Fenland District Council - Naturist Swim Saga
Prelude
During the summer of 2004, a change of management along with
a "reveiw of child protection policy" led to a ban
on children attending naturist swimming events on premisis
operated by Fenland District Council. The ban itself was based
entirely on the prejudice of a few people, but those who created
the ban insisted that it was on the grounds of "Child
Protection".
I feel that it is essential that the naturist movement challenges
this type of discrimination wherever it occurs and educates
the individuals concerned and of course makes sure that this
type of ban is removed.
I would also like to thank John Paine and Malcolm Boura of
British
Naturism for their personal efforts in negotiating
with Fenland District Council.
Date 07 February 2005
While checking the internet to see when the next Whittlesey
family naturist swim will be on, I noticed on the website
(now at) club-soleil.co.uk
it stated:
"The council has decided that under 18's are no
longer acceptable. Needless to say we are fighting this decision
but for time being children are not admitted".
Rather shocked at this, I contacted the Hudson Leisure Centre
on 01945 584230 to find out if this were true. Staff confirmed
that it was true but if I wanted to discuss the matter I would
need to speak to Phil Hughes who was based at the nearby George
Campbell Leisure Centre 01354 622399 in March (town).
He had already left his office for the day, I instigated
a complaint to Fenland District Council via the website http://www.fenland.gov.uk/.
Email Complaint - Stage 1
Date 07 February 2005
Subject: Complaint
Sir,
I have been informed that I am no longer allowed to take
my family (my wife and children aged 10, 8 and 5 years) to
the naturist swim sessions held monthly at the Manor Leisure
Centre, Station Road, Whittlesey. This is apparently due to
the Leisure centre adopting a "no under 18's policy".
I was of the understanding that council run facilities were
for the benefit and use of all, however as a naturist family
I feel that we are being directly discriminated against, because
of our values, lifestyle and beliefs.
Andrew Crawford
Phone Call - Follow up
Date 08 February 2005
I followed this up with a phone call to Phil Hughes, (the
leisure centre manager) and quite a lengthy conversation took
place. In that conversation I expressed my disagreement with
the ban and in turn Phil Hughes explained that the ban was
due to a letter, which they had received from social services.
He went on to say that although he was "quite ignorant
of naturism" he did not like the idea of "naked
children swimming with naked adults" and therefore raised
the matter with Cambridgeshire Social Services. The ban then
followed.
Letter - Follow up
I then followed up this phone call with a letter to Phil
Hughes.
Date 10 February 2005
Re: Naturist families banned from Manor Leisure Centre Whittlesey
Dear Phil,
Further to our recent telephone conversation I would like
to clarify a few points with regard to my objection to families
being banned from attending the naturist sessions at the Manor
Leisure Centre Whittlesey.
Firstly, we raise our children under the naturist philosophy
that ones body is not something to be ashamed of and that
nudity is a symbol of openness and honesty, for us, naturism
is a positive thing and we raise our children to believe that.
The fact that we are unable to use this public facility is
blatant discrimination against families who choose to raise
their children as naturists. Furthermore, I feel that leisure
centre management and social services have no business in
deciding how we raise our children.
If the management of the leisure centre feel that there is
a risk to children by swimming with adults, this is an issue,
which needs to be addressed, however, it would be very foolish
to think that the wearing of a swimming costume somehow protects
children from any potential abuse.
If there is an unacceptable risk to children bathing alongside
adults it seems fairer and more logical to remove the threat
of abuse than to remove the children. To ban children from
naturism is based purely on ignorance and prejudice.
We have faced this situation before, in 2001 we fought long
and hard to ensure that we could use George Campbell Leisure
Centre and we were not prepared fall victim to the kind of
prejudice that we are experiencing now.
Meanwhile I shall continue to strive to have this decision
overturned because it goes against something, which I strongly
believe in.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Crawford
Fenland District Council Reply - Stage 1
Dated:05 February 2005 [error]
Received 12 February 2005
Email Complaint - Stage 2
Date: 12 February 2005 11:17
Subject: Re: Complaint (Ref: C/321/04)
I have today received a reply from Phil Hughes
- Leisure Development Manager who has confirmed in his letter
that my family continue to be banned from attending naturist
swimming sessions at Manor Leisure Centre Whittlesey.
I am dissatisfied with my response from Mr Hughes
as he has not addressed the two issues which I raised. Firstly,
that council run facilities are (or at least should be) for
the benefit and use of all, and secondly, of the discrimination
against us as naturist families being banned from using this
facility.
I cannot accept that an employee of Fenland
District Council has the right to ban whole groups of people
from using Council facilities based on their own prejudice
or lack of understanding of a minority group.
