Posted by: @tribalbrit

Okay so the pervert isn't bald but he has really white hair, caught site of him today just after I'd been discussing him with a naturist I met today.

The dogs are the give away

So to confirm the woodland w***** is about 5,6 - 5,8 has really grey almost white hair, must look bald from some angles or when the sun is on him. He wears dark wrap round sun glasses and sometimes carries a canvas type poachers bag.

His Dogs are the give away. One is a Dalmatian which you don't see many of. The other is a similar size to the Dalmatian but has a Staffy type face, pointy ears that bend down and a bit of tan on one cheek.  

I caught site of him again today about 10 minutes after a 20 minute conversation with another regular naturist about him. If we had stood still a bit longer he would have had to pass through the gate we were leaning on whilst chatting.

I was parked at the opposite end of the common today, I tried to get back to the car park before him to identify his car but my foot is still stiff. 

I am beginning to feel like I'm being stalked, it's weird, might change my times, routes etc. 

8 pm seems to be his favoured time. 

Anyone out there be careful he looks shifty to me and I don't spook easily.

@pjelec

There has been chatter on the RSPB members site when a guy got his picture in the Sun after a birder sought his 15 minutes of fame. Not seen anything local though, although these posters might draw unwanted local media attention, as might the guy I keep spotting if he's not stopped.

The area they ask us to keep out of is the main area tourists visit and as far as I am concerned has always been out of bounds. The area to the West of where they say we can walk is Forestry England managed and is vast, I walk there as much as the RSPB land.

@alanrp Sherwood Forest is not BN. They are there to provide access for all users, they are not there to fight our battles which, i must admit, has been carried out brilliantly by posters on this forum. I think it is a huge step forward and can be built on.

Just a couple of other thoughts on the RSPB policy...

First, my partner is now planning to go naked on the heath since she feels the policy and signs back up naturist use well enough to take away her anxiety. Often times we'd walk together there but she'd stay clothed, next time she intends to take a dress she can quickly remove. (She'll also be pleased to know the cows aren't going to return thanks @tribalbrit).

Second, yesterday evening we saw another naturist out there who was completely nude and barefoot (respect for that!), however he clearly didn't have anything to cover up as requested by the RSPB policy. Shortly afterward we passed a couple of early-teenage girls on bikes and given their age and gender and how quickly they would pass, I decided to cover myself up with my hat at least (clothes in the bag I was carrying). They were giggling, not distressed, still some effort to cover up seemed appropriate. They surely must have bumped into the other guy too, and he wouldn't have been able to respond at all.

My point being (and I hate to criticise a fellow naturist out enjoying the place) since the RSPB have gone so far as to recognise our right to use the heath we should probably abide by their policy's request we carry something to cover up with. I know most of already us do. 

Btw, I passed some RSPB volunteers yesterday, about a dozen of them in a working party fixing one of the gates, clearing the cattlegrids and stuff. Very friendly greetings exchanged, supposed they've been briefed about us. 

@the-tibetan-hat   

Whilst I have a sympathy with your view on the "cover-up" issue I do not actually agree with you. There is an entitlement to be there naked regardless and the RSPB policy is in effect attempting to restrict our rights by inferring that it is only OK within certain areas - in itself controversial. To then try to impose further restrictions on the need to cover-up in what is already a restricted area is a further imposition.

Whilst I fully realise that their attempts might be well intentioned to manage a difficult matter for them it is not really reasonable to try to "manage" the naturists in this way.

The fact that it has made your wife more comfortable is a real "win" and I am very please that this is a result of their policy but I am not with you in regard to requiring others to carry a means of covering up.

I don’t know the situation and I only ask to try to understand. Does the RSPB own the land in question? Although it is open to the public does that mean it is none-the-less private land and the owner can set their own rules about dress amongst other things, much like a shopping centre is open to the public, but the owner/operator can set rules for things like dress code?

@ednaturist - indeed, public land and permitted public access are two different things, but I suspect that a public right of way across private land opens up a new can of worms. Best not to pursue this one too closely - I think this might be one of those instances when it’s easier to apologise afterwards than seek permission before. 

