Yahoo group - classic naturist photos
Duncan Heenan
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClassicNudism/
It collects classic naturist photographs, mostly from the 1950's-1970's, but
some earlier. As with all yahoo groups it is free to join, but you do need a
yahoo ID to start with.
--
Duncan Heenan
(Speaking personally)
D. Kirkpatrick
"Duncan Heenan" <duncan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
If anyone posts images with minors Yahoo will close the group and
delete the user accounts of any and all owners and moderators.
That is there policy, regardless of any images that may otherwise me
clearly associated with social nudism.
Just an FYI.
Wanderer
> In article <486c9492$...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>,
> "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I have come across an interesting group (if you like that sort of thing):
>
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClassicNudism/
>
> > It collects classic naturist photographs, mostly from the 1950's-1970's, but
> > some earlier. As with all yahoo groups it is free to join, but you do need a
> > yahoo ID to start with.
> > --
> > Duncan Heenan
> > (Speaking personally)
>
> If anyone posts images with minors Yahoo will close the group and
> delete the user accounts of any and all owners and moderators.
>
> That is there policy, regardless of any images that may otherwise me
> clearly associated with social nudism.
>
> Just an FYI.
That seems rather heavy handed of them.
D. Kirkpatrick
<562031ab-4bc8-4bf8...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Wanderer <Nudist....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That seems rather heavy handed of them.
Yes, but it is their policy after some negative publicity and various
public attacks by socio-religious groups here.
I am aware of at least 2 nudist groups whose yahoo presence was
deleted and accounts cancelled as a result of their policy.
Astracea
"Duncan Heenan" <duncan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:486c9492$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Its interesting that on nudist beaches around the world no-one pays much
attention to families, mums, dads and children naked on a beach but as soon
as you try to show that activity in photos you get into all sorts of
trouble. In a conversation at work one young mum said she was careful these
days not to take pictures of her children in the bath or in the garden naked
as some developers would not process the photos and the whole thing was too
embarrassing when it came to arguing in the store.
Cerumen
"Astracea" <astrac...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:g4kmk6$vqi$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Duncan Heenan" <duncan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:486c9492$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>I have come across an interesting group (if you like that sort of thing):
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClassicNudism/
>>
>> It collects classic naturist photographs, mostly from the 1950's-1970's,
>> but some earlier. As with all yahoo groups it is free to join, but you do
>> need a yahoo ID to start with.
>> --
>> Duncan Heenan
>> (Speaking personally)
>
> Its interesting that on nudist beaches around the world no-one pays much
> attention to families, mums, dads and children naked on a beach but as
> soon as you try to show that activity in photos you get into all sorts of
> trouble.
and nobody seemed to think it was unsuitable.
--
Chris
Ignoti nulla cupido.
D. Kirkpatrick
"Cerumen" <cerume...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I recently saw naked children of about 3 years on a non nudist beach in UK
> and nobody seemed to think it was unsuitable.
>
Creative word smithing? ;-)
Yes, it seems as if there is a thrust to shroud the existince of the
human body in deference to the polyester coverings.
Much ado.
DMK
Neosapienis
Following Dennis' warnings, I should also like to point out that Yahell!
even deleted *my* nudist groups which did not have any photos of minors in
them at all.
I think that if you want to show photos of naked children in a free group,
the only other site I can suggest is Flickr.
Dario Western
"D. Kirkpatrick" <sun...@sunclad.com> wrote in message
news:sunclad-C750F5...@news.albasani.net...
Alex
children they are despicable.
Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
old enough to realise what may happen?
Would they be aware of the perverted minds out there on the net who
seek to look at naked children?
That takes voyeurism to a whole new level.
By all means post pictures of ourselves (let's face it there is an
element of exhibitionism in putting pics on the net though, together
with voyeurism of actively looking at naturist photos too) - but
please ...... leave the kids out of it.
Let's not feed the habits of the sick and perverted.
As for children on a nudist (or textile beach) they are normally there
under the supervision of their parents or guardians - not at all the
same as posting photos for all and sundry to perve over.
David Looser
news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
> old enough to realise what may happen?
As a matter of interest what do you think "might happen"?
FWIW I don't think that it is acceptable to post pictures of other people,
child or adult, naked or not, without that other person's freely given
informed consent (which a young child doesn't have the maturity to give).
But I do find the current concern that pictures of naked children are
particularly wrong because some "pervert" out there might get to see them,
to be overdone.
David.
Alex
> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
> > old enough to realise what may happen?
