Whatlington (population: 320) is near Battle. I grew up there. Opposite the church and a mill-house formerly occupied by the famous sage (once deputy editor of this newspaper) Malcolm Muggeridge, runs an attractive bridle path with farms on each side. I know it well because I used to ride along it as a boy.
Two years ago, a campsite opened in a field next to the path. Such sites are quite common in pretty rural spots and are often permitted on agricultural land under various rules, including a maximum-use limit of 60 days a year. They usually raise few objections.
This site, however, is rather different. It advertises itself online as “an adult-only naturist camping site”. On Facebook (later taken down), it added that it was a swingers’ site. It also publishes its club terms and conditions about the circumstances in which customers can “play” there. The site’s name is Turn a Blind Eye.
Possibly, if it had been easy to do so, a blind eye was what the village would have turned. After all, if naturists want to drive hundreds of miles in their caravans to find other nudist caravan-owners with whom to “play”, that is – literally – their own affair. Perhaps they imagine their activities are in keeping with the locality’s designation as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
It has everything, doesn’t it?
Naughty! British! Caravans! I mean, really, only the British would use caravans to be naughty in.
And they’re doing it by the street where they might frighten the horses too.
Pity Sid and Babs aren’t still with us to film the documentary.
I don’t have much experience with British nudists but when I have encountered them, for example at Studland Bay, I find you need more than a blind eye to avoid needing mind bleach. Believe me, one encounter is one too many.
Professor Mick Aston off Time Team was a naturist activist – https://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/aug/11/careers.jobsadvice2
I find all nudists – not just British ones – strange and usually ugly. I get the naked swimmers, but I can’t see the point of public nudism in a group. Faecal crumbs and vaginal secretions are surely better contained in clothing? [That said, if they want to do nudism, I am happy for them to do it discretely.]
Someone in the Terriblegraph comments pointed out that it’s all very well fnaar fnaaring about this, but it’s another example of the enshittification of Britain, people being utterly selfish – ie loud parties and noshing each other off in clear view of the public road.
Yes. Enshitification results from a loss of ‘social capital’ – ie inter-personal trust, involvement in voluntary associations, etc. As Robert Putnam observed [Bowling Alone, 2000?], the more diverse a neighbourhood, the lower the level of trust and involvement – and so concern for others. (And then there’s the social cancer of feminism: the more women work, the more social capital declines…)
As trust and social involvement decline, people behave more selfishly and with much less consideration for others. Not just in loud parties etc, but also in navigating public space. The British used to practise elaborate and polite manoeuvres to avoid colliding with, or merely inconveniencing, others – even apologising when someone invaded your personal space. Now, much less so: many people walk directly at you, expecting you to move out of their way…
Anyway — not unrelated — VOTE REFORM ON THURSDAY!
Do you now believe that those of us who voted Reform in 2024, on the basis that giving the party credible electoral numbers with a view to the future, were right to do so? Or that life under a Labour super-majority is so awful and destructive to the country we love that a Conservative vote would have been preferable, in the hope that the Conservatives might have retained enough MPs to restrain a Labour government?
(This really is a genuine question; and I wouldn’t criticise an answer of “it’s too early to say”.)
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, PS. Yet voting Reform in my constituency resulted in a Labour MP, by splitting the right-of-centre vote. For now, as a pragmatist, I will vote Reform on 7th May.
Historically the majority of women worked. Certainly down to my grandmother’s generation. The only women didn’t work were the relatively few upper middle classes & rich. They certainly had “social capital”.
Out of interest Theo, what happened to TORY IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!
To be fair, I don’t think Theo ever claimed that the Tories were a solution to anything: just that politics is the art of the possible, and in 2024 a vote for the Tories would give you a chance to be nearer to something tolerable than a vote for Reform would (back then).
My view was that the differences between the Tories back then and Labour indeed existed, but were too small to make it worthwhile voting for more of the same.
But I hope he does respond. I’m interested to know.
1. I have never – ever! – claimed or suggested that the Tories were the “only solution”, only that the Tories (however feeble) were a bulwark against socialism. And — surprise!! — with the collapse of the Tories, we have got more socialism – some of it possibly irreversible, given the demographics….
