Nude Family swim at Stoke Waterworld

[VortexofBloggery]

Flagged up by Sammy Woodhouse on Twitter.
mobile.twitter.com/sammywoodhouse1/status/1308822025797013509

Supported by who else but NSPCC.

Adults can buy a single ticket.

To Shut it down, Change petition here:
www.change.org/p/water-world-stop-nude-family-swim-session-for-adults-and-children-of-all-ages-at-water-world?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_24863394_en-GB%3A2&recruiter=1151217419&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=tap_basic_share

Attended by convicted paedophile
www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4047602.convicted-brierfield-paedophile-member-naturist-club/

Unbelievable.

@MandosHatHair

Masturbating over people isn't 'naturism' though. I'm sorry you had this traumatising experience on a nudist beach.

But it happened in a nudist environment! Same with that paedophile in the OP, he went to legitimate nudist events and let's face it, the man was there to eye up naked kids. If you had been to one of these events and found out later on that a convicted paedophile was in attendance, how would you honestly feel?

The same as I'd feel if I'd been to any event where a convicted paedophile was in attendance - disgusted by the thought of being near such a person.

But the same applies to any type of event or activity where children might be present - and far more to situations where children are routinely unchaperoned or unaccompanied.

You can't vilify naturism just because some people abuse it, any more than you can vilify football, scouting, choristry etc.

It's like you said though, we are going around it circles, none of the nudist parents on this thread have explained how nudist events benefit children above normal clothed swimming. I really want to try to understand why parents do this, because at the minute my mind is boggled!

none of the nudist parents on this thread have explained how nudist events benefit children above normal clothed swimming

I'm not a parent, but as above, did some naked swimming as a teenager. I can only say that it feels nice - it's a pleasant sensual experience to have nothing between your skin and the water, especially in a natural environment such as a river.

We are going round in circles now. People within football, teaching, scouting, churches etc. have been found to be paedophiles. You can't dismiss an entire organisation because some of its members are abusers.

You can if one of its founding tenets is that little children walk around naked.

@Datun

We are going round in circles now. People within football, teaching, scouting, churches etc. have been found to be paedophiles. You can't dismiss an entire organisation because some of its members are abusers.

You can if one of its founding tenets is that little children walk around naked.

If someone wants to see small children walking round naked, they can do so on practically any British beach in the summer when the weather is fine.

If someone wants to see small children walking round naked, they can do so on practically any British beach in the summer when the weather is fine.

I don't generally see beaches full of naked children, to be honest. The odd one, maybe.

But when your entire organisation is devoted to endorsing the nudity of children, it's a little different.

I have skinny dipped before, in total privacy, outdoors in the sunshine and it was lovely. Not lovely enough to take my naked children to a public pool full of naked adults though.

I think I am going to have to leave this thread now, your children your rules I suppose.

It's inaccurate to say the organisation is 'devoted to endorsing the nudity of children'. The organisation exists to facilitate naturism for all.

I wouldn't describe beaches as 'full' of naked children but it's rare you don't see any.

The difference is, that any teacher, priest, football coach organising a "nude family swim" would be looked at very differently to the "naturists". Why? What is it about the naturist ideology that gives them a free pass when it comes to child safeguarding? How does a naturist philosophy equip a child to know when they are being groomed? It's ridiculous to compare teaching in a school, with walking around naked at a waterpark, just because there are paedophiles in both. One of those things is grooming children to obliterate their boundaries as a matter of course and the other is a deviation of what is meant to be happening (teaching). Are there any religious cults which get away with adult/child nudity as a matter of "lifestyle"? Imagine if the Scientologists came out with that? Or a branch of Catholicism?

Many comments here about a nude child is no different to a clothed child in swimwear. I disagree for obvious reasons, but the main issue here is the unknown adult (with their own children or on their own) being naked in front other children. Why does an adult want to be naked in front of children they don't know? What drives that? What gives that adult the right to do that and convince the child its OK, not to be worried about it and take their clothes off too? Why aren't we all doing it? There must be a reason.

I am so sorry to read the posts of blond where this ideology was forced on you and that this thread is difficult to read and contribute to. Thank you for sharing your experience. It's abuse and just crazy to read the justifications for it here, after All the progress we've made in child safeguarding.

The difference is, that any teacher, priest, football coach organising a "nude family swim" would be looked at very differently to the "naturists"

Would they? I don't think people who endorse naturism would look at them any differently from an accountant or estate agent or shop worker organising naturist events.

And people like you who don't are not giving naturists a free pass regardless of their occupation, so I really don't see any logic in this comment at all.

Why does an adult want to be naked in front of children they don't know?

They don't. Children might happen to be present while they are enjoying naturism but - with the exception of depraved individuals whom you might find in any environment they are not going along because there are naked children there.

It's inaccurate to say the organisation is 'devoted to endorsing the nudity of children'. The organisation exists to facilitate naturism for all.

Yes, sorry. Devoted to the nudity of children.

And adults.

Yeah, whilst I understand the pleasure that many people take in being naked, and don't think that there is anything necessarily dodgy about it, it's obviously going to be one of the most, if not the top source of attraction for paedophiles and voyeurs.

And personally, on that basis alone, it deserves a lot of scrutiny.

Outings to a water park, to which, apparently, a registered sex offender can go, is obviously something that shouldn't go ahead. And people defending it need challenging.

And women on here who have asserted that being expected to disrobe around strangers as children, has quite a lasting psychological affect, should be listened to. At length.

Naturism, by its nature, as it were, is a niche activity. There will be many people who are profoundly affected by what their parents put them through.

The safeguarding is impossible.

It should be an adult only activity, in my opinion.