>
> As a matter of interest what do you think "might happen"?
Hi David
One only has to listen to the news when the houses of paedophiles have
been raided to know that they download photos of naked children for
their own warped reasons.
>
> FWIW I don't think that it is acceptable to post pictures of other people,
> child or adult, naked or not, without that other person's freely given
> informed consent (which a young child doesn't have the maturity to give).
We are in total agreement there
> But I do find the current concern that pictures of naked children are
> particularly wrong because some "pervert" out there might get to see them,
> to be overdone.
As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
'overdone'. Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
paedophile?
Duncan Heenan
"Alex" <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
What an OTT reaction! I know lots of people (mostly women) who carry around
pictures of their children or grandchildren to show off proudly to anyone
who will look. So what if those children are naked? What is wrong with being
naked?
It is the evil in the minds of the perverts one needs to be carful of, not
the innocent enjoyment of life by those with no evil intent. I hope we never
get to the point of banning everything just in case some nut case uses it
wrongly. Anyway, how can having some weirdo just looking at a photo actually
harm the subject of the photo?
Alex
> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
So....... not being able to view pictures of naked children would
spoil one's 'enjoyment of life'. How so?
I'm sorry Duncan - one can be a nudist but still be concerned that the
photographic representation of this lifestyle can be misused.
Especially when it concerns children.
Unless the subjects of these photos have been fully informed AND
understand who may view AND possibly misuse the photos AND given then
their consent, we do not have the right to make them publicly
available.
A child does not have that level of understanding.
Do you have children Duncan?
If so, would you be happy for a naked photo of them to turn up in a
police station after being retrieved from a paedophile's house?
Because once posted on the net - there is always that possibility.
Marc
> Do you have children Duncan?
> If so, would you be happy for a naked photo of them to turn up in a
> police station after being retrieved from a paedophile's house?
> Because once posted on the net - there is always that possibility.
Yes, because it means a criminal had been apprehended.
Jerry
"Alex" <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Speaking personally - if anyone publicly displays photos of naked
> children they are despicable.
> Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
> old enough to realise what may happen?
> Would they be aware of the perverted minds out there on the net who
> seek to look at naked children?
> That takes voyeurism to a whole new level.
Best not let them out of their house then, well you never know who
might see them in the street and god forbid that someone should take a
child to a naturist club/beach and allow the child to go naked...
>
> By all means post pictures of ourselves (let's face it there is an
> element of exhibitionism in putting pics on the net though, together
> with voyeurism of actively looking at naturist photos too) - but
> please ...... leave the kids out of it.
> Let's not feed the habits of the sick and perverted.
So you believe that there should not be *any* images of children, yes?
That is what you are implying because some of the 'sick and perverted'
can get their kicks from *any* images of a child apparently [1] - just
as many adults will fantasise over a clothed image of a adult...
[1] one of the reasons that some mail order catalogues have, AIUI (I
don't use them), stopped using photos of children modelling their
underwear and other 'tight fitting' clothing.
>
> As for children on a nudist (or textile beach) they are normally
> there
> under the supervision of their parents or guardians - not at all the
> same as posting photos for all and sundry to perve over.
Quite correct, very few perverts would dare (these days) to take
photos of children but does that stop them 'observing' and then - once
safe at home - fantasising later?...
David Looser
On 5 Jul, 10:30, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
>> > old enough to realise what may happen?
>
>> As a matter of interest what do you think "might happen"?
> Hi David
> One only has to listen to the news when the houses of paedophiles have
> been raided to know that they download photos of naked children for
> their own warped reasons.
OK, now I know what you were getting at.
>
>> FWIW I don't think that it is acceptable to post pictures of other
>> people,
>> child or adult, naked or not, without that other person's freely given
>> informed consent (which a young child doesn't have the maturity to give).
> We are in total agreement there
>> But I do find the current concern that pictures of naked children are
>> particularly wrong because some "pervert" out there might get to see
>> them,
>> to be overdone.
> As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
> might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
> 'overdone'. Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
> the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
> paedophile?
Well I'm speaking personally as well, and in my view the concern not only
can be overdone, but is being overdone.
Speaking as a parent (though my children are now grown up) I'm not really
sure that my being "comfortable" with the idea of that a picture of either
of my children might turn up on the PC of a paedophile is an important
consideration. How is a child harmed by an unknown paedophile seeing their
image?
IMO the whole paranoia about "kiddie porn" has taken away attention from the
thing that actually matters, protecting children from abuse.
David.
