Two naturists convicted of sex offences against children
Richard Burnham
The following is taken from reports in the Shropshire Star, England,
mainly from the issues of 11 and 12 December, but also from
reports of the 8-week trial. Text in square brackets is personal
comment, as I knew the people concerned over a period of about two
or three years.
Former Shropshire scout leader and care worker David Stanley, aged 49,
of Telford, was jailed on 12 December 1997 for 18 years for
serious sexual offences against young boys. These offences occurred
in the 1970s. Stanley denied all the offences against the boys,
claiming that the victims, now aged between 30 and 38, were lying.
He admitted a charge of possessing indecent photographs
and computer images of children.
He was convicted by a jury at Worcester Crown Court of 16 of the 26
charges against him. In total, he received a 16-year sentence on the
most serious charges, with two concurrent sentences and a consecutive
sentence of two years for the pornography offence. On release, he will
be placed on the register of paedophiles and will have to report to
the police.
Judge Michael Mott described Stanley as "a predatory and aggressive
paedophile". Detectives involved in the case described Stanley as
pretentious, with an inflated view of himself. "He was always bombastic
and gave the impression of someone who always liked to be in charge",
said Detective Sergeant Eric Hanna.
Stanley was a member and treasurer of Telford Naturist Club, and his
family (he has a daughter born in 1980 and a son born in 1983) were
described as "reluctant" members of the club. Stanley is also described
in earlier editions of David Martin's "Naturist Guide to Great Britain"
as the organiser of the Shropshire and Borders Naturist Association, but
in the 1997 edition it simply states that Stanley has no further
connection with naturism. In the reports of the trial, I saw no
suggestion that naturism was involved in the offences, although
witnesses frequently referred to Stanley's encouraging them to go naked.
As well as the child pornography, detectives also discovered hundreds
of pictures of naked children taken while Stanley was a member of TNC.
These were not considered pornographic and were not the subject of any
charges.
In later years, Stanley was a financial adviser, then became a
salesman with an Internet service provider and finally a self-employed
"Internet adviser". He traded pictures of young boys in sexual poses
on the Internet, using the code name "Sun Boy". [Stanley at one time had
a Demon domain, sunboy.demon.co.uk, and IIRC posted to both rec.nude
and uk.rec.naturist from there.]
In 1995 the former head of a children's home, John Allen, was convicted
of offences against children. Unresolved complaints led to Stanley,
who had been a care worker at the home for three years, and to James
Caskin, then the manager of the swimming pool at Tenbury Wells. Both
men were arrested in November 1996. Caskin, 46, was later jailed for a
year for indecently assaulting young boys. Charges relating to Stanley
were ordered to lie on the file at his trial.
[I met both men during the time that my then partner and I used to
attend the Sunday evening naturist swim at the Tenbury pool. Caskin
used to act as lifeguard at the swim. He resigned, ostensibly on
account of ill-health, and the new management refused to allow the
swim to continue. I was unaware of his conviction until I read the
report of Stanley's conviction. I wonder now if the management had
already had some idea of these events and stopped the swims for this
reason. I had no idea of this, but had been informed that they had a
general objection to naturism.]
[Stanley usually came to the swim bringing his own children and often
those of some other members of TNC. I did not notice anything in
particular about his behaviour except that he often took photographs
of the children in his care.]
[I do not believe that naturism is especially vulnerable to these people
- Stanley gained access to his victims by gaining responsible positions
in the local authority's care service, and was also a governor of two
schools - but I believe that the case illustrates that vigilance is
always needed. The time I spent at the Tenbury swim was very
enjoyable, and it came as a shock to discover what had been done by
two of the organisers. It has certainly strengthened my resolve to
counter the arguments that a few people put forward in rec.nude, that
paederasty is an "alternative lifestyle" that must be tolerated by
naturists.]
Richard Burnham------------------------------------------
Important: to reply, replace "zz" with "uk".
Help others to be at ease with nudity!
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/burnham_r/co.htm
The way nudists/naturists live their lives and treat others IS the
education for non-nudists.
Xradio123
>It has certainly strengthened my resolve to
>counter the arguments that a few people put forward in rec.nude, that
>paederasty is an "alternative lifestyle" that must be tolerated by
>naturists.]
