The contents of this blog have been moved from the original site-policy <a href="http://www.naktiv.net/blog/824/on-and-off-site-related-behaviour/">blog</a>, because people were confusing the actual issue with the hot-topic example. Here is the original blog content:
The moderators sometimes receive reports concerning members off-site activities, and it's probably useful to clarify site policy on this point. We are not the FBI and have neither the interest, nor the resources to police people's behaviour off-site. Policy has always been that we are concerned with member behaviour on THIS site, and not on any other.
Let's take a specific case in hand. Brian Taylor was not just accused, but also convicted in court, of downloading paedophile images. Here is one of the many <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2760633/Naturist-claimed-nudity-does-not-equal-pornography-admits-downloading-120-000-child-abuse-images.html">national news reports</a> For naturism and nudism folk, this is quite an eye-opener. Not only was did he plead guilty to the charged offence, he was also the official Public Relations officer for British Naturism! One's jaw quite simply drops.
The question is not whether this person, who has recently joined, is guilty or not, but whether he should remain a member of this site, knowing what we know. The administration has received several reports from concerned members regarding this individual, and is under a deal of pressure to remove him. A mild form of emotional duress is being used in the form of: "do you want the site to be a place where this kind of person is welcome?", and "if he stays, I'm off", and so forth. We have the same reaction from site users when they see someone on a soft-porn site elsewhere. Apparently it's ok to pose naked in front of your toilet and snap a headless-selfie, but it's not acceptable to be openly paid to "model" when you're young and pretty. Again, the comments are: "we don't want this kind of person here", and so forth. Don't be too hasty with the knee-jerk, there are ramifications here.
Let's think about this for a moment, Back to Brian. He's here under his own name, and is standing unashamed with these hefty charges hanging around his neck, what does that tell us about him? Is he a man who gets a kick out of watching child porn? Is he a "real" paedophile? Is he a priest or a politician? Amongst the latter there is a terror of being discovered; the public shame of the anti-gay lobbyist being found to be sending soliciting emails to younger male members of his staff; the embarrassment of the priest not only being discovered with the choir boys, but being shunted from parish to parish as he is rediscovered in each parish. There seems no shame in the act itself, only in the fact of being exposed. You might notice that the most judgemental types, the ones you do not suspect, are the ones who seem to constantly being caught with their fingers in dark places.
These judgemental types are the ones who will sack a school teacher because she once appeared in a porno movie when she was younger. Never mind the students who downloaded the porn in the first place and exposed her, never mind the idea that people can change their lifestyle, and should be encouraged to change rather than kicked back down the stairs. Keep in mind also that looking at images is NOT the same as engaging in those acts, just think of all the theft and rape and murder TV series, and the actors involved who are "acting", and NOT doing. Hold that thought in your mind, and now think of all the people who just WATCH these films.
Or perhaps because this man likes to look at these images, and we can easily imagine him doing such and such, then we just tar him all over with the same general brush, make the story bigger than it already is, and call him an actual paedophile and be done with it. Maybe it's simpler to drag him from his house and just hang him from a lamp post on the street corner, while we're at it. If he was black and if we were in the southern US a couple of decades ago, that would be the answer, for sure.
So, back to Brian, and remember that he is just being used as the example here. Let's say he decides the public pressure is too much, and he leaves of his own accord, or he is banned from this site by a moderator, and our consciences are saved, and we can sleep easy once more. Let's say a new site member joins under the name "Patrick Smith". Now then, how are we to know that this new user is not the old user under a different name? Now Patrick Smith can go around befriending unsuspecting people all day long, he can request "innocent" family photos from other unsuspecting and gullible site users. He can promote the idea that family nudism is the "right way", and propose that this is the direction the site should be taking, perhaps influencing the membership in this nefarious direction. How would we know?
Is it not better to KNOW who this man is, and to know what he has done, and to be able to keep an eye on his behaviour here? Keep in mind that there are several moderators, and many members of BN, who all know Brian quite well, in one capacity or another. They know who he is and will be quick to ban him on the first wrong move, and he knows that too. The question is whether we are more comfortable with our heads in the sand, pretending that everything is ok, or whether we would rather have the information, open and available to all. One expects he will be blocked and ignored by many members, but just bear in mind that this is possible ONLY because you know who he is.
To recap, site policy is concerned with behaviour on THIS site, and this site only.
This touchy topic is open to discussion.
I am so happy that my three girls were exposed to violence, sexuality and abuse as they were growing up. They were able to learn about and identify manipulators and dangerous situations and protect themselves. They have seemingly passed on that good sense to my grandchildren.