David Looser
> As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
> might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
> 'overdone'. Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
> the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
> paedophile?
Some people say that children should never be taken to naturist venues
because there might be paedophiles amongst the other people present. Do you
agree with this position?, or do you think it OK for a paedophile to see the
child with his own eyes, but not see a photo of the child?
David.
Alex
Alex
> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
Hi David
I am a member of a naturist club - and yes there are children then.
Cameras are not allowed and all members are vetted before joining.
It does not mean it is impossible to stop someone with other agenda
joining - but it is more likely.
All I have said in this thread is about being personally against
posting photos of children on the net - because once on there it's use
and misuse cannot be controlled. Also it is done without their
informed agreement.
I have said my piece on this, so I wish you all a good day - the sun
has just popped his head through the clouds so I am off up to the
club.
Alex
If anyone wants to discuss this further please drop me an email.
Marc
> On 5 Jul, 11:45, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:28704f2d-e488-4edf...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
>>> might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
>>> 'overdone'. Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
>>> the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
>>> paedophile?
>> Some people say that children should never be taken to naturist venues
>> because there might be paedophiles amongst the other people present. Do you
>> agree with this position?, or do you think it OK for a paedophile to see the
>> child with his own eyes, but not see a photo of the child?
>>
>> David.
>
> Hi David
> I am a member of a naturist club - and yes there are children then.
> Cameras are not allowed and all members are vetted before joining.
ROFL! Vetted by who?
> It does not mean it is impossible to stop someone with other agenda
> joining - but it is more likely.
No it's not, you're building a false sense of security for yourself.
Jerry
<snip>
> If so, would you be happy for a naked photo
> of them to turn up in a police station after being
> retrieved from a paedophile's house? Because once
> posted on the net - there is always that possibility.
Yes, but even if that happens, how has that damaged the child [1],
what you are suggesting is that no image of a child should be on the
net (and probably no images at all should be taken as one can never be
totally certain that 'prints' won't go astray or be seen by someone
else) as ANY image *could* be used for purposes that might damage the
child - anything from school bullying to being a wank aid to a
pervert.
[1] other than the child picking up on the ranting of an ignorant
parent about how much their child has been 'violated'...
Alex
> On 5 Jul, 11:45, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>Some people say that children should never be taken to naturist venues
>because there might be paedophiles amongst the other people present. Do you
>agree with this position?, or do you think it OK for a paedophile to see the
>child with his own eyes, but not see a photo of the child?
I just reread that - I think you are twisting what I have said.
My comments were specifically related to the posting of photos.
No one would think it would be OK!!!
Personally paedophilia is a good case for the return of capital
punishment (waits for the torrent of abuse about that now.... <rolls
eyes> )
Right - I'm definitely off for a swim down at the club now.
Bye all
Cerumen
"David Looser" <david....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:6d8t9iF...@mid.individual.net...
--
Chris
Ignoti nulla cupido
Marc
Jerry
<snip>
> Personally paedophilia is a good case for the return of capital
> punishment (waits for the torrent of abuse about that now....
> <rolls
> eyes> )
Tell that to people like Stephen Downing or the relatives of Stefan
Kiszko...
Duncan Heenan
Alex
----------------------
I have never advocated the 'posting photos of children on the net'. It is
you who has said that, unjustifiably.
Duncan Heenan
-------------------------------------------------------------
We impose all sorts of things on children without their consent, such as
sending them to school, getting their teeth checked, making them eat their
greens, taking them on holiday, sending them to bed at the right time.
Juvenile consent is not the issue, parental judgment is.
Of course photographs can be misused. So can anything. A cricket bat can
also be used as a murder weapon; so are you going to ban cricket? I was
calling for a sense of proportion and 'common sense' in life in general.
Marc
> "Alex" <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bfd1b726-af24-4c8c...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 5 Jul, 11:11, "Duncan Heenan" <duncanhee...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4fa0443d-ad01-4723...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
> photographic representation of this lifestyle can be misused.
> Especially when it concerns children.
> Unless the subjects of these photos have been fully informed AND
> understand who may view AND possibly misuse the photos AND given then
> their consent, we do not have the right to make them publicly
> available.
> A child does not have that level of understanding.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> We impose all sorts of things on children without their consent, such as
> sending them to school, getting their teeth checked, making them eat
> their greens, taking them on holiday, sending them to bed at the right
> time. Juvenile consent is not the issue, parental judgment is.