In that we agree completely. Animals like that are a threat to the very core of
civilization. I'll be the first to defend the rights of consenting >>adults<<
to do as they please in private but the children should be left alone. Crimes
like this are inexcusible and should meet with the maximum punishment allowed
by law.
X
Richard Burnham
At present almost everything in uk.rec.naturist is off-topic: they
include discussions of leaded fuel, the millennium and vicious
personal attacks.
Yet my post based on a news report about two men who undoubtedly
were naturists has already attracted two replies complaining that
it is off-topic. Anyone care to tell me why?
There are several good reasons why I posted this information to
naturists generally on the Internet:
1. David Stanley, in particular, was pretty well-known to the
naturist community at large in the UK. He kept a high
profile. It is therefore a matter of general interest to know why
he was suddenly no longer involved in naturism.
2. Similarly, he must also have been known to other naturists on
the Internet, including any that dealt with him under the name of
Sun Boy.
3. There were legal issues of interest to UK naturists arising from
the trial. In particular, I noted that the Crown Prosecution Service
considered that the photographs that Stanley took of naturist
children were NOT pornographic and did not make any charges against
him in respect of these.
4. I am involved in CO activity, and the naturist swim that I attended
at Tenbury had a wonderful atmosphere, included children and was one
of the high points of my week. I think that the reaction of one of
the participants to discovering that two of the three organisers were
active paederasts is of potential interest to other naturists. As also
is the possibility that the naturist swim was actually cancelled on
account of their activities.
5. The possible reaction of the general public to this conviction, whether
it is justified or not, is of interest to naturists.
6. One of the associates of Luis Cortes, called Raimund Wild, is
actively promoting the idea in rec.nude that paederasty is
acceptable. Some other posters are hinting at the same thing.
(I have not seen Luis complain that this is off-topic.)
7. The information is up-to-date, not recycled from past postings.
I actually wrote the article within 24 hours of having the press
reports in my hand.
In my report I was careful to state my own opinion that naturism is
not more susceptible to the activities of these people than any other
activity involving children, where vigilance is always required. However,
I have now been attacked for being "a little paranoid", and a claim made
that I think that "the naturist scene is infested by these parasites",
something I do not believe and have never said.
Luis Cortes also tries to associate me again with an anonymous poster,
and raises a totally irrelevant comparison with a parking fine he
received. (This says something about his sense of proportion.)
My article was not propaganda, but a factual report extracted from the
press with a clearly-marked personal reaction. I take great care with
my facts, which the people who attack me personally do not. I
believe that accurate information clearly presented is essential to
defending naturism/nudism against its detractors.
Now back to discussing shaved pubes. :)
f...@bardo.clearlight.com
On Fri, 26 Dec 97 01:21:09 GMT, Richard Burnham
<Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>Yet my post based on a news report about two men who undoubtedly
>were naturists has already attracted two replies complaining that
>it is off-topic. Anyone care to tell me why?
Because it is 'guilt by association' thread. But in all fairness to
you Richard, this time you are NOT off topic, rather on a vital topic.
Yet what you post below is a bit the usual crap like strongly biased
and misquoting of facts. With what I agree on I cut, no need to re
post what's good.
>3. There were legal issues of interest to UK naturists arising from
> the trial. In particular, I noted that the Crown Prosecution Service
> considered that the photographs that Stanley took of naturist
> children were NOT pornographic and did not make any charges against
> him in respect of these.
How loving of you to defend the person with underlining the NOT
pornographic. I do not recall SunnyP and TGB receiving such treatment.
The insinuations were tending to point rather in the other direction.
>6. One of the associates of Luis Cortes, called Raimund Wild, is
> actively promoting the idea in rec.nude that paederasty is
> acceptable. Some other posters are hinting at the same thing.
> (I have not seen Luis complain that this is off-topic.)
You are WRONG richard. I do NOT promote any of such in rec. nude. The
subject and TOPIC is presented on my web page. I have never made a
statement condoning it nor opposing it- I allow it to be debated. Any
reference to the topic was never posted by me to rec.nude, but was
excerpted and made to look like my quotes from my web page by the anon
bastard. Picking up on this thread and calling me a promoter of said
topic, tells me again, that you DO BELIEVE what the anon posts.