But then again for some people, ignorance is bliss.
I was a child when my father first told me about married popes and people like the greedy and murderous DeMedici and Borgia families. I learned to distinguish between people and their actions from beliefs and groups.
We don't live in reality…we live in a collective perception of reality. Naktiv is not secure and all these discussions and blogs are searchable by google. They are also forever unless the admins of this site choose to remove them. In my opinion, these discussions do horrible damage to naturism. Brian's comments and those of Richard are completely moot because what you think matters not one bit. I am very sad that this interaction and highlighting of this case has been dredged to the surface. I think it wholely irresponsible of admins who claim to be acting in the interests of naturism to present on a plate new material that a determined journalist would eat for breakfast.
I think, (and my thoughts do matter to me), the post was in response to several members raising concerned questions about the matter. Hiding one's head in the sand does nothing, the site level policy issue clearly needed to be addressed, if you'll pardon the pun.
I do not agree Simon, that's because I dont think we should think of promoting naturism through propaganda. I believe the doubts, open discussions and debates are much stronger and useful on the long term. Just my 2 cents and a half
Since this site isn't technically a naturist or nudist site, but rather a more tolerant and open social media site, I find the discussions educational and informative, both in areas of cyber security/privacy and in terms of general bias and prejudice and the way people express those without awareness. I think all voices that express concerns against censorship and for personal freedom matter a great deal.
Well said, BN. Various people have alerted the site administration to this topic on a number of occasions, which is indeed exactly why this blog has been posted here.
Then what is this site supposed to be? I joined because I thought it would be about wholesome family orientated nudism/naturism and serve as a good example to children.
Censorship is necessary to enforce in some areas. Would you really want your children exposed to violence, sex, and prostitution if you were a young parent? Would you want your children growing up to think that sexual objectification is a good thing?
No. Good parents draw lines in the pavement and warn their children that there are consequences if they step over them.
Due to Naktiv's defence of Brian on here, I am very reluctant to contribute to this site much in the future and will be starting my own nudist social network.
Again Dario, please read the mission statement.
http://www.naktiv.net/mission-statement/
Haven't you already started your own nudist network or 2? I'm sure I'm a member in at least one.
No, I haven't yet. I do run some nudist and naturist groups on Facebook, Google and Yahoo Groups but not a standalone one.
I don't understand this? What do people have on their pcs that they need to hide?
Most people think nothing, until someone decides to target them. Then everything can be used out of context and spun to prove their point.
I'm a free thinker and as such like to consume information to broaden my perspectives and come to my own conclusions about life. This would mean all sorts of information, photos, videos, and written text have displayed on my screen. A witch hunter would have a field day. Some, coming from their narrow mind sets, would fit me into any number of unacceptable to them categories. So yes, I would prefer to hide much of what could be found in my cache from the general public and anyone who wishes to see it without my permission.
I fall into this category as well. That said, if I sense the need to be extra cautious there is a substantial amount you can do to minimise your risks.
Cloud based encrypted private proxy from a VM using an encrypted virtual drive you can 0 format afterwards. In short encryption and untraceable IP addresses are your safest bet. If you're tech savvy it's not too difficult to cover your tracks. If you're not tech savvy at all… Browse at your own risk.
I agree completely Born. The witch hunter mentality and their "for the children" excuse is hurtful and wrong. Reading through these stories about Mr. Brian Taylor I see no accusations or allegations that he harmed any child. Its all about the nebulous theory that some child somewhere must have been harmed by being photographed, or by a naked image, or by something. In part it a hatred of men because only men are ever accused and punished for sexual feelings. Its just wrong.
FBI? (F)emale (B)ody (I)nspector?
Watch out, you'll be blocked or banned by the P.C. police.
Having just stumbled across this blog I feel I should comment if I may. I completely agree with what Naktiv Admin has said and sympathise with their position. I am sorry that my recent decision to join has caused any upset at all. Please allow me a luxury that I was not afforded by BN; an opportunity to give my version of events.
The news article which is linked above is grossly unfair, but how are any of you to know that if I am gagged as I was by BN? I did not have pictures of child abuse, in my own view I did not even have pictures of children in 'erotic poses' as the original COPINE-based scale used by the courts defined the lowest level. I had images that any of you would hopefully recognise as Naturist images, unfortunately the police chose to consider simple nudity to be indecent. Perhaps they consider nude = erotic?