This decision appears to have been made with
no thought as to how it affects families such as mine and
I feel this ban should be lifted immediately. I also feel
that the leisure centre management (and social services) have
no business anyway in deciding which moral values, which we
use to raise our children.
Please therefore take my complaint to the next
stage. Thank you, Andrew Crawford
Fenland District Council Reply - Stage 2
Date: 24 February 2005
From Sandra Claxton
Tel 01354 622400 Fax 01354 622259
Our ref: C/321/04
Dear Mr Crawford
COMPLAINT
I refer to your correspondence dated 12 February
2005 regarding the Council's policy not to permit children
to attend naturist swims at our leisure centres. This issue
was discussed at a meeting in January between the Council's
Leisure Development Manager, Phillip Hughes and John Paine
of British Naturism, along with four other attendees. The
outcome resulted in the decision to ban the presence of children
under 18 from the naturist swims arranged by Club Soliel.
In reviewing the Council's child protection
policy, concerns were raised about child safety. As such,
expert advice was sought from Social Services. It was their
advice together with further consideration by Karen Gee, Assistant
Chief Executive (Customer & Leisure) and Leisure Portfolio
Holder, Councillor Paul Jolley, that prompted the decision
to implement the ban. The decision making process is as indicated
in Part 2 of the Council's Constitution.
Child protection must be our primary concern.
Our consideration of this matter could not be taken lightly
and the decision determined had to be implemented immediately.
To date, the Council has not received any further advice to
support the reversal of its decision.
As a consequence of the response received from
Social Services, the Council intends to strengthen its current
child protection policy as it considers that it is in the
public's best interest to do so. As part of this process,
we will consult further with relevant organisations including
Club Soliel and British Naturism and will of course ensure
that social inclusion and equality are taken into account
at all times. Phillip Hughes will update you as this exercise
progresses.
In the meantime, I hope you find this response
helpful.
Yours sincerely Sandra Claxton Strategic Director
Email - Stage 3
Date: 01 Mar 2005
Subject: Re: Complaint C/321/04
Thank you for your reply from Sandra Claxton
under stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
I am dissatisfied with my response from Sandra
Claxton for the same reasons which I was dissatisfied with
my original response from Phil Hughes; this is because they
have both failed to address the essence of my complaint. Therefore,
please progress my complaint to the next stage.
My complaint falls into two parts
[1] Council run facilities should be for the
benefit of all members of the community.
Note: A direct consequence of the ban on persons
under the age of 18 from attending naturist events at Manor
Leisure Centre is that families such as mine are unable to
use swimming facilities provided by the council, (unless of
course we are prepared to compromise our principles and beliefs).
[2] This decision is directly discriminatory
against naturist families.
The reason given for this ban in Sandra Claxton's
letter was "concerns for child safety". Whilst I accept that
Fenland District Council has a duty to protect the users of
its facilities, naturist families are being singled-out and
an implication is being made that children of naturist families
are in some way more "at risk" than children of non-naturist
families. In the absence of any evidence to support this idea
it concludes that the decision to ban children from naturist
events is based entirely on prejudice toward naturism and
it's principles.
Therefore, until such a time that there is any
evidence to suggest that the children of naturist families
are in any way more "at risk" than children of non-naturist
families, naturist families ought to be treated with equality.
Naturism is considered by many parents to be a more moral
and psychologically healthier way to raise children, therefore
this discrimination being used against naturist families is
one which I find to be wholly unacceptable.
Andrew Crawford
Local Press Feature
Date: 16 March 2005
The following article appeared in the "Fenland Citizen" newspaper,
Wednesday March 16 2005
Fenland District Council Reply - Stage 3
Date: 23 March 2005
Below is a copy of the so called "expert
advice" from Social Services
Notes on the Social Services letter (By A Crawford)
[Paragraph 1] The author is committing to paper "some reservations"
as discussed. This paragraph confirms that this letter was
not written to Fenland District Council as advice in whether
children should or should not attend naturist swimming.
[1] It does not complicate the issue if children are involved;
naturism is not illegal.
[2] It is typical for children of naturist families to see
other people without clothes on a regular, and semi regular
basis. There is no evidence to suggest that children are in
any way harmed by the sight of other (naked) people, whether
that be regularly or occasionally.
[3] Seeing naked people is a part of the naturist lifestyle
and considered normal for naturist children. Why does informed
consent differ from any other activity, which children participate
in? The writer clearly has no grasp of the naturist concept.
[4] Most children are brought as part of naturist family
groups, if there were a friend of a child attending then consent
would be sought from that friend's parent. Standard practice
in naturist groups is for parents to give consent for their
children to attend any naturist event if not accompanied by
either parent. In contrast to a conventional swimming session,
children between 8 and 18 may attend without any parental
consent whatsoever or even being accompanied by an adult.