This is where we again see your warped mind at work. When I call for
the witch hunt to end, I mean exactly those "sudden remembering" of
events decades after they allegedly have occurred, without any shred
of evidence other than a "he said- she said" argument. This is to be
considered as a true threat to anyone including you, richard.
Even YOU can face the same charges if SOMEONE suddenly "remembers".
Rai.
Web: <http://www2.clearlight.com/~fio>
Mail: <f...@bardo.clearlight.com
ZDBop
The People of rec.nude v. Richard Burnham, fio, et al
#1 Complaining in rec. nude about whether something is on topic or not in
rec.naturist.uk is definitely off topic in rec.nude.
#2 Crossposting to rec.nude is not okay
#3 Crossposting flamewars should be a capital offense.
#4 If you people do not take your grievances to email and leave us the hell
alone, you are all more than what you accuse each other of being.
You have been found guilty of being assholes!
Stop infecting every thread on rec.nude with your garbage. No one is going to
win this one, but everyone is losing, including those of us who are completely
innocent bystanders. We're trying to have a quiet dinner and you people are
wrecking our restaurant!
Go away or I assure you, you will find out what a flamewar truly is when you
see the crowds come over the hill brandishing torches.
Mike Hopkins
In a response to a posting by Richard Burnham, f...@bardo.clearlight.com
takes the following quotation out of its original context
>> the trial. In particular, I noted that the Crown Prosecution Service
>> considered that the photographs that Stanley took of naturist
>> children were NOT pornographic and did not make any charges against
>> him in respect of these.
>How loving of you to defend the person with underlining the NOT
>pornographic. I do not recall SunnyP and TGB receiving such treatment.
>The insinuations were tending to point rather in the other direction.
>
you may be excused for not realising that the Crown Prosecutor's choice
not to act over non-pornagraphic photographs of children is highly
relavant to any family in the UK (naturist or non-naturist).
Twenty years ago, our son (who was then about 7 yrs old) was given a
paddling pool by his grandparents and we were often happy to welcome his
friends to play in the garden. At that time neither my wife nor I were
practicing naturists, nevertheless at any one time you could expect that
at least half of the kids would be sensibly undressed for the occasion.
Our home 'photo albums contain a few happy reminders of those occasions.
Now things have changed, if I were to take similar 'photos of my
grandchildren playing in their garden, I would be well advised to choose
with care where I had the films processed. I would not wish for them to
be returned by a personal messenger in the shape of either a social
worker or a police constable.
--
Mike Hopkins
Julian Webb
In article <883099...@wiseword.demon.co.uk>, Richard Burnham
<Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> writes
>At present almost everything in uk.rec.naturist is off-topic: they
>include discussions of leaded fuel, the millennium and vicious
>personal attacks.
>
>were naturists has already attracted two replies complaining that
>it is off-topic. Anyone care to tell me why?
I think that the answer to that question lies in the identity of the
authors of those replies! Anyone who has read URN for any length of time
will already have decided what importance to place upon the views of
those particular individuals.
For myself, I consider Richard's posting to have been important,
informative and _very much_'on topic'. Given the current state of
affairs regarding pederasty and child abuse (i.e. near panic in some
quarters) we ignore any connection, however tenuous or incidental,
between naturism and paedophilia at our peril.
I have no doubt that a paedophile seeking access to other people's
children is much more likely to become involved in a youth organisation
than his local nudist club. The trouble is that the overwhelming public
perception of [say] the Scouting movement is one of "wholesomeness"
(horrible term!) whereas we naturists are already perceived by many as
being "a bit strange". Thus _any_ association between naturism and child
abuse is capable of having a dreadfully negative effect on the [slowly]
growing public acceptance of clothing-optional recreation.
This is not paranoia, this is entirely justifiable concern.
So, Richard, please ignore the pratings of your detractors - some of
whom seem to have their own agenda - and keep posting the good stuff!
--
Regards
Julian Webb (jules)
"would the last person to give up on uk.rec.naturist as a
serious forum for discussion please say goodbye to Tone
and sitch off the lights as they leave"
Bob Brenchley
On Fri, 26 Dec 97 01:21:09 GMT on this learned newsgroup Richard
Burnham <Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>At present almost everything in uk.rec.naturist is off-topic: they
>include discussions of leaded fuel, the millennium and vicious
>personal attacks.