> Of course photographs can be misused. So can anything. A cricket bat can
> also be used as a murder weapon; so are you going to ban cricket? I was
> calling for a sense of proportion and 'common sense' in life in general.
There is no such thing as proportion and common sense when the general
public start "thinking" about child protection. The vast majority of
abused children are abused within their home (NSPCC Keeping children
safe), within that majority the vast majority are abused by a parent or
parent's partner. That leaves a tiny minority that are abused by somone
outside the family, the majoeity of those are abused by a close friend
of the family or by a member of the wider family. The proportion of
children who are abused sexually or otherwise by adults outside of those
groups is so low that it's wayyy below the risk of a child being
involved in a car accident with its parents. I'm sure that "common
sense" would tell Alex that it's stupid to worry about a child being
carried in a car, but I may be wrong.
It would probably horrify Alex to hear that the majority of children who
are abused at home( and known about) are still in those homes, being
monitored by Social Services, as the professional core meeting of
police,social workers, doctors etc... will have decided that the
child's interests are better served there than being removed into the
foster/care system.
Taking all the above into account ( not all of it directly relevant, but
background information) is the thought of anonymous photographs in
unknown hands really so terrible?
Neosapienis
First of all, I am in favour of children being represented on naturist
websites with their parents. They are the future - do we really want our
future generations to grow up to learn body shame and hatred like these
generations have got now?
Secondly, more harm is done to children with witnessing the reactions some
adults take to paedophiles (e.g. mum screaming and crying and the father
threatening to kill the man or woman responsible for it). It seems that
adults can't even act or think like adults in these situations and this is
what is more disturbing to children than the fact that someone touched them
without their permission.
Thirdly, paedophilia has been around since the dawn of time. It is nothing
new, it's just becoming more widely reported over the last 20 or so years.
The death penalty is too good for scumbags like them - what should be done
for them is castrate the kiddiefuckers and then use them for drug and
cosmetic testing instead of poor, innocent defenceless animals.
Dario Western
"Alex" <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:be9af757-5d9b-4559...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Looser
news:DPLbk.17393$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hi Alex,
>
> First of all, I am in favour of children being represented on naturist
> websites with their parents.
Yes, *in context*. Pictures which show a naturist venue or facilities with a
few naturists (who, if recognisable, have given their consent) using those
facilities is fine. Web-sites that have galleries full of hundreds of
pictures of naked people, with no indication as to where those pictures were
taken are *not* fine IMO.
> They are the future - do we really want our future generations to grow up
> to learn body shame and hatred like these generations have got now?
Indeed. Though I fail to see how having their pictures on websites
contributes to that.
>
>
> Thirdly, paedophilia has been around since the dawn of time. It is
> nothing new, it's just becoming more widely reported over the last 20 or
> so years.
Indeed.
> The death penalty is too good for scumbags like them - what should be done
> for them is castrate the kiddiefuckers and then use them for drug and
> cosmetic testing instead of poor, innocent defenceless animals.
>
You are getting confused; child abusers are not necessarily paedophiles, and
paedophiles are not necessarily child abusers. As for your 18th C attitude
to punishment, it didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now.
David.
Jerry
"Neosapienis" <dariow...@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
news:DPLbk.17393$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Secondly, more harm is done to children with witnessing the
> reactions some adults take to paedophiles (e.g. mum screaming and
> crying and the father threatening to kill the man or woman
> responsible for it). It seems that adults can't even act or think
> like adults in these situations and this is what is more disturbing
> to children than the fact that someone touched them without their
> permission.
So how do you square that with what you say below, other than proving
that you are one of those adults who might well cause more damage than
the original assault on the child...
>
> Thirdly, paedophilia has been around since the dawn of time. It is
> nothing new, it's just becoming more widely reported over the last
> 20 or so years. The death penalty is too good for scumbags like
> them - what should be done for them is castrate the kiddiefuckers
> and then use them for drug and cosmetic testing instead of poor,
> innocent defenceless animals.
>
As I said before; Tell that to people like Stephen Downing or the
relatives of Stefan Kiszko. In fact, tell that to a child who, in 12
months time, wonders if (s)he actually identified the correct
person...
Jerry
> "Neosapienis" <dariow...@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:DPLbk.17393$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> They are the future - do we really want our future generations to
>> grow up to learn body shame and hatred like these generations have
>> got now?
>
> Indeed. Though I fail to see how having their pictures on websites
> contributes to that.
Because the internet is were many (if not most) people go for
information these days, how do you expect people to get information if
it's not made available?!