[5] Lifeguards uncomfortable with what exactly? Children
are seeing the situation from an entirely different perspective;
the (non-naturist) lifeguards are adults in a working environment,
whereas the children are attending a family leisure activity.
If there are any specific reasons for the lifeguards to be
concerned they have a duty to report this.
[6] Sessions are "closed" because Fenland District Council
refuses to run completely open sessions. But sessions are
only "closed" in the sense that persons attending are preferably
known to the organisers, or can provide ID and they are aware
that it is naturist session. Otherwise sessions are as open
as conventional swim sessions run by the council.
[7] The sessions have been running for almost 9 years without
any known issues. They can be found in naturist magazine adverts
and on the Internet. There is a very strong implication in
this note that naturists would be prime targets for paedophiles,
but there is no evidence to support this view and is entirely
prejudicial. Surveys have also been conducted which show that
there is very little public objection to naturism anyway.
[Paragraph 2] There is an assumption that the general public
would not find these sessions morally acceptable (based on
the risks to children). There is no evidence to suggest that
children are at any more risk in naturist sessions those non-naturist
sessions, this viewpoint is entirely prejudicial.
[Paragraph 3] The comparison with naturist cinema going
is incorrect. "Cinema In The Buff" held at "The Grand" in
Ramsey and is a social function for local naturists. A film
is shown and entrance is restricted to the film classification.
Children are welcome to and have attended these sessions.
There was no outcry, apart from a local religious leader who
failed to rally much support over his objections.
[Paragraph 4] This paragraph confirms that this letter is
not "advice" at all but a confirmation of points discussed
by the individuals concerned.
To Conclude Whoever wrote this letter clearly has an obscured
concept of naturism and the ideology of those who participate.
This letter was not written as intended advice on which to
make council policy.
Needless to say I was unhappy with the content of the letter
from social services. firstly it was entirely based on prejudice
and secondly because it was factually incorrect. I immediately
contacted Peter Wilson of Social Services to allow him to
explain what it was all about. He did not return my call,
therefore I made an official complaint to Cambridgeshire County
Council.
Follow up to Fenland District Council - Letter
Date: 25 March 2005
Re: Naturist swimming ban.
Dear Brian Partridge,
I confirm that I have received your response to my complaint
under Stage 3 of the complaints procedure along with a copy
of the letter from Peter Wilson of Social Services dated 13
October 2004.
I would like to express my disappointment in the way in which
this complaint has been handled so far; not only has it has
taken some 6 weeks for Fenland District Council to be frank
about the reasons as to why this ban came about, but also
because the essence of my complaint has still not been resolved.
That is, that council run facilities should be for the benefit
of all members of the community and that the creation of this
ban is prejudicial toward naturists.
Also, the letter which you have finally provided me with
for the reason behind the ban does constitute "expert advice"
at all, but merely confirms that a discussion took place between
an employee of Social Services and an employee of Fenland
District Council both of whom share reservations over children
at naturist swimming sessions.
The letter contains a number of points, which confirms that
the two individuals involved have little knowledge or understanding
of naturism and their viewpoint is entirely distorted by their
own prejudice. Therefore, it is not, in my opinion, acceptable
evidence upon which to make council policy, which is then
later used to discriminate directly against a minority group
who share a different moral code.
It is now clear, that by creating this ban, the council have
indeed acted in a prejudiced, bigoted and also rather underhand
way, however the still ban remains in force.
Unless there is a prompt and satisfactory conclusion to this
issue it is my intention to take the matter concerning the
ban to the ombudsman and also to make a formal complaint to
Cambridgeshire County Council over the letter, concerning
the content, how it was solicited from social services, and
the way in which it was finally used.
Yours sincerely Andrew Crawford
Cc: Cllr. P Jolley; Karen Gee; Chucks Golding; Candy Richards;
Phil Hughes; Sandra Claxton, Lucy Henson.
Email Complaint to Cambridgeshire County Council
Date: 29 March 2005
Sir
My complaint concerns a letter, which was written
by an employee of Cambridgeshire County Council, Peter Wilson
on behalf of Social Services to Phil Hughes of Fenland District
Council's Leisure Services, this letter is dated 13 October
2004.
The letter contains a number of points and opinions,
which are unsubstantiated by any factual evidence, but appear
to be based entirely on the above two persons prejudice toward
the naturist way of life. I personally resent, and I am bitterly
offended by some of the ill-informed opinions, and the bigotry,
expressed in this letter.
Fenland District Council has interpreted this
letter as "expert advice" and since used this letter to help
form council policy. They have also circulated this letter
as part of their defence for reaching their decision.