@andylgc

Maybe it's the pragmatist in me, I just see the first large inland location where naturism is officially 'tolerated'. That has to be a true gain for us, and if in the give and take the RSPB ask we don't go naked in the busy areas most naturists weren't using anyway, then overall I don't see why wouldn't accept those terms. You can still go naked for miles by including the Forestry England areas and other public rights of way. Similarly, carrying something to cover up with seems no great imposition, again most naturist walkers do it anyway and it's something included in British Naturism's advise to walking - that's from our own side. Personally I don't tend to cover up unless like in the given example it's younger people, particularly female, or people who are obviously upset - which has yet to happen actually. So the ask from the RSPB which is to 'carry a cover up of some kind to use if you encounter others who are clearly uncomfortable with naturism', seems pretty reasonable all in all.

Already being able to refer the RSPB policy has helped a group I've met to understand a bit more about naturism.

I'm with the Tibetan Hat on this one. I do like to walk carrying nothing but out of respect for others I carry a pair of shorts that roll up very small. My point being, show respect for others.

I dont feel I'm being told where I can walk at all, I walk were I wish which doesn't include tha tourist part, I don't understand why any naturist would unless they have exsebitioinest tendencies and wish to be seen by a larger audience. 

I too saw the young naturist and thought he was bare foot, tried it and not for me.

I also saw the two teen girls on bikes but I had reached the path I was going down as they approached and turned off so avoided them.

As I approached the cattle grids tonight a couple with a dog were coming the other way usually I might avoid close contact but tonight I thought they had probably seen the signs and actually they were very pleasant and we chatted for a few minutes, the guy stating that I was brave as he was being bit to death. Another plus for the signs and the RSPB policy in my view. 

I also noted new no cycling and no horse riding signs on the common, are these groups of people also going to complain about their human rights and ignore the signs? I doubt it.

The RSPB are trying to keep everyone happy and for me it's working fine, I have noticed a few different reactions for the positive since the signs have gone up. I am out almost every day and feel much more relaxed of late.

@the-tibetan-hat ; @tribalbrit

I really do see your points of view. I agree in pretty much every respect. I just have this slight niggling concern that whilst the RSPB are trying hard to deal with a difficult situation (and seem to be doing so in a perfectly reasonable manner) that the fact that they "tolerate" it is a sad choice of words and that they add requirements beyond the legal requirements is something that just puts a slight negative spin on the matter.

If only the naturists that use the area were simply left to get on with it (ie I am not aware of any of them wanting to frequent the touristy areas - and why would they) then the stipulations are rather unnecessary. The fact that the results have been favourable to naturist who frequent the area is really good and positive. - I am a bit jealous really.

@andylgc

No offence but your down near Milton Keynes. 

I'd suggest you come up and have a walk round here. As Tibetan Hat says this must be a pretty unique situation and I for one will embrace it whole heartedly. Yes the law is on our side but Joe Public are unaware of this and quite a few judge us as a bunch of eccentric old perverts. 

Any positive action from RSPB must be seen as just that. If there are a few minor compromises , so be it . What's the alternative, do as we like and loose the little support and understanding we have? 

I can't help but agree. By being pleasant and adhering to the law plus some commonsense then we will get there.

As I mentioned Scotland is in a different position but I would always exercise commonsense.

Posted by: @tribalbrit

I'd suggest you come up and have a walk round here. As Tibetan Hat says this must be a pretty unique situation and I for one will embrace it whole heartedly.

Hi Tribalbrit. I have been and it is lovely - a real jewel!!

A phenomenal amount of really sterling work has been done by all concerned (Gildo in particular) and I can see that the present situation has been a real benefit for many naturists and as I say I am quite jealous of what you have. I just get a little saddened when someone decides on a policy that is less supportive than the law.

If any organisation was to put up notices regarding racial or sexual equality and singled out a group within the population placing restrictions on what a certain group could do, they would be ripped apart and eaten alive! Such as "everyone is welcome to wander about in our lovely reserve but if you are gay you must.............."

@andylgc Spot on, its quite surprising that some people cant't see how discriminatory this is even though it may have been done with the right intention. Sadly with insufficient understanding, Even though they have been told it is discriminatory.

@dgildoo I can see the discriminatory point, but I can also see that the officers of the RSPB are unlikely to be able to see it. It was very difficult to be a vegetarian a few years ago, and nobody who ate meat could find the slightest empathy with it; so it's great that they have made the moves that they have despite their lack of understanding.