Marc
> "Neosapienis" <dariow...@nospambigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:DPLbk.17393$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> <snip>
>> Secondly, more harm is done to children with witnessing the
>> reactions some adults take to paedophiles (e.g. mum screaming and
>> crying and the father threatening to kill the man or woman
>> responsible for it). It seems that adults can't even act or think
>> like adults in these situations and this is what is more disturbing
>> to children than the fact that someone touched them without their
>> permission.
>
> So how do you square that with what you say below, other than proving
> that you are one of those adults who might well cause more damage than
> the original assault on the child...
>
>> Thirdly, paedophilia has been around since the dawn of time. It is
>> nothing new, it's just becoming more widely reported over the last
>> 20 or so years. The death penalty is too good for scumbags like
>> them - what should be done for them is castrate the kiddiefuckers
>> and then use them for drug and cosmetic testing instead of poor,
>> innocent defenceless animals.
>>
>
> As I said before; Tell that to people like Stephen Downing
Not a paedophile...
Suzanne Piper
> "Astracea" <astrac...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:g4kmk6$vqi$1...@aioe.org...
>> "Duncan Heenan" <duncan...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:486c9492$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>> I have come across an interesting group (if you like that sort of thing):
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClassicNudism/
>>>
>>> It collects classic naturist photographs, mostly from the 1950's-1970's,
>>> but some earlier. As with all yahoo groups it is free to join, but you do
>>> need a yahoo ID to start with.
>>> --
>>> Duncan Heenan
>>> (Speaking personally)
>> attention to families, mums, dads and children naked on a beach but as
>> soon as you try to show that activity in photos you get into all sorts of
>> trouble.
> I recently saw naked children of about 3 years on a non nudist beach in UK
> and nobody seemed to think it was unsuitable.
>
>
Perhaps putting this into context would be better. There is a high
level of paranoia today and especially amongst naturists that
paedophiles are lurking round every corner and they are that ubiquitous
single man.
One of the most commonly found film when a suspected paedophile is
raised is the film Kes. This is a classic film and yet many paedophiles
will have it in their library.
Most child abuse occurs in the home - a member of the family or a
person who has become a close friend of the family. These, the vast
majority of cases - more than 90% - rarely make the newspapers. It is
the high profile cases that do reach the papers and yet again it is
often someone in the family or close to the family that is involved.
Naturists are very aware of the problem but do tend to rely on 'vetting'
- how the heck can you really do that when governmental departments such
as schools and health services can't. There is too much reliance of CRB
checks - all that means is at the time of the check nothing came up at
the level of enquiry that was requested.
be very aware of children around you, whatever the environment, and if
you have any concerns for their welfare contact public protection or
social services. What you may have seen could turn out to be a piece of
the jigsaw that eventually comes together to rotect them and other children.
But most important keep this in perspective. Children need to have the
freedom to climb trees, enjoy learning about safe boundaries for themselves.
Jerry
"Suzanne Piper" <sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:486fb...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
<snip>
>
> One of the most commonly found film when a suspected paedophile is
> raised is the film Kes. This is a classic film and yet many
> paedophiles will have it in their library.
>
...and to put that into context, many people of a certain age
(especially male, due to the stories subject) may well now have that
film in their collection [1] simply because it was part of their
childhood, I must have first seen "Kes" in 1970 or '71 when it was
shown at my Junior schools 'film club', IIRC it also became one of the
set books in secondary schools (not sure if that was before the films
release or after though).
[1] either from buying one of the commercial releases or from an
'off-air' recording from it's many TV screenings.
Paul Lautman
> But most important keep this in perspective. Children need to have
> the freedom to climb trees,
If only! Our council has cut off all the lower branches of all the trees in
the parks in order to stop children climbing them.
I'm sure that in their younger days the people who ordered this and those
who executed it, climbed trees!
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On 5 Jul, 11:56, Alex <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 5 Jul, 11:45, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>Some people say that children should never be taken to naturist venues
>>because there might be paedophiles amongst the other people present. Do you
>>agree with this position?, or do you think it OK for a paedophile to see the
>>child with his own eyes, but not see a photo of the child?
>
>
>
>I just reread that - I think you are twisting what I have said.
>My comments were specifically related to the posting of photos.
>
>No one would think it would be OK!!!
You are wrong.
many people would think it perfectly OK.
What is wrong is if the paedophile takes any *action* over his
predilection.