@VortexofBloggery

The difference is, that any teacher, priest, football coach organising a "nude family swim" would be looked at very differently to the "naturists". Why? What is it about the naturist ideology that gives them a free pass when it comes to child safeguarding? How does a naturist philosophy equip a child to know when they are being groomed? It's ridiculous to compare teaching in a school, with walking around naked at a waterpark, just because there are paedophiles in both. One of those things is grooming children to obliterate their boundaries as a matter of course and the other is a deviation of what is meant to be happening (teaching). Are there any religious cults which get away with adult/child nudity as a matter of "lifestyle"? Imagine if the Scientologists came out with that? Or a branch of Catholicism?

Many comments here about a nude child is no different to a clothed child in swimwear. I disagree for obvious reasons, but the main issue here is the unknown adult (with their own children or on their own) being naked in front other children. Why does an adult want to be naked in front of children they don't know? What drives that? What gives that adult the right to do that and convince the child its OK, not to be worried about it and take their clothes off too? Why aren't we all doing it? There must be a reason.

I am so sorry to read the posts of blond where this ideology was forced on you and that this thread is difficult to read and contribute to. Thank you for sharing your experience. It's abuse and just crazy to read the justifications for it here, after All the progress we've made in child safeguarding.

You could ask the question - ‘how does a non naturist philosophy equip a child to know when they are being groomed...?’. The very nature of grooming works in a way that the child doesn’t often know. It’s us parents that need to protect children against grooming, whilst also teaching our children throughout their lives in an age appropriate way so maybe (hopefully) as they grow they could spot any uncomfortable situations.

Grooming happens when an adult has consistent access to a child when they aren’t with their parent/s. So the responsibility lies with us parents to assess times when that might be the case and to assess which adults we trust with our children if those situations are occurring. That is true for all areas of a child’s life, including naturism.

But, this whole thread started because of a single naturist swim, where children are with their parents, so grooming is quite an unlikely event in this instance.

it's obviously going to be one of the most, if not the top source of attraction for paedophiles and voyeurs.

There is no evidence to bear that out. I refer to the NSPCC link above - most abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child - not by strangers at a naturist event.

I am not saying that has never happened. But again, referring to the links above, to avoid placing a child in any situation where abuse has ever been known to occur, let alone the most common grooming scenarios (family members, schools, football coaching, church groups) would mean never allowing a child to do anything.

Pelleas

If you can't see that curtailing children's lives to the point of damaging restriction, isn't the same as not promoting a situation where they are all naked amongst strange adults, then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't agree that because children will be abused anyway, we might as well create the perfect scenario for it.

I don't agree that because children will be abused anyway, we might as well create the perfect scenario for it.

It's far from the perfect scenario. Children are accompanied by their parents at all times. It's a one-off event, so there will be no opportunity for grooming.

The perfect scenarios are those where abusers are given unchaperoned access to children, over an extended period of time which allows grooming to take place.

Pelleas

It's a one off event, to which a known Paedophile bought a ticket!

They don't have to groom anyone. They just pay for a ticket.

@Datun

Pelleas

It's a one off event, to which a known Paedophile bought a ticket!

They don't have to groom anyone. They just pay for a ticket.

Paedophiles can wander onto beaches where there are often naked children, without buying a ticket at all.

Paedophiles can use the showers and toilets in swimming pools/leisure centres simply by paying on the gate.

A paedophile bought a ticket to this one-off event - and guess what, he's been identified, that's how come you're able to make that statement - because there are controls in place that probably aren't in place for 99% of the events and situations you'd happily place your children in.

@Datun

Pelleas

It's a one off event, to which a known Paedophile bought a ticket!

They don't have to groom anyone. They just pay for a ticket.

No known paedophile has bought a ticket for this event. (And if you think they have you need to inform the police). Convicted paedophiles are subject to licence that would forbid them to be around children. Ok, they could risk it - they would need to register with a valid name and address and pay with a valid bank card, and hope they wouldn’t get found out at the time or in the future. But it would be a huge penalty for them if they were discovered breaching their conditions, so a massive risk to them.

But as it’s a water play park, still plenty of opportunity to see children naked in a variety of inadvertent ‘active’ positions where their legs are akimbo. Plenty for the wank bank if you’re the wrong sort of person who ‘likes’ children.

And you imagine the wearing of a swimming costume would stop that happening?

Here's the article linked to in the OP for the hard of reading which confirms that a convicted paedophile did join a naturist group and did go to Waterworld with them.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4047602.convicted-brierfield-paedophile-member-naturist-club/

Despite being a convicted paedophile.

I can't help wondering whether the question should be about what naturist parents get out of having their children appear naked in front of naked adult strangers. Making a decision to go naked as an adult is one thing but deciding it's good for children to go naked in front of strangers is something else.

He successfully joined a naturist group, before he was added to the register. And had been to Alton Towers, and this particular waterpark.

Again, it's about safeguarding.

Any paedophile, who is not on the police register, or radar, can just walk into the place, disrobe, and be around naked children.

No grooming required. They don't have to groom anyone for years to get close to their children. Just join a naturist group, take their clothes off, and be naked with children.

I mean what is there, actually, to stop them?

Genuine question, because I feel like I'm missing something here.

Can any naturist on here with children tell me? What are the checks and balances that are carried out with new members?

What is the criteria? How do they ensure safeguarding?

@Clymene

Here's the article linked to in the OP for the hard of reading which confirms that a convicted paedophile did join a naturist group and did go to Waterworld with them.

www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4047602.convicted-brierfield-paedophile-member-naturist-club/

Despite being a convicted paedophile.

And here's an article which confirms a paedophile abused 50 children in his role as a football coach.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51653184

So obviously no one under the age of 18 should be coached in football, in case a paedophile slips through the net.