None of those subjects (except the last) is,IMHO, off topic for this
newsgroup. These are topics about life and should be talked about.
>
>Yet my post based on a news report about two men who undoubtedly
>were naturists has already attracted two replies complaining that
>it is off-topic. Anyone care to tell me why?
No, I can't understand it either Richard. If _you_ felt that is was
news, and if _you_ felt that the news should have been passed on to
others on this group, then you were quite right to make you posting -
and as far as I'm concerned you should not have to justify why you
posted it.
[snip]
hth.
--
Bob.
Peter Hunt
In article <AEqHtIAj...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk>, Mike Hopkins
<mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk> writes
>In a response to a posting by Richard Burnham, f...@bardo.clearlight.com
>takes the following quotation out of its original context
>>>3. There were legal issues of interest to UK naturists arising from
>I presume from your email address that you are not a UK resident. If
so,
>you may be excused for not realising that the Crown Prosecutor's choice
>not to act over non-pornagraphic photographs of children is highly
>relavant to any family in the UK (naturist or non-naturist).
>
>Twenty years ago, our son (who was then about 7 yrs old) was given a
>paddling pool by his grandparents and we were often happy to welcome his
>friends to play in the garden. At that time neither my wife nor I were
>practicing naturists, nevertheless at any one time you could expect that
>at least half of the kids would be sensibly undressed for the occasion.
>Our home 'photo albums contain a few happy reminders of those occasions.
>Now things have changed, if I were to take similar 'photos of my
>grandchildren playing in their garden, I would be well advised to choose
>with care where I had the films processed. I would not wish for them to
>be returned by a personal messenger in the shape of either a social
>worker or a police constable.
>
-Some cogent points, Mike, which will be echoed by many..but does not your last
line move towards submission to the fear principle we ought to be working so
hard to challenge? Scenario: s/w or P.C, parents, kids, photo albums, a nice cup
of tea, a firm but relaxed atmosphere, and "Right, Mr./Mrs./Ms./Officer..what
exactly is the problem?...." and perhaps "Now who exactly has suggested that you
call round..?" Relevant indeed. Cheers.-
Peter Hunt
Richard Burnham
In article <19971226131...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
zd...@aol.com "ZDBop" writes:
> The People of rec.nude v. Richard Burnham, fio, et al
I plead "not guilty". I try to raise important issues here, and I get
flamed for it.
Oh, I forgot. You're a club nudist, so the worst that bothers you is
swingers asking if you want to party. The voyeurs and exhibitionists
can be thrown out, out of sight. They can come to the beach instead.
So I shall make a new proposal:
NO-ONE should be allowed to join nudist clubs, not even couples
and families. That way all nudists/naturists will be forced to
fight the battle for wholesome public CO facilities. CO
recreation eventually will be much more widely available and
much more widely accepted by the public.
It will also solve the problem of discrimination against single
males :)
Sorry to spoil your dinner with real issues. Now back to our regular
discussion of pubic shaving.
Richard Burnham
In article <34a51121...@news.videotron.ca>
f...@bardo.clearlight.com writes:
> How loving of you to defend the person with underlining the NOT
> pornographic. I do not recall SunnyP and TGB receiving such treatment.
> The insinuations were tending to point rather in the other direction.
I'm not defending anyone, merely reporting a fact. I was not at
the trial, so I won't comment on the correctness of the conviction.
AFAIAW, there was no suggestion in this case that the naturist pictures
of children were being published. If there had been any offence, then
it would probably have been one only of possession.
In the case of SunnyP and Peter Riden, the videos are being
published, and the the newsgroups in which
they were marketed make it clear that these videos of naturist children
are deliberately being sold as masturbatory material for paederasts and
voyeurs. (That does not preclude their being sold for more
acceptable purposes as well.)
I would not expect a person to be prosecuted for possessing pictures
taken at a nudist club, but I think the law, prosecution and jury, on
either side of the Atlantic, would take a different view of the same
pictures being sold in a sex shop.