To resolve this issue, a follow-up needs to
be made to point out that this letter merely expresses opinions
and concerns, which Peter Wilson and Phil Hughes had discussed,
and that it should not be interpreted as factual evidence
or expert advice. This will help ensure that no further harm
comes from circulation of this letter and that it is not misused
in a similar fashion again.
Yours sincerely Andrew Crawford
Email Reply - Cambridgeshire County Council
Date: 31 March 2005
Subject: Complaint regarding Peter Wilson.
Dear Mr Crawford,
Thank you for your email. I am Mr Wilson's line manager and
as such am responsible for responding to complaints about
any actions he may be responsible for.
I was made aware of the letter to Phil Hunter [Hughes] yesterday
following an Email from Malcolm Boura of British Naturism.
Mr Wilson is currently on holiday and consequently I have
been unable to speak to him directly however I have considered
the letter that he wrote to Mr Hunter and have spoken to Brian
Partridge Strategic Director with Fenland District Council.
Having read and re considered the letter we have withdrawn
the letter in its entirety. The letter was written as advice
rather than unequivocal guidance however I accept the fact
that the phrasing was unfortunate and I apologise for any
problems misinterpretation of the advice may have caused.
I gather from Mr Boura that he will contacting you to talk
the issue through.
Yours faithfully Mary Milton Assistant Director Children's
Social Services
Note:
Cambridgeshire County Council took less than 48 hours
to make a decision to withdraw the letter and apologise. I
would like to thank Mary Milton of Cambridgeshire County Council
Social Services for her prompt and sensible reply. Why can't
Fenland District Council work in the same manner?
Follow up to Fenland District Council - Letter
Date: 04 April 2005
Re: Naturist swimming ban.
Dear Brian Partridge,
Further to my previous correspondence of 25 March 2005, I
have since made a formal complaint to Cambridgeshire County
Council's Social Services concerning the letter, which prompted
the decision to implement the ban on children attending naturist
events.
I have since received a reply from Mary Milton, where she
accepts that the phrasing was "unfortunate" and apologises
for any problems caused by misinterpretation. More importantly
she explained that they had withdrawn the letter in its entirety.
Whilst it may have been obvious to Mary Milton why the letter
ought be withdrawn, I am concerned that it was not so equally
obvious to those who made the decision in the first place.
This is particularly highlighted in so much as it was Phil
Hughes, who was in effect the co-writer of the letter as the
contents related to points which he discussed in a meeting
at his request. It therefore can only be assumed that Phil
Hughes led Peter Wilson in these points, which he then later
committed to paper. I also find it hard to believe that Peter
Wilson could have known the situation that he was being placed
in, which would allow him to write such ill informed and incorrect
remarks, which would be later relied on by Fenland District
Council to discriminate against a minority group.
What also now certain, is that in creating this ban, there
has been a certain amount of maladministration, on part of
Fenland District Council (perhaps even misconduct by certain
employees too), and that the ban itself was based on the unsubstantiated
idea that children of naturist families, attending naturist
swimming sessions along with their parents are more at risk
of danger, than those of non-naturist families at regular
swimming sessions (accompanied or not).
It is also now clear why Fenland District Council did not
release this letter upon receipt of my original complaint
of 07 February 2005, as the letter itself confirms that the
ban was made on the basis of prejudice toward naturism and
by the bigotry of a few.
Presumably now the ban will be lifted. I would appreciate
it if you could reply to confirm this.
I look forward to your prompt reply.
Andrew Crawford
Cc: Cllr. P Jolley; Karen Gee; Chucks Golding; Candy Richards;
Phil Hughes; Sandra Claxton, Lucy Henson.
Reply from Fenland District Council
Date: 13 April 2005
Local Press Feature
Date: 13 April 2005
The following article appeared in the "Fenland Citizen" newspaper,
Wednesday April 13 2005
Date: 20 April 2005
I have been informed today that the council have now lifted
the ban. If this is true then presumebly they will issue an
apology to all concerned.
Date: 25 April 2005
I have today received the following reply.
Conclusion
The ban has now been lifted because, upon investigation,
Fenland District Council have now realised that there was
no need for it in the first place.
To summarise this ban:
-
Was introduced entirely due to prejudice.
-
Was an insult to naturist families.
-
There never was any so-called "expert advice" and child
protection was merely being used as an excuse.
-
Overall, I am totally disgusted with all of those who
created the ban and am amazed that it had to be challenged
so strongly.
Club Soleil particularly welcome families who may
have been put off attending their naturist swim sessions.
club-soleil.co.uk
Please note that any opinions expressed
here are not necessarily those of "Club Soleil"
or of "British Naturism" (CCBN).
|