2.To me, it never seemed prudent to destroy the main right-of-centre party before destroying the main left-of-centre party…but we are where we are…
3. My support for the Tories has always been pragmatic. As I have said here many times, I will always support the right-of-centre party most likely to keep the leftists out.Currently, that’s Reform.
Next, you’ll be denying you were a pimp…
Sorry Theo. I have never followed the profession you’re accusing me of. I have repeated stated on here, there’s very little money in the business. So why would a successful & moderately wealthy entrepreneur follow it? There’s endless other lucrative opportunities available. I’ve always thought the only people go into that business have failed at everything else they’ve attempted. Or why else would they be in it? I just find it interesting because it bears no resemblance to what people are told. It’s also the closest thing you can get to unfettered capitalism, so there’s a great deal to learn from it.
As for the Tories being a bulwark against socialism.. They haven’t been that for 35 years. If then. So the outcome of your last election was close to optimum. Their destruction & now Labour’s in the business of destroying itself.
“only that the Tories (however feeble) were a bulwark against socialism.”
F*ck me, if the last Tory government were a ‘bulwark against socialism’ I’d hate to see one that was a bit lukewarm on it.
Remind me again, who opened the doors and let millions of foreigners in,who locked everyone in their houses over a case of the sniffles (and bankrupted the country in the process), who legislated for Net Zero on a whim, and who raised taxes and public spending to ever higher heights, while doing absolutely SFA to push back on woke DEI bollocks? Hint: it wasn’t the nominal socialists.
For example, we’ve just has a new Rent Act brought in, that was started by the last Tory government (by that complete c*nt Gove, who better pray he never meets me in a dark alley). Some f*cking bulwark.
Historically the majority of women worked. Certainly down to my grandmother’s generation. The only women didn’t work were the relatively few upper middle classes & rich.
Depends what you mean by ‘work’ – formal wages or total labour contribution? Before the Industrial Revolution, the vast majority of women worked in agrarian or household-based production. With the factory system, this changed; but Darwinist stereotypes tended to assert themselves –see men as ‘hunters’ and women as ‘gatherers’ (cf women’s vs men’s sĥopping behaviour)
With my maternal grandmother’s generation, all of the women worked. And with big extended families that was a lot of “aunts”. Some of them were “in service”, as was my grandmother when young. Very common in those days. During both Wars she was making shells at Woolwich Arsenal. As for Darwinian stereotypes, you wouldn’t have liked to mess with my grandmother. Family fable has it she brought down a low flying German bomber in flames with one of her “looks”.
My paternal grandmother might be what you’re thinking of. I believe she tried work for a week in her twenties, didn’t like it & wasn’t required to return. But the family were Edwardian middle-class with servants so more a source of employment. Her younger sister however was a clerical worker almost up until she died
My immediate thought was
Hole in the fence, police are looking into it
Other comments suggest no fence, not even a row of bushes
You forgot to add “fnarr fnarr” after the word “bushes”.
“People are entitled to be nude if they wish, but lewd behaviour in front of children is unacceptable”.
Damned atheists! If they believed in the right God, they could rape and torture them and the British State would nod sagely and remind us all that diversity is our strength and don’t forget the Tsar that’s been specially created to safeguard that human right…
Tsar? Sounds culturally insensitive to me. Shouldn’t it be a Sultan?
I started reading expecting another carefully worded denouncement of those nice honest travelling folk.
The last time I saw nudists was on a lovely beach in Brittany. It was the French who were lying naked – only the British and Dutch were having a swim.
Brittany has some astonishingly beautiful beaches.
Also needs Peter Butterworth. He can play Malcolm Muggeridge, charging Sid a pound to access the bridle path.
Old Muggers would probably be there with binoculars and camera, to demonstrate how horrified he was.
If it’s anything like the nudist beach along the coast here it’ll be infested with performative irons.
What came first (fnarr, fnarr) the camp (fnarr) site or the Royal Oak pub closure?
” . . . an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”
Not any nudist area I’ve ever seen. Ugly and tanned is still ugly.