I really can't understand why you think it should be "wrong"for one
particular type of person to see somebody who is naked in a public
situation.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A hangover: the wrath of grapes.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Astracea
"Suzanne Piper" <sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote in message
news:486fb...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> Perhaps putting this into context would be better. There is a high level
> of paranoia today and especially amongst naturists that paedophiles are
> lurking round every corner and they are that ubiquitous single man.
>
<Much snipped>
Hi
I agree entirely with Suzannes comments. We should protect children wherever
they are. It is sad that our society now seems to view any picture taken of
a child, naked or in a school play, as highly suspicious. We have become so
caught up in the problem of paedophilia that we seem to have (excuse the
pun) "thrown the baby out with the bath water".
I am told that taking pictures of children in school plays is now banned in
some schools in our region. The reason given by the head of my
grandchildrens school is that `other parents dont like strangers taking
pictures of their children`. This is fine but I suspect its untrue and most
parents want to take pictures. Its the authorities that have the problem,
not the mums and dads and grand parents.
Sadly its the `authorities` who always appear to have a problem with nudity
on beaches and not the public, by and large, and how long before they
legislate against any naked children on any family naturist beach.
Marc
> "Suzanne Piper" <sp...@shabden.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:486fb...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
>
>> Perhaps putting this into context would be better. There is a high level
>> of paranoia today and especially amongst naturists that paedophiles are
>> lurking round every corner and they are that ubiquitous single man.
>>
> <Much snipped>
>
> Hi
>
> I agree entirely with Suzannes comments. We should protect children wherever
> they are. It is sad that our society now seems to view any picture taken of
> a child, naked or in a school play, as highly suspicious. We have become so
> caught up in the problem of paedophilia that we seem to have (excuse the
> pun) "thrown the baby out with the bath water".
>
> I am told that taking pictures of children in school plays is now banned in
> some schools in our region. The reason given by the head of my
> grandchildrens school is that `other parents dont like strangers taking
> pictures of their children`. This is fine but I suspect its untrue and most
> parents want to take pictures.
Youre right, most parents want to take pictures , because they know that
the pictures they take are for their own personal use. It's all them
other people the parents don't want taking pictures. If the school would
allow "just us who can be trusted" to take pictures and stop "everybody
else" then the problem would go away.
Its the authorities that have the problem,
> not the mums and dads and grand parents.
"mums and dads and grand parents" have problems with other "mums and
dads and grand parents"
I run a cub pack, and during the winter months I have to insist that
parents come and collect their children, in person from inside the
hall.Not for worry of child abduction, or the bogeyman loitering outside
but because I don't trust parents when driving no to reverse over
someone elses child; once their sprog is safely strapped down inside
it's 2 tonne metal shell all thought of "safety " goes out the window.
David Looser
news:HsadnXrjpOygO-3V...@bt.com...
> Astracea wrote:
>>
>> I am told that taking pictures of children in school plays is now banned
>> in some schools in our region. The reason given by the head of my
>> grandchildrens school is that `other parents dont like strangers taking
>> pictures of their children`. This is fine but I suspect its untrue and
>> most parents want to take pictures.
>
> Youre right, most parents want to take pictures , because they know that
> the pictures they take are for their own personal use. It's all them other
> people the parents don't want taking pictures. If the school would allow
> "just us who can be trusted" to take pictures and stop "everybody else"
> then the problem would go away.
I suspect you're correct. I can imagine that some more-than-usually paranoid
parents objected to other parents/grandparents photographing *their*
children, and then the authorities, fearing lawsuits, putting the
photography bans in place.
Back in the late 80s/early 90s I used to do the "official" video of the
Christmas plays put on by the primary school that my children attended. The
other parents were informed about this, so that they could order copies, but
it never entered the heads of either the school or myself to ask them if
they objected to it being made. I doubt that these days I would permitted
to do so which seems very sad to me. These recordings are a record of a time
now past, I still get asked occasionally for new copies.
David.
AndyC
>
> I am told that taking pictures of children in school plays is now banned
> in some schools in our region. The reason given by the head of my
> grandchildrens school is that `other parents dont like strangers taking
> pictures of their children`. This is fine but I suspect its untrue and
> most parents want to take pictures. Its the authorities that have the
> problem, not the mums and dads and grand parents.
Fortunately we do not have such bans at our childrens' schools (yet).
Parents seem to be happy with parents taking pictures. There does however
seem to be this culture within schools that we must all tippy-toe around the
parents in case one of them gets upset. Therefore, if one person complains,
there is a good chance a ban would follow. That person would remain
anonymous, but they would be deemed to be the spokesperson for "other"
parents and the reason for a no photography ban would be "other parents
object".