Mike Hopkins
In article <$s47PEA8...@chasseur.demon.co.uk>, Peter Hunt
<chas...@chasseur.demon.co.uk> writes
>-Some cogent points, Mike, which will be echoed by many..but does not your last
>line move towards submission to the fear principle we ought to be working so
>hard to challenge? Scenario: s/w or P.C, parents, kids, photo albums, a nice cup
>of tea, a firm but relaxed atmosphere, and "Right, Mr./Mrs./Ms./Officer..what
>exactly is the problem?...." and perhaps "Now who exactly has suggested that you
>call round..?" Relevant indeed. Cheers.-
>Peter Hunt
such circumstances. I hope that the pendulum is already swinging back.
Judge Butler-Schloss showed some common sense in a recent case when she
dismissed the case of the woman who got into the same bath as her
daughter.
To some extent I was "flying a kite". However, I must admit that I was
not expecting the extent to which a posting from California seemed to
expose a hidden agenda.
Anyway, thanks for the support.
--
Mike Hopkins
Chris Mellor
>include discussions of leaded fuel, the millennium and vicious
>personal attacks.
>
>were naturists has already attracted two replies complaining that
>it is off-topic. Anyone care to tell me why?
>
to read it.
Chris
Chris Mellor
Where is the nearest UK Porsche specialist? Have a look at www.pentire.com.
Richard Kenner
In article <883244...@wiseword.demon.co.uk> Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.zz writes:
>I would not expect a person to be prosecuted for possessing pictures
>taken at a nudist club, but I think the law, prosecution and jury, on
>either side of the Atlantic, would take a different view of the same
>pictures being sold in a sex shop.
Though I normally agree with nearly everything you say, you are wrong here
at least as the law on this side of the pond is written. Here, whether
something is obscene or not is a function only of the material and the
"community standards" of where it was located. Whether it was in a sex
shop or not would not affect its legality, at least not in the sense you
mean (it might be *less* likely to be illegal in a sex shop, while you
seemed to imply it would be *more* likely to be illegal).
Teddynj97
f...@bardo.clearlight.com wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Dec 97 01:21:09 GMT, Richard Burnham
> <Gymno...@wiseword.demon.co.zz> wrote:
>
trying to do. I have read you fio pages and I agree that you are giving
others forum and neither agreeing or disagreeing. But others here just
like to see what they want to on your page totally missing the facts.
Keep up the good work
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL
Teddy
Alan J Holmes
In article <Ro9DWBA4...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk>,
Mike Hopkins <mi...@ada-augusta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <$s47PEA8...@chasseur.demon.co.uk>, Peter Hunt
><chas...@chasseur.demon.co.uk> writes
>>-Some cogent points, Mike, which will be echoed by many..but does not your last
>>line move towards submission to the fear principle we ought to be working so
>>hard to challenge? Scenario: s/w or P.C, parents, kids, photo albums, a nice cup
>>of tea, a firm but relaxed atmosphere, and "Right, Mr./Mrs./Ms./Officer..what
>>exactly is the problem?...." and perhaps "Now who exactly has suggested that you
>>call round..?" Relevant indeed. Cheers.-
>You are quite right of course and that is exactly what one should do in
>such circumstances. I hope that the pendulum is already swinging back.
>Judge Butler-Schloss showed some common sense in a recent case when she
>dismissed the case of the woman who got into the same bath as her
>daughter.
I used to get in the bath with my small daughter, aren't I the
pervert?
>To some extent I was "flying a kite". However, I must admit that I was
>not expecting the extent to which a posting from California seemed to
>expose a hidden agenda.
>Anyway, thanks for the support.
--
Alan G4CRW, Ex FAA, RNARS and others! What an exciting life I lead!(:-)
al...@rev.net
xrad...@aol.com (Xradio123) wrote:
>In that we agree completely. Animals like that are a threat to the very core of
>civilization.
No. Civilization is a threat to animals.
Peter Riden
--
In Friendship & Universality
Peter Riden
*****************************************************************
THE GRAND BARN Home of THE WORLDWIDE AFFILIATE NETWORK
and its publication THE AFFILIATE
777-Net Barb Road
Vankleek Hill,ON
K0B 1R0
CANADA
Website: http://www.the-grand-barn.com
e-mail: Affi...@the-grand-barn.com
*****************************************************************