think. Any other views you refuse to take on board? You're a mass of contradiction.
.
Well I am lucky to be surrounded by well-balanced people who note that this kind of selfishness, bigotry, and yes, deviance, is not the norm. Once again, good luck to the real environmentalists out there, and respect to the naturists who don't dirty the cause of others but enjoy their penchant with respect to all.
.
And John 'Google-Me' Cosham, don't you f**king dare use Aspies as an excuse! That is TRULY appalling. My partner read that paragraph before me and gasped. That's the final nail in the coffin as regards the kind of person you are, and is unforgivable. Entirely inexcusable. As far as we're concerned, you've presented yourself on here as an attention-seeking, self-obsessed, excuse-making deviant who says one thing before proving the exact opposite. You fobbing it off on Aspergers is the last straw and does a HUGE disservice to those who genuinely live with the condition.. I advise you to research a little more into your own condition (self-diagnosed I suspect) before you start blaming your behaviours on an ASD. Utterly appalled by that John - if you knew my profession you'd understand why. To me, that's worse than the nudity. To be honest, I'm not sure you can sink much further so for the sake of us all, let's call it a day. And before you launch into another repetitive diatribe full of self-congratulation, hypocrisy and insult, please note that I won't be returning. We've seen your calibre today and I have no interest into giving you an audience.
Once again, not a chance. For people who supposedly digest my points, me saying I'm not going to give your more airtime for your penchants obviously didn't sink in. You expect me to read your posts when your opening line is a stream of abuse! What a charmer you are, Mr Pillar of the Community. Go preach to naturist friends. Go and lecture about respect and freedom, while calling people stupid idiots, generalising about religious beliefs and refusing to compromise for the sake of others. Talk about bigots while not budging an inch for other people's views. Go for it, criticise those with faith too - I think that's pretty low, but I'm not religious so you're wide of the mark. But it's further evidence to the sort of guy you really are. How well-rounded. How liberal. A local hero, as you like to think. Any other views you refuse to take on board? You're a mass of contradiction. . Well I am lucky to be surrounded by well-balanced people who note that this kind of selfishness, bigotry, and yes, deviance, is not the norm. Once again, good luck to the real environmentalists out there, and respect to the naturists who don't dirty the cause of others but enjoy their penchant with respect to all. . And John 'Google-Me' Cosham, don't you f**king dare use Aspies as an excuse! That is TRULY appalling. My partner read that paragraph before me and gasped. That's the final nail in the coffin as regards the kind of person you are, and is unforgivable. Entirely inexcusable. As far as we're concerned, you've presented yourself on here as an attention-seeking, self-obsessed, excuse-making deviant who says one thing before proving the exact opposite. You fobbing it off on Aspergers is the last straw and does a HUGE disservice to those who genuinely live with the condition.. I advise you to research a little more into your own condition (self-diagnosed I suspect) before you start blaming your behaviours on an ASD. Utterly appalled by that John - if you knew my profession you'd understand why. To me, that's worse than the nudity. To be honest, I'm not sure you can sink much further so for the sake of us all, let's call it a day. And before you launch into another repetitive diatribe full of self-congratulation, hypocrisy and insult, please note that I won't be returning. We've seen your calibre today and I have no interest into giving you an audience. GoodDoc
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Mon 4 Jul 11

John Cossham says...

If you wanted to hear what The Maudsley said about my ADHD and ASD then please contact me off this public forum, my email address is readily available. I will tell you all about my two days assessment and what it is that makes me rather unusual.
.

You probably don't understand the breadth of Aspergers Syndrome as I do. I did not self diagnose with that; it was quite a shock to be told what I was told from the UK's top experts of which I can tell you are not one. I have come to accept my condition, to use my many strengths and try and not let my deficits get me into trouble, or to let my trusting nature be abused by those who take advantage,.
.
Don't you dare get all uppity over your supposed understanding of what is an extremely broad spectrum of behaviours and traits. I would be much more comfortable if you'd said that everybody has some of the traits of AS, and you didn't believe it was 'real'. You do NOT know me and you have NO right to tell me what I do and don't have and what drives me forward with the struggle to get people to want to cut their carbon.
.
I'm beginning to think Ebor has your character right; I really wanted to try and find some common ground with you but I am appalled at you trying to use your supposed understanding of psychology to undiagnose me through a blinking newspaper comments thread!
.
Go away. Do what you do. Don't bother trying to con anybody that you are an environmental protester because I don't believe ANYTHING you say now, and I doubt anybody reading this will either. You should be ashamed of yourself, whatever profession you have, if any. I now feel you are quite nasty.
If you wanted to hear what The Maudsley said about my ADHD and ASD then please contact me off this public forum, my email address is readily available. I will tell you all about my two days assessment and what it is that makes me rather unusual. . You probably don't understand the breadth of Aspergers Syndrome as I do. I did not self diagnose with that; it was quite a shock to be told what I was told from the UK's top experts of which I can tell you are not one. I have come to accept my condition, to use my many strengths and try and not let my deficits get me into trouble, or to let my trusting nature be abused by those who take advantage,. . Don't you dare get all uppity over your supposed understanding of what is an extremely broad spectrum of behaviours and traits. I would be much more comfortable if you'd said that everybody has some of the traits of AS, and you didn't believe it was 'real'. You do NOT know me and you have NO right to tell me what I do and don't have and what drives me forward with the struggle to get people to want to cut their carbon. . I'm beginning to think Ebor has your character right; I really wanted to try and find some common ground with you but I am appalled at you trying to use your supposed understanding of psychology to undiagnose me through a blinking newspaper comments thread! . Go away. Do what you do. Don't bother trying to con anybody that you are an environmental protester because I don't believe ANYTHING you say now, and I doubt anybody reading this will either. You should be ashamed of yourself, whatever profession you have, if any. I now feel you are quite nasty. John Cossham
  • Score: 0

12:21am Tue 5 Jul 11

Ebor Eco-rider says...

I sometimes wonder what it was in GoodDoc's upbringing which means he always has to have the last word on everything. Positively anal, a pop pyschologist might say.

But one thing's for sure: if GoodDoc is the face of self-contented normality, then long live the deviants! Let us be proud of our differences and celebrate them. GoodDoc in his attacks merely makes us stronger and more united.

Thank you once more, GoodDoc, for your truly galvanising contribution to the cause!
I sometimes wonder what it was in GoodDoc's upbringing which means he always has to have the last word on everything. Positively anal, a pop pyschologist might say. But one thing's for sure: if GoodDoc is the face of self-contented normality, then long live the deviants! Let us be proud of our differences and celebrate them. GoodDoc in his attacks merely makes us stronger and more united. Thank you once more, GoodDoc, for your truly galvanising contribution to the cause! Ebor Eco-rider
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree