At least the school ferreted out the truth in your son's situation.  Our experience with our son (now a parent himself) was that the administrators listened to the last or loudest person and that was the story.  We eventually removed him from our local public school (not the same as your "public schools") and put him in another one at our expense.  Be glad there was CCTV of the incident.

I would send the girl's parents a bill for the IPad . . .

But, back to topic.  I'll agree with you.  That which is forbidden is tantalizing.

We are going off track a little but I think MystrD is absolutely right that things like "Just say no" don't just suggest drugs are more popular than they are, but also encourage rebellion in that direction (teens live to stretch the rules) and give free adverts to the drug culture. In recent years films and tv coming from the USA have normalised drug use to such an extent that it appears like every teen takes drugs and every parent still does - or did when younger. As a Brit watching on I cannot help but wonder "is this reality" - if it isn't the promoting of it will make it so and also in other countries such as the UK. I am 53 and when I went to school not a single person took a drug, no one I knew knew anyone who did, it wasn't mentioned in health education (though they talked of alcohol, smoking, glue sniffing and the homeless drinking meths and diluted shoe polish) and it wasn't until I lived in London in my 20's that I ever came across a small amount of people taking drugs. When Anna who is 7 years younger than me went to school she was aware of quite a few people who did it. Today they have sniffer dogs coming into schools. 

I am a firm believer that Me Too style accusations can destroy peoples careers, lives and public personas without proof of guilt or any legal process. Like a lot of the internet - it could do good but is miss-used and helps to make abuse trendy. It is a monster. I believe that Woody Allen is totally innocent and a victim of a vindictive women who is sided with because she has used a trendy hatred as a weapon. It is just one example and the hatred around abuse will never allow people to actually find the truth one way or another. Showing a want to investigate and not just believe is not saying abuse is not wrong or victims don't need support. It is about working out who the actual victim is and finding out which party deserves our support. Everything I have ever read, and I have read and read and read, tell me that Woody Allen is the victim. Mia had the right to be angry. He was unfaithful to her with her 22 year old adopted daughter, but by accusing him of child abuse and damaging a young child mind by forcing her to say the same she has turn from jilted lover to a beast. Possibly just as bad as an actual child abuser - or simply becoming an emotional child abuser. 

The mud is thrown and people need to show a hatred of the act by distancing themselves from anyone accused regardless of serious investigation. If my 12 year old son was a celebrity the incident the other day would not have been over after a couple of days but would stick with him for the rest of his life - even though he was totally blameless. My best friend was at the receiving end of a crazy divorce - similar to Woody Allen's in some respects - accusations from a crazy woman, that made locals hate him, made them hate his friends (like me) and made them really crazy (even though they knew him better than his wife). She even took the children to live in a shelter with her for women on the run from abuse. I was there when her solicitor actually admitted to my friend that people like her damage the credibility of women who are actually abused and insult their suffering. The lies were thrown out of court, but she was a teacher and they didn't want to push that too much. I read the documents submitted by both sides and was at the court myself on occasions and witnessed things first hand. The children told the court they wished to live with their Dad but although acknowledged their request was also ignored (even though they made the request when the father wasn't around and they were interviewed with their mother sitting outside the door). I heard them say later, as I used to spend time with them (asked by the court to babysit when they were with their father) that they got into really big trouble when their mother read the report. The ability for him to stay in touch with his children was virtually impossible because of her continued crazy and unchecked behaviour (like Mia she was found to be lying but the court didn't seem to care about that and she still wielded huge control and really cruel behaviour) eventually for the sake of the children and his family he just gave in- feeling it was better to live with one nasty parent than live in the middle of a war that she never wished to end. He has carried on with his life, and moved away. But if he was a celebrity, he would not be able to move away and carry on. Woody Allen, no matter how innocent, will never be able to get far enough away from these accusations, as they live in the world of the media, and if Mia has actually been a cruel, vindictive and damaging mother she will never be punished or hated for it - blaming women is not PC. Guilty people should be found and punished - but we still live in a world where someone should be innocent until proven guilty. We fought for this right and we shouldn't allow Me Too type behaviour to throw it away. 

Naturism similarly is never quite able to distance itself from accusations and the bad behaviour of a minority. Naturism should be innocent until proven guilty.

In a recent chat I was made aware that some bloggers have unedited photos behind a paying wall. Photos in front of the wall not showing full nudity. 

The thing that comes to my mind is. Is that naturism or is that stripping for money? Is there any difference in saying "If you give us money you can see us naked" to saying "Shove fivers into my g-string while I dance around this pole for you." 

Should naturists even consider that the genitals and the breasts are parts of the body that need to be censored? (We are talking about naturist websites and not social media.) Should they think about covering them up in the first place let alone charging for the "treat" of seeing them. Imagine if naturist clubs had different levels of areas in them. Some members get to visit the ground but are not allowed to be naked, middle members get to see the less appealing members naked but full members get to see "attractive" people naked. Why not have a platinum membership where you get to touch those naked people? 

Sites need funding, I fully understand that, I have various direct debits set up for ANW that come out of our account each month and plenty of one off fees too. Ok many blogs are cheap and possibly free to run, but they still require time. But surely a strip tease fee is not right. It just doesn't feel like naturism and must be very confusing to newbies. How many people not already understanding naturism may end up thinking "Well it is all about seeing naughty bits - that really isn't my cup of tea." and how many others have the worse idea "Well it is all about seeing naughty bits - lovely... lovely... lovely!" followed by "Next summer I am taking my camera and lying in the dunes and enjoying some real life voyeurism. Hey and maybe even setting up my own blog full of images of strangers. LOVELY!"

Quite simply I believe that if a blog or website doesn't promote a real understanding and respect of naturism, guide interested people into really getting it, and ensure they don't encourage the wrong people to the lifestyle then the blogs existence can do more harm than good. If you want people to fund your next holiday just ask them, don't tell them if they do so they can see your nipples! Naturism isn't a peep show.