> Sadly its the `authorities` who always appear to have a problem with
> nudity on beaches and not the public, by and large, and how long before
> they legislate against any naked children on any family naturist beach.
Again, this goes back to one person complains and they are deemed to be the
spokesperson for everyone. East Riding of Yorkshire Council have erected a
sign at Fraisthorpe beach prohibiting naturist use because they received one
complaint in two years. One complaint about beach nudity and the council
expect everyone to stay clothed on the beach. I find it incredible that in a
democratic society, we tolerate the situation where one or two people
complain about something and there is a total ban on it.
Hamish
> "Astracea" <astracea0...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>
> > > Sadly its the `authorities` who always appear to have a problem with
> > nudity on beaches and not the public, by and large, and how long before
> > they legislate against any naked children on any family naturist beach.
>
> Again, this goes back to one person complains and they are deemed to be the
> spokesperson for everyone. East Riding of Yorkshire Council have erected a
> sign at Fraisthorpe beach prohibiting naturist use because they received one
> complaint in two years. One complaint about beach nudity and the council
> expect everyone to stay clothed on the beach. I find it incredible that in a
> democratic society, we tolerate the situation where one or two people
> complain about something and there is a total ban on it.
It must be 20 years since i visited Fraisthorpe ( when it was
official) & considering what i saw going on there I`m not surprised
at the action taken by the ERY council. If you think the council
should simply ignore this behaviour then you are extremely liberal in
your views. I`m fairly sure that you would have been disgusted too.
What can the council do to stop this exhibitionist behaviour? Apart
from having a Bobby patrolling every so often ( yes i know that`s a
laugh ) then they took the only ( easy) option. Apoligies for hi-
jacking this thread. Hamish.
AndyC
"Hamish" <ast...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:6d994edb-c683-4eb1...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 Jul, 13:32, "AndyC" <web-em...@andycrawford.net> wrote:
>
> It must be 20 years since i visited Fraisthorpe ( when it was
> official) & considering what i saw going on there I`m not surprised
> at the action taken by the ERY council.
Woah! Hang on a second Hamish. ERYC have tried to ban naturism on the back
of one complaint. This is an entirely separate issue to banning other
activities.
If you think the council
> should simply ignore this behaviour then you are extremely liberal in
> your views.
Lets not confuse naturism with anything else here.
Hamish
What i witnessed happened on a official naturist beach. You surely
can`t expect genuine naturists to take their spouse & possibly kids
along to somewhere where this happens. I know it has nothing to do
with naturism, but it was happening on a naturist beach. I really
don`t care what these (mostly) guys do to each other, but i just wish
they would p... off & do it in private. Maybe there was only
one complaint, but i`m sure there must have been others like myself
who didn`t complain, simply walked away never to
return. Hamish.
Marc
Actually there is there seems now to be a bit of light at the end of the
tunnel. I have heard recently that the situation is growing where
parents are being told there WILL BE photos and videos taken.
AndyC
> What i witnessed happened on a official naturist beach. You surely
can`t expect genuine naturists to take their spouse & possibly kids
along to somewhere where this happens. I know it has nothing to do
with naturism, but it was happening on a naturist beach. I really
don`t care what these (mostly) guys do to each other, but i just wish
they would p... off & do it in private. Maybe there was only
one complaint, but i`m sure there must have been others like myself
who didn`t complain, simply walked away never to
return. Hamish.
So, there is a naturist beach. There are activities going on there which are
offensive. One person complains about nudity and naturism is banned. This
makes no sense to me whatsoever. Both in as much as the offensive behaviour
is ignored, and that just one person complains about nudity and naturism is
banned.
Duncan Heenan
"AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> wrote in message
news:g4qe12$bd1$1...@aioe.org...
>
> Again, this goes back to one person complains and they are deemed to be
> the spokesperson for everyone. East Riding of Yorkshire Council have
> erected a sign at Fraisthorpe beach prohibiting naturist use because they
> received one complaint in two years. One complaint about beach nudity and
> the council expect everyone to stay clothed on the beach. I find it
> incredible that in a democratic society, we tolerate the situation where
> one or two people complain about something and there is a total ban on it.
I wish this worked for complaints about uncleared rubbish on beaches as
well!
As part of the BN Nudefest at Perranporth this year, I tried to organise a
voluntary beach clean-up of the naturist beach there (which is filthy with
washed up plastic flotsam). The practicalities meant that we needed the
Parish Council's consent to do it, and possibly a little help from them.