Some of these images were even taken by the BN photographer others were on my computer as a result of visiting Naturist websites (bear in mind the police inspect the internet cache and include files that have been deleted even to beyond the recycle bin). It also represented several years worth of surfing the web and following links from daily Google alerts where Naturism and/or nudism, etc. had been mentioned in news articles, blogs, etc.
I would like you all to take heed of my case and be very careful what Naturist pictures end up on your computer, including in the internet cache. Emptying the cache is not sufficient as they recover deleted files as well.
I was pleased to see the "Youth Policy" on this site and completely agree with it. To keep us all safe it is best to not post any pictures of children or anyone who appears to be under 18, no matter how innocent you may consider the picture to be.
Strictly I was not convicted, rather I chose to plead guilty. I made this choice with two factors in mind:
1) It cost me a lot to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, I dread to think what it would have cost had I not done so. I concluded that I could not afford to fight with no guarantee of success anyway.
2) I wished to avoid publicity, especially for BN and Spectrum swim club and had hoped that by pleading guilty at the first opportunity my case would go largely unnoticed. I even made sure there was no mention of my membership of BN or Spectrum in court, so that the one reporter present wouldn't make any connections.
The initial article, presumably by that reporter, did not make any mention of BN or Spectrum, so how did the later articles in the Birmingham Mail and Daily Mail have all those details and even a picture of me? I certainly didn't tell them!
I still believe in BN, even if they would like to wipe me off the face of the earth, Naturism needs an organisation like BN. I'm just sorry I cannot be a part of it.
None of you need fear my behaviour on this site or any other or at any event or venue, but it seems I must fear the wrath of others…
I think that many site (internet) users would be dismayed to find out just how incriminating their browser caches are. Some people appear to think only those images which are expressly downloaded and "explicitly saved to disk" are discoverable. In reality, every time your browser displays an image to you on-screen, in a popup, or anywhere, regardless of what you now do with it. Even if you turn your nose up in disgust and leave the site or close the popup-ad immediately, that revolting image is now stored in YOUR browser cache, on disk for convenient retrieval. It's a "feature" of modern web browsing.
That's exactly what happens!
Here in my country, though, evidence is treated differently: if you saved it in your hard drive or if you have it in your cache. In the first case – only – you may undergo a trial. This doesnt protect from mishaps and shortcomings in the collecting of the digital evidence, though.
I for one am glad you’ve had an opportunity to tell your side of the story. I can’t help being highly irritated by those that go off half-cocked not knowing the actual facts, making wild accusations against people they don’t even know.
For those devoid of an IT background, you’d be fairly shocked how easy it is to paint a fairly negative picture of someone if you’re off on a wild witch hunt. At one point during my career I was involved with cleaning PCs of viruses. How did viruses get there in the first place? 9 times out of 10, unintentionally visiting sites that weren’t what you thought they were. Once that happens, you have little to no control over the type of material downloaded to your computer.
The company I worked for had close contacts with the AFP (Australian Federal Police), and we were legally obligated to report anything discovered on PCs that was illegal. Interestingly in Australia at least, there needs to be very strong evidence of intent. That is, if questionable images are found; child porn etc, it has to be clear that the user intentionally downloaded those images. Merely being present on a computer wasn’t sufficient. The laws may have changed a bit since then. No doubt in other countries, the laws are indeed different.
A friend of mine was viewing porn and it asked if he would like to be a member. Just add your email. He added my work email instead of his and thousands of pics were arriving in my email per minute until my email was full and I could not access my account to delete them. I had to go to the administrator. That's how easy it is to get screwed.
That really sucks. I wouldn't call a guy like that a 'friend'. 🙁
…
Have you actually read anything about the individual concerned? Amongst the images he was convicted of possessing were approximately 100 'Category A' images (those depicting sexual penetration of a child, or sex acts involving children and animals or sadism).
This is why i have blocked that person..
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/2014/09/18/brian-taylor-tamworth/
I am generally very tolerant but in this case I say he should be blocked.
I quite agree.
WE must remember there are victims to his crimes and these are poor children. Its their rights we should be concerned about not some one who has helped to encourage this filthy perversion.
You are absolutely right, Robert. I'm disappointed in Brian, especially as he was one of the very people trying to say "nudist photos are not about sex, they are good for children to see blah blah blah" and then gets caught with his pants down.
As a result, there has been a major backlash against family nudism in the UK. There has also been a book published called "Naked" by a woman called Jo Hill (not her real name) about child molestation happening in British nudist camps and clubs in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
Despicable to say the least.
What victims? I saw no allegations that any children were involved. Perhaps we should ask how a crime happens when there are no actual victims?
