AIBU or is this a MAJOR safeguarding issue?

[Whatthefudgeisthis]

NC for this,

I’ve been absolutely stunned at the ignorance shown by the organisers with this one! A naturist night at the water park 😱 this place is designed for kids entertainment, it’s basically loads of water slides a wave pool and play area etc
Who in their right mind would take a child to such an event. Obviously I’m not shooting down naturists, each to their own, but this is an event that ANYONE can attend. Known paedophiles have attended these events, with one saying that he can’t even swim. What the actual fuck is going on? Who thought this one up?
If adults want to swim naked that’s their call, but why open the event to children too?

I’m pretty sure I’m not the one missing the blindingly obvious here, but I’m so amazed at the stupidity I had to share and maybe raise some awareness.

www.stokesentinel.co.uk/whats-on/family-nude-swimming-session-coming-2589946

These events are being held across the country, so there’s possibly one near you.

First of all you said - " I was just a prude as per one of @claireluna5's posts"

Now you're saying - "I didn't quote what you had said to me on the thread, I was referring to the gist of your posts"

You implied one of my posts called you a prude, and now you're backtracking... I have never reverted to name calling or making judgements on people's character on this thread.

Like I've said a whole load of times before, we can both agree that we are different, and have different views and opinions. I'm cool with that.

"I was a prude" as in anyone who was questioning things were prudes - if it wasn't you who said prude then that is that, and now let's focus on the real issue here.

Which is that NSPCC has not supported the naked swims or any other events nor been involved in the safeguarding arrangements.

In your post above you do not accept them as an authority in relation to how to safeguard children and no, to respond to your post, I am not cool with that, to be honest. And the wider issue is that people were led to believe that NSPCC had been involved in sanctioning your arrangements and that was not true.

You falsely accused me of calling you a prude and that hurt me. And you're still backtracking around it. It is indicative of a lot.
You're not cool with it, that's fine.
I am,
So, I'm going to politely walk away and wish you well.

What a crock. I wrote most certainly did not reassure me that all was fine and I was just a prude as per one of @claireluna5's posts - I was referring to the fact that you said in a post that you were sure that NSPCC would reassure me I had nothing to worry about. That is the key thing. Not me throwing in the "prude" which was flung around the thread in the same vein. In fact I will find your post for you and quote you. You aren't flouncing because you are hurt. You are flouncing to try yet again to divert attention from the real issues.

"what a crock"
"you are flouncing"
"prude as per one of @claireluna's posts"
= judgments about a person that hurt, and that are incorrect. Hence why I have made the decision to walk away now...

@claireluna you wrote to a poster upthread:

"I can sense how upset you are about all this. I'm sure NSPCC will answer any concerns you have xxx"

So to use more polite language than "what a crock", that was a somewhat misleading post you wrote, wasn't it? And some of the other posters who were supporting naturism were even more direct with their allusions to NSPCC support.

I have nothing else to say to you.

"I'm sure NSPCC will answer any concerns you have"

NSPCC answered you... However you interpret that is up to you...

How would you interpret it? They were clear and I have asked follow up questions so that I am crystal clear what the next steps are.

Are you suggesting I have misinterpreted anything, and if so are you alleging that they have supported the naked swims and that they have worked with BN about the safeguarding arrangements and they are happy with it, @claireluna5? Exactly?

PS The NSPCC can advise on safeguarding which is a brilliant way for organisations to consult on their policies. It cannot legally rubber stamp a policy.
Naturism is covered by law and also article 8 of the Human Rights Conventions and Act 1998 - the right to a private and family life.

I'm not alleging anything. Just clearing up that I can't mislead you by suggesting NSPCC would answer you, which they did...

Does anyone have a link for the petition, please. I'll sign it.

@claireluna5 your post was misleading - the fact that you are trying to be clever about it makes it worse.

Other than Article 8 what other laws are you thinking of when you say (quoting you) "Naturism is covered by law"?

Article 8 would not cover naturism to the extent it conflicted with laws concerning child protection and if the law isn't clear than that is the change which I think is necessary. Article 8 says:

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

What specific laws or case law support how children are involved in naked swims or naked alton towers trips or any other naked events? Exactly?

Nudity is only an offence if it causes alarm or distress to someone else. This wouldn't apply to naturism as there is an expectation of nudity...

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how laws are interpreted/applied, so I can't answer your questions about article 8, other than I know it applies to naturism.

With regards to children, relevant authorities have always been satisfied with the safeguarding in place, and also because children are always under the care of their parents/guardians, and are not given over to the care of someone else.

Re your first paragraph, the concern on this thread is not distress to others, but distress to children.

With regards to children, relevant authorities have always been satisfied with the safeguarding in place, and also because children are always under the care of their parents/guardians, and are not given over to the care of someone else

So why is NSPCC saying it did not support the naked swim? And they have not said that they are satisfied with your safeguarding in place or even been involved. So in fact I would hazard a guess that no authority has supported or been satisfied with the safeguarding, am I right? And if I am wrong, please can you provide quotes and links.

The law in relation to article 8 the wording is pretty clear - the question is whether or not the "authority" will now step in and impose restrictions on the general right under article 8 in order to protect the rights of the children involved.

@awwlookatmybabyspider

This is one petition:

www.change.org/p/to-ban-naturist-events-where-children-are-involved

Thanks, Newname.

"Re your first paragraph, the concern on this thread is not distress to others, but distress to children"

Hmmm. I guess this concern leads to the concept of why, inherently, simple nudity would be distressful to a child (particularly children within naturism)...?

I can't answer your questions about NSPCC as I don't know the details of it so I'm hesitant to even guess. Tho all I can imagine is that providing consultation on a safeguarding policy is different to endorsing every event that organisation then goes on to organise...

With regards to protecting children under article 8, I guess it would require clear argument around what exactly it would be you are seeking to protect them from, why that is required, and then offset it against the backdrop of all other activities and lifestyles in any number of family circumstances.

From a UK viewpoint, this might be interesting for you to read -library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf

@claireluna5

Hmmm. I guess this concern leads to the concept of why, inherently, simple nudity would be distressful to a child (particularly children within naturism)...?

The issue is not that "nudity is distressing". The issue is that a young child or pre teen or older child being naked in front of adult strangers, some of whom may not be trustworthy on any level, may be extremely distressing (at the time or in retrospect, as per nudist children survivor's testimonies) and damaging.

What many people think is necessary is that there is a proper review, using psychologist input as well as other expert input, and that binding guidelines are issued.

Tho all I can imagine is that providing consultation on a safeguarding policy is different to endorsing every event that organisation then goes on to organise...

As I understand it, NSPCC did not provide consultation, BN used one of the tools on their website. There has been no consultation, no support. Are you asserting otherwise?

With regards to protecting children under article 8, I guess it would require clear argument.. protect them from..

Examples of concerns:

• children being naked around strange adults conflicts with the current thinking about how children should be given appropriate choices, not show their private parts in public and what constitutes healthy boundaries; also taking into consideration the fact that children (not all, but with significant relevance) have given testimony that they have been gravely negatively affected by being involved in similar activities in the past.
• wider issue - children at events such as the naked swim may be feeding into the growing problem of very serious active paedophilia and the events are very unlikely to be healthy environments.

These are just examples.

From a UK viewpoint, this might be interesting for you to read -library.college.police.uk/docs/nudity.pdf

This document gives guidance in relation to dealing with adult nudity and it covers nudity causing offence to others not relating at all on any level to the concerns being expressed on this thread.