They refused, so the clean-up didn't happen.
Duncan Heenan
"Hamish" <ast...@supanet.com> wrote in message
news:6d994edb-c683-4eb1...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Every Saturday night (in good weather), on Bournemouth main beach you will
find textile couples bonking away. Should textiles be banned from this beach
as a result?
Alex
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hamish - it is an unfortunate fact of life that this occurs on every
naturist beach whether official or unofficial.
On Dyffryn, for example, it is mainly confined to the dunes. Mainly,
but not always.
I have no problem with what consenting adults get up to in that way,
but they should keep it private.
I do wish one could sunbathe without the moronic meerkats popping up
with their binoculars and digi camera in the dunes too - cowards that
they are!
Duncan Heenan
"Alex" <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:951d848f-018a-44f3...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------
You call them cowards, but have you ever actually confronted any? Too many
people mutter about these voyeurs, but very few take any action. Most, told
to piss off will do just that.
Hamish
>
>
>>
> Every Saturday night (in good weather), on Bournemouth main beach you will
> find textile couples bonking away. Should textiles be banned from this beach
> as a result?
> --
> Duncan Heenan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course not Duncan. The point i was trying to make (badly it
seems), is that this activity was happening on a official naturist
beach, & shows naturism in a bad light. Throw enough mud & some of
it will stick. We need good publicity not negative. By the way
Duncan, has anyone complained about the bonking on Bouremouth beach &
if so was anything done about it? Hamish.
Alex
> Hamish - it is an unfortunate fact of life that this occurs on every
> naturist beach whether official or unofficial.
> On Dyffryn, for example, it is mainly confined to the dunes. Mainly,
> but not always.
> I have no problem with what consenting adults get up to in that way,
> but they should keep it private.
> I do wish one could sunbathe without the moronic meerkats popping up
> with their binoculars and digi camera in the dunes too - cowards that
> they are!
> ---------------------------
> You call them cowards, but have you ever actually confronted any? Too many
> people mutter about these voyeurs, but very few take any action. Most, told
> to piss off will do just that.
> --
> Duncan Heenan
> (Speaking personally)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have I confronted them???
Yes - well attempted to - they normally high tail it into the dunes -
hence the coward comment.
My hubby did manage to catch up with one. What was even more
disturbing was the fact that his binoculars also incorporated a small
video camera. This was at last year at Dyffryn by the way.
We now ensure our windbreak is between us and the dunes!
SomeoneElse
<28704f2d-e488-4edf...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <al3x...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
> might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
> 'overdone'. Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
> the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
> paedophile?
We prattle on and on about pedophiles in these groups and what they do
to naturist children but I would ask you one question -->
Would you rather a pedofile play with your boybits,
OR
would you rather some psycho MD CUT OFF part of your boy bits?
(And who is the real sex pervert here?)
(I am aware that for the mot part the British, admirably, have gotten
over this abominable practice.)
Someone
vg4cysss7001
<28704f2d-e488-4edf...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Alex <al3x...@live.co.uk> writes
>On 5 Jul, 10:30, "David Looser" <david.loo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> "Alex" <al3xan...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Do those children give their permission for it to happen? Are they
>> > old enough to realise what may happen?
>>
>> As a matter of interest what do you think "might happen"?
>
>Hi David
>
>One only has to listen to the news when the houses of paedophiles have
>been raided to know that they download photos of naked children for
>their own warped reasons.
I do not think that you have answered David's question.
Ignoring any (spurious?) argument about creating demand, what harm is
done to said children by a pervert downloading their photo?
Methinks you are guilty of knee-jerk.
[snip]
>
>> But I do find the current concern that pictures of naked children are
>> particularly wrong because some "pervert" out there might get to see them,
>> to be overdone.
>
>As I said I was speaking personally - and given my response to 'what
>might happen' - my personal feeling is that concern cannot be
>'overdone'.
So what exactly 'might happen' that would be detrimental to such
children?
>Would any parent in their right mind be comfortable with
>the fact that a photo of their child could turn up on the PC of a
>paedophile?
>
What would their concern be?
How does it differ from me drooling over a photo of a motorcycle that
belongs to someone else?
FWIW, I joined the Yahoo! group out of curiosity, found it uninteresting
and unsubscribed when the twerp started e-mailing photos as well as
uploading them.
--
vg4cysss7001
Free on-line, off-site backups?
<https://mozy.com/?ref=UK45Y5>