Whats the difference?

#1
More lovely examples of PC bullsh1t? Or genuine concern for the rights of young peoeple?

Either way it opens a can of worms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7016651.stm

Personlly I don't think we can start censoring ligitmate are or they will be putting 501s on the statue of David.
 

old_fat_and_hairy

LE
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#3
I have to say, naked young girls on the Quayside in Newcastle is no novelty.
 
#4
Utter pish and drivel.

As it says - stuffs been on show since 2002.

Q: WTF the problem?

A: PC sensibilities
 
#6
You dont need to see the pictures to know that its wrong.
Just as you didnt need to see Elton John's show, the one in which he got his male dancers to dress up as little boy scouts to feel disgusted.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
SirThomasHolland said:
You dont need to see the pictures to know that its wrong.
Just as you didnt need to see Elton John's show, the one in which he got his male dancers to dress up as little boy scouts to feel disgusted.
Actually, unless you have seen it, or a picture of the event, you can't really condemn it. Remember all those politicals critising that comedy show that targetted paedophilia hysteria without having seen the show? It made them look more like ignorant muppets than they normally are.
 
#8
I think the description of the photograph is enough to make a descion on though.

Not on that link but on other sites it says it is a photograph of 2 young girls one naked and sitting with her legs apart and the other semi naked standing behind her.

Sounds a lot like child pornography to me. Why does where it is shown or for how long make any difference to what it is?

I suppose the question is what is art and what is porn needs answering.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
As I understand it the photo shows 2 children playing. They happen to be undressed, which is a state children sometime are in. This is a whole load of bull that is sparked up by the PC brigade and stoked, I would guess, by the gallery's marketing department. This woman's art has been controversial for some time over these issues and been allowed to proceed in several other countries, including that PC hotbed the USA.

There was also all this fuss over Mapplethorpe's works in the 80's and 90's (lots of pictures of naked men in odd poses).
 
#10
Still think there is something a bit off about someone who takes photographs of naked children and then displays them.

As for the fuss over those naked men photos, well just take a look at what has happened to the legality of Homosexual acts since then.

Do you want the same progression with children?
 
#11
It seems unlikely that the CPS will take any action against E John,as the owner of the pictures.It seems that Northumbria Police is seeking 'specialist advice' as to what to do next.From whom?????
 
#12
Excellent post on the times comment site

Art is an excuse for people to express their inner most thoughts be they right or wrong, you either agree and think along the same lines as the artist or you see it as something else. The artist has photographed naked children, a crime on beaches in NSW, and surely an abuse of these childrens rights of privacy as I seriously doubt they were consulted on the taking of the photo or of how it would be shown and then sold. For a complete stranger to then want to own exclusively this picture is unfathomable, he neither knows nor has any insight to the the children inquestion, what their minds were on at the time of the photo, and neither does he have a real insight into the mind of the photographer (can't call her and artist). Reginald simply likes to look at children's exposed gentialia, perhap a duet with Paul Gadd is in the pipeline.
Lock him up a throw away the key

Michael Holloway, Sydney, Australia/ NSW

My bold.
 
#13
I thought this was a 'What's the difference......?' joke posting thread!!!!!

Nevertheless, still begs the question - 'What's the difference between Elton John and Garry Glitter?'. Ones been caught and banged up (in more ways than one) and the other is on thin ice!!

At least Michael Barrymore's boy was of age and that he was safety conscious, by putting his fag out in the pool!

"You'll go straight to hell for that one SB!" :twisted:
 
#14
Bouillabaisse said:
SirThomasHolland said:
You dont need to see the pictures to know that its wrong.
Just as you didnt need to see Elton John's show, the one in which he got his male dancers to dress up as little boy scouts to feel disgusted.
Actually, unless you have seen it, or a picture of the event, you can't really condemn it. Remember all those politicals critising that comedy show that targetted paedophilia hysteria without having seen the show? It made them look more like ignorant muppets than they normally are.
That show was called "brass eye" and was a hilarious and depressingly accurate satire on our sensationalist media (my siggy is taken from that very episode).In fact the show touched on this very issue LINKY WELL WORTH A GIGGLE.And i feel you are correct in asserting that somthing like this needs to be seen to be judged.Although from the description the fot sounds to be in poor taste i personally would reserve judgement until seeing it.
 
#15
Would a picture of two young girls sat at a desk flying through their GCSEs get a rise out of the PC brigade? Probably if one was showing the 'long bow' salute to the camera.(more commonly known as the Churchill Salute).
 
#16
insert-coin-here said:
Bouillabaisse said:
SirThomasHolland said:
You dont need to see the pictures to know that its wrong.
Just as you didnt need to see Elton John's show, the one in which he got his male dancers to dress up as little boy scouts to feel disgusted.
Actually, unless you have seen it, or a picture of the event, you can't really condemn it. Remember all those politicals critising that comedy show that targetted paedophilia hysteria without having seen the show? It made them look more like ignorant muppets than they normally are.
That show was called "brass eye" and was a hilarious and depressingly accurate satire on our sensationalist media (my siggy is taken from that very episode).In fact the show touched on this very issue LINKY WELL WORTH A GIGGLE.And i feel you are correct in asserting that somthing like this needs to be seen to be judged.Although from the description the fot sounds to be in poor taste i personally would reserve judgement until seeing it.
Well the picture IS available online I am sure you could find it if you googled for it.

I think you might not actually want to download it to your PC though as the "for research purposes" defence hasn't been very succesfull.
 
#17
I think ill give it a miss.I can see it now....

"and why did you have such material on your computer?"

"erm it was for research for a military forum...honest guv"

"hhmmmm,looking at pictures of underage naked girls so you could talk about it with squaddies were you then??....yyeesss (said in a paxman stylee)"

"for f@cks sake....."
 
#18
insert-coin-here said:
I think ill give it a miss.I can see it now....

"and why did you have such material on your computer?"

"erm it was for research for a military forum...honest guv"

"hhmmmm,looking at pictures of underage naked girls so you could talk about it with squaddies were you then??....yyeesss (said in a paxman stylee)"

"for f@cks sake....."
Yeah but its apparently art so you should have no problems :?
 
#19
Steven said:
insert-coin-here said:
I think ill give it a miss.I can see it now....

"and why did you have such material on your computer?"

"erm it was for research for a military forum...honest guv"

"hhmmmm,looking at pictures of underage naked girls so you could talk about it with squaddies were you then??....yyeesss (said in a paxman stylee)"

"for f@cks sake....."
Yeah but its apparently art so you should have no problems :?
Or is it?The jury seems to be out.
 
#20
insert-coin-here said:
Steven said:
insert-coin-here said:
I think ill give it a miss.I can see it now....

"and why did you have such material on your computer?"

"erm it was for research for a military forum...honest guv"

"hhmmmm,looking at pictures of underage naked girls so you could talk about it with squaddies were you then??....yyeesss (said in a paxman stylee)"

"for f@cks sake....."
Yeah but its apparently art so you should have no problems :?
Or is it?The jury seems to be out.
Well personally I think it is child porn and the photographer, the owner and the childrens parents should all be sat in a nick somewhere answering questions.

But it will never happen as apparently it is art. :x
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Join the Army - Reserve Recruitment 3
I Blue Jokes 6
M Sick Jokes 1

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top