I tend to believe that the bottom line is that this guy we took as example has paid what a court decided he had to pay for what he has done. I dont see how a social network could step in and enforce other punishing actions, like banning the subject. I guess he has the right to be on the net now, that he is considered a free man and that he will be anyway on the Net and maybe even here even if a unuseful ban was decided. I dont believe you can obliterate people kicking them out of the world without paying a higher price yourself, such as living in a smaller artificial world.
I find very wise and considerate in such a case the idea that it is much better to know and be alerted than hiding our heads under the sand.
the Naktiv site got also the blocking feature that anyone who feels umconfortable with a user can enforce to get rid of the problem.
"I dont see how a social network could step in and enforce other punishing actions, like banning the subject."
Well, it would be very easy. Permanent banning is listed as an ultimate sanction on the site rules page for numerous infractions. This is a private website, not a public park. There is no legal right to a Naktiv account. The publishers have the power, the legal right and IMO the justification to ban this individual. Obviously they don't want to, but that's a different issue.
I will not be drawn into something I feel very strongly about, all I will say is he is BLOCKED.
the Naktiv site blocking capabilities are not the same as facebooks. I have blocked many people and still see their stuff and I'm sure they see my stuff. I have brought up this blocking issue before, but could never figure out what its purpose is if the person doesn't disappear from my eye sight!
Very well said. It is difficult to refrain for being judgmental particularly in the face of operating with partial information. The points you made very capably put this dilemma in proper perspective.
I'm a bit shocked to read this post, to be honest. Some of the language is just ludicrously florid. Did the writer seriously mean to compare the struggles of a convicted paedophile to join a naturist website with the lynching of African-Americans? That felt tasteless. There also seems to be a bizarre equivalence earlier in the post between *paid modelling work or appearing in a consensual adult movie* on the one hand, and *downloading more than 100,000 indecent images of children* on the other. They're not equivalent, at all.
At the end of the day, it's not my website, and I wouldn't leave over it. Though I have to say I think it's very risky leaving someone like this on the member list. Without meaning to sound alarmist, what would it say about this site, and the members of it, if this ended up in the media? This individual did a huge amount of damage to naturism once, it's not impossible he could do so again.
Anyway, I appreciate this is an emotive issue. I'll abide by what I said earlier – your website, your rules. Even if, in this instance, I don't agree.
This is an understandably highly emotive issue, and I'm sure some well-meaning folk will be quick to spread the word about our membership policy. However, the police have arrested him, the judge has sentenced him and he has been punished according to the law. Does this mean we should continue to punish him here?
Perhaps some people feel he should be stoned or whipped in a public square? The issue is not whether someone has done something wrong – he has, and he has been punished for it already. The question is actually whether members need to be squeaky clean to be accepted here.
Again, there's really a lot of distance between not being allowed on a website and being stoned or whipped in a public square! Nobody, least of all me, is advocating that the guy comes to any harm.
What's more, there's also a mile and more of difference between 'being squeaky clean' and doing what he has been convicted of doing. I guess I just don't see this as being some kind of difficult edge case. Surely whatever positive contribution the guy can make is going to be dwarfed by the potential danger he poses, the probable future flame wars that will break out, the potential reputational damage to the website, etc.
I want to make clear that I'm not looking for an argument, just expressing an opinion. I meant what I said about 'your website, your rules'. If at any point you wish to put a stop to this discussion, I will do so.
'Squeaky clean'…??!! This person is a convicted paedophile..!!! The scum of the earth..!! And I am STAGGERED that this site would allow him to remain as a member..!!
It is making me think if I really want to be a member of a site that offers an olive branch to a known pervert……a paedophile..!!!
You really only can base your evaluation of a person on their current conduct. I’ve encountered the opposite of this where some person who’s meant to be “wonderful”, “lovely” and all other positive attributes are the most distasteful person I’ve ever encountered. I’ve been assured they must have been having an off day. This doesn’t excuse their ongoing bad behavior.
Likewise I’ve had people in the nudist movement “warn” me about certain people. Be careful associating with this person or that person. They will tarnish your reputation. Really? I’ve seen no evidence to suggest this in. Quite often in fact, if anyone is acting in a manner I’m suspicious about, spreading rumors, behaving in a less than desirable manner, it’s often the person doing the warning.
I have a firm policy of taking people as you find them, and for the most part this has served me well.
I have no word to describe this type of person. Children should never be used in the sex industry. Just think how you would feel if one of the pictures he down loaded was of your